Photo courtesy of Esthr

There is an additional potential benefit that may make putting arrays of solar cells in outer space worth the cost. An array of solar cells, appropriately positioned between the earth and the sun, can absorb some of the incoming solar energy reducing the earth’s temperature and possibly contributing to relief from the greenhouse effect. However, if we bring the energy down to the ground and use it there, we would help counter the greenhouse effect indirectly, since we would use less fossil and petroleum fuels and thus generate less carbon dioxide.

How can we get the solar cell arrays into outer space economically? Rockets work, but they are anything but economical. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, anti-gravity and inertial drives do not work at all and magnetic drives are too weak. Many years ago I built an inertial drive to turn rotating unbalanced weights into a pulsating unidirectional force, but it didn’t work. The equations describing the inertial drive were based on LaGrange’s equations of motion which are based on the conservation of energy. Later a physicist friend explained to me that momentum is conserved, not energy. When I read the article about Michael Laine’s speech about “Nano bridges may precede space elevator”, I initially categorized the Space Elevator to go in the same file as the inertial drive.

On a trip to Dallas last weekend to do Christmas with part of my family, I kept thinking about the space elevator. It fascinated me. Earlier I had read the news release about Liftport’s planned space elevator and how they plan to shoot a rocket into outer space while spooling out a high strength carbon filament. They intend to build the elevator by shooting up multiple rockets like the Romans shot arrows across a river to build a bridge. They plan a “tethered satellite” with a tether or cable down to the ground keeping it from escaping into outer space. The cable will provide the space elevator function. To keep the tether from breaking the satellite must be in a geo-stationary orbit where its angular velocity exactly matches that of the point on the earth directly beneath it. On the way home I jotted down my ideas about the space elevator and when we got back searched the internet to see what I could find. I was surprised by the huge amount of information available on the space elevator, so I think it worth while to summarize it and to describe one possible approach to building a space elevator and to discuss some of the problems involved in building it.

Apologies to you mathophobes, but I need an equation to explain why I am excited about this. Let’s describe the centrifugal force, fC, on a tethered satellite as:

fC = m ω2 (r + rB)

where m is the mass, ω is the constant angular velocity, r is the difference between the actual radius and rB, and rB is the distance from the center of the earth to the radius where the centrifugal force on the mass of the rocket and cable just balances the force of gravity pulling towards the earth’s center. This is analogous to the parking radius, but takes into account the mass of the cable tether, so rB will be slightly larger than the radius for a geo-stationary orbit. The net lifting capability of the tethered satellite is:

fL = m ω2 r

The angular velocity, ω, has to be constant, so we can’t do anything with it. We can use expensive rockets to send a large mass up into orbit to increase “m” in order to get a larger lifting force for the elevator. But, there is another variable available, r, the distance between the balance point and m. As the tether grows longer r increases and the lifting capability increases. Instead of spending a lot to increase m, you can get the same effect by just spooling out more cable.

Why this is important? Once you get the tether out past the balance point, the larger r, the more the lifting force. Given a cable light enough and strong enough to handle this environment extended up past the balance point; all you have to do to strengthen the cable is to crank more stronger cable up into space.2

As you extend the cable, centrifugal force will act to move the tethered mass back to the original angle. As the cable to which the tethered satellite is attached is gradually let out the cable will move back, away from the direction of rotation, but will gradually tend to speed back up stabilizing at the new maximum distance from the surface of the earth.3

Once a stronger cable is in place, you can crank up a still stronger one and so on. However, as the cable extends and the mass moves further and further outwards the centrifugal force will increase more and more. Eventually, if you keep cranking out cable, centrifugal force will create so much tension in the cable that it will break. But, with an appropriate cable design we should be able to go for a long ways while staying within safe limits for the cable tension.

Some analysts have suggested that the optimum cable design is a gradually tapered one with the largest part at the geo-stationary orbit point where the tension is maximum.4 However, it will probably be much more economical to produce a cable with the same dimensions. In fabricating semiconductors, each parameter you have to tweak costs money to control and takes time to optimize. If we are going to be able to get a stable process operating to generate long segments of high strength carbon filament cable, we need to make the process as simple as possible. Varying the dimensions will complicate the cable fabrication process which is already very difficult. So it makes sense to just make one size of cable. If this cable is light enough and has enough surplus strength to support a reasonably sized mass extended several hundred kilometers beyond the balance point, it could be used to build a space elevator.

Once we get a good functioning space elevator, the resulting space station needs to have enough reserve propulsion capability to correct it’s orbit if the cable is cut. A series of links to other cable stations would be logical. However, if all of their cables were cut, they would need a way to keep from sailing off into outer space. Probably the best thing to do would be to keep the stations near the geo-synchronous orbit and if the cable is cut, cut the upper cable to their ballast masses. That way if the tether cable is cut they will not go sailing off into outer space.

Of course this is a simplistic analysis to illustrate the concept, in real life we should include the effect of the decrease in earth’s gravity as the radius increases and other second order effects such as the moon’s gravity, the oblateness of the earth, etc. My goal for this article is to explain the concept, leaving the details for future articles.

