Eco-Cities and Eco-villages

When people think of “green”, they think of forests and grasslands with few people. But for a given number of people, it is more green to all live in one small space rather than spread out. High population density leads to many efficiencies: resources and wastes only have to be transported to one location rather than many; distances to work, school, and stores are shorter; electrical power is transmitted shorter distances, meaning less line loss and greater efficiency. Water and sewage pipes, cable, phone, and power lines all become shorter per capita as housing density increases, making basic services more affordable and less resource-intensive. High-density housing in mixed-use developments also makes sustainable living easier because public transportation becomes feasible, and people can walk and bike to work and school. In fact, residents of Manhattan use less energy and fewer resources than anywhere else in America ([1], pp. 228-9). And if people take up less space by living in cities, that leaves more space for ecosystem services and preservation of biodiversity. Finally, because more than half of the world's population now lives in cities, it makes sense to focus on making cities more sustainable.

Some cities in North America have been at the forefront of planning for sustainability. One of the greenest cities in the world is Vancouver, British Columbia. I was there in summer of 2008 and was truly impressed by the beauty of the natural setting but also by the forward-thinking policies of the government and developers. The majority of Vancouver’s residents live downtown in high-rises and compact communities [1], p. 231). The city is designed for pedestrians and bicycles, and many residents have given up their cars. I rode all over the city in buses and found it remarkable easy and enjoyable. By avoiding urban sprawl, Vancouver has become one of the world’s most livable cities. Preparations for the 2010 Olympic Games that it is hosting are making Vancouver even more impressive.

Not everyone can live in the city. How can we make smaller communities sustainable? Enter the concept of the eco-village. Just by coincidence I live very close to one of the most widely publicized eco-communities in the world, The Farm, located in Summertown, TN (http://www.thefarm.org/). It includes the Farm Ecovillage Training Center, which offers regular courses on sustainable living. The Farm was founded in 1971 when a group of hippies left San Francisco looking for the right place to start their experiment in communal living. The right place was the area with the cheapest land, and that's why they ended up in middle Tennessee.

I went there for a tour one day, during which they briefly described the history of the farm. It started as a socialist society, but eventually the practice became unsustainable because there were too many freeloaders. So in the mid-1980's they abandoned socialism, causing a large segment of the residents to leave. They now have a cooperative system in which they work together to develop shared resources and pay dues. It now seems to operate as a sustainable capitalist community, with many of the residents operating businesses that manufacture radiation detectors, publish books, sell mushroom growing kits, produce video, and offer midwife services and classes. The residents regularly offer classes on mushroom farming, yoga, organic gardening, and other topics. But touring the Farm was somewhat disappointing to me. The residents are good at self-promotion on the web, but the Farm itself is a small collection of run-down buildings and unused fields. As a farm it is a dismal failure, with most of the land left to pasture but no animals (they are all vegetarians) and only one commercial crop, soybeans, which they make into soy milk and ice cream (which is quite delicious). I think the reason is that though they were idealistic, the hippies were ignorant about farming practices, and also many/most of them do not like manual labor. I wanted a demonstration of how they managed to live sustainably, but I never got a glimpse, making me suspect that their community isn't truly sustainable. Even the mushroom growing demonstration was simply a slideshow accompanied by partially coherent, rambling pronouncements on politics by someone who seemed to have partaken of too many mushrooms in his lifetime (I fell asleep). We never even saw where they grow the mushrooms! I could view a slideshow on my computer without driving 40 miles. But to their credit, the residents of The Farm live more simply and have much smaller ecological footprints than most Americans. They understand that you don’t have to have a lot of money and “stuff” to be happy.

Perhaps a more successful eco-village is Gaviotas, located in the llanos (grasslands) of Colombia and well-described by Alan Weisman in his book “Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World” [2]. Like The Farm, it was founded in 1971, but it seems they made greater progress because the founder, Paolo Lugari, had the foresight to bring a team of scientists and engineers to tackle the problems of sustainable living. This team came up with many novel solutions, including a special water pump that could extract groundwater from greater depths and with less effort than with traditional pumps. This pump was connected to a see-saw to put the energy of children’s play to good use. They also developed solar water heaters, the sale of which became a major source of income. Finally, the planting of 1.5 million trees returned part of the llanos back to its preexisting state of tropical jungle by trapping the moisture in a microclimate [2]. The villagers of Gaviotas tap the trees and sell the resin. The genius of the residents of Gaviotas enabled them to succeed in a harsh climate in a country bordering on anarchy.

So when choosing a place to live, you should seriously consider the city. Your ecological footprint will be smaller if you live there.  And when gas prices and transportation costs skyrocket, you’ll be glad that you moved there.

1. Steffen, A., ed. World Changing: A User's Guide for the 21st Century. 2006, Abrams: New York, NY. 596.

2. Weisman, A., Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World. 1999: Chelsea Green Publishing Company 1-890132-28-4.

Our Relationship with Nature

*Please note: I haven’t been posting recently because there have been so few comments that I was not convinced anyone was reading my entries. If you read this entry, please post a comment (click the “Comment” link at the end). You don’t even have to write anything; I just want to use the number of comments to estimate how many people are reading. If no one is reading these, then I’m not going to bother posting any more. Thanks, John

Till now man has been up against Nature; from now on he will be up against his own nature.  ~Dennis Gabor, Inventing the Future, 1964

There is a basic antagonism between the philosophy of the industrial age and the philosophy of the conservationist. – Aldo Leopold

Environmental problems develop when there is an unhealthy relationship between humans and the environment. The ways people approach, treat, and think of nature depend on their self-image. According to Wilson [1] there are two competing types of human self-image, exemptionalist and naturalist. Exemptionalists believe that humans exist apart from environment and hold dominion over it. In western civilization, most believe that God made the environment for our benefit, and that we have the freedom to use it as we see fit. Using technology, we can improve our current environment or adapt to any new environments. In contrast, naturalists believe that humans have perfectly adapted to our environment through millions of years of evolution, but that we are now rapidly destroying that environment. However, we can only be happy when we live in our original, natural environment because it is prescribed in our genes. The basic principle of organic evolution called habitat selection states that species prefer and gravitate to the environment in which their genes were assembled. Thus, we are completely dependent on our environment, including other species.

