Monthly Archives: April 2014

XL PIPELINE

This blog will contain information regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline.

“The proposed Keystone XL project consists of a 875-mile long pipeline and related facilities to transport up to 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Alberta, Canada and the Bakken Shale Formation in Montana. The pipeline would cross the U.S. border near Morgan, Montana and continue through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska where it would connect to existing pipeline facilities near Steele City, Nebraska for onward delivery to Cushing, Oklahoma and the Texas Gulf Coast region”.

The remainder of the blog will be split into 3 sections.

1. Pros
2. Cons
3. My opinion

Each section will be brief and concise.

Please feel free to comment on the Proposed Keystone XL Project.

The link below is the Proposed Keystone XL Project

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/Executive-Summary-Keystone-Final-Environmental-Impact-Statement-2013.pdf

This link provides you with a detailed outline of what the proposal actually is.  Please take 10-15 minutes and read/skim through the text.

PROS

The argument made by advocates is that although they believe alternative sources of energy are the future, they believe in the meantime it would be in our countries best interest to depend on neighboring countries for resources.

“the world benefits from oil produced by friendly, democratic nations such as Canada, which reduces its dependence on unstable regimes in the Middle East”

The pipeline project would strengthen relations with Canada, and it would create nearly 2,000 construction jobs in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. It also creates about 50 full-time jobs in the U.S. once in operation.  All of these statements are very compelling arguments.

“The existing 1,661-mile Keystone Pipeline system became operational in June 2010. It has the ability to transport approximately 591,000 barrels of crude oil daily, non-stop from Alberta, Canada to market hubs in the Midwest and Texas. According to TransCanada, the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion will increase capacity of the Keystone system to approximately 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day by 2013”.

The longer I browsed through the web; I realized there are two parties that are very passionately supporting their opinion.  It seems like one of those problems either your “for” the pipeline or “against” the pipeline.

The picture above displays a detailed outline of the pipeline and how it would work.

CONS

To summarize the opposition:

“The United States should instead implement a comprehensive oil savings plan and reduce oil consumption by increasing fuel efficiency standards, hybrid cars, renewable energy, environmentally sustainable biofuels, and smart growth to meet our transportation needs…”

The link I provide below is a letter from the Nobel Women’s Initiative, a non-for profit organization.  They wrote to the President, please read the letter:

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/nobel_obama_Sept2011_tar_sands_letter.pdf

The following link is a website dedicated to voting against the pipeline.

https://act.350.org/letter/a_million_strong_against_keystone/

My Opinion

 Personally I have not been able to make up my mind on the matter.  It’s a difficult and very controversial topic.

I would love to read comments on the matter.  Do you guys think it’s a good option?  Is it sustainable, or should we invest in other renewable options instead?

References:

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/Executive-Summary-Keystone-Final-Environmental-Impact-Statement-2013.pdf

https://act.350.org/letter/a_million_strong_against_keystone/

President’s Climate Action Plan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

The link above is a document that displays the Presidents or government Climate Action Plan.  The plan is broken down into three sections:

1. CUT CARBON POLLUTION IN AMERICA
2. PREPARE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
3. LEAD INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Throughout the rest of the blog I will depict each one of these sections.  I was actually surprised to find a document that provided such detailed information on our Presidents vision.  The fact that it was readily available for the public was also surprising.

1. CUT CARBON POLLUTION IN AMERICA

The President seems determined to make his 2020 goal.  He wants to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in range of 17% by 2020.  I found it interesting that allot of the subject we have covered in prior blogs are also part of the Presidents plan.  For example:

“Upgrading the country’s electric grid is critical to our efforts to make electricity more reliable, save consumers money on their energy bills, and promote clean energy sources. To advance these important goals, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum this month that directs federal agencies to streamline the siting, permitting and review process for transmission projects across federal, state, and tribal governments”.

We covered this scenario a few weeks back, I remember recommending an update to our energy grid.  I’m glad to find out the President agrees with my personal opinion.

Two sections within this section of the document are reducing energy bills, and reducing emissions.  Both sections I found to have valuable information.  “Reducing Energy Bills”, focused on reducing HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons).  Curbing these emissions will help reduce potent greenhouse gases.  HFCs alone are expected to triple by 2030, and double by 2020.

“prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. In addition, the President has directed his Administration to purchase cleaner alternatives to HFCs whenever feasible and transition over time to equipment that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives”.

The government is focusing on reducing Methane Emissions.

