Nuclear power and Oil

Lately, we hear a lot from conservatives that nuclear energy must be part of our energy solution. The reasoning is usually based on nuclear being a low carbon producing source of energy. There are a couple major problems with nuclear power beyond the obvious environmental issue of how to dispose of waste.

First, nuclear power is not a bargain. Here is why. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build. Regulation is partly to blame, but my right-wing friends you must have regulation when an accident can wipe out a city. Althought the cost of production is relativly low, the up front costs are enormous.

Second and more often overlooked is that uranium is not necessarily a good hedge against energy prices. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power is not fundamentally different than fossil fuel based power generation. You are still essentially burning, using or destroying a material to produce energy. In the case of nuclear power, the power source lasts longer and contains a lot more power per unit of mass. Here is the problem, uranium is mined in many of the same places that oil is extracted. It is subject to conflict disruptions, speculation and price spikes. I noticed this today on Bloomberg. At the moment, the price of Uranium is quite low historically. But notice that the low price of uranium is spurring the building of nuclear power plants by you guessed it, India and China.


Perhaps it is time for us to take a more innovative approach to energy policy. Everyone in the world needs clean and cheap power. We should lead, not follow... We need to invest heavily in new technologies and license those products to American companies. We should solve our energy crisis and create new jobs and industries here. Perhaps nuclear power can be part of that solution, but the current breed of nuclear power generation is too costly and inefficient to be useful.

Oh, Arizona Republic how do you get it wrong so often

This article about offshore oil drilling from the Arizona Republic shows just the kind of problems that exist with reporting today. The Republic has a default bias towards Republicans, but it is not too egregious. The real problem with the Republic is that they no longer have the resources or inclination to take a comprehensive look at an issue.

Oil is a pretty simple issue and I don't understand why the paper payed attention to the least important aspect of the opposition to offshore drilling. Yes, there are tons of environmental problems that go along with drilling for oil. But how can they write an article and not even point out the highly unlikely nature of his ideas suceeding. Primarily, that most experts agree that it will not change oil prices anytime soon, if ever. At best, it probably slows the increase in prices. If George Bush announced he was going to flap his arms for future air travel would the Republic point out that Democrats oppose his wing flapping because they are afraid he would be drunk when he flies or the fact that he cannot really fly?

How about saying that Democrats oppose it for environmental reasons and expert agree that it will do little to change oil prices. Ah, yes the truth...

The oil production myth

Just yesterday George Bush said that he wanted to increase domestic oil production to elevate gas prices. Unfortunately, the idea is laughable. I suspect our oilmen in chief know it...

Here is the basic problem:

• World oil production is 82,532,000/day. The US currently produces 5,102,000/day. The US alone consumes 20,687,000/day. World-wide consumption is 83,607,000/day.

Let's assume that we extract significantly more of than our current output, lets say we make it back to our peak oil production in 1986 of about 10.2 million barrels/day. Since oil would be sold on the open world market it would increase world oil production to 87,634,000/day or an increase of 6%. If you make the likely incorrect assumption that demand does not increase (doing simple math I know) you at best could expect a 6% decrease in oil prices. That would reduce today's price from $136 to $127/barrel. Unless my small government friends want to nationalize all remaining oil reserves and keep them in the country, this will only serve to help oil companies.

• Untapped reserves will take years to begin producing.

Even if we begin today it is likely that market forces will change the game before any of this oil comes on the market.

• Finally, we have picked the low hanging fruit world-wide as far as oil reserves are concerned. The remaining oil reserves are more expensive to extract. Increasing production costs lead to you guessed it, higher prices. It is not inconceivable that we could see the new oil reserves makes their way onto the market with a significant additional cost component (greater than say 6%?).

Want more info: go here and here

So, my Republican friends please spare me your non-sense. BTW -- if you want to advocate off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, please do it before the election, so we can lock up the state in the Democratic column.

Update: I just ran across this timely article on Salon.com and this one from the NY Times.

Mayor Gordon callously keeps cheap pharmaceuticals from getting to the sick and needy

Given the price of healthcare and prescription drugs in this country, you would think that Mayor Gordon would want the sick to get medications inexpensively, but no... Apparently, the Mayor insists on making sure that pharmaceuticals are not in our water supply. Sure you might get hormones instead of insulin, but its free.