Wilson supports the Naturalist view. He states that the failures of the Biosphere 2 project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioSphere_2) show that we and our environment are fragile and that our current technology cannot be used to create artificial sustainable environments. Exemptionalists claim that new technologies (power of the human mind) and free-market economies will provide adequate resources for the growing population; however, Wilson points out that there are limits to the amounts of water, arable land, oil, and food (including seafood), that can support us, and all of this is complicated by global warming. Exemptionalists are taking a gamble when they advise pressing forward with current policies and assume that technology will provide solutions to these growing problems before they become disasters. Ecologists like Wilson don’t like these gambles because they know that if we lose, we lose everything.

Wilson [1] believes that economists, who generally take the exemptionalist point of view, promote policies that are inconsistent with sustainability. Their economic models ignore human behavior, and they ignore the environment. A big problem is that they assume that there are adequate resources for all countries to have the same standard of living as the U.S.. However, the U.S. can only maintain its standard of living by using the resources of other countries (“economic miracles are not endogenous”), which we will demonstrate in detail later. Finally, economists do not use full-cost accounting, i.e., they don’t include the loss of natural resources. In this book I advocate a naturalist approach to solving environmental problems and achieving future sustainability.

The different approaches to nature are illustrated in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Elves lived symbiotically with nature and are presented as pure and good, while the ugly and evil orcs used resources like trees in a non-renewable way and transformed their environment into a wasteland. Clearly, to Tolkien it was evil to destroy the beauty of nature. In the Lord of the Rings some humans sided with elves and some with orcs, just as today humanity is divided between naturalist and exemptionalist camps (I’m not trying to say that exemptionalists are as ugly as orcs).

I am a naturalist rather than an exemptionalist, so I believe it is most effective to work with rather than against nature. You must always keep in mind that Nature is a powerful force; it is constantly at work, and while your short bursts of work may be more intense, and the use of energy from oil can magnify your efforts, eventually Nature will win because it has limitless time. How did streams cut through mountains to create water gaps? How did ancient mountains almost completely erode away? In ”The World Without Us”, Alan Weisman [2] describes what would happen to our structures (cities, buildings) if humans disappeared. It wouldn’t take long for nature to completely erase the evidence of our existence.

1. Wilson, E.O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. 1998, New York, NY: Vintage Books. ISBN 367 0-679-45077-7.

2. Weisman, A., The World Without Us. 2007, New York, NY: Picador. ISBN 416 978-0-312-42790-0.

Industrial Agriculture

The American farm is not what it once was. Agriculture is now a commercial operation, not a family operation. On the modern industrial farm, monocultures (a single crop, usually corn) have replaced polycultures, and farm animals are often nowhere to be found. In the past, we took animal waste and used it to fertilize the crops that fed the animals; this comprised an efficient closed loop system. Now we house animals in feedlots, where the waste is no longer a resource but a pollutant, and at the farm we have to use fossil-fuel fertilizer in place of manure.

Unfortunately industrial agriculture is now firmly entrenched in the U.S.. Pollan [1] gives an excellent introduction to the problems of industrial agriculture, which is entirely reliant on fossil fuels, less healthy for us and the environment, consumes more resources, and is therefore less sustainable than old-style agriculture. As noted before, it now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce one calorie of food, whereas in the 1940's it only took 0.4 calories to produce on calories of food energy. Pollan [1] points out that unless we make the food system more dependent on renewable solar energy than non-renewable fossil fuel energy, it will be difficult or impossible to make progress in the U.S. on health care, energy independence, or climate change.

The use of monocultures and loss of agricultural biodiversity in industrial agriculture is particularly troubling. For example, long ago there were many varieties of bananas grown in the tropics. But consumer preference soon led to the predominance of a single cultivar (bananas are grown by propagation because they are seedless) named Gros Michel. That cultivar was wiped out in the 1950’s by Panama disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas) and was replaced by the Cavendish, which is very popular because it is grown year-round and has long shelf-life. However, because of the way it is grown, it lacks genetic diversity, which makes it vulnerable to disease, and it therefore could be wiped out like its predecessor Gros Michel. Growers are concerned that the Cavendish could be wiped out in a pandemic, perhaps caused by the black sigatoka fungus, within the next twenty years, and there are no similar plants to replace it. This would be a huge loss because the banana is the most popular fruit and the fourth most important food crop worldwide ("A future with no bananas?". New Scientist. 2006-05-13. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn9152-a-future-with-no-bananas.html). Thus, high biodiversity gives us food security.

Like our monoculture lawns, monoculture crops are unnatural and therefore require lots of energy to maintain. Modern grain crops are annuals rather than perennials, and modern varieties did not develop over millions of years in perfect tune with the local climate. Rather, they were developed quickly through breeding and genetic engineering to grow fast, not to be hardy. They are not as well adapted to the local environment as the weeds, which is why the weeds take over if we don't fight on behalf of the crop. The less hardy and well-adapted a crop is, the more energy that is required to make it grow. To reduce the amount of oil-derived energy used to produce crops you must work with rather than against nature. Use perennials as crops rather than annuals. Choose natural varieties that are well-adapted to the local environment (known as heirlooms), even if they have lower yields. The resulting increase in genetic diversity will increase our food security. And decreasing our reliance on oil in agricultural production now will better prepare farmers and our society for the post-oil world. We will discuss these solutions in more detail later in the section on Organic Agriculture, but where you can have the most influence on changing the food production system is in the choices you make as a consumer.

Consumers drive the food production system. Americans want cheap food, and they tend to prefer sweet and highly processed foods. Also, they don’t want to know how their food was produced, and they don’t want to have to cook; it’s too much effort. So why do we often feel fat and stupid? Our ancestors used to spend much of their day growing, preparing, and cooking food. Today food is an afterthought. Most parents don’t ask the question “what will we have for dinner tonight” until they get home from work. They don’t have the time or energy to pick fresh vegetables and prepare a balanced meal. For breakfast, our grandparents took the time to make eggs, bacon and toast every morning; our parents replaced that with the convenience of cereal and milk. Now we don’t even leave enough time to eat a bowl of cereal, often rushing out the door with an instant breakfast or a protein bar.

