Going nuclear in Green River: policymakers and the energy industry's continuing lack of imagination

Even in good economic times the lure of high paying jobs can be almost as powerful as the gravity of a black hole.  As today's Salt Lake Tribune story makes clear, the promise of decent, stable employment is apparently enough to get most residents of Emery County on board with a proposal for an expensive nuclear power plant requiring water the Green River  can't spare. 

Certainly no one can be opposed to job security and a decent wage.  Too often debates such as the one now getting underway regarding the construction of a nuclear power plant on the Green River are framed as a choice between jobs and tree hugging liberals who care more about fish than they do people.  Once the argument has been simplified to this point, those offering the promise of jobs have won in the court of public opinion no matter how stupid or expensive their scheme may be.  The choice should not be framed in such easy either/or terms.  

In other states and nations solar thermal power plants are not only being dreamed of, but actually being built.  The southwest is poised for an explosion in the construction of these facilities, yet so far Utah's county and state governments have shown little sign of any interest in this emerging industry. 

Nuclear power's appeal seems to derive in large part from the fact it is technologically complex.  Drawing power from something as common as sunshine is relatively easy technologically speaking, and therefore quickly dismissed in a culture that has come to believe technical solutions are usually better than simple ones. 

But let's assume just for the sake of argument the Green River could supply the water to generate 3000 megawatts of electricity, regardless of how that water was heated (a point the CEP is by no means willing to concede).  According to the Salt Lake Tribune the proposed nuclear power plant will cost between $13 and $16 billion to construct and 12 years to complete, if it stays on schedule.  We'll split the difference and say it will cost $14.5 billion.  At 3000 megawatts of generating capacity the cost per megawatt will be a little over $4.8 million dollars.

The Nevada One solar plant built just outside of Las Vegas produces a lot less electricity to be sure (64 MW), but it took less than two years to become operational and cost $260 million to build.  In other words, it cost just under $4.1 million per megawatt of generating capacity. 

The Nevada One facility has some heat storage capacity that carries it well into the night.  It superheats a special oil to over 700 degrees and uses this oil to convert water to steam.  The oil retains enough heat to continue this conversion process for hours after the sun sets.

Therefore, theoretically at least a thermal solar facility like Solar One with similar generating capacity to the proposed nuclear plant and placing similar demands on the Green River could be built in at least half the time for somewhere between $1.5 to $2 billion less, and that is without taking into account the cost of storing nuclear waste for heaven knows how long into the future. 

Obviously there would be considerable ongoing employment associated with such a facility as well.  In addition, tourists, engineers and others could visit a facility of this nature without the security risks associated with allowing numerous frequent visitors into a nuclear power plant.

Other solar technologies using mirrors to heat a gas which drives pistons do not require any water at all.  Using what is known as the "Stirling engine" (named for the Scottish minister who invented it in 1816), this technology will only work while the sun is shining.  However, like the Solar One plant in Nevada this technology is already in operation with plans for plants with up to 500 MW of generating capacity at their peak already in development. 

The point here isn't that we should build a solar power plant instead of a nuclear one, though that would be preferable in CEP's view.   The point is simply going nuclear is among the most expensive and time consuming alternatives we could consider, and that is before taking future nuclear waste storage or the impact on the Green River into consideration. 

In a desert community where the sun rarely ceases to shine even on the coldest of winter days, solar is perhaps only the most obvious of possible alternative projects we could explore that could bring an economically struggling part of Utah high paying jobs with far less cost to electricity rate payers or the environment.  Unfortunately, no one seems willing to put their imagination to work and explore ways we can create jobs, generate energy and protect the environment in spite of the fact other states and nations have already done much of the imagining for us.

Genuine Progress Indicator: An idea whose time has come?

The gross domestic product (GDP) has served as the standard measurement for economic growth for so long, until recently questioning its reliability as an indicator of either economic activity or human progress was considered radical.  However, lately some very prominent economists and world leaders have begun to do just that.

George Monbiot  put the problem with the GDP fairly succinctly in one of his recent blog posts.  After citing a recent paper on the problems with the GDP he summed it up this way:

There are no deductions involved: all economic activity is accounted as if it were of positive value. Social harm is added to, not subtracted from, social good. A train crash which generates £1bn worth of track repairs, medical bills and funeral costs is deemed by this measure to be as beneficial as an uninterrupted service which generates £1bn in ticket sales.

I doubt many would argue any measure of "progress" which, all things being equal, views a train wreck and a train that runs consistently on time as both having identical value isn't seriously flawed.  Of course, should the train wreck generate more economic activity it will be reported as "economic growth", which under the GDP model is rarely if ever reported as anything but good.  Any measure of progress relying even in part on economic activity derived from human suffering should strike most people as not merely flawed, but disturbing.

Fortunately, the GDP isn't the only game in town any longer.  Nobel Prize winning economists and world leaders as prominent as French President Sarkozy are proposing changes to the way we measure growth that take into account human well being and don't simply assume increased economic activity always means human progress.  In a country like the US where most of the wealth is now concentrated in the hands of less than 10% of the population, increases in GDP can be taking place while 90% or more of the population receives no benefit or is actually seeing wages and benefits like health insurance coverage decline.  As proof I point to the last ten years.