“Methane currently accounts for roughly 9 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions and has a global warming potential that is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide. Notably, since 1990, methane emissions in the United States have decreased by 8 percent. This has occurred in part through partnerships with industry, both at home and abroad, in which we have demonstrated that we have the technology to deliver emissions reductions that benefit both our economy and the environment”.

To continue and achieve progress the plan calls for a “interagency methane strategy” and a “collaborative approach”.

1. PREPARE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The government is planning to build a stronger infrastructure to deal with severe storms.

“Across America, states, cities, and communities are taking steps to protect themselves by updating building codes, adjusting the way they manage natural resources, investing in more resilient infrastructure, and planning for rapid recovery from damages that nonetheless occur. The federal government has an important role to play in supporting community-based preparedness and resilience efforts, establishing policies that promote preparedness, protecting critical infrastructure and public resources, supporting science and research germane to preparedness and resilience, and ensuring that federal operations and facilities continue to protect and serve citizens in a changing climate”.

Interestingly, I believe strengthening the infrastructure will reduce the costs and increase the safety when storms like “sandy” hit our shores.

1. LEAD INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

As we all know in order for the world to reduce the overall emissions, multiple nations need to align and show sincere effort.  In this written section that’s exactly what the President talks about.

“From the outset, the Obama Administration has sought to intensify bilateral climate cooperation with key major emerging economies, through initiatives like the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, the U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy, and the Strategic Energy Dialogue with Brazil”.

Because these economies are still emerging, we need to ensure they are environmentally aware and conscious.

The link below displays a 45-minute speech our President said in regards to climate change.  President Obama seems sincere with his efforts of reducing emissions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMT87OP21mo

I’d love to hear your opinion on the matter, do you believe:

1.)  Nations will collaborate in reducing emissions?

2.)  President Obamas plan will significantly reduce emissions long-term?

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMT87OP21mo

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-climate-action-plan

MIT TOUR

Unfortunately I was not able to attend the MIT tour.  I hope you still find my blog to be interesting and full of fun facts.

As I browsed thought the MIT website it was apparent the NRL (Nuclear Reactor Lab) served multiple services.  The lab is available to:

• MIT undergrad students
• MIT grad students
• Operator training programs
• Research Projects

Those are all examples of how MIT uses the nuclear reactor in-house.  But as we all now know the reactor is also used for external reasons.  MIT focuses on educating the community and general public, they hope that the public is interest and encouraged to learn about the Nuclear Reactor Lab.  Initiatives such as:

• Tours – general public – high school students
• Assistance to students with science fair project

Because I did not attend the tour, I figured I’d view as many images as possible.  I believe the Images above are the best display of what I missed out on.

Nuclear reactor labs in a heavily based engineering school seem to work as a motivational tool for students attending the university.

“Students are particularly enthusiastic about experimental work on the MITR-II because it gives opportunity to apply their academic learning to challenging engineering and scientific problems.  Also, they acquire the skills needed to coordinate projects and are imbued with the “safety culture” needed for the proper operation of nuclear facilities”.

Tying the nuclear reactor lab with topics covered in previous blogs, I found an article published by Boston Magazine on August 2011.  If you read my “Fukishima” blog you will note the article was written around the same time.

“CAMBRIDGE’S LITTLE NUKE has operated happily and quietly for years, and MIT absolutely intends to keep it that way. But the incidents at Fukushima have renewed concerns about its safety, stoking fears that the “blue mushroom” could wipe out Boston in a mushroom cloud”

This Quotation summarizes what the article was about, the city of Boston was simply nervous.

“City Manager Robert Healy confer with MIT and the heads of relevant municipal departments, such as fire and police, to respond to residents freaking out about their nuclear neighbor. One by one at the meeting, citizens rose to face the elected officials, clearly having Googled in preparation. Sandra Foster, who seemed spooked, commented that “I’m sure if they continue to use that highly enriched uranium many, many people would die.” James Williamson, in a Harvard baseball cap and unbuttoned white shirt, criticized the city manager’s response to Seidel’s request for information as “woefully inadequate,” calling it “dismissive to say the least.”

For a short period of time the city of Cambridge was uneasy and nervous with having a nuclear reactor lab in their town.  As of late many critiques remain uneasy and nervous, but there is no public outcry.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/MITResponsesNuclearSafetyConcerns.pdf

The link above has a lot of facts defending MIT nuclear reactor.  The PDF defends every action MIT has taken and lists any incident that has occurred or any

 After and only after you read all the facts from both bias parties I would love to hear comments on the matter.  God forbidding, if a nuclear accident were to occur we would all be affected in one way or another.  Cambridge is within a few miles and our campus, and livelihood would all change.