That is what amazed me, the math says it will work! Not only will the Space Elevator work, but depending on the cost, availability, and reliability of light weight high strength cable, it makes good economic sense!

The ideal location for the base of the space elevator would be a high mountain on the earth’s equator in order to start as far as possible from the earth’s center. The higher you start, the less energy you have to spend to climb out of the earth’s gravity well and the less cable you need.

The highest point on the Equator is 4,690 m, at 77° 59′ 31″ W on the south slopes of Volcan Cayambe (summit 5,790 m) in Ecuador. This is a short distance above the snow line, and is the only point on the Equator where snow lies on the ground. 5 Other possible locations include Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka which Arthur C. Clarke used as a base for a space elevator in his 1978 novel, “The Fountains of Paradise”.6

On the other hand, Michael Laine’s company, Liftport, seems to favor a sea level launching pad according to the news release, this could solve a lot of the political problems of trying to build a the base for the space elevator within some foreign country.

According to Bradley Carl Edwards “some of these challenges would be met merely by locating the elevator’s Earth anchor in the eastern equatorial Pacific, west of the Galapagos Islands, where the weather is unusually calm and the threats from hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, jet streams, and wind are greatly reduced. This location is also about 650 km from any current air routes or sea lanes, significantly reducing the chance of an accidental collision and making the site easier to secure against terrorists. An anchor in the Pacific obviously implies a floating platform, but such structures are already commercially available, thanks to the offshore oil industry.” 7

Next, assume that we can get the needed ultra light high strength cable, what are the risks involved in the Space Elevator? As my old supervisor used to say, “It’s the questions you don’t ask, that get you”. One potential show-stopper may be Van Allen Belt and other radiation in outer space changing the molecular properties of the cable causing possible fracture. Also, the motion of the cable may cause a phenomenon called strain hardening which can leads to stress fractures. This may be exacerbated by some of the cable crawlers they are postulating which would flex the cable a lot.

Brad Edwards ribbon cable idea with a cable composed of many parallel fibers may reduce flexing by using cable climbers with roller clamps which cause minimum damage to the cable.7 A way is needed to check for developing fractures in the cable before they become catastrophic.

Other risks include: corrosion; airplanes; other satellites; space debris; meteors; mechanical resonances such as they had in the Tacoma Narrows bridge 8; Terrorists/Sabotage; if the cable or part of it is conductive the effect of electromagnetic waves from the sun or from a nearby nuclear event must be taken into account; and finally the political Implications of deploying solar cells between the earth and the sun. This could absorb some of the incoming solar energy reducing the earth’s temperature and relieving the greenhouse effect. But, will some countries be upset or sue if we deliberately change their temperature?

So to conclude, when ultra-light, ultra-strong cable fiber becomes available in large quantity, at a low enough price, we should seriously consider building a space elevator. Before building it, we need to evaluate and minimize the various risks, and to build a robust, redundant system which will not easily fail catastrophically, or have significant vulnerabilities. Given an operational space elevator with a solar array generating plenty of power, we will leave the transmission of the power back to earth for future study.

References
1)	Nano bridges may precede space elevator Michael Kanellos
	CNET News.com

http://news.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029672,39193526,00.htm

2)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Brad Edwards' proposal"

3)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Launching into outer space"

4)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"Cable Taper"
5)	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator
6)	http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/space%20elevator
	"History"

7)	http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690
	"A Hoist to the Heavens"
	By: Bradley Carl Edwards

  http://www.vibrationdata.com/Tacoma.htm  by Tom Irvine

As a result of its design, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge experienced rolling undulations which were driven by the wind. Strong winds caused the bridge to collapse on November 7, 1940. Initially, 35 mile per hour winds excited the bridge’s transverse vibration mode, with an amplitude of 1.5 feet. At that time engineers did not fully understand the forces acting upon bridges and how they would react with the natural frequency of the bridge structure.

Related Links of Interest

The Space Elevator Challenge
The Liftport Company

Making Aluminum in Western Australia

Australia is renown for having beautiful coastlines and expanses of white sandy beaches, as well as being one of the driest continents in the world. Therefore, It comes as a suprise to find situated on what could be described as a magnificent coastal stretch of Western Australian water, an Industrial region that spans 12 kilometers along the foreshore from north to south and is approximately 2 kilometers wide. This region is located 37 kilometers south of Perth, the Western Australian capital, and takes up 1,180 hectares of land, 80 % of which a small, tiny, little company called Alcoa occupies.

Small may have been a slight exaggeration on my part, after all Alcoa only has 250 operations that spread across a tiny community of 30 nations, with Western Australia being lucky enough to acquire three of these magnifiers of beauty, restorers of nature and revitalizers of natural resources.

Hey, it is a well-known fact that Australia is the lucky country!

Alcoa, also known as the Aluminum Company of America, operates in this Industrial region of Kwinana, 15 km south of Fremantle, Perth and a stone throw from the central business district. The Kwinana refinery began in 1963 and produces 1.9 million tones of aluminum annually. Coupled with the other Western Australian refineries, Australia produces 15% of the worlds Aluminum, which is a fabulous feat considering Alcoa depletes natural resources including Australia’s precious water supply, quicker than mother nature can reproduce.