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with Wayne Martinson of the Utah Population and Environment Coalition.  His group is working on a Utah Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) that has the very real potential of better assessing our well being and quality of life than simple statistics reflecting ups and downs in economic activity within our state. 

The initial draft of the Utah GPI will probably be out sometime this spring and will be something Utah policymakers should take a serious look at when it becomes available.  The GPI certainly holds the promise of at least beginning a discussion about what values we should be using beyond just the number of dollars changing hands when determining the true state of our quality of life in Utah and the nation.  I for one look forward to reading the report the Utah Population and Environment Coalition comes out with and praise their efforts to tackle the question of what truly constitutes progress. 

Reflecting upon activism as the International Year of Biodiversity begins

Today the UN Secretary General will be in Berlin to kick of the International Year of Biodiversity.  Eight years ago in Johannesburg nations pledged to reduce the rate of extinction by 2010.  Instead, the rate has reached around 1,000 times natural levels.  As a result, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will also be marking our failure to reverse a trend which, if it continues, will sooner or later catch up to us.

Seven years ago next month I wrote an Op-ed explaining my reasons for becoming an environmental activist.  Entitled Environmental Activism as Homeland Security: The Fallout Over Utah, I wrote not only of the development of my by then ongoing love affair with Utah's natural environment, but of nuclear testing's toll on the environment and people I had come to love and of the debate over shipments of radioactive waste into what was then Envirocare's facility in the West Desert.  Re-reading my Op-ed of nearly seven years ago and reading of our failure to reduce biodiversity loss as promised eight years ago in South Africa, it is impossible to ignore how little the debate has shifted.

Today it is Energy Solutions, not Envirocare, and it is depleted uranium instead of lower level waste.  While nuclear testing has not returned, there was a push for its resumption in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty still is not law.  To this day America maintains more than 9,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch at the push of a button.

As climate change promises more severe droughts in the future throughout our region, Utah and Nevada stand poised to sign an agreement which ultimately would allow the aquifers beneath the Snake Valley to be sucked dry.  Such a huge diversion of water threatens native plants and wildlife and would very likely spread dust clouds over the Wasatch Front the likes of which we have never seen.

It all sounds like a recipe for despair.  Indeed, I readily admit to struggling to keep despair at bay myself.  But I remain an activist because I have to believe we can change the course of history.  We are not destined to foul our nest beyond habitability.  A species that has found a way to destroy all life on earth must also be capable of finding the means to save it. We can find a way to live peacefully with each other as well as with the life we share this planet with.  To deny this is to conclude our big brains fate us to destructiveness rather than compassion and this I simply cannot accept.

Which brings me to the Citizens Education Project (CEP) and why I have chosen to dedicate the next chapter of my life to this particular organization.  CEP co-founders Steve Erickson and Rob Jensen and other CEP volunteers have already demonstrated what is possible with few resources and a lot of hard work.  I can't help imagining what an organization dedicated to promoting real solutions can do with even more resources and commitment on the part of larger numbers of people.

In the days ahead, we will be asking people to join with us by making a small monthly donation to the CEP to help us achieve our goal of 1,000 donors giving an average of just $10 a month to the CEP by the end of this year.  Others who deny the crisis we face in their annual conferences enjoy both corporate backing and the ears of many policy makers.  Together, we can demonstrate the backing of people who care about the future of our communities, state, nation and world and are committed to solutions instead of denial can be even more powerful. 

Thank you.  I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead. 

Craig Axford

Utah Democratic Party issues statement on Craig Axford's departure & new position with Citizens Education Project

 

Utah State Democratic Party

Press Release

Party Deputy Director to become Executive Director for local non-profit

Craig Axford to lead Citizens Education Project

Salt Lake City, UT – After nearly four and one-half years with the Utah State Democratic Party, Deputy Director Craig Axford has taken a position as the Executive Director for the Citizens Education Project (CEP).  Axford came to the Utah Democratic Party as party of then DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s 50-state program in September of 2005. 

Over the course of Axford’s time with the State Party he has organized state conventions and caucus meetings, worked with local county parties and traveled much of the state for county conventions and other events. 

“We are sorry to see Craig go,” said Chair Wayne Holland.  “We wish Craig all the best in his new job and are confident he will do a great job.” 

CEP co-founder and board member Steve Erickson welcomed Axford as the organization’s new executive director saying, “Craig will bring new energy, a new perspective and focus, and a strong set of skills and experience to the organization and its mission.  Craig’s leadership can take CEP to a new level, marshal new resources, and engage younger people.”

The CEP has been in existence since 1997 operating as a grassroots volunteer organization.  Since its founding it has worked on water resource issues, fought the possible resumption of nuclear testing during the George W. Bush administration, and blocked prison privatization in Utah. 

“The Citizens Education Project has done phenomenal work over the years” says Craig Axford.  “I am honored to have the opportunity to work with the wonderful board and activists that have brought the CEP so far.  We look forward to building the CEP into a stronger organization that will provide a progressive policy alternative to the Sutherland Institute that is needed in Utah and the region.”

# # #