Nuclear Fusion will hopefully one day be a means of producing energy for the world to use. Basically, hydrogen nuclei are fused together. The mass of the newly formed nuclei is less than the sum of the total hydrogen nuclei. This excess mass is released as energy. The process is infinitely more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this blog, it will do. Hydrogen atoms have a positive charge, so forcing them to fuse is incredibly hard since they repel each other. In order to fuse them you need to create the right conditions. One of those conditions is very high temperatures. It is hard to describe or explain how hot the hydrogen needs to be. It is about 6 times hotter than the core of the sun. Hydrogen is no longer a gas at these high temperatures. It becomes a plasma. A plasma is a state of matter when the electrons no longer orbit/affect the atoms. They will have more energy to fuse than the electrical repulsion of their charge.
This is where the research at MIT comes into play. We visited the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT. They study the science used to create those extreme conditions – microwaves, lasers, and ion particles. The team at MIT uses microwaves to heat the plasma. To contain it, they use a toroidal nuclear fusion reactor that suspends the plasma in a magnetic field. The experimental nuclear fusion reactor used at MIT is the Alcator C-Mod.
There is much more science involved than simply building bigger or more powerful microwaves. They design ways to measure the temperature of the plasma by analyzing the change in infrared lights, for example. They also developed bolts strong enough to prevent a spaceship from taking off. That takes two bolts, the reactor takes 86. So how is this specific research relevant in the greater quest for Nuclear Fusion (And therefore worth investment)? The technology that they test and develop is shared with the scientific community through different outlets (publications, seminars) and therefore directly contributes to the effort. The ITER Nuclear Fusion Reactor, the culmination of the international effort, is a project being funded by 33 countries. ITER is currently in the production stage in France. The ITER Reactor will hopefully be the first project to achieve this revolutionary milestone. The Research done at places like MIT, which directly contribute to that global goal, is therefore incredibly relevant and significant. In my opinion, this research is well worth investment.
Indian Point Nuclear Center is located 38 miles north of New York City in Buchanan, New York. It is home to a nuclear power plant that supplies around 30% of the power in Westchester County and New York City. The Entergy Corporation, which owns Indian Point, wants to renew its operating permits for 20 more years. Local governments and environmentalists, however, would rather see the center closed. Here is a breakdown of some of the pros and cons regarding the issue.
Pros: Indian Point is a safety risk. On September 11, 2001, it is said that the two airplanes that struck the World Trade Center flew over Indian Point. The thought of a terrorist attack occurring at Indian Point has caused many locals to abdicate for its closing. If one or both of the planes had hit Indian Point, there could have been a nuclear crisis affecting one of the most densely populated parts of the country for years. Around 20 million people live within 50 miles of Indian Point.
Pros: Other safety risks: The reactor was built in the mid 1970‘s. This causes some to fear the increased risk of malfunction. In January, 2012, Indian Point shut down one of its reactors due to a problem in a cooling pump. This scares a lot of people because as we have seen in the past (Fukushima), many problems can arise from malfunctioning or defunct cooling operations.
Pros: Environmental impact. There are also fears that radioactive material can be leaking into the Hudson River. In 2005, workers found a leak in a building containing radioactive water. tritium and strontium 90 were leaked into the river. The New York Times also reported finding nickel-63 and strontium in groundwater in 2006.
Cons: Loss of Energy. It is unclear whether or not the energy produced at Indian Point could be replaced by other sources. The idea is that the energy would be provided by a multitude of sources, divvying up the responsibility. Some energy would come from renewable sources like wind and solar. Some would come from increased productivity and efficiency at other plants.
Cons: Safety a non-factor. Entergy has explained that the problem with the cooling pump has nothing to do with an aging plant. The part that needed to be replaced is not original. It was simply unsafe to do the repair while operational.
Cons: Economic impact. Indian Point employs and supports the employment of approximately 2,500 jobs. It also generates somewhere around 3 billion dollars for the nearby counties, New York State, and the country.
Personally, I would prefer Indian Point shut down. My family lives within the 50 mile radius so the consequences of an attack or meltdown would affect me. I do not live close enough, however, for my community to benefit from the economic power of Indian Point. I also think that New York needs to be more of a leader with renewable energy sources.
http://www.thedailycortlandt.com/news/greenburgh-reiterates-call-close-indian-point
http://www.safesecurevital.com/
http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Indian%20Point%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant
Since the early 20th century the average temperature on Earth has been rising. This trend, phenomenon, situation, is called Global Warming. Is it real? That depends on who you ask. If you ask one of the 1,372 top climate researchers, you have about a 97% to 98% chance of hearing ‘yes’. So who make up this other 2-3%? I have broken them down to a few categories. The first are those who disagree with the IPCC findings. Then there are those who disagree with the causes. There are those who disagree about the effects of Global Warming. And, of course, there are the outright deniers. This last group often gets the most media attention, so they are probably a great place to start.
The outright deniers include several ‘prominent’ American politicians and public figures. Michelle Bachmann, a Congresswoman from Minnesota and former presidential candidate, described Global Warming as “Voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” That is some intense rhetoric from the Congresswoman. Not only is Global Warming a hoax, but hokum, the sub-genre of early American blues music featuring racial and sexual innuendos. Compelling stuff. This group makes up both the super-minority as well as the super-irrelevant since virtually no members of it are actual scientists. Unfortunately, this group also receives an disproportionate amount of media attention for their antics.