This makes perfect sense when Australia is one of the driest continents on earth.

In a recent study of Perth, the CSIRO or Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization reported:

a 10% decrease in average rainfall and an estimated higher median temperature for the region. They predict this figure will impact upon the ground water of Perth reducing its holding by up to 50%, and they predict that in the future it will become even hotter.

Alcoa plays a significant part in this process because not only do they use natural resources, they also contaminate them, the land surrounding them, the air we breathe, and our glorious ozone layer. It’s like a bad Christmas present that you can’t return, or sell on eBay.

Without taking into consideration the size of the Alcoa plant in Kwinana — because of its insignificance causing an environmental impact — and the lack of incredibly loud noise associated with production, it is hard to ignore the captivating stream of carbon monoxide emissions, sulphur dioxide (So2), Benzene and volatile organic compounds (VOC) cascading into the air.

What a truly magnificent sight! Plumes of smoke 30-100 meters high. It brings a tear to my eye, and coughing to my lungs. Also, my nose is running.

These plumes then settle and hang around for up to 24 hours, which adds to the entertainment factor because you can now choose, if you wish, to run and frolic in them instead of just viewing their destruction from afar.

Sulphur dioxide only attacks the throat and lungs of the creatures residing nearby, making breathing difficult, and attacks plant vegetation, eventually destroying it. Volatile organic compounds erode our ozone layer and allow harmful UV rays to penetrate the atmosphere. Of course, Alcoa, state:

they are committed to using fewer resources, reducing toxic waste and pollution and becoming more environmentally friendly. They also swear they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, and that they have introduced cleaner production programs.

In making these promises, Alcoa also applied for a new license.

The truly wonderful thing is, Alcoa is expanding. In 2003, they built new bauxite residue and storage ponds that are clay-lined, which of course prevents residue from permeating the earth.

This by-product of aluminum manufacturing takes years to dissipate and these ponds like the Alcoa operation are only small; they cover a tiny area of 44 hectares.

With Kwinana dubbed the Cancer Capital of Western Australia and many bizarre types of Cancer killing off the workers of Alcoa, it makes perfect sense that the Western Australian government is allowing brand new residential areas to be constructed in close proximity.

The real estate offices have been inundated with calls and they have almost sold out of potentially ‘fabulous’ blocks with a view. You can see that magnificent plume and there may even be a possibility you can play in it.

Of course, research has been conducted to ensure the environment is safe to build on. These tests were carried out by Alcoa themselves, because the Department of Minerals and Energy thought that the Department of Environmental Protection was doing it, and they in turn thought the Department of Health were responsible, so therefore they were unable to decide who should carry out the relevant studies. In addition, they thought Alcoa had done such a fantastic job, they would borrow their study instead.

Talk about shifting the responsibility. Maybe they thought Alcoa resembled a hot potato.

Who could honesty expect anything more from a governing body who find it challenging to issue a license to destroy mother nature and rape the earth. And, we worry about gun licenses!

Alcoa now has a brand-new license to kill, and no, the company is not related to James Bond. They will, however, continue to pollute the air we breathe with toxic emissions, destroy vegetation, create acid rain, drain our natural resources and contaminate the earth.

Our future is so bright I definitely will have to wear shades, and protective clothing and sunscreen and an oxygen mask and…

The sun-blasted wilderness of the US Southwestern deserts may hold the key to our energy future. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has found a way to turn all of that sunlight and heat into electricity. According to them, their system is twice as efficient as the best photovoltaic cells available.

Stirling Energy Systems builds a system that focuses the heat of the sun onto a proprietary engine that uses a closed hydrogen system to produce electricity.

Where traditional photovoltaic solar generation uses only 15% of the sun’s energy at best, the Stirling system converts 30% of that energy into electricity. The system is composed of a 37-foot diameter dish of mirrors that focus the sun’s light onto a Stirling engine.

The engine contains hydrogen which when heated expands, moving pistons, which turns a flywheel that is used to generate electricity. The hydrogen is not depleted in the process and so never needs to be replenished. The dish turns throughout the day to follow the sun. At night and on cloudy days, you need batteries.

Sandia National Labs Solar Thermal Designated User Facilities

These systems, due to their size and cost, are intended for industrial use only. Don’t expect to put one in your backyard unless you have a spare 58 square feet.

from their website:

Stirling Energy Systems holds two key patents on the solar concentrator system that were initially filed by McDonnell Douglas (by virtue of a merger, now The Boeing Company) to manufacture this solar concentrator system, as well as six of the original solar concentrator systems that were fabricated in the 1980s. SES also acquired all of the intellectual properties, including significant trade secrets regarding technical and manufacturing aspects of the solar concentrator system. SES was granted an licensing agreement with Kockums, a major Swedish defense company, to manufacture, market, and sell the Kockums 4-95 Stirling engines.

Right now a dish costs less than half a million dollars. As production ramps up, one of these units will be in the $150,000 range. A single Stirling set-up can power eight to ten American homes.

Stirling systems also have a minimal impact on the environment. They require antifreeze, lubricant, and someone with a squeegee and plenty of windex to go out there and clean off the mirrors. Actually, they use water, not windex. They might not use a squeegee.

