Energy exploration still yielding new discoveries
Most people probably believe that the age of exploration — at least on this planet — ended long ago. It’s tempting to assume that with today’s advanced technology, every corner of the earth has been mapped, scanned, and scoured for every available resource.
In reality, that’s not necessarily true. Several stories over the past week remind us that major new discoveries of energy resources are still occurring to this day:
- The Arctic - The U.S. Geological Survey last week released a report which estimated that there are 90 billion barrels of untapped oil in the Arctic region.
The figures from the USGS are said to be the first estimate of the energy available north of the Arctic circle.
According to the survey, the Arctic holds about 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% of the undiscovered natural gas, and 20% of the undiscovered natural gas liquids.
This is likely to further spur major Arctic nations (including Canada, Russia, the United States, and Denmark) to speed up preparations for a possible major military confrontation over control of Arctic energy reserves. BBC News reported in 2007 that several countries were already gearing up for the “coming Arctic wars.”
- Greenland - Although climate change threatens to have negative consequences in many parts of the world, the NYTimes reported yesterday that Greenland is cheering the initial stages of the thawing of its coasts for both economic and political reasons:
A Danish protectorate since 1721, Greenland has long sought to cut its ties with its colonizer. But while proponents of complete independence face little opposition at home or in Copenhagen, they haven’t been able to overcome one crucial calculation: the country depends on Danish assistance for more than 40 percent of its gross domestic product. “The independence wish has always been there,” says Aleqa Hammond, Greenland’s minister for finance and foreign affairs. “The reason we have never realized it is because of the economics.”
[...]But the real promise lies in what may be found under the ice. Near the town of Uummannaq, about halfway up Greenland’s coast, retreating glaciers have uncovered pockets of lead and zinc. Gold and diamond prospectors have flooded the island’s south. Alcoa is preparing to build a large aluminum smelter. The island’s minerals are becoming more accessible even as global commodity prices are soaring. And with more than 80 percent of the land currently iced over, the hope is that the island has just begun to reveal its riches.
Offshore, where the Arctic Ocean is rapidly thawing, expectations are even higher. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Greenland’s northeastern waters could contain 31 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and gas. On the other side of the island, the waters separating it from Canada could yield billions of barrels more. And while Greenland is still considered an oil exploration frontier, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Canada’s Husky Energy and Cairn Energy and Sweden’s PA Resources are already ramping up exploration.
In November, Greenlanders will vote on a referendum that would leverage global warming into a path to independence…
- Virginia - Yes, Virginia. The WSJ reported this weekend that the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States (and seventh-largest in the world) was just found in Pittsylvania County in south central Virginia (which is less than 200 miles from William & Mary, by the way).
The only glitch — Virginia is one of four states that ban uranium mining (Virginia’s was enacted in 1984, amid anti-nuclear fears after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, despite the fact that uranium mining is relatively harmless, and is in fact much safer than coal mining).
A subsidiary of the French nuclear giant Areva operates a fuel fabrication facility in Lynchburg 50 miles from Chatham. It has been praised by Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, as a good corporate citizen. The state is also home to four commercial nuclear reactors, which provide Virginians with 35% of their electricity. And, of course, the U.S. Navy operates nuclear ships out of Norfolk, Va.
The Coles deposit (named for the 200-acre farm that sits on top of the ore) is thought to hold over 130 million tons of uranium — about twice the annual consumption of all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors combined.
AND HERE’S NANCY PELOSI:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/hl_07291.shtml
I’m not sure if some of the people who are pushing oil development are actually capable of doing the math. I keep hearing how this deposite has enough oil to supply the needs of our country for two years and we have enough coal to last for two hundred years and all that, but just how does that compare to an energy source called the sun? I hear that is suppose to last several million years more. How does that two years of uranium consumption availability compare to millions of years?
Why not consider alternative energy sources, particularly when the cost of procurring more traditonal sources is escalating? Why hasn’t our “great” Rupublican leadership proposed enrgy conservation such as increasing milage requirements on cars? And please don’t it is because the public hasn’t wanted that. If that’s the case then we should have been out of Iraq years ago and the Conceal and Carry Law wouldn’t be in effect in Missouri. As I remember, we had an election and it lost.
I did get a chance to read the connection. I found it interesting that almost the same percentage of people who say they want off shore drilling also say they don’t want Bush and almost as many Americans say they want out of Iraq. I guess it only counts when they are supporting your position.