To me the protein bar symbolizes everything that’s wrong with American food culture. Families used to sit together at the table, talk, and enjoy their food. Now we don’t have time for that, so we choose to rush off to the car with a bar that looks like a turd and tastes like cardboard. Protein bars are highly processed, so we don’t recognize the taste of any of the ingredients. And no wonder! If you read the list of ingredients, you will find that it is extraordinarily long, and that you don’t recognize the names of most of the ingredients. Most of them are synthetic chemicals. If you gave your grandparents a protein bar they would probably frown, take one bite and spit it out. They would not consider a protein bar to be food because it contains no recognizable ingredients, and therefore has no recognizable taste. And when you told them how much it cost per ounce, they would laugh at you. The more processing it takes to make a food, the more expensive it becomes per ounce, and the more profit the food manufacturer makes. So of course, food companies try hardest to sell their most highly processed foods by heavily advertising them. So why do people buy them? For the convenience (I think protein bars would survive a nuclear war), and because we think they are good for us. However, in my experience the people who rely on highly processed foods such as protein bars are less healthy than people who eat “real” food. Protein bars are just another type of fast food, and we all know that fast food is unhealthy. The trend towards increasing proportions of fast food and processed foods in our diets has led to an epidemic of obesity and type II diabetes in the U.S..

One of the most damning indictments of industrial agriculture is that it is unethical. People sometimes joke about where the meat in their hot dog came from, usually agreeing “you don’t want to know”. We sometimes hear from animal rights groups about atrocities committed in slaughterhouses, but those groups have lost credibility in the eyes of much of the public, and the average person can’t just walk into a slaughterhouse to verify the claims. It’s amazing to me that animal feedlots have not been subjected to greater public scrutiny. Part of the problem may be that the American public still has a soft spot in their hearts for farmers, and they don’t want to hassle them, but again it is not family farmers but large corporations that run CAFOs. Why do the media and the public handle them with kid gloves? I’ve read about reporters being turned away at the doors of CAFOs (e.g., [2]), but that never stopped investigative journalists in the past. As a result, I don’t know as much about CAFOs, slaughterhouses, and food processing as I should (I almost wrote “As I would like”, but I’m not sure I would like to know, which may explain the public being satisfied to be left in the dark). But I have read about what happens to egg-laying chickens [2], and it so upset me that ever since I read about it I have paid 4x as much for cage-free eggs.

In conclusion, the food production system in the U.S. is seriously flawed because it harms human health, it degrades the environment, and it is unethical. It is broken because the federal government’s subsidy system rewards the overproduction of corn. These subsidies make processed foods made from corn inexpensive, leading to the expansion of fast food companies such as McDonald’s. In fact, McDonald’s is probably the primary beneficiary of farm subsidies. The goal of our food production system is to maximize productivity, so we subsidize Happy Meals but not healthy meals. In 1973 we decided as a country to produce as many calories per acre as possible, and that is when America started getting fat. We now live in the "age of plenty", eating more calories than in 1970 but spending only half as much of our salaries on food (currently on average we use 16-17% of our salaries to buy food compared to about 30% in 1970). On the plus side, industrial agriculture requires fewer people to produce food, freeing people to do other things, and very few people in the U.S. are starving. But is industrial agriculture good for us? And is it good for the environment? I think the answer to both questions is no.

Pollan [1] lists some simple principles for improving agriculture in the U.S.. Improved Food Policies should: 1) strive to produce a healthful diet for all people; increase the quality and diversity of calories rather than the quantity. 2) aim to improve the resilience, safety, and security of our food supply. 3) reconceive agriculture as part of the solution to environmental problems like climate change. He notes that "while there are alternatives to oil, there are no alternatives to food". To make food production more sustainable he recommends that we resolarize farms, reregionalize the food system, and rebuild America's food culture. He ends by listing "21st century's most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people, and to mitigate climate change." As noted by Brown [3], “"The wildcard in the food prospect is climate change. Crop ecologists estimate that for each 1-degree-Celsius rise in temperature above the norm during the growing season, we can expect a 10-percent decline in grain yields."

What changes can we make in agriculture to make sure that it can feed the 10 billion people predicted to be on the planet in 2010? Is it even possible to adequately feed that many people? It depends on what they eat [4]. If everyone on earth becomes a vegetarian, then it may be possible.

Until the Green Revolution the limiting factors on agricultural yield were nutrient availability and soil moisture. Using energy from oil, farmers erased these constraints by applying oil-derived fertilizers and pumping water for irrigation. An eleven-fold increase in fertilizer use combined with a three-fold increase in irrigated area and the adoption of high-yielding hybrids of corn, wheat, and rice led to a tripling of world grain harvest [3] (Fig. World Grain Production and Consumption). However, in many areas this high-intensity agriculture is unsustainable because it relies on the non-renewable resources oil and deep groundwater. Like oil, on a human timescale deep groundwater is a single-use resource: once we use it, it's gone. And oil and water shortages are appearing nearly simultaneously, giving farmers a double-whammy. This may cause grain production to actually decrease in the near future. Since demand continues to increase due to the annual addition of roughly 70 million people per year and the expanding use of grains as biofuels, the outlook is for increasing grain prices and increasing numbers of hungry poor people. In addition to grain shortages, we must also worry about the decline in the world fish harvest due to the recent collapse of some marine fisheries. The per capita wild fish harvest is now lower per capita than at any time since the early 1960’s (Fig. World Wild Fish Harvest Per Person). Catastrophists point to these trends and claim we are facing a global food crisis, but their predictions in the past have frequently proved inaccurate. For example, catastrophist Brown made the following food supply predictions that are obviously inaccurate: "Farmers...can no longer keep up with rising demand; thus the outlook is for chronic scarcities and rising prices" (Brown 1974); "Global food insecurity is increasing...the slim excess of growth in food production over population is narrowing" (Brown 1981). However, we have to admit that the current trends are troubling, and that we have to come up with new solutions to prevent a global food crisis and sustainably produce an adequate food supply for 10 billion people.

Perhaps the biggest problem in affluent countries like the U.S. is that we now take food for granted. As observed by Smil [4]: “When judged by the allocation of labor force, ours are predominantly service economies. They depend, however, no less than millennia ago, on adequate food production. I find it astonishing that this truism is so widely, and so easily, discounted. Saving, as so many economists do, that agriculture does not matter as much as it used to because it now accounts for just a few percentage points of the GDP betrays a touchingly naive trust in arbitrary accounting procedures and the most profound ignorance of the real world. Our postmodern’ civilization would do quite well without Microsoft and Oracle, without ATMs and the WWW—but it would disintegrate in a matter of years without synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, and it would collapse in a matter of months without thriving bacteria. Our first duty is to take care of these true essentials.”

How can we expand agricultural yield in a sustainable way? One approach is to breed crop varieties that we can grow in arid and cold regions that are currently not farmable. Another is to multicrop, i.e., to grow two or three crops each year rather than harvesting one and then leaving the land bare and unproductive for the rest of the year. China has used some of these methods to greatly increase their food production. Some catastrophists like Brown predicted widespread starvation in China in the 1980's-1990's (see [4]), but China is now a grain exporter.