The overall effect on the area around the dish is about the same as planting a tree. A shiny, noisy metal tree. A Stirling engine emits 66 dB of sound – just under the 70 dB at which hearing damage may start. But no smoke!

This method of generating electricity is called “solar thermal” or “concentrating solar” power. A solar thermal farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of the America’s electricity needs.

BusinessWeek erroneously states that 100 square miles of dishes would satisfy US energy needs. They are not so good at math – it actually comes out to 10,000 square miles.

Is it cost effective? Hard to say. Stirling Energy Systems will not reveal the cost of generation. They do say that the dishes now cost about a quarter million each to produce. Southern California Edison (SCE) has entered a deal with Stirling to buy electricity at “well below the 11.33 cents per kWh” they are now paying for fossil-fuel generated electricity.

However, a 2003 study showed that the average cost of electricity from a Stirling dish would be 15. 37 cents per kWh. They are offsetting this cost by selling dishes.

Stirling has 20-year contracts with Southern California Edison for 500 megawatts and San Diego Gas & Electric for 300-900 megawatts.

Large view of the solar engines from above
High resolution images of the maps

sources

• BusinessWeek, September 12, 2005
• Stirling Energy
• California energy cost study (pdf)
• US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• Sandia National Labs Solar Thermal Test Facility

What’s the first thing you think of when you sit down to a delicious, seafood dinner? If you enjoy eating seafood even half as much as I do, you are probably already salivating at the very thought of it. You probably are not looking at this masterfully cooked cuisine and wondering whether the catfish was farmed or wild or whether the grilled Salmon once swam in one of the Great Lakes or the great Pacific Ocean. Of course not. There is, however, one question that we all may be forgetting to ask… just how much mercury has accumulated in my broiled mahi mahi?

This question should be of particular concern to Hoosiers as Indiana’s coal-burning power plants emit the fourth-largest volume of mercury in the country. Indiana is one of the most coal-dependent states in the United States and actually generates approximately 95 percent of the state’s electricity from fossil fuel at its 21 plants. As a result, Indiana’s dirty power plants have helped the state receive very high marks among our nation’s top polluters. In fact, Indiana is ranked among the top-five polluting states in the country.

But just what is mercury and how does burning coal result in the emission of mercury into our environment?

Mercury is a naturally-occurring metal found in water, air, soil, and is actually an element of the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Mercury can exist in many forms; however, pure mercury is actually a liquid metal that is also known as quicksilver. Traditionally, mercury has been utilized in the production of, to name a few, thermometers, some types of light bulbs, and switches; although, most people are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish.

As an element of the planet’s crust, mercury can be found in many types of rocks. One very useful mercury-containing rock just happens to be coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the air. Once in the air, mercury will eventually settle in water or on land where it is swept, along with other pollutants, into the water as storm water runoff. After mercury enters a pond, river, or lake, various microorganisms that live in the water begin to transform the element into the very toxic methylmercury.

This is where the real problems start as methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance that collects in the bodies of certain shellfish, fish, and many fish-eating animals, including us humans. And, because fish and shellfish are the leading cause of human methylmercury exposure, it is important for us to remember that some types of fish and shellfish are more susceptible to methylmercury and will build up higher levels of the toxin than others.

For this reason, we need to pay particular attention to the types of fish we are eating. This can be a confusing subject though as the amount of methylmercury found in fish and shellfish will depend on several factors: What did my large mouth bass typically dine on, how old was he, and just how high on the food chain did he rank. It can be assumed that the bigger the fish, the higher on the food chain (the more little fish he gobbled), the higher the risk of eating a mercury-laced dinner.

Not very appetizing, huh?

So, what does this mean for those of us in Indiana?

For one thing, data collected by the United States Geological Survey at four Indiana monitoring stations has determined that the quantity of mercury falling from the Hoosier state’s sky is roughly 25 percent higher than the national average. When you consider the size of Indiana compared to the nation as a whole, 25 percent is considerable. Further, even though the southwestern part of Indiana has one of the greatest concentrations of coal-fueled power plants in the United States, it is interesting to mention that currently there are no monitors in that part of the state.

As an attempt to curb methylmercury poisoning and contamination, Indiana’s coal-burning power plants must now, for the first time, slash mercury emissions as a result of a recent federal ruling. This new regulation, signed into effect in March 2005, is intended to radically reduce the release of toxic mercury by 70 percent nationwide over the next 15 years.

The majority of the pollution reduction will be a result of tighter controls on smog and soot-type contaminates. Having a reduction in these types of pollutants as a result of new pollution controls will present Indiana utilities with a price tag in the billions. Indiana will also have to fork over the necessary funds to cut the toxic mercury levels back to the new stricter standards by the year 2018.

Similar to the smog and soot regulations, the EPA’s new mercury strategy sets a national limit on emissions. What this really means is that all utilities that successfully reduce mercury pollution will be permitted to sell pollution “credits” to those companies who do not meet the standards. This “bartering” can take place as long as the nationwide cap is not surpassed.