Why I haven't posted anything recently.

I was supposed to have started writing for this blog regularly six weeks ago or so, but haven't done much else except comment on the presidential primary. So naturally, here is a list of reasons I haven't been writing anything:

1. Working, volunteering, or meaning to do either for for the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and the Fair Districts campaign.

2. Watching with fascination the Tempe City Council races, and trying to decide how to cast three votes for four people-- Mark Mitchell, Corey Woods, Joel Navarro, and Rhett Wilson.

3. Studying. Sorry, nothing to link to.

4. Anticipating the next round of discussion on Wactivist about the Shadegg/McCain/etc saga.

5. Wondering how the creator of A Democrat's Lament gets the time to write posts that are worth reading. Also, who he is.

I'm looking at hitting the blog alot harder soon though, the development plans for Jackson and the immigration debate in Phoenix haven't been talked about enough.

This might be the weirdest thing I have ever seen...

I don't even know what to say about this... Just read it.

Regulations in Rancho Santa Fe saved area

There was this article from the Arizona Republic today about how strict regulations saved many homes in Rancho Sante Fe, CA. Here is the challenge as I see it. How do you institute good regulations, but balance them with property rights? Is it a false dicotomy to compare the two?

One of the problems that seems constant in this debate has a lot to do with people that are highly skeptical of all government regulation or involvement. I can imagine most people would feel put upon if the government told them which trees they could plant and how often they need to water plants.


Unfortunately, reality seems to frequently trump these arguments. For instance, how long can Arizona be competitive economically if traffic and air quality continues to worsen? What dangers are inherent in not regulating water resources as Arizona grows? I know many people hate government involvement, but how do we insure that Arizona is a good, economically viable place to live when the market is not capable of providing the needed stability?


Sometimes I have the feeling that many people let denial and cognitive dissonance control their decisions. I also feel at times that the sky is falling mentality of the environment community can be counter productive at persuading people. Global warming is a good example of this. I don't think most people understand why a 1 or 2 degree increase in global temperatures is a problem and why it would be a bad thing them.

Beyond all of the political fighting, there is an area of public policy that involves more technocratic decision making than the ideological concerns can address. Government needs to do certain things regardless of the anti-government people think and regardless of pie in sky political theory. The idea that government is not capable cannot be accepted if we want a strong society. Government like anything else works well when managed well.

Superfund sites (or how companies grew to love the Bush Administration)

This story from the East Valley Tribune goes into Motorola's attempt to discontinue a program that filters trichloroethylene from the air in Phoenix. The contamination is the result of their manufacturing polluting ground water. I am trying to not have a knee jerk reaction here, but I kind of feel regardless of the science they should not be able to remove the filters (OK that was knee jerk). Hear me out, they polluted. They permanently damaged a public good and they should be punished for it. I would prefer more severe punishment, but I will take what I can get. If they want to remove the filters then they should have to come up with another equally good way to remove the chemical from the air.

At the end of the day, we have to come up with a better system for pollution control. We need to make pollution much more expensive for companies. Consumers need to understand that higher prices are likely to follow. I have mentioned this before, but this is just a transfer payment from one generation to another. The cost is not born out by the primary beneficiaries.

This sort of pollution does permanent damage and leads to lower home values for the people in the area, higher health care costs, and cleanup costs. Very little of the cost is paid by the people who used the products or the company. We need to correct that...

The Zero Emissions Cars that are Illegal?

I found this article yesterday tucked in the car area at MSN. There are two things about this that bug me... First, you cannot buy one of these cars because it is illegal unless you live in a few select states. This just seems typical for the Bush Administration. The fact that I cannot buy a low pollution car in a place like Phoenix where we can see our air is beyond ridiculous.

Second, the writer of this article does not think that people would be willing to kick in an extra $100 for a zero emissions vehicle. If they can market undercoating that does nothing, surely car dealers can figure out how to market a zero emissions option that costs $100.

Arizona's Weather and Baby Stuff Make Me Think

There was this article today about the record number 110+ degree days in Phoenix this year. I also read this interesting contrarian point of view on Global Warming today. I have also been reading Collapse which puts forth the idea that some societies choose to fail because of indifference or in some cases hubris.