To avoid future global starvation we need to stabilize world population, change our buying and eating habits (pay the true cost of food by being willing to pay extra for organic foods), move down the food chain by becoming vegetarian (eat foods from lower trophic levels in the food chain), stop growing crops for fuel, develop less energy-intensive forms of agriculture such as no-till farming, and use water in a sustainable way (no deep groundwater mining) by raising water productivity [3]. These topics will be explored in later chapters.

1. Pollan, M., The Food Issue: Farmer in Chief, in New York Times. 2008: New York, NY

2. Pollan, M., The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. 2007.

3. Brown, L., Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. 2008, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.

4. Smil, V., Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-first century. 2000, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

The Nuclear Waste Disposal Problem

What, then, are our options for disposing of nuclear waste? Since our focus is on evaluating fission reactors as a viable source of energy in the future, we will examine the properties of and disposal options for SNF, and ignore storage of defense waste (from decommissioned nuclear warheads, etc.).

One option that nuclear proponents discuss is the use of breeder reactors to recycle the waste. On the surface, recycling sounds like a good choice from an environmental standpoint, as it would reduce the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of, and it would reduce the required amount of environmentally harmful Uranium mining. However, the Carter administration chose in 1977 to ban the use of breeder reactors due to the enhanced risk of nuclear proliferation (breeder reactors produce Plutonium, which is ideal for making nuclear bombs). France uses breeder reactors to recycle their fuel, but I’ve been told by experts at Vanderbilt that breeder reactors are so complex that they frequently break down and have poor safety records [1]), so France has started to decommission their plants. Breeder reactors are not a panacea to the waste disposal problem.

Geological storage is widely considered to be the safest method for storage of SNF [2]. Until recently, the goal was to isolate SNF from the surface environment for at least 10,000 years, which was considered long enough for the total radiation level to decrease to acceptable levels. However, a court ruling in 2006 (?) increased the mandatory safe storage duration to 1,000,000 years. Considering humans have yet to build any structure that has lasted more than 5,000 years, there clearly is no way to guarantee that a HLNW disposal structure could maintain its integrity and confine the waste for one million years.

Yucca Mountain is a logical choice to store SNF because it is so dry. The primary objective of SNF storage is to keep the waste away from water. Why? Because water is the strongest known solvent, and it is mobile. The fear is that water would dissolve the waste and transport it a densely populated area such as Las Vegas, which is where groundwater from Yucca Mountain was originally thought to flow. Yucca Mountain has the lowest water table in the continental U.S.; to get well water there, you would have to drill a well 2,000 feet deep. The idea was to bury the waste 1,000 feet deep so that 1,000 feet of rock would protect it from the groundwater below and any infrequent precipitation events at the surface. Furthermore, it was discovered that Yucca Mountain is in an isolated hydrologic basin, so even in the worst-case scenario where the waste contaminated the groundwater, it would still be isolated within that small, uninhabited basin. Yucca Mountain is located at the edge of the Nevada Test Site, where 928 atomic bombs were detonated between 1951 and 1992, so it is already contaminated by radiation. Finally, the low population density and suitable host rock (volcanic tuff) make Yucca Mountain well suited for disposal of SNF.

Evidence that geological storage of SNF is relatively safe comes from natural analogues such as the Oklo natural reactor in Gabon. In this location 1.7 billion years ago a natural uranium ore deposit formed. At that time natural uranium had a higher proportion of ²³⁵U, the fissile isotope, so the uranium did not have to be artificially enriched like today to generate a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. Isotopic analyses show that the ore body is highly depleted in ²³⁵U, and has the same proportions of isotopes as SNF, so we infer that the ore body acted as a natural fission reactor (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/fact/Oklo_Natural_Nuclear_Reactors.shtml). In fact, 15 separate reactors have been discovered at the site. When the reactors were active 1.7 BYBP, groundwater acted as neutron moderator, slowing neutrons so that they could fission ²³⁵U nuclei. The heat released by fission reactions caused the groundwater to boil off, which shut down the chain reaction. Groundwater would then fill up the reactor again, and the cycle repeated. The fission reactions consumed 6 tons of ²³⁵U, producing 15,000 megawatt-years of energy over 500,000 years and heating rocks to ~400°C. Yet in the 1.7 BY since the reactors stopped operating, the original uranium and all of the fission-product nuclides have remained immobile, even though the host rocks are permeable and were likely often filled with flowing water. This is very strong evidence that SNF can be stored safely underground.

Some of my own research can be applied to the problem of safe SNF storage. To answer the question of what material can safely immobilize the components of SNF, geologists look to nature for the answers. They look for minerals that can hold high concentrations of radioactive elements like uranium and thorium for long periods of time. The mineral that holds the longevity record, the Methuselah of all Earth materials, is zircon (ZrSiO₄). The oldest solid material ever found on the surface of the earth is a 4.4 BY old fragment of a zircon crystal. How do we know it is 4.4 BY old? Zircon concentrates uranium in its structure, and once a zircon crystal grows it traps the uranium so that it can’t escape. Over time, the uranium decays to lead at a very low but constant rate, so that today we can measure the proportions of uranium and lead isotopes and estimate the amount of time elapsed since crystallization. This “isotopic clock” works because zircon also traps the lead after it forms from uranium decay, and because zircon does not incorporate any lead when it forms. Zircon can last 4.4 BY because it is very stable and therefore insoluble in natural waters, as shown by measurements made by myself and others. All of this suggests that zircon would be a good “wasteform” for storage of uranium in SNF. The problem is that zircon actually incorporates < 1 wt.% uranium in it structure, and we need something that can incorporate much higher concentrations. Another problem is that over time high radiation levels destroy the zircon structure [3], turning the zircon crystals into glass, which is much more soluble in natural waters and therefore much less effective at immobilizing the uranium [4].

A better candidate for storage of uranium and thorium is the mineral monazite, which is a rare earth element phosphate (REEPO₄). Although the geological evidence suggests that monazite is not quite as durable as zircon, it can hold much higher concentrations of Th (up to 10 wt.% ThO₂) without experiencing significant radiation damage and still last for billions of years. In the laboratory, I have studied the solubility of monazite in natural waters at elevated temperatures and pressures, and found its solubility to be very low at near-neutral pH. In field studies, I have investigated the stability of monazite in rocks, and have developed methods for using monazite to date the infiltration of water into rocks [5]. Although this research was “pure science” because the primary objective was to develop a better understanding of how the Earth works, it has implications for storage of SNF. History shows that most technological advances were enabled by research in pure science, and since it is primarily advances in technology that fuel the economic engine, particularly in the U.S., and that in the future may provide answers to how our society may become sustainable, it would be unwise for the U.S. to stop investing in pure science.

