Category Archives: Current Events

Jefferson Country Parkway and the Rocky Flats Plant

Posted on by

There has been long-time opposition to completing the metropolitan beltway by constructing a parkway for vehicles and bicycles on the eastern edge of the site where the Rocky Flats Plant once constructed plutonium components for nuclear weapons. There was a previous posting about the controversy, which is mostly about the plutonium contamination in the area of the proposed parkway. I’ve exchanged emails with the group that was formed to oppose the parkway to discuss and disagree with their contentions about the risk from plutonium. Chapter 25 of the book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked,” gives detailed information about plutonium releases from the plant, and there was much less released than critics would like you to believe. The bottom line is that plutonium is everywhere from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and disputing construction of the parkway on the basis of plutonium contamination is, in my opinion, a flawed argument.

A recent article in the Denver Post by Bruce Finley describes recent developments. Some of the long-time opponents of the Parkway have recently changed their positions because of a proposed land swap that would open more public open space and lock in “…an open-space bridge to the mountains.” “The emerging green ring around Denver includes Rocky Flats, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Barr Lake State Park, Cherry Creek State Park, Chatfield State Park and seven or so county and municipal parks set against the foothills.”

The city of Golden recently modified a proposal to create a bicycle and pedestrian trail where the parkway is proposed to be constructed. They then withdrew their opposition to the toll road after being promised $57 million for traffic and noise mitigation. However, the town of Superior plans to file a lawsuit to block the swap because of failure “…to conduct a sufficient review of likely environmental impacts…”

An article in Westword by Patricia Calhoun titled, “Plans for the Jefferson Country Parkway are kicking up lots of dust,” expresses some skepticism. The regional director of Fish and Wildlife commented, “Accepting this exchange proposal will significantly expand the Rocky Flats NWR (National Wildlife Refuge) not only for the benefit of wildlife, but it will also anchor a network of green space for the people of the Denver metro area to enjoy for years to come.”

The author then adds, “If you don’t mind a little radioactive dust in your picnic.”

The article also provides more detail about the basis for Superior’s lawsuit. “The conclusion of the environmental assessment should have been that a full study leading to an Environmental Impact Statement was necessary to fully understand and evaluate the impact of the expansion of the refuge and the building of a four-lane toll road.”

I’ve told opponents of the toll road that I am not taking a position; several friends are opposed to the road. My position is that opposing the road because of plutonium contamination in the area of the proposed construction is a very weak argument.

Electricity Generation Problems and Politics

Posted on by

I began doing research on solar generation of power for this posting, but expanded to asking how we continue to power our society in the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner. Let’s make a few generalizations. Everyone wants inexpensive energy, and we would prefer to have as little impact on the planet as possible. Some of us might even want to drive cars that are battery powered, which means the batteries have to be recharged from some source of electricity generation. Solar and wind generated electricity are “darlings,” because they don’t use those ugly petrochemicals and don’t emit carbon dioxide. However, they aren’t as dependable as plants that burn coal or natural gas. They are also unfortunately more expensive. Many consumers want to turn on their computers and feel superior because they think the energy is coming from a renewable source such as solar or wind. Some might also selfishly want the energy to be inexpensive and dependable.

This is an immensely complicated problem, but let’s begins with costs for various methods of generating electrical energy. Mark Jaffe wrote an article in the Denver Post that is a pretty good summary of the costs and dependability of various methods of energy production. The flaw is that nuclear power generation is not mentioned. I’ll attempt to summarize the excellent data in the article. Natural gas costs between 6.6 to 10.9 cents to generate a kilowatt of electricity, coal is 7.4 to 13.5, wind is 4.4 to 11.5, and solar comes in last ( in the cost race) at 14.1 to 21. The dependability is perhaps more concerning in comparing “renewable” solar and wind to oil and natural gas.  Coal and natural gas are rated at about 70-90 percent dependable. Solar and wind are rated at twenty-two to forty-two percent dependable.

Let’s try to be honest. Would you prefer to accept a less than fifty percent chance of having your home heating or air conditioning to work or your computer to be powered to be between 70-90 percent dependable, or would you be willing to accept a less than fifty percent chance of that energy being available?

Solar has especially come under pressure recently. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Yuliya Chernova reports that 8% more solar panels would be installed in 2011 than in 2010, but that increases are expected to end in 2012. The United States is about the only country that is expected to have stable or increased demand in this New Year, and that is because utilities have to install new panels to meet State mandates. Price competition for the panels, to include from the Chinese where the government directed banks to lend freely to new manufacturers, is driving companies out of business. At least seven solar panel producers, including Solyndra, filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Stock prices have of course plummeted.