The reason I bring all of this up is that I have been thinking more lately about how little we consider the impact of our lifestyle on ourselves and the environment. Now don't get me wrong, I like my air conditioning and my LCD TV as much as the next person, but I can't help but wonder about the long term cost of cheap and abundant consumer goods. I have been reading a lot lately about all of the toxic chemicals in nearly everything we use as my wife and I prepare a nursery. I found this site that analyses the toxicity of car seats, it is disturbing to say the least. Or how about the possibility of pytoestrogens in plastic that might be responsible all manner of reproductive problems including a long term drop in sperm counts.

The problem I see is that for the most part there are more questions than answers. It is nearly impossible with the information available to accurately predict the danger of many of these things. This is a topic that even the most open minded people do not want to talk about.

The simple fact is that we are running an unregulated experiment on ourselves. It is reminiscent of many of the societies cited in Collapse, who ignored the problems that conflicted with societal norms. What amount of information would lead us as a society to more closely examine the affects of our lifestyle? Will there ever be enough information or consensus to convince either side of the debate?

If temperatures continue to increase, will central and Southern Arizona be inhabitable in 50 years? 100? Will people that question the danger of Global Warming or unregulated use of chemicals ever be considered anything other than whiny alarmists? Will the alarmists ever concede that some of the things they rail against may be less dangerous (or perhaps not dangerous at all) when the facts come in? Will we ever have a rational conversation about the best way to deal with any of these issues?

This Just Pisses Me Off

I wrote about lead in products and product safety a few day ago. I came across this today. When I read about stuff like this it makes me angry and wonder what is wrong with us as a society. I am not a nanny state, do anything for the children kind of guy, but come on... Monetizing IQ point? This is seriously screwed up.

Is This the Best We Can Do?

Can this really be our response the air pollution? Maricopa County needs to do more than this...

Are Honeybees One of Many Canaries in the Coal Mine?

Slate has this article about honey bees. It makes me wonder what will wake people up. We are already starting to have seafood shortages. Honey bees are dying off. How many lakes and streams in the US have water that is safe to swim in or eat fish from? Or how about this article about the problem with a common chemical in plastics and connections to obesity?

I remember speaking to a bio chemist about 10 years ago on a plane about chemicals in the environment and their dangers. It was a frightening conversation... Basically, we are running a random uncontrolled experiment and we have no idea about the outcome. Are we going to burst into flames one day, probably not, but we will see lots strange things happening that we don't understand. We won't be able to solve many of these problems because of our lack of understanding. I don't want to be alarmist, but I do think we need a new paradigm for considering risks in our environment and pollution.

How do we setup a system where industry will cooperate in finding real answers to the potential dangers of their products? It also makes me wonder if our convenience culture is sustainable over the long term. There was also this interesting and I would argue related article in the Arizona Republic about swimming pools. I used to work in the pool industry and won't swim in a pool now. How will we continue to fill pools if our drought continues? How safe is the chemical brew that people swim in?

I just don't see this as a partisan issue anymore. In the end, we have to find a rational way to deal with the environmental issues that will face us in the future. We have to find ways to avoid being overly punitive while still protecting ourselves. Overall, I think it is a tough sell, but one that is necessary.

Lead, Crime and Rudy G

This article from the Washington Post goes into the links between lead poisoning and crime. What is so fascinating about it, besides bringing reality to some of Rudy Guiliani's claims about reducing crime in New York, is how the Guiliani people were so quick to dismiss what seems to be strong scientific work. I know they are in the midst of a political campaign and without Rudy's mythology on crime and 9/11 he has very little cache, but this is precisely the kind of information that policy makers should use to make policy decisions.

For instance, if we know that adolescents with a history of lead poisoning are much more likely to commit violent crime and older criminals that were exposed to lead are more likely to be recidivist criminals it should inform our policies towards those people. Maybe a history of serious lead poisoning should be considered in parole?

It just goes to show that being tough alone is not enough to fix crime problems, human behavior is much more complex. It also goes to show that toxins in our environment can have unforeseen affects that we should spend more time trying to pin point.