I am confident that further research into durability of crystalline wasteforms and the geology of potential waste disposal sites will give us the technological ability to safely dispose of SNF in the future. However, we do not and may never have the political or societal will to deal with the problem. Even if we as a society face the situation, agree on a site, and fund the building of a facility, it will take too long to make nuclear power a short-term fix to our energy needs. Abandoning Yucca Mt. means that we won't have a SNF disposal site for at least 20 years. Given the possibility that they will be stuck with more SNF in the future, utility companies are less likely to start building new power plants. In addition, since it takes about 20 years to build a new reactor, U.S. capacity to generate electricity through nuclear fission is unlikely to increase for at least 30 years.

To sum up, what are the advantages of nuclear power plants? They have near-zero CO₂ and pollutant emissions. What are the disadvantages? Radiation is released to the environment at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. There is a very small but real risk of nuclear reactor accidents (e.g., Chernobyl). Terrorists or hostile countries could steal enriched uranium destined for fission reactors or plutonium from breeder reactors to make nuclear bombs. The U.S. has no safe SNF disposal facilities, and won’t have any for at least twenty more years. We have a limited supply of minable uranium, so nuclear power is a non-renewable energy source (we have enough U ore to deploy 1000 new reactors in the next 50 years and maintain for 40 years [6]). Finally, nuclear power is not cost-effective. In a nutshell, nuclear power is a very complicated, expensive, centralized form of energy production that requires a lot of government involvement (regulation and oversight), has a very vocal opposition, and big potential problems, while decentralized, renewable energy sources pose fewer risks and may be more cost effective.

In general, I am advocating a move from centralized to decentralized, from hard path to soft path, from non-renewable to renewable, and from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Nuclear is centralized, and we don't have a solution to the waste problem, so I am not recommending it as an energy source, unless it is the only way we can eliminate fossil fuels.

1. Charman, K., Brave Nuclear World? Part II. World Watch Magazine, 2006: p. 12-18.

2. Macfarlane, A.M. and R.C. Ewing, eds. Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste. 2006, The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. 431.

3. Farnan, I., H. Cho, and W.J. Weber, Quantification of actinide [agr]-radiation damage in minerals and ceramics. Nature, 2007. 445(7124): p. 190-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05425

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/suppinfo/nature05425_S1.html

4. Grambow, B., Nuclear Waste Glasses - How Durable? Elements, 2006. 2: p. 357-364.

5. Ayers, J.C., et al., In situ oxygen isotope analysis of monazite as a monitor of fluid infiltration during contact metamorphism: Birch Creek Pluton aureole, White Mountains, eastern California. Geology, 2006. 34(8): p. 653-656. http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/8/653

6. Ansolabehere, S.e.a., The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdiscplinary MIT Study. 2003, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. ix-x, 1-16.

Why Not Nuclear?

Nuclear power has always been controversial. The fear of nuclear power plants is usually irrational, but the danger posed by nuclear waste is real. Unlike most environmentalists, for most of my life I have been pro-nuclear. Nuclear power plants produce about 20% of electricity in the U.S. [1] (15% globally), but that number has not increased since the 1980’s. Three obstacles prevented growth of nuclear power in the U.S.. First, a large part of the public resists expansion of nuclear power because they fear all things nuclear. Nuclear power will always be associated in people’s minds with the use of nuclear bombs in WWII and the fear associated with proliferation of nuclear warheads during the Cold War. Furthermore, radioactivity is particularly frightening to people because it is invisible and outside of their normal experience. Fear makes people irrational, and as a result, I have never been able to convince any opponents that nuclear power is safer than other forms of energy, even though I have the statistics to prove it (see section on “Risk”). In the U.S. the only significant nuclear power plant accident ever was the Three Mile Island accident in central Pennsylvania in 1979, a minor accident that released very little radioactivity into the environment. Both Three Mile Island and the more serious accident in Chernobyl, USSR resulted not from technology problems but human error. Despite the fear it invokes, nuclear power has a remarkable safety record. Second, electricity generated using nuclear fission reactors is more expensive than electricity produced using natural gas or coal. Finally, we have no site to store the radioactive Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) from fission reactors. For these reasons, no electric utility companies have applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to operate a new nuclear power plant in over 20 years. However, the recent recognition of the need to reduce CO₂ emissions has reopened the debate: should we expand the use of nuclear power in the U.S.? Nuclear reactors do not emit CO₂ or any other pollutants, giving them a decided advantage over fossil fuel-powered plants. Moreover, if we start to tax energy produced by burning fossil fuels, then nuclear power may become economically competitive. President Obama's proposed cap and trade program to reduce CO₂ emissions would internalize the social cost of carbon emissions, increase the cost of fossil fuels, and make nuclear energy more economically feasible. That would leave only one problem: Can the U.S. choose a site and build a facility for storage of SNF? And if the cost of waste disposal is factored in, would nuclear energy still be cost-effective?

I think the answer to both questions is no. After the federal government spent $13.5 Billion dollars developing a high-level nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, newly elected President Obama announced that the government was abandoning the project (http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090306/NEWS/903069981/1070). When the President’s science advisor was asked why, after waffling for several minutes he finally said, “We can do a better job.” Considering that our country spent over 30 years developing the Yucca Mountain site, and that 30 years later it will be even harder to find a site that is acceptable to all parties (the NIMBY syndrome), I am not holding my breath. The Yucca Mountain project fell victim to politics. Senate majority leader Harry Reid represents southern Nevada, where resistance to the Yucca Mt. project has always been strong, and he had previously vowed to kill the project. This is an example of how some individuals gain too much power and abuse it by appeasing narrow interests and disregarding the greater good. Perhaps Harry Reid thought that it was his duty to do what his constituents asked (though I doubt it), but the same will happen with every state that is chosen in the future, making it almost impossible to build a facility. Nevadans named the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act that named Yucca Mountain as the nation’s waste disposal site the “Screw Nevada Bill”, but now < 1% of the population got what they wanted and screwed the rest of the country.