And now let’s discuss nuclear power generation. I know it has been successfully vilified by those who are against anything that is titled “nuclear,” and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the recent problems in Japan after the tsunami haven’t done anything to encourage people to advocate that source of electricity. However, let’s think about this. Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the currently frightening “boogieman” (which I don’t believe) of global warming. For those who are so selfish to be interested in costs of electricity, nuclear power generation is the least expensive method. It is also dependable so long as a tsunami doesn’t wipe out the cooling systems.

The criminal investigation of government loans to Solyndra won’t help the reputation of the solar industry. An article in the Washington Post by Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig reprinted in the Denver Post contains some troubling information. The loans that were made “…were thick with political considerations.” Thousands of memos, company records, and internal e-mails show that the government was almost exclusively worried about how the story would impact Obama’s campaign for reelection. There was rarely if ever a discussion of the impact Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers, the development of solar power, or the impact on taxpayers. The discussions were almost exclusively about “How are we going to manage this politically?” The bottom line is that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their positive decision on making the loans so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it on a trip to California.

A matrix at the end of the Washington Post article presents connections between Solyndra, the Department of Energy, several senior members of the administration, and Solyndra investors. One of those investors was the billionaire George Kaiser who was a “bundler” for the Obama campaign.

Unintended Consequences of Financial Regulations

Posted on by

I’ve expressed skepticism about the move by regulators to take advantage of the 2008 financial crisis to impose more control on business by government in previous postings on this link. The negative impacts from the massive Dodd-Frank law continue to mount. I don’t know how to measure the impact from businesses being cautious about their plans until the hundreds of new regulations are finally developed and implemented. However, there are some negative impacts being experienced by small businesses and people employed by the banking industry.

David Migoya wrote an article in the Denver Post discussing how the limits on bank card fees are adding costs to small businesses that are or will be passed to consumers. Dodd-Frank decided that the previous charges to retailers of 42 cents per swipe of a debit card was excessive, and capped the charges at 22 cents per swipe. They had previously charged as low as 2 cents for a dollar transaction and that escalated on a graduated scale up to the maximum of 42 cents. Debit card companies began charging 22 cents for every swipe after Dodd-Frank passed. According to Mr. Migoya’s article a popular site in a food court in downtown Denver was losing 3.8 % of revenue to the new fees, and the owners were worried that they would have to raise prices to remain profitable. Businesses that “…primarily run charges of less than $10 are being slammed.” Vending businesses are faced with raising prices to protect already thin profit margins. I expect that Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank would explain that it was worth it to try and prevent banks from making a profit.

A report by the Financial Services Committee titled “One Year Later: The Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act” by Chairman Spencer Bachus and Vice-Chairman Jeb Hensnarling does not report that the act had the intended consequences of improving the economy. The hundreds of new Federal Regulations creating massive bureaucracies when the economy is fragile had the opposite effect. The regulations did not address “too big to fail,” but instead provided financial support to large financial companies while businesses “…too small to save are left to fend for themselves.” The Federal Reserve Board’s Chairman acknowledged “…that the government is not capable of calculating the effect of the cumulative regulatory burden imposed over the past year…on the strength of the U. S. economy.”

It is really quite simple. The government decided that there were 387 new sets of rules needed. Most of the new bureaucracies haven’t had high level positions filled to impose the regulations, few if any deadlines to impose regulations have been met, and businesses that could be the engine to economic growth are waiting to see what the government is going to do.

Let me ask a question that makes the question personal. What would you do if you were contemplating a new business if you didn’t know what the government was going to require? What would you do if you were an existing business that will undoubtedly be impacted by whatever the new regulations might be? Would you hire people thinking the new regulations will be “business friendly?” I think the answer is “Not likely.”

I saw a report on CNBC about the banking industry, and there have been about 40,000 jobs cut from large banks, I’m guessing the people who lost their jobs were not those who received huge bonuses for driving the businesses into huge losses during the 2008 economic crisis. They were probably “middle class Americans” who had nothing to do with the risky investments that caused the crisis. Of course the Dodd-Frank law didn’t do anything to help those people since they were associated with “big banks.”

The quest of the government to protect “average Americans” has harmed thousands of “average Americans.” Perhaps someday we will learn that more government doesn’t help. Perhaps not.