Currently, 48 tons of mercury are discharged into the environment each year. By the year 2010, this figure will reportedly be restricted to 38 tons. By the year 2018, the limit should be 15 tons; however, it could very likely take several more years to fully realize this level because the utilities that significantly reduce their emissions during the early years will actually have more time to comply with this important environmental ruling.

What all of this indicates is that the amount of overall mercury emissions will decrease over time; however, some of the “dirtier” power plants will be allowed to purchase the right to continue releasing the elevated levels of mercury. The obvious, possible result would be mercury “hot spots.” These hot spots would be the waterways around the power plants that still emit the higher levels of mercury. These elevated levels of mercury would eventually work its way up the food chain, of course, concentrating its efforts in fish.

Do you feel that these emissions and pollution regulations are really enough? Some medical doctors and environmentalists are saying that even these pollution reductions are not extensive enough, nor immediate enough, for Indiana. Some who work in the power plant and utilities industries are saying that these new regulations are a clean-air landmark; however, quite a few environmentalists are not satisfied and believe these new regulations to be too lax to ensure the health of Hoosiers.

In fact, many are coming to the worrisome conclusion that the mercury problem in Indiana is actually putting Hoosier kids in danger. According to the Hoosier Environmental Council, for many Indiana kids, predominately from lower-income and/or minority families, state-caught fish is actually one of their biggest sources of protein.

To illustrate this danger, take a look at a couple of startling statistics:

In Indiana alone, there are roughly 1,127,326 kids living just about 30 miles away from a coal-burning power plant. 30 miles is the estimated area in which the most damaging and severe health impacts are realized. Using the same geographical closeness, research has found that infants exposed to consistently elevated levels of particulate matter pollution are at a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as well as a 40 percent increased threat of death as a result of severe respiratory illness.

Currently, throughout the state of Indiana, all women and children are cautioned to monitor the amount of fish and shellfish we eat from any of the many state waterways due to the dangerous threat of methylmercury. It has been proven that, due to its neurotoxic effects, abnormally-high amounts of methylmercury in the bloodstreams of fetuses and young children harm the youngsters’ developing nervous system which in turn causes the child to be less likely to think and learn at normally-expected levels. More specifically, the effects of mercury exposure are much like the results of lead poisoning in children – delayed mental development, significant cognitive and language deficits, and difficulties developing normal motor function, attention, and memory.

If all of you Hoosier men are breathing a sigh of relief, think again. Exposure to elevated levels of mercury proves harmful to the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of everyone, not just women and young children. Therefore, all Hoosiers need to watch their fish and shellfish intake. And, remember, Indiana has standard warnings advising every Hoosier to limit their consumption of and completely avoid eating many different types of fish taken from any of its 35,673 miles of rivers and caught in any of its 47,806 acres of lakes – this, in a large part, is because of mercury contamination.

Research suggests, however, that for the majority of us, fish consumption, when limited or minimal, will not present a significant health concern. However, we all might want to remember the old saying: “You are what you eat.” Conversely, there are still areas of specific concern even when fish consumption is limited. For example, 2003 research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control determined that approximately 10 percent of American women already have elevated mercury levels – levels high enough to put an unborn fetus at a potential risk for neurological damage and delays.

So, considering the fact that coal-burning power plants are responsible for the largest human-caused mercury air emissions in the United States combined with the real and present danger that methylmercury can pose to all of us; it is definitely an environmental issue that warrants much serious attention – Not just for those of us in Indiana, but across the nation.

In the case of Indiana, three of its coal-burning power plants made the Environmental Integrity Project’s “America’s Most Dirtiest Power Plants” top 50 for 2002. The EIP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that strives for more effective enforcement of current environmental regulations, report that three of Indiana’s power plants were among the top 50 dirties mercury polluters – Rockport’s AEP – ranked 18th, Gibson’s Cinergy – ranked 34th, and Petersburg’s AES – ranked 46th – out of a total of 491 total plants evaluated.

When I take a look at the list of fish that you and I should not consume more than once a month (canned tuna, mahi mahi, blue mussel, eastern oyster, cod, Pollock, Great lakes salmon, channel catfish (wild), and Lake whitefish) along with the pregnant and nursing woman’s inventory of black-listed fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel), I feel a little sad. A “natural resource” such as our waterways and the fish who reside there should not have “warning labels.” I can see warning labels on cigarette packs, beer and liquor bottles, chewing tobacco, household chemicals, etc. But, something is definitely a little strange when we have to consider putting warning labels on the fish that we eat.

Industry officials argue that, at this time in history, the commercially-available technology to reduce mercury pollution by at least 90 percent does not yet exist. Some environmentalists are saying that the technology is out there and just has to be utilized properly. Both could be partially right; however, I would think that if we can send astronauts into space to walk on the moon, we should be able to strategically and successfully be capable of tackling methylmercury emissions.

A power generation plant near Washington DC has voluntarily ceased production to protect the health of people living nearby. Seriously. Really!

It sounds like a fairy tale but it’s the official story being given by Mirant Corporation, owner of the power plant. What lies below the surface, however, is another matter entirely. Years of bitter fighting between the residents of a densely populated urban area and the owners of a coal-burning power plant in their midst have left both sides alienated, angry, and advocating permanent solutions.

Mirant’s Potomac River Generation Station (PRGS) was built in a lower density neighborhood near Washington, D.C. circa 1949. But sprawl happens, and now there are high-rise condos neighboring the plant.

Computer Models and Reality

On August 19, 2005 the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) received the results of a computer simulation study on emissions from Mirant’s plant in Alexandria, VA. The results showed that if the plant operated all five of its generators at full tilt and certain wind conditions were present, the emissions of three substances (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particles) would exceed acceptable limits in the area immediately surrounding the plant. Virginia DEQ gave Mirant less than a week to propose a solution.

The study was jointly commissioned by Mirant and DEQ. While the worst-case scenario results show that Mirant could generate excess pollution, Steven Arabia of Mirant has pointed out that actual emissions from the plant are within Federal guidelines. There are pollution monitors around the plant and on the neighboring condos.

Mirant and DEQ failed to come to an agreement in a teleconference on Wednesday, August 24. At midnight Mirant shut down power generation at the plant, stating that they would re-start when a solution was agreed to. DEQ claims that they never requested nor suggested that Mirant should cease generation there.

Mirant representatives have held fast to the line that they are doing this out of concern for the health of people living in the area. But if one looks at Mirant’s record, this just doesn’t ring true. And the question must be asked: What could Mirant hope to gain by temporarily halting generation?

The plant, which is still in the same place, is now located in a densely populated urban area, and is woven into the complex network that supplies electricity to the Nation’s Capitol. While there is enough excess production in the network to cover the loss of Mirant’s 482 megawatts, it leaves the Capitol without a safety net. If there is a heat wave (above 96° F) or other disaster, the grid could falter.

When dealing with the complex machine that is the electrical power grid, a falter can quickly turn into a chain-reaction failure given the complex power needs of the region.

Because of the risk this presents to the nation, the D.C. Public Service Commission has already petitioned the U.S. Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to force the plant back into service.

Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), the company that buys electricity from Mirant and sells it to customers in the D.C. area, has contingency plans in place and assures that customer service will not be interrupted. So long as there are no extreme weather events, like a 98 °F heat wave in late August, for example. They have been instructed to create contingency plans for their contingency plans.

Clean Air or Electricity?

Obviously, we need both. But half of Maryland’s electricity is generated in coal-burning plants. In the D.C. area, 180,000 residents go to the hospital each year with respiritory ailments that have been directly linked to air pollution from coal fired power plants.

The air pollution puts infants and the elderly at even greater risk. In 2005 an estimated 687 Maryland residents are expected to succumb to their last gathering involving slow singing and flower bringing because of particulate pollution created in coal-burning power plants. Mirant has finally heard the alarm ringing.

Residents and politicians in the area of the Potomac plant have been concerned about emissions for years. When the Alexandria plant was built in 1949, the height of its stacks was limited to 165 feet by the FAA to ensure the safety of planes approaching and leaving what was then Washington National Airport.

Marina Towers condominiums (501 Slaters Lane) was then built near the plant’s stacks by developers eager to take advantage of the real estate boom. But the proximity and height of the Marina Towers structure produces a downwash effect that causes harmful pollutants to settle in the area rather than drift away. The residents of Marina Towers and others have been working to either cut emissions from the plant or close it down. Locals complain of respiratory problems that are most likely brought about by emissions from the Potomac plant.

It’s worth mentioning that the plant is no secret, so it’s not like the residents who bought condos somehow didn’t know it was there. It’s a huge industrial power plant, and the smokestacks, even at their dangerously low height, are visible for miles. The condominium complex at issue is very close to the power plant.

Lots of people live near coal-fired power plants that continue to operate, causing disastrous health consequences for persons nearby and downwind. Usually these persons don’t live in highrise condominiums. Those living nearby power plants may lack the sophistication to order a computer model but they are at risk just the same.

The air traffic approach to the airport has since been re-routed over the Potomac River, so the stacks can be extended. According to the computer model, they should be at least 100 feet taller to alleviate the downwash effect. The taller the better is what you would be asking for, if you are breathing nearby.

Environmentalists are calling on the federal government and energy industry to fill the gap created by the halt in generation with renewable and green energy sources, such as solar and wind. But such generation fields are not brought about overnight. For some inexplicable reason, it still takes years of planning and construction to create a solar or wind farm. So the lack of a planning fast track and an efficient design methodology for renewable power generation could be an issue. But this is arguably a management issue.

Mirant has taken the first step by placing the five generators at the plant into standby mode. But does the current executive leadership of the company have the courage to lead the power generation industry into sustainable, health-friendly production of electricity?

While their spokespeople express a great concern for people’s health, Mirant’s action in shutting down production at PRGS says “Which do you want? Clean air or enough electrical power to keep the Nation’s Capitol stable..? Well?”

Mirant as a Neighbor

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) has held protests at other Mirant plants around DC and spent years pressuring both Mirant and PEPCO to provide cleaner energy. They’ve had some pleasant successes, including PEPCO now offering wind-generated electricity to its customers.

Mirant was negotiating with Federal agencies to reduce emissions during the Clinton administration. Once President Bush started easing environmental restrictions on coal-burning plants, Mirant simply walked away from that table. If they are not required by law to reduce emissions they will not do so voluntarily. Going a step further, Mirant has regularly lobbied against environmental laws that could affect the energy industry at both the State and Federal levels.

And then there is the tax problem. Rockland County had expected Mirant to pay their full tax bill. But Mirant has taken the County to court with a demand for lower taxes, stating that they are unable to pay the full amount. This is causing school taxes in Rockland to go up between 7% and 40% which comes out to as much as $250 per month in additional taxes for residents of Tomkins Cove. Mirant has been also delinquent on taxes in Charles, Montgomery, and Prince Georges counties according to CCAN.

A Little History

Mirant has had a tough life since it was spun off from Southern Company in 2001. Southern Co. stripped the company of $2 billion in assets and left it with a $60 million liability tied to the Enron scandal. In July 2003, Mirant management filed for bankruptcy.

In the wide and wild wake of Enron, they could not convince competent creditors to extend them any more credit and could not meet a $1.1 billion loan payment. Thus, the tenth largest bankruptcy in the U.S.

Its expenses have far outpaced expectations. Final costs for the bankruptcy may reach as high as $700,000,000 — seven hundred million dollars — most of which is paid to lawyers and consultants.

Mirant may be able to emerge from the bankruptcy by September 5. They have secured $2.35 billion in credit to pay off their loans and become solvent. Yet they shut down the five generating stations at the plant because of some criticism and a computer model.

Could this be a turning point in the operation of the company toward one that takes responsibility for the health problems that older coal-fired plants are known to produce in urban areas?

Mirant purchased the Potomac plant from PEPCO. Part of their agreement has Mirant selling discounted energy back to PEPCO. Mirant will not increase production at its other three facilities in the area—they say that these are already near capacity. So perhaps this helps get them out of the discount power business.

There’s no question that the Potomac plant create hazardous pollutants in excess of the allowed amounts. In the ozone season of 2003 it exceeded its Nitrogen Dioxide (Nox) permit by 1,117 tons, and was fined $500,000. Since then it has appeared to stay within limits for all pollutants.

Politicians Jump In

Maryland’s Governor is retiring, and the office is up for grabs. County Executive Douglas M. Duncan has thrown himself into this issue with gusto. After the Alexandria plant powered down, he asked the Maryland Governor to do additional testing at Mirant’s three generation facilities on the Maryland side of the Potomac. On the Dickerson coal-burning plant the smokestack is 700 feet high, as opposed to the 165-foot stack in Alexandria, so that one probably won’t cause the same problems nearby—instead those problems will be widely dispersed over the Chesapeake Bay and the Eastern Shore. The jury is still out on the other two. Presumably we will hear back on this issue from Mr. Duncan.

Mirant wholesales electricity in the U.S., Philippines, and Caribbean. The Alexandria plant supplies electricity to between 500,000 and 700,000 customers in Washington, D.C. and surrounding areas. Their common stock can be traded under the symbol [MIRKQ] on the “pink sheets,” and shares in this company may actually end up having no value at all. Mirant’s stock (MIRKQ:PK) closed at $0.80 on Friday, August 26, 2005.

A Judicial Decision

Right now, it all rests on an upcoming decision to be made by the Honorable D. Michael Lynn, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. Several of those following this case closely have suggested the actions of Mirant management and creditors establish a new precedent for corporate manipulation.

Pre-bankruptcy shareholders and disciples of The Mirant Mindset are hoping Judge Lynn remains mindful of these actions when making his judgment. While the interested parties are sweating it out, the neighbors of the Alexandria plant will at least be breathing a little easier this Labor Day weekend.

References and Sources for this story

If you’re like me you have no idea. Ever since some of us have been alive, the good stuff comes out of that wall socket all of the time. The juice flows. Just pay that bill.

Odds are nuclear fission is not a major source of the energy that you consume in an average day, yet that doesn’t make the discussion of its possible impact on your quality of life any less important. Truthfully, it is not only the quality of your life that is in question; it is the very future of such life.

What you are looking at is the LaSalle Nuclear Reactor located in Seneca, Illinois- from an effective altitude of 81 miles above sea level.

Looks harmless enough, like some sort of abstract art. hanging on a clean wall in an aluminum clad museum, or one of Larry Ellison’s houses.

LaSalle is the 34th largest nuclear reactor in the country. One of 13 reactors in Illinois. By some estimates if Illinois were a separate country it would rank seventh or eighth in the world in nuclear capacity.

On top of creating approximately 20% of the state’s nuclear energy The LaSalle plant has become known as a crucial safety concern. In the neighborhood of nuclear reactors, this is akin to being the bad house on the block.

In 1996, LaSalle was ranked #12 on the Public Citizen’s list of the “25 Worst Nuclear Reactors in the Nation.” LaSalle’s dismal safety ranking was not without its warnings. In November of 1992, the governor of Illinois was notified that all of the state’s nuclear reactors, LaSalle included, were using a fire-retardant barrier that has been proven not to work. Despite such formal notification the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has still not required replacing these necessary fire barriers.

Imagine what else they’re not fixing.

Some good friends of mine are renovating an old house. There are surprises involved, some good and some not so good.

When you are renovating an old nuclear facility, the surprises are all bad.

The NRC placed LaSalle on its “adversely trending” list. The list is meant to identify plants with deteriorating conditions. LaSalle is also identified as having high worker radiation exposure. Additionally, Commonwealth Edison, which licenses the LaSalle plant, has been fined numerous times for safety violations and worker horseplay.

These problems are not unique to LaSalle. Nuclear reactors are proving to be much more dangerous than its industry would like for you to believe. In 1985 Congress heard testimony from the NRC itself that the “probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45%.” I don’t know about you, but that sounds like quite a gamble. Furthermore the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has examined the way that the NRC conducts its risk assessments and has found their methods “seriously flawed.”

In effect, the NRC has been calculating risk on the assumption that everything will run perfectly as it should. There will be no human error, safety violations, equipment malfunctions, or engineering miscalculations. Of course if everything always ran perfectly there would be no use for risk calculations at all as there would be no risk.

Accurate calculations would place the risk of a US nuclear accident at a significantly higher level.

In addition to being extremely unsafe and unstable nuclear power in current commercial form is uneconomical. Nuclear power has cost the US over $492 billion. Since 1950 nuclear power has received over $97 billion in subsidies from the federal government. These subsidies include deferred taxes and lower limits on liability.

You would think that nuclear power must somehow be cheaper to the consumer in order to justify this level of federal spending. It isn’t. Commonwealth Edison’s customers pay the highest electric bills in the region.

If you’re like me, you might have thought that nuclear power is a necessity. You may even assume that United States of America, the largest consumer of power in the world, depends on nuclear power to supply a bulk of its energy.

No. Nuclear power supplies approximately 20% of US electricity supply. However, numerous studies have placed the level of wasted electricity due to inefficiency somewhere between 25-44% of all total electricity. If investment is made to increase efficiency, the US could conserve the equivalent output of 145-210 nuclear reactors. That is more than double the amount of reactors that are currently in use.

Unfortunately, there is another problem with nuclear reactors, if of course you need the possibility of just one more disaster to turn you off of nuclear power. The problem, which has been highly publicized as of recent, is the threat of terrorist activities aimed at nuclear plants.

Nearly four years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th there are still no regulations that address the threat a commercial airliner may pose to the public if it came into contact with a nuclear reactor. Worse than “crossing the streams.”

In fact the government has failed to adequately address any type of large scaled terrorist attack to its numerable nuclear reactors. The NRC maintains that such attacks are “improbable,” or very unlikely at the least, which of course they are. Most Americans believed the same before September 11th.

The first commerical nuclear plants were built like the engines of huge nuclear submarines. Maybe they had the right idea, and a vehicle is the best way to make nuclear power. When the plant gets too old, scuttle it over the Marinas trench. Didn’t the film Godzilla start like that?

Nuclear plants are enormous weapons capable of being used by people desiring to economically bankrupt the U.S., cause irreparable environmental damage, and kill massive amounts of people. After previously publishing important design elements to nuclear plants the government is now reconsidering the brilliance of such moves and increasing security in order to limit access to nuclear reactors. But they are easy to spot.

Security measures often include extra guards, obtrusive shrubbery, and more demanding background checks of nuclear plant employees. However, these tactics are nothing more than what the average tall office building has been doing since 2001.

In an opinion paper dated October of 2001, referring to the safety of nuclear plants, Ralph Nader states that “If these facilities can’t be made secure, the federal government has no choice but to shut down the plants. The risk is too great to do otherwise.” Nader may not be famous for moderate opinions, but no one can deny that he speaks with public safety in mind.

Is the risk to great? What do you think should be done?

Sources:
Nuclear Energy Information Service
Union of Concerned Scientists
Energy Information Administration-Illinois State
Nuclear Tourist
washingtonpost.com. Vedantam, Shankar. “Nuclear Plants are Still Vulnerable, Panal Says”
Public Interest-Critical Mass Energy Project
The Nader Page

According to an article by Matthew L. Wald published in the New York Times and excerpted below, Florida Power & Light shipped radioactive waste to regular landfills, municipal sewage treatment plants, and “some unknown locations.” According to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the company has concealed these shipments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As a game, ask yourself if you would have concealed this information.

If you knew it. If your job might depend on it.

You would of course know that it would take a few decades before it would have any effect on anyone. That it would never be traced back to you.

How would you live with the knowledge?

…a week after the cleanup was completed at a dump site, the company found contamination at a level 20 times what was proposed by the state, and thousands of times higher than what the Environmental Protection Agency allowed for agricultural land; the surrounding area is used for cattle and citrus. emphasis added

[Plaintiff's attorney] Nancy La Vista said she planned to argue that tests of the boys’ baby teeth showed abnormally high levels of radioactive strontium, which is produced when atoms are split and that when ingested binds to human bones. Older people have strontium in their bones that was created from atmospheric nuclear testing. But, Ms. La Vista said, “These kids were all born after Chernobyl, after Three Mile Island, and after atmospheric testing.”