I know many people who are still asking, “why not nuclear power”? However, I bet none of those people would be willing to have a nuclear power plant or waste disposal facility sited in their community. NIMBY is a powerful force in the U.S.. As always, the Golden Rule applies: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don’t ask others to shoulder the burden to satisfy your energy needs.

Even if the U.S. had followed through and built the Yucca Mountain facility, it would not have been large enough to accept all of the waste we would have by the time it opened. The U.S. currently has 103 operating nuclear power plants [1]. By law, the capacity of the Yucca Mountain facility was limited to 70,000 tons, of which 63,000 tons were designated for SNF and 7,000 tons for defense waste. However, it is estimated that by 2050 the U.S. will have 84,000 tons of SNF [2]. The U.S. now has SNF at over 100 sites in 42 states [3], and we have now eliminated our only option for safely disposing of it. And the federal government now pays fines of ?/year to the utility companies for breach of contract: they had promised to take the SNF off the hands of the utility companies by ?, but the waste still sits at the site of each nuclear reactor that produced it.

*Next post: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Problem

1. Wallace, M.J., Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 Program. 2005.

2. Carter, L.J. and T.H. Pigford, Getting Yucca Mountain Right. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1998. March/April.

3. Long, J.C.S. and R.C. Ewing, YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Earth-Science Issues at a Geologic Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 2004. 32(1): p. 363-401. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/loi/earth

Change Your Transportation

Transportation has a huge environmental impact, so society must focus on reducing that impact. Consider the environmental impact of a single automobile that travels an average of 100,000 miles in its lifetime. There is the damage that results from the manufacturing of the car and the mining and processing of the raw materials; from the drilling, transporting, and refining of the oil and gas that it uses; and from the emission of green house gases, NOx that contributes to acid rain, and ozone that causes photochemical smog. There are many other problems associated with automobiles. Driving a car is one of the riskiest activities we engage in, and cars make walking and bicycling much more dangerous on shared roads. Much of our country has been paved over by roads and parking lots, which has increased flooding risks but also uglified our landscape (I love Joni Mitchell’s song “They Paved Paradise and Put up a Parking Lot”). Driving in heavy traffic is very stressful, often leading to episodes of “road rage”. Yes, driving in the countryside without other cars can be very relaxing and enjoyable, but how often does that happen today, and is it worth all of the problems it creates? My prediction is that the most significant lifestyle change in the U.S. in the next two decades will be the abandoning of the car culture. That lifestyle won’t disappear completely, but it will become less prevalent as the price of fuel dramatically increases (due to peak oil and carbon taxes). The change may be traumatic, as 88% of workers in the U.S. travel to work by car, making the U.S. particularly vulnerable to peak oil [1]. People will choose smaller cars, cars that do not run on fossil fuels, or other modes of transportation including moped, bicycle, and mass transit. They will move closer to their jobs to decrease their transportation costs (I hope to buy a home within walking distance of my work before peak oil makes the cost unaffordable). They will take fewer long trips, and they will go to school closer to home. They will travel less for work, as companies try to cut costs. Telecommuting will become even more widespread, and in many cases, videoconferencing will make travel to meetings unnecessary. All of these changes will reduce traffic congestion and pollution, increase our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, reduce CO₂ emissions contributing to global warming, and I would argue, increase our health (more walking) and quality of life (less time wasted in traffic, better scenery).

Change What You Drive

The technology of automobiles hasn’t changed dramatically over the last 100 years. Most still use a standard internal engine fueled by gasoline. Throughout my life, U.S. auto manufacturers have presented prototypes of cars that were supposed to change the way we drive, but none of them ever came to fruition. Production and leasing of the EV-1 in the 1990’s signaled a potential shift to electric cars, but GM aborted that foray into new technology by confiscating all of the cars and destroying them, as documented in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. However, contrary to general wisdom and the claims of some environmentalists, electric cars currently are not better for the environment. That is because the electricity used to power them comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal. Also, they are inherently less efficient, because any time you convert energy from one form to another you lose some energy. Converting fossil fuels into electricity to fuel automobiles is much less efficient than using them to fuel the car with an internal combustion engine directly. The same argument holds true for the now heralded hydrogen cars, which use electricity to produce hydrogen gas H₂, which in a fuel cell in the car reacts with oxygen gas O₂ to produce H₂O, releasing energy in the process. Although the hydrogen-fueled car emits only water, the process of producing the hydrogen requires lots of energy that usually comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which emits large amounts of CO₂ and other pollutants. So how can we make cars less harmful to the environment? First we must convert our primary source of energy from fossil fuels to renewable forms like wind and solar. Then we should use the electricity that is produced to fuel plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars, or eventually to produce H₂ gas for hydrogen-fueled cars.

Hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius have already raised the bar for energy efficiency. Hybrids have both a gasoline engine and electric motor. They produce electricity through regenerative braking, and automatically shut off the engine when idling. Another promising development is cars that run on biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Flex cars can use ethanol or gasoline, but this is not a new technology, as it dates back to the original flex-fuel vehicle, the Model T, built in the 1910s. Many have concluded that production of ethanol from corn is not energy efficient, with some estimates showing that it requires more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol than is obtained from burning it. In addition, use of corn for ethanol production has increased the price of corn worldwide, which is a serious problem for the poor who depend on it for food. An increase in the price of corn causes increases in the price of all products for which corn is used as a feedstock. This problem of using food for fuel can be avoided by producing ethanol using switchgrass and wheat straw, which are also more energy efficient than corn.

So what can you do now? First, make every effort to decrease the number of miles you travel. Combine your errands. Never idle you car. Make sure your car is in tune and properly inflate the tires to maximize gas mileage. Carpool whenever possible. Make purchases online rather than driving to the store. Accelerate and decelerate slowly, and try to maintain a constant top speed. Ask your boss if you can telecommute one day per week. Vacation locally, or consider purchasing carbon offsets for the miles that you travel for vacation [2].

When the time comes to change your ride, buy a fuel-efficient hybrid as soon as you can, or even better, switch to mass transit. Encourage your employer to pay for your mass transit costs (like my employer, Vanderbilt University, they may be willing to do so because it means they will save money by building fewer parking garages). Imagine how much money you would save if you didn’t have monthly car and car insurance payments.

In the future, I envision a decentralized system of energy production for fuel-efficient homes and cars. Picture a windmill in your yard, and solar panels on your roof. The wind and the sun that power these energy sources are free and limitless. The electricity that they produce could be used to power your home and your plug-in electric car, or to produce hydrogen for the fuel cell in your car, all with zero CO₂ emissions or pollution.