Moving back to the more legitimate skeptics… We’ll call the first group the IPCC skeptics. This group, which accounts for most of that 2-3%, is made up of scientists who disagree specifically with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC published a report, the 3rd Assessment Report, in 2001. The report claims that the Earth’s temperature is rising, that humans are the main cause of the rise, and what the effects will be up to the year 2100. For the most part, the IPCC skeptics have issues with this last part of the report- the future temperature projections. Some scientists consider the projections too low, some too high, but most disagree with the idea of trying to predict temperatures in the first place because. These are not scientists who deny Global Warming at all. They are just skeptical about the process used to reach these conclusions in the IPCC report.
The next group of ‘Deniers’ are those who disagree with the causes of Global Warming. The IPCC report, which is considered mainstream, puts most of the blame on humans. Many of these scientists feel that the warming has natural causes. One of these causes may be increased heat from the sun. Some evidence to support this is the rising ocean temperatures, at the surface and at deep levels. This type of warming is perhaps more realistically caused by the sun than by CO2 emissions. Another piece of evidence is that other planets may also have rising temperatures. It would therefore make sense that the sun would be affecting them in the same way. Again, these are not scientists who deny that Global Warming is occurring.
Another group of scientists argue that while some warming may be occurring, its effects are harmless. One of their arguments is that increased CO2 will actually benefit food production and quality on Earth. None of these three groups of ‘Deniers’ actually believe that GLobal Warming is not occurring. They disagree with the IPCC, and with one another about the causes and effects of Global Warming. The only absolute deniers are extreme radicals like the Congresswoman. They seem to ignore the scientific evidence while offering absolutely no counter evidence or explanation.
President Barack Obama and Solyndra founder Chris Gronet on a plant tour.
Let’s start at the beginning. On August 8, 2005, George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Among many other things, the law gave the Department of Energy the ability to help companies and projects with promising research or products. The Energy Department would do this by giving them loan guarantees. Basically, the companies would be able to get loans from banks that they otherwise would not have been able to, based on risk, profit, etc., because the federal government was giving the banks the guarantee of being paid back. Of the 134 applications the Department of Energy recieved, one was from the Solyndra Corporation for a new manufacturing plant for solar panel technology. The Solyndra Corp. made it through the first round of filtering applications. They then submitted another application, along with 15 other companies, in May 2008. The Energy Department committee reviewing the applications wrote in a report that although the application “appears to have merit, there are several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time…for further development of information.” Basically, it seemed as though Solyndra was still too big of a risk. In March, 2009, despite the original review, the Energy Department decided they should guarantee a load of 535 million dollars. In August 2011 Solyndra announced it would be filling Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This is after the company restructured their loans and received an additional 69 million dollars from two private investment sources.
Solyndra Execs testifying before D.o.E. during Congressional investigation.
There was much controversy after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, and accusations of corruption. There were reports that Solyndra spent millions of dollars on lobbying to help them secure the loan guarantee. The founder of Solyndra, Chris Gronet, also made campaign contributions to President Obama, as well as other politicians (Democrats and Republicans). These accusations are basically saying that the ‘government’ was more inclined to award the loan guarantee to Solyndra over perhaps more well deserving companies, because of these contributions. Some would make the argument that Solyndra ‘bought’ their way in. Others would argue that it is more of a coincidence. One of the private investment groups that invested towards the end of Solyndra (that $69 mil.) was also basically owned/funded/heavily involved with founder of Solyndra Chris Gronet. So if there was some relationship between Obama and Gronet, perhaps Obama would be more inclined to encourage the D.o.E. to help Solyndra, to protect his friend/campaign donor?
Personally, I think, as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Perhaps Solyndra was given some sort of special treatment by the D.o.E. committee as a response to their lobbying. After all, there were 134 applications and Solyndra received the first guarantee. On the other hand, I do not think President Obama would risk his entire clean energy investment platform just to help out a friend or donor. I also don’t think that the President just calls Steven Chu and tells him which company to back for half a billion dollars. These investments take years to process and approve. What is most likely, I think, is that failure of Solyndra had to do with two elements. The first is the emergence of much cheaper Chinese produced solar panels. The profits that Solyndra expected to be making were grossly over-estimated due to the new availability of cheaper panels and other calculation mistakes. Also, there were reports in the company of incredibly sloppy decision making. Basically, they got a loan for over $500 million and they can’t imagine it will ever run out. They order expensive equipment they don’t need or use, they overpay their employees. The employees are not held accountable for mistakes because there is just so much money going around. So the Obama administration and the D.o.E. got carried away with this company that was a much bigger risk than they acknowledged. They wanted to hit a home-run on the first investment. Instead, the company failed and the whole clean technology initiative was severely damaged. Who is to blame? I blame just about everyone involved. The President. Steven Chu. The D.o.E. application review committee. The Solyndra management. The employees. and China. In all probability, though, nobody will receive any punishment other than an order to appear before Congress, and perhaps some public humiliation.
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/DocumentsEnteredIntoRecord.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html?_r=1
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/03/141014707/white-house-knew-solyndra-might-be-in-trouble-emails-indicate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html
danaress
February 22, 2012