Obama Kicks Keystone XL Down the Road

Posted on by

A posting on this site was titled “Economic Recovery Versus Red Tape” discussed two pipeline projects. The Ruby natural gas pipeline provided thousands of jobs to construction workers and hundreds of jobs to environmental specialists. It also boosted property taxes in the areas where it was constructed. You would think such a project would have wide support, but the environmental hoops it had to jump through before successful completion, which cost millions of dollars, were tiny. The second pipeline described in the posting was the Keystone XL, which is proposed to bring oil from Canada to be processed in U.S. refineries. I’ve seen estimates that the project would add “shovel ready” jobs ranging from 4,500 (from environmentalists opposing the project) to as many as 20,000.

President Obama has taken the decision to approve the project out of the State Department and announced that he will make the decision after the 2012 election. This comes after three years of intensive study that decided the project had an acceptable environmental impact. (Hmmm, is there any significance to making a final decision after the 2012 elections?) I expect the announcement might have something to do with the fact that environmentalists opposed to the pipeline recently surrounded the White House and the Sierra Club declared that Mr. Obama could not count on the environmental vote if he allowed the project to be approved.

One objection to the project is that the oil from Canadian tar sands has more of an impact on “global warming” emissions than oil from other sources. I’ve seen estimates as low as a 5% increase in “greenhouse gases” to as high as three times by those who don’t like the project. An article in the Washington Post by Steven Mufson points out that any argument on how much more greenhouse gas is produced is meaningless, since the oil will probably be exported to China and consumed if there isn’t a closer market. Mr. Mufson also says several alternatives are being considered, to include a proposal to build a new refinery in Alberta to process the oil. That alternative would of course prevent creation of U.S. jobs to build a pipeline and to process the oil.

Environmentalists of course are demanding that alternate pipeline routes be considered to avoid the Ogallala aquifer (which is at a significant depth under the proposed pipeline). Matthew Brown of the Associated Press points out that there have been thirteen routes rejected. Environmentalists will find a reason, or many reasons, to reject any route. They don’t want a pipeline to be built, and will find compelling reasons to oppose any route.

The New York Times predictably applauded Mr. Obama’s decision to kick the can down the road. They point out that labor unions had supported the project while environmentalists oppose it. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing that preventing the project until after the election will allow environmentalists to eagerly support Mr. Obama’s reelection, and that he already has done enough to earn the votes of labor union members.

It is interesting that there is already “Plan B” to transport the Canadian oil to U.S. refineries by expanding current pipelines with additional pumping stations. The delay to making a final decision on Keystone XL until after the 2012 elections will probably provide Mr. Obama cover for maintaining votes, but it won’t have any measurable impact on the eventual pathway for the oil except for preventing addition of “shovel ready jobs.”

Is Carbon Dioxide Dangerous?

Posted on by

Too much carbon dioxide can indeed be dangerous, and people have died when they are trapped in an area where carbon dioxide fire suppression systems displace the air with the oxygen needed for life. However, there have been events resulting in the declaration that carbon dioxide is dangerous even in trace quantities. The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.”  That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases.  A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the…endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.”  They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). (I first mentioned this in a posting dated June 8.)

Several aspects about the discourse on carbon dioxide and its influence or lack of influence on global warming trouble me. What troubles me most is that I don’t see that there has been an honest presentation of the facts. To give one example, the proposed regulations and the list of “heat-trapping gases” does not include the gas that has the largest effect. Water vapor exerts a much stronger greenhouse gas effect compared to carbon dioxide or any of the other gases that are to be regulated.  None of the gases have much of an influence compared to the sun. It seems too obvious to mention that the sun should always be given first consideration when global temperatures are mentioned.  Warming oceans from increased solar activity results in higher concentrations of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The water vapor is obviously created from evaporation and the carbon dioxide results from lower solubility in warmer water.  The question that begs to be asked is why do we focus on regulating carbon dioxide and not worry about water vapor, if water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect?  I will propose an answer, which I predict won’t be well received in the camp that wants us to believe man-made global warming is a risk to life as we know it. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of power production, which gives us industry, jobs, wealth, and a comfortable life style.  The environmental movement has become a powerful political force, and, to state the issue simplistically, many in that movement believe we should be ashamed of all of the benefits we derive from having plentiful generation of energy.  It would be difficult to vilify water vapor, because it has nothing to do with how we generate power.  Therefore, it is ignored.