1. Brown, L., Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. 2008, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.

2. Jeffery, Y., L. Barclay, and M. Grosvenor, Green Living for Dummies. 2008: For Dummies.

Book Abstract

The environmental impacts of increasing human population, consumption, and technology are now widely recognized and global in scale. Humanity is now bumping up against the limits defined by earth’s carrying capacity. Rising costs of many natural resources reflect the combined effects of shrinking supplies and increasing demand. Global production of oil has peaked and is now declining, portending long-term cost increases for fuel and food. Global production of other resources such as marine fish are also declining. Global warming threatens supplies of food and water and may make many locations uninhabitable. Overconsumption and pollution have led to water shortages in many countries. The global reserve of grain has shrank for the last eight years, and during that time the price of grains has increased 2-4x (*check). The global ecological footprint is now 1.3 Earths, meaning that the growing human population and economy have overshot the capacity of earth to regenerate resources and absorb waste by 25%. Humanity was last sustainable in the 1980's, and most global human welfare indicators have declined since the 1980's. The only solution to these multiple threats is for humanity to adopt sustainable living practices that help to preserve People, Prosperity, and the Planet and guarantee that future generations can live as well as we do today. First, we must switch energy production from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. This soft approach of decentralized use of renewable resources that do not emit CO₂ is preferred over the hard approach of centralized energy production using non-renewable resources because it is sustainable and increases our energy security, and it would make the use of electric and hydrogen-fueled cars truly CO₂-free. A drastic reduction in the number of coal-fired power plants can reduce the problems of CO₂ emissions, acid rain, and unsafe fly ash and coal slurry ponds. Power plants that continue to burn fossil fuels could capture and sequester CO₂ in the ground. Water conservation and decentralized purification or privitization can help ensure adequate, safe drinking water supplies.

In the last 100 years, cheap oil has fueled rapid global and particularly U.S. economic growth and helped us to produce the food needed by an exploding human population. As oil production drops, oil prices will rise, and so will the cost of food and nearly every product on the market. Of greatest concern is the potential increasing cost and scarcity of food. Current agricultural practice requires 10 calories of oil energy for production of one calorie of food energy. Global warming, decreasing biodiversity, and water scarcity will compound the problems of energy and food shortages. In this declining world, people will need to adapt to living with fewer resources and less wealth.

The changes that are required to make our society sustainable may be too great to achieve through action of a centralized government, particularly because the U.S. government relies on continuous economic growth and is beholden to corporate interests. On the other hand, decisions made collectively by individuals can greatly reduce the ecological footprint of societies. High prices will force people to make sustainable lifestyle choices, including purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles and decreasing miles traveled by moving to high-density housing close to the workplace. This will lead to a reversal of the decades-long migration from cities to the suburbs, eventually resulting in the rebirth of cities and decay of the suburbs. Anticipating these changes can help individuals make smart investment decisions.

The goal of this book is to convince you that change is coming. You can try to ignore or deny change, but you will be better off if you anticipate change and adapt to it. Because the change will involve resource shortages, you can best adapt by limiting your resource use. Stop living large! Reduce your consumption, and reuse and recycle everything. By reducing your ecological footprint and living sustainably, you can be happy while living on less, and because you will incur less damage on your environment, it will be able to provide you with more. On the other hand, if you continue to take more from the environment, it will have less to give you in the future. You can be happier if you simplify your life and live sustainably. Once you have reformed your own lifestyle, you can help to reduce the ecological footprint of others. Protest the opening of any new coal-fired power plants. Convince your community to switch to compact fluorescent lights or even ban incandescent lights. Try to move your workplace toward sustainability by starting recycling programs and discouraging the use or sale of disposable products such as bottled water. The more positive changes you make, the better chance our society has for survival, and the better life will be for us and our children.

Is Our Current Lifestyle Unsustainable?

Human population is estimated to increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050, but humans already use over half of accessible runoff and about 40% of plant growth for the energy stored in plants by photosynthesis [1]. We have created large holes in the ozone layer and increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by more than a third. The rate of species extinctions is growing exponentially (we are actually in the midst of earth's 5th mass extinction event, primarily caused by humans), and the percentage of fisheries fully exploited is nearly 80%. How many humans can Earth support? In this chapter, we look at sustainability as a balance between ecological resource supply and demand.

The ecological footprint is a measure of your resource demand. It is an attempt to estimate how much of earth’s resources you consume, and how much of an impact you have on the environment. There are many ways of calculating the size of your footprint, as you will find if you search the Internet for ecological footprint calculators. One way to express the size of a footprint is as the number of Earths that would be required to support the world’s population if all humans consumed resources at the same rate, i.e., the global ecological footprint. One problem with this approach is that the number of Earths then depends on the global population, which is exponentially increasing. It is thus a moving target. In spite of this problem, it is still a useful way to compare qualitatively the environmental impact of different lifestyles. Another more accurate method is to estimate the area of earth and sea that are required to support an individual’s lifestyle by regenerating renewable resources and absorbing wastes. If measured in productive land area, the global ecological footprint in acres per capita is 6.8, while citizens of the U.S. require 23.5 [2]. I like to think that I could sustain my family of four on our relatively large suburban yard of 1 acre, but to live like average U.S. citizens we would need 4*23.5 = 94 acres!

The concept of the ecological footprint is clearly Malthusian. It assumes that there is a fixed amount of resources available. It raises an important question: What is the carrying capacity of the Earth, the number of humans that Earth can support sustainably? Estimates range between 4 and 10 billion, depending on the average environmental impact of humans [3]. Remember that I = P*C*T. Assuming T is equal to one (*elsewhere we will debate whether T is smaller or greater than one, i.e., whether technology increases or decreases our environmental impact), then one Earth can sustainably withstand a maximum level of human impact Imax = P*C. If we reduce consumption C, we can increase population P and still maintain the equality. If all humans minimized C by becoming vegetarians and we farmed all arable land, then the maximum population that Earth could support Pmax = Imax/Cmin = 10 billion people. However, currently our consumption rate is closer to Cmax, and in this case Pmin = Imax/Cmax is about 4 billion. The current global population is 6 billion. According to the Living Planet Report 2008 [2], the current global ecological footprint of that 6 billion people is 1.3 planet Earths (See Fig. Global ecological footprint from [2]). This means that humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earth can renew them. We are in “ecological overshoot”, i.e., our population and impact have grown so much that the earth can no longer support us sustainably. In order to live sustainably, humanity must reduce its total ecological footprint to one earth, either by reducing consumption or population. We can choose now to reduce consumption, but if we don’t act then eventually nature will make the choice for us and without mercy, and global population will decrease until it reaches a sustainable level.

