Last post took a look at the state of nuclear energy and nuclear waste in the U.S., as we enter into a new administration with a new hope for investment in clean, renewable energy. The last eight years have shown that our country is long overdue for a shift in how and where we obtain our country’s energy from, as it is simply not economically feasible for us as a nation to engage in future energy/resource driven conflict. This post will take a look at thus far the least used of the renewable energy sources, solar power.



With only .1% of our nation's energy production, (as of 2006) solar power remains an untapped part of the solution to reworking our nation's energy needs. Although current solar energy technology lags behind all other sources in terms of cost efficiency per kilowatt hour of power generated, it offers many advantages to the current leading energy sources (fossil fuels generate a whopping 85% of our energy needs with nuclear second at a distant 8% of total energy production) in the U.S..

As a starting point, solar power is an unlimited renewable resource that once it is online contributes zero greenhouse gas emissions (there are greenhouse gases produced in the production of solar cells, but this amount is 1/10 th as much as conventional fossil fuels produce, per unit of energy). The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. A typical solar or photovoltaic cell, currently lasts about 20 years before there is any decrease in production capacity. So then the inevitable question is why is only .1% of our nations energy generated by solar? Currently, the cost of building solar power plants relative to the amount of energy (or lack thereof) that they generate, the amount of land necessary to build a cost effective plant, and the energy needed to build solar cells are the three main hurdles to overcome. Due to the complexity of each of these problems, this post will focus mainly on the cost/efficiency issue.

The first problem is the cost of manufacturing, which can be solved through tax incentives that will make solar energy more appealing to energy investors. As a country that is consistently losing its manufacturing base, the U.S. must make itself more appealing for companies to build manufacturing plants, if it hopes to right itself from our current trade deficit. Our nation is simply too large to have shifted its entire economy to the service sector, and our recent financial collapse is a testament to that fact. As our manufacturing jobs decrease, outsourced to other developing nations where the labor is cheaper and there is more tax incentive to do business, our trade deficit continues to swell, and our economy continues to suffer, as the world's service demands are not rising at a pace consistent with the demand for manufactured goods. Consequently, it is the average American that suffers, as the dollar drops in value, and the government continues to try to plug holes in a sinking economy by bailing out failing financial institutions, not addressing our trade deficit and by simply borrowing or printing more money. Unfortunately this is the current state of our nation's economy, and as now President Obama has correctly identified, it is critical that we re-invest in our own country, start creating green jobs and in the high tech manufacturing sector (solar energy included), is an excellent place to start.

With recent developments in solar cell technology that allow solar cells to harness sunlight from any angle, it is possible that we could see an unprecedented boost in solar efficiency and energy output. What it will take however, is government investment in these technologies. Other countries such as Japan, Germany and even the Philippines have a head start on us as their governments have already recognized the potential in solar and other renewable energies and already many American companies have simply moved overseas to take advantage of tax breaks. In order for the U.S. to compete in the alternative energy sector, they will have to make it economically attractive for American business to stay here. Additionally, through setting new standards for the generation of renewable energy by existing companies, the legislature needs to take a leadership role in positively effecting the direction of our new "green economy".

One such example was instituted in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, when the state of California, already a leader in environmental regulation, created the Renewables Portfolio Standard which required 20% of its power to be generated by renewable sources by 2010. Subsequently Pacific Gas and Electric has responded by working on construction of the world's largest solar power plant (pictured above). This example shows that it is necessary to have an forward thinking legislature that will drive business towards a sustainable future. Although I do not agree that 20% is nearly enough to have a significant impact on our economy and foreign relations, it is at least a step in the right direction, and one that other states will hopefully follow.

When it comes to the long term financial and environmental health of a nation, renewable energy is one area where government intervention through tax breaks and credits is necessary. Anyone that still believes that we live in a free market capitalist society after the latest round of government bailouts is simply delusional. The short term financial windfalls of fossil fuels for energy companies only exist because government has yet to calculate the actual "cost" that they incur on the health of the population and our environment. It is time that the U.S. invests in itself, its industry and its future, and with the recent developments in efficiency (panels now pay back their investment in 1-3 years), solar is a good a place to start as any.

***Over the next series of posts, I will be addressing some of the important issues that set a backdrop for determining our nation's energy future.***

An energy crisis? Yes, our nation is currently in an energy crisis state, despite the lack of headlines attesting to this issue. It is a crisis state when our country feels forced to engage in forcibly occupying other countries halfway around the world in order to try an secure its energy future. It is a crisis state when the major source of our energy (oil) that supports our massive infrastructure has reached its max production capacity yet the demand continues to rise exponentially. It is a crisis state when we are seriously considering building new nuclear power plants when there is still no way to dispose of the radioactive waste that we have already generated, 25 years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a timetable for permanent underground waste repositories and billions of dollars trying to address the issue have been spent, yet there is no resolution in sight. It is this infrequently discussed issue of nuclear waste disposal that this post will attempt to give a background on.