Something else that is being ignored are all of the positive effects that result from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.  Revisiting memories of junior high and high school science classes reminds me that we and all other mammals exhale carbon dioxide, which makes it seem incredible that the EPA has decided it “endangers public health and welfare.” Also, carbon dioxide is the fertilizer that allows plants to grow.  Plants combine carbon dioxide with water with the energy from sunlight to produce organic chemicals.  They release oxygen as a result of the process, and we find good uses for oxygen (like being able to keep on living). One would think that increases in plant growth that accompany higher levels of carbon dioxide would be considered a positive by even the most ardent critics of the gas. I suggest readers review Dr. Arthur Robinson’s paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide.” That article provides details of the increases in plant growth.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that better food crop yields resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide is something we should celebrate.  I will warn readers that Dr. Robinson is not well-liked by the advocates of man-made global warming.  He circulated a petition that questions the validity of that theory, and it was signed by over 31,000 people with scientific degrees.  Kind of puts a new light on the term “consensus,” doesn’t it? I signed the petition, and have yet to be rewarded by the oil industry, which is one of the accusations directed at Dr. Robinson and his petition.

Nuclear Power in Japan

Posted on by

I posted a blog in May titled “Japanese Nuclear Reactor Disaster,” and closed with  comments that we should learn from the disaster to improve safety and not cripple our economic prosperity in decades to come by being the only country that decides not to use nuclear energy. I believe those observations have been reinforced by some recent developments in Japan. That country would seem to have the most incentive to avoid anything nuclear. Their country is the only one that has ever had nuclear weapons unleashed against it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now a tsunami has crippled and damaged nuclear power plants leaving wide areas considered to be unsafe (at least for now).

The most recent article I’ve read about the future of nuclear energy in Japan is by David Guttenfelder of the Associated Press, and it says the cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactors will take decades. The article mentions that people who had lived near the reactors may never be able to go home, and then interestingly mentions Hiroshima and Nagasaki where nuclear weapons were detonated and are once again thriving cities. The disaster is accurately described as resulting from a tsunami that swamped not only the plant along with large areas of Japan. “Mangled trucks, flipped over by the power of the wave, still clutter its access roads.” The nuclear part of the disaster is that the damaged reactors “…will have to be entombed in a sarcophagus, with metal plates inserted underneath to keep it watertight.”

Another Associated Press article by Yuri Kageyama titled “Six months after disaster, Japan sticking by nuclear power,” gives a different perspective.  A retired mechanic is quoted as saying he would prefer “…life without the nearby nuclear power plant.” However, he then says, “It is also true we all need it.” It is a fact that Japan, just like any developed nation, needs energy.  A recent poll found 55 percent of Japanese want to reduce the number of reactors, but one person interviewed asked, “What is the alternative?” Alternative energy is expensive, and nuclear technology has become a source of pride for the nation. There is no argument that nuclear power has helped fuel the country’s prosperity for decades, and the recent tsunami-related disaster hasn’t completely overcome that legacy. Only three percent of Japanese said they wanted to eliminate nuclear power reactors completely.

Chester Dawson in the Wall Street Journal presents an interesting reason why Japan must remain “nuclear.” The sub headline to the article is “Some say Bombs’ Potential as Deterrent argues for Keeping Power Plants Online.”  The article leads with, “Many of Japan’s political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it…Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear weapons…it’s important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time.” Japan has both the ability to produce nuclear weapons-grade material and also apparently also has the knowledge to build a nuclear warhead. It also has  the missile technology to deliver a nuclear warhead. The Hayabusa test satellite, which successfully landed on an asteroid and then returned to earth, demonstrated the ability to guide ballistic missiles.

The current policy of Japan prevents production of nuclear weapons. Minister of Defense Yasuo Ichikawa was quoted as saying “We have absolutely no plans to change the existing policy based on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, a 1967 policy banning the production, possession and presence of nuclear weapons in Japan”

There is official support for keeping nuclear power capacity. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has endorsed keeping nuclear power at least until alternative sources can be developed. That position “…stems from concern about electricity shortages, which could lead to blackouts and stifle economic growth.”   Japan’s largest daily circulation newspaper editorialized that the government should “…stay the course on nuclear power…stressing that the country’s stockpile of plutonium functions diplomatically as a potential nuclear deterrent.”

North Korea wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles, but I’m certain those who mention Japan’s need to keep a nuclear deterrent are thinking of that country.