This is why Republican Government Theory Doesn't work...

I consider Gilbert, Arizona my special hobby. I don't know why I find it so fascinating, but I do. Gilbert could go several different ways: the Mesa model, the Chandler model or something else. The Mesa model is as little government as possible and a lot of right-wing think tank experimentation. It also includes a healthy dose all taxes are bad and people will always vote against them. BTW, Mesa is in very bad financial straights as a result of its policies and it is probably the ugliest valley suburb (they don't like zoning either).

Then there is Chandler, far from perfect, but well run. Chandler keeps their taxes relatively low, but not that much different from the rest of the valley. The one thing that separates Chandler from Mesa (they are both heavily Republican and right-wing) is that the City Council and Mayor are realistic about what cities need to provide for quality of life and for having a sustainable tax base. BTW, many political people in the East Valley refer to Chandler as the "People Republic of Chandler" because of their supposedly liberal policies, like having a property tax.

That leads me back to Gilbert. They are having a problem with the huge amount of trash being generated by their bulk pickup system. I think this is a good example of the problems with the governing theory that currently dominates the Republican Party.

How does a Republican solve the following problem without breaking orthodoxy: Too much trash costs the city too much money for pickup, storage and the long-term viability of landfills. Raising taxes to pay for the additional needs? We know the answer to that... All taxes are bad. OK, how about instituting more recycling and restricting what can be thrown out? We all know that is a bunch of whiny tree hugger non-sense. How about a user fee? User fees are just a fancy way of saying tax. That pretty much leaves you with cutting programs (either the trash pickup or some other cuts).

I hope that did not come across as overly simplistic, but I think you can see where this is going... Reality trumps theory often.

UPDATE: Arizona/Cali power scheme dead

The Corporation Commission smartly put the kibosh on California's plan to siphon Arizona power. Here is the article from the Arizona Republic.

Arizona sticks its head in a hole in its green and lush lawn

Like most Arizonians, I was not born here. I moved here because of my love for the desert. I have always been amazed at the disconnect between the environment in which we live and the use of resources like water. This article in the Arizona Republic outlines some of why Maricopa and Pima counties differ on water consumption.

I was astonished when I moved to Arizona and found no water use restrictions. I have lived in various cities in the South East and without exception they all had water use restriction of some sort. Keep in mind that most of these cities get a lot of rainfall and are green and lush places.

I know it will anger many of my smug friends from Tucson who think Maricopa County is the root of all evil, but I am not sure Pima County is much better.

Why is any developer able to use grass for landscaping? It would be difficult to eliminate the existing grass, but why can't we eliminate it in new developments? Why do people move here and expect something that the natural environment will not support?

My neighbors were angry when I had the grass removed from my yard. They felt that it detracted from the looks and value of their homes. The only way to make them angrier was when I reminded them that we live in a desert...

The disconnect seems to be so large that I am at a loss as to what should be done...

Update: Arizona apparently not California's bitch

Here is an update from the Arizona Republic about Arizona shipping power to California. Apparently, I am not the only person who thinks this is a bad idea. Most of the the AZ Corporation Commission appears to be against it. Chris Mays had the money quote:

Commissioner Kris Mayes said in her filing that the project would benefit California utility customers at the expense of their Arizona counterparts while harming the environment, particularly the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, while possibly hampering Arizona's ability to meet its own energy needs.

"California wants to drop a giant extension cord in Arizona and draw out our power," Mayes said. "Arizona's energy future is at issue in this case."

It was pointed out to me yesterday by a reader that it was the utility, not AZ Corporation Commission that wants the change. Thanks for the correction...

It is not dead yet, but here are some pre-kudos for the Corporation Commission. Make us proud, tell California to produce its own power...

Let me get this straight...

Apparently, Arizona is California's bitch... There was this article in the Republic about how Corporation Commission wants to build power transmission lines to California.

So, you might ask yourself what is the benefit to Arizona? As far as I can tell, there is zero upside for us. Our power costs could increase because increased demand for our power in California. They want to build part of the system through a protected wildlife area (bad).

I also cannot help but think about the pollution created in Arizona for power shipped to California. It would create some jobs and that is nice, but does anyone really believe that they want to do this to create jobs? I don't...