The maximum amount of ecological services and resources that Earth can provide is termed the biocapacity. It is a measure of supply, expressed as the amount of land available for production per capita. The global biocapacity is -0.6 hectares per capita, again indicating that we have a global ecological overshoot (see Fig. Footprint and Biocapacity factors that influence overshoot from [2]). For the U.S. it is -4.4 hectares per capita [2], which explains why the U.S. has to import so many goods. Our use of ecosystem services and resources is sustainable when we demand less than the Earth can supply, i.e., when the global ecological footprint equals or is less than the global biocapacity. Unfortunately, the footprint now exceeds the biocapacity, and the gap between the two is increasing. The Figure Ecological footprint Biocapacity Overshoot [2] illustrates an optimistic scenario in which we act quickly to close the gap between supply and demand. In the unsustainable situation when demand is greater than supply, as it is now, we build up an ecological debt. If we decrease the demand until it is less than the supply, then we can build up a reserve.

Cornucopianists argue that advances in technology could make the term T in I = P*C*T vanishingly small, so that both population and consumption are relatively unconstrained. To understand their reasoning I give the following quote from Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience, in which Wilson uses the term “Exemptionalist” synonymously with Cornucopianist: “Of course the exemptionalists will say that new technology and the rising tide of the free-market economy can solve the problem. The solution, they explain, is straightforward: Just use more land, fertilizer, and high-yield crops, and work harder to improve distribution. And, of course, encourage more education, technology transfer, and free trade. Oh, and discourage ethnic strife and political corruption. All that will certainly help, and should have high priority, but it cannot solve the main problem, which is the finite resources of planet Earth. It is true that only 11 percent of the world’s land surface is under cultivation. But that already includes the most arable part. The bulk of the remaining 89 percent has limited use, or none at all.” [3]

1. Speth, J.G., The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. 2008, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 295.

2. Hails, C., ed. Living Planet Report. 2008, WWF, ZSL, and the Global Footprint Network. 48. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=505

3. Wilson, E.O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. 1998, New York, NY: Vintage Books. 367.

How Much Oil in Alaska?

*Note: my spring semester is over, so I will be publishing at a much greater frequency.

My goal is to dispel the falsehoods spread by talk show hosts and politicians. Last night an acquaintance said he had heard from several sources that there is about 60 years of oil for the U.S. in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge ANWR. I told him that what I had heard was that, given our current oil consumption rate, it was more like a two year supply (if it was our only source of oil).  To last 60 years the ANWR would have to contain more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had, and that gave him pause.

The problem is that people listen to talk-show hosts and believe everything they say. The talk-show host is not an expert on the subject, and what he says may be totally unreasonable, but many people accept his statements uncritically, and don't make an effort to find out for themselves.

When I got home that night, I looked up the statistics. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy) "the total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices..[24] … In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable crude oil and natural gas liquids are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3), of which 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) lie within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area.[17] … In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day."

Using the mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, and an annual consumption rate of 20.68E6*365=7.54E9 barrels per year, it would take only 10.4E9/7.54E9=1.38 years to consume all of the oil. For the upper limit of 16 billion barrels we would have 16E9/7.54E9=2.1 years. Considering our rate of consumption of oil is continuously increasing, an estimate of two years supply is a reasonable upper limit.  So regardless of what Sarah Palin says, no, we don't have enough oil in Alaska to solve our energy problem.  In addition, if we do open the ANWR up to drilling, it would not contribute significantly to domestic crude oil production until 2018 (Wikipedia).

The Evils of Coal

*I am rushing to post a few blogs for my Sustainability students to read before their final exam, so this entry is only partially complete.

*Note: An excellent recent article in the New York Times makes many of the points that I hope to make in this book. See:

"New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears" <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120613138379155707.html>

From the global warming perspective, you might think that decreasing oil supply would be good because it would lead to decreasing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, we are likely to turn to other fossil fuels that emit more CO2 per unit energy (*give table with CO2 per unit energy). And the dirtiest fuel we have available is coal.

Coal companies are now under pressure, and in classic corporate fashion are responding with an ad campaign that makes a joke of the truth. The ad I saw on TV last night emphasized in audio and text that coal is a clean fuel. Actually, it’s the dirtiest fuel I can think of. If you have ever held a piece of coal, perhaps on Christmas in a year you were “naughty”, you know that it is dirty. You touch it and your hands turn black. If you burn it you will see lots of dirty smoke, and when you’re done burning it you will have a pile of ashes. It’s very similar to charcoal; both form by partial oxidation (burning) of organic matter, usually cellulose-rich plant material such as wood, and both are dirty. Coal was the preferred fuel of the 19^th century in England, when everything was covered with a layer of black soot. It was not coincidence that cancer was discovered in England at that time. A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps often had testicular cancer. This was because the sweeps were usually orphans pressed into hard labor, who were forced to take off all of their clothes so they could fit inside a chimney. They would climb the chimneys to clean them, and their bodies were always covered in black soot.

One of the first laws against air pollution came in 1300 when King Edward I decreed the death penalty for burning of coal.  At least one execution for that offense is recorded.  But economics triumphed over health considerations, and air pollution became an appalling problem in England.  ~Glenn T. Seaborg, Atomic Energy Commission chairman, speech, Argonne National Laboratory, 1969

But the most dangerous effect of burning coal is not the visible carcinogenic pollutants that are released when it is burned, nor the fly ash that remains after burning; it is the huge amount of CO2 that is released to the atmosphere. Coal is fossilized plant matter, so the reverse of Eq. 1 shows what happens when we burn it. Coal releases more CO2 per unit energy than any other form of fuel (see Table ?). So not only does use of coal lead to mountaintop removal, failure of coal slurry retention ponds (Martin County, KY 2000), pollution, and failure of fly ash retention ponds (e.g., Kingston, TN 2008), it also leads to maximum possible CO2 emissions and global warming. I’m sorry, what were the selling points for coal? Oh, that we have a lot of it? Well, we have a lot of sewage too, but that doesn’t mean we would want to use it for anything.

Let me give you some examples of how coal companies operate. Massey Coal is an example of the worst of American corporations. The movie “Sludge” shows how a subsidiary of Massey, Martin County Coal, released 306 million gallons of coal slurry into the Coldwater Fork of