Due to its reputation as a "clean" alternative relative to fossil fuels (extraction of uranium necessary to produce nuclear power still contributes greenhouse gas or co2 to the atmosphere, just much less than burning fossil fuels), nuclear power has recently seen a resurgence in the energy debate in the political arena as our nation continues to look for alternative sources of energy outside the Middle East. Nuclear power however, like all our current energy options, is not a silver bullet for our energy concerns, and comes with a severe list of negatives along with its advantages. The extreme cost of construction of new plants, the diminishing supply of uranium, the threat of nuclear meltdown (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) and time to plan, design and construct a new plant are all major issues with nuclear power. However, the most immediate issue is the disposal of the nuclear waste that has already been generated; how to store it, where it should go, and how to safely transport it are all major logistical issues that need to be addressed before the next administration throws their support behind new nuclear power plants.

President elect Obama has made it clear during his campaign that new nuclear power plants are on the table as an option to try and address our energy needs, and while I agree there will not be a simple solution to our energy issues, the issue of what to do with the waste we currently have needs to be addressed simultaneously as we proceed addressing our future energy concerns. Currently, although other options such as shooting nuclear waste into space and burying it beneath moving tectonic plates in the ocean floor have been explored, the only feasible solution that could be executed in the short term is the use of Yucca Mountain as a storage site. The government has been studying this site since 1978 as a possible long term storage for nuclear waste, and there have been many pitfalls along the way. First, the logistics of trying to plan for what will happen tens of thousands of years (the time expected for the radiation levels, from the spent rods to be stored there, to drop to harmless levels) in the future are daunting to say the least. There are also issues with the stability of the site since it is located on a fault line and the possibility that the eventual corrosion of the containment tanks that the waste is stored in could leak into the water table, thus contaminating the entire surrounding region. The study and partial construction of the site have already cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and there is no immediate end in sight as there is still dispute over the safety of the site. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the 10,000 year regulatory time frame was not consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short. The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years. By limiting the compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with NAS recommendations.

So, as it currently stands, Yucca Mountain still has not been approved for storage of nuclear waste 30 years after studies on the location began, and nuclear waste around the country continues to pile up in on site containment tanks that were not designed for long term storage, and are either at or near capacity. Taking the "not in my backyard" stance that is a constant when it comes to waste disposal, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada (where Yucca Mountain is located), is committed to killing the project. However, if he is successful, the question still remains, what do we do with the waste? This is an important issue, that like the energy shortage, does not have any easy answers or quick fixes, but as a corollary to the energy discussion it must be addressed before our country decides to build any future nuclear power plants.

My previous post about this incident was mainly an overview of what happened, and a brief overview of the lack of "clean coal" plants despite a massive marketing and advertising campaign. As a followup to that, news is out today that lawsuits are beginning to be filed against the Tennessee Valley Authority. You can read about the first of what should be many at Democracynow.org .

Unfortunately however, the $165 million lawsuit was filed by land developers, who are claiming that the land was devalued by the coal ash spill. While it is good that such a lawsuit is filed to hopefully influence the Tennessee Valley Authority to rethink their waste containment and treatment, there will certainly be more people affected and injured by this spill than 4 land developers. I would much prefer to see the people's homes that were affected by the disaster as well the fisherman and surrounding communities that use the now contaminated water source to take part in the lawsuit, hopefully their day in court that will come later.

So far the lack of mainstream media coverage has lead to conflicting reports on the toxicity of the water and the air quality (TVA is claiming that water and air quality is safe, while the EPA has found arsenic levels in the water to be 149 times the safe level, which is not at all surprising). However, if indeed the water quality of the Emory River (which the spill dumped into, and as a main tributary to the Tennessee River could affect fish populations and water quality for a massive amount of people), is as toxic the EPA thinks, there will be a lot more people effected than just the 4 real estate developers by this massive spill.



Regardless of who profits from a lawsuit, the bottom line remains the same. If our country is going to solve our energy problems, coal is simply not the answer. The threat of similar accidents combined with the inherent environmental damage caused by extraction and the non existence of plants that can recycle their emissions (thus making them "clean") will hopefully be enough for the new administration to say no to the further construction of coal plants.

To join in to support the United Mountain Defense (a local volunteer environmental group that is on the scene assisting with clean up) go here , and join in petition of a complete and restitutive cleanup by the TVA.