Remember guy’s participation is 5%, so please answer or comment on the following questions:

1. Are you comfortable with the nuclear reactor in Cambridge?
2. Do you ever think about a worse case scenario?
3. After visiting the reactor do you believe it is safe from terrorist act?

The two links below are the complete opposite.  The first link explains the positives and potential of nuclear reactor labs, the other is an example of Fukishima.

The Future of Nuclear Power

http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-future-of-nuclear-power-richard-meserve-13756/

 Fukushima Meltdown

 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100079799/japan-nuclear-crisis-fukushima-meltdown-is-worrying-but-this-is-no-chernobyl/

I can’t wait to read your comments!

References:

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/MITResponsesNuclearSafetyConcerns.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/nrl/www/index.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

Pandora’s Promise

Pandora’s Promise is a pro-nuclear propaganda documentary released in the U.S. in July of 2013.  The documentary featured the controversial issue of the history and future of nuclear power, debating what some suggest as the most stable and secure source of power in modern civilization.  Nearing the end of its design life, U.S. nuclear fleet and coal production combined represent close to sixty percent of the nation’s power supply.  Many raise concern as to advancing technologies and the implementation of security and maintenance of existing operations at these large plant sites.

I felt that the filmmaker’s strategy behind “Pandora’s Promise” was to manipulate environmentalists’ testimonies to the extreme to persuade the general audience. I researched environmentalist, Michael Shellenberger’s, and found that he once was against the use and facilitation of nuclear energy after all the casualties and effects of Chernobyl radiation.

As a critical thinker, I am skeptical to accept that environmentalists, with the experience of Shellenberger and others interview in the documentary, believe that they are 100% pro-nuclear. Like most propaganda films, this one had “cherry-picking” arguments that were intentionally included to work in favor of their plea.

The documentary also failed to recognize the consequences from Chernobyl, undermining the soaring cases of cancers in regions near the impact of radiation. Environmentalist, Mark Lynas, asserted that the Fukushima accident would not cause any damages to peoples health when just the opposite had happened in reality.  A report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published, “a collective whole-body dose of 3.2 million person-rem to the population of Japan as a result of the accident: a dose that would cause in the range of 1,000-3,000 cancer deaths.”

The film featured the Integral Fast Reactor, a metal-fueled fast breeder reactor, to be the answer to all nuclear power’s problems with the argument that they consume their own waste and are virtually “melt-down proof” -while failing to address the plethora of problems associated with those types of reactors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk

Just incase you have not had a chance to view the movie the link above provides you with the trailer for the movie.

“Nuclear energy is such a polarizing issue that the films it inspires tend to play to the extremes. Yet it is a complex subject that does not lend itself to a simple black or white treatment. A film that gives the question of the merits of nuclear energy the respect that it is due would not shy away from the messy middle.  It should instead provide a sound framework for how viewers should think about the debate and assess the available facts in order to come to their own decisions”.

The italic quote above, I found while surfing the web, summarizes my personal opinion on the documentary.  I found the documentary to be extremely bias and persuasive.

“The documentary tries to make its case primarily by impressing the audience with the significance of the personal journeys of these nuclear power converts, not by presenting the underlying arguments in a coherent way”.

 The more I research the topic the more I seem to discover inconsistencies.  For example:

“Gwyneth Cravens, when prompted by the interviewer about the leak of tritium from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, stated that someone would get more radiation from eating one banana than from drinking all the water coming out of the plant. Well, I thought I would double-check this one. The dose from eating a single banana is about 0.01 millirem. Entergy, Vermont Yankee’s owner, estimated in a 2011 report to the NRC that the leak detected in early 2010 released 2.79 curies of tritium into groundwater.  Assuming someone consumed all of this tritium in the form of tritiated water, that person would receive a dose of 185,000 millirem. Ms. Cravens was only off by a factor of twenty million”.

 In conclusion, I found the documentary to be informative but not necessarily factual.  A great situation would be to have two teams (for vs. against) nuclear power in a debate room.  An independent party should check and verify that all data is presented accurately and fairly.  That is the only way I foresee and educated opinion made by the public/government.

REFERENCES:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/10/opinion/pandora-nuclear-westinghouse-roderick/index.html

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/pandoras-false-promises/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora’s_Promise

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/world/cnn-films-pandoras-promise