DC,
The proposed second reactor at Callaway would provide 1,600 megawatts of electricity per year.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/88E4E099526C9FD4862574950017B6BC?OpenDocument
The largest photovoltaic solar power plant in the U.S. is currently planned for construction in Florida — yet it would provide just 25 megawatts.
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/7-0&fp=488f37b9992af214&ei=8zaPSLi0C4GW-QHvo9jCCA&url=http%3A//www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2008/07/10/BUK911MJB5.DTL&cid=1226895714&usg=AFQjCNHtxaVb6QX0zUk2sQ87N14h-Hmpiw
Solar power is also only reliable and cost-effective in high-sunshine areas like the Southwest. Therefore heavy reliance on solar is not a viable option for most areas of the U.S.
Bottom line — there is no way that solar power alone — or even solar power and wind power combined — could ever satisfy this country’s energy needs. Those sources should be developed, yes, and should play a bigger part — the two together could theoretically provide up to 25% of our electric power, according to leading proponents of such technology.
But the other 75% or so has to come from somewhere — and for the foreseeable future, nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient way to produce the bulk of that electricity generation.
Nuclear power begets hundreds of tons of highly radioactive nuclear wastes which last 10,000 years. There are no safe places to store nuclear wastes. Yucca Flats had an eathquake about a month ago.
Nuclear plants cost billions to build, and have a life of about 40 years. So we build another plant at Callaway (please remember UE’s previous energy consumption forecasts were so wrong that UE canceled the Callaway II nuclear plant, and tried to stick consumers with the canceled plant costs), which lasts 40 years and replaces the Callaway I plant as it is decommissioned at about $4-10 billion, leaving tons of radioactive wastes on site and an apparent need to build more nukes for additional generating capacity. And so it goes!
If you combine AmerenUE’s current rate of return arguments (we need higher to be “competitive!”—hey guys, you’re a regulated monopoly ergo, no competition!!)with the additional plant costs (which AmerenUE is now trying to repeal the CWIP law passed by the voters to stick construction costs to the ratepayers while the plant is being built!), consumers (not shareholders) will get stuck now for the choices which AmerenUE management makes, even if they don’t pan out. And don’t think for a minute that AmerenUE won’t try to stick some of their previously disallowed canceled plant costs into the mix as “planning” or some other such accounting shenanigans (the PSC will approve it in a flash)!
Please let’s not forget AmerenUE (yeah, they spun them off into separate holding companies but, still have an interest in the companies)has nuke plants in Illinois (there are 11 total, I don’t know how many Ameren owns) which are nearing the end of their active lives and will need to be decommissioned at $4-10 billion apiece. I opposed Ameren’s purchase of UE because of the nuke plant decommissioninmg costs which AmerenUE will seek to spread as widely as possible (meaning to Missouri customers!).
Who’s going to pay for all of this…we are! Who’s going to be stuck with tons of radioactive wastes, we are!! Who’s going to have any recovery limited by federal law in the case of any nuclear disaster? We are!!!
So, is nuclear power safe? Anyone remember Three Mile Island? If it’s so safe, why does the industry have federally imposed caps on its liability in the event of a nuclear disaster?
So, is nuclear power clean? Anyone know where we’re going to store tons of radioactive waste which lasts 10,000 years? What about the sites of decommissioned plants?
So, is nuclear power efficient? Anyone remember Callaway II? How about the argued needs for an increased rate of return and the federally mandated caps on utility liability in case of a nuclear disaster? Do the costs of delivery of nuclear power include all the true costs of generation? Not likely, because we don’t know what it really costs to decommission any nuke plant yet. We don’t have any safe, effective way to store hundreds of tons of highly radioactive nuclear wastes.
What is needed is a true committment to alternative energy and energy conservation. Under the expired PURPA laws, utilities had to purchase power from generators other than themselves if it were made available for sale. Under the conservation mandates of the federal government, energy consumption was reduced dramatically. We used to have a low or no cost home weatherization program in Missouri which UE was required to participate in by the PSC. Other companies, such as Duke Power and Light and South Carolina Power and Light have lead the country in providing incentives to electric customers to reduce consumption with variable rates, and conservation rates and programs.
We have done nothing in Missouri to address future power needs except have the PSC, Governor Blunt and the legislature (as directed by Andy Blunt!) give the electrical and other utilities whatever they have wanted, including ratifying an illegal power plant’s construction after it was built in violation of local zoning laws (ever hear of the Missouri Constitution which outlaws “special legislation?”).
Just “going with the flow” and supporting nuclear power won’t cut it for Missouri’s future energy needs. It’s time for real leadership on issues of energy in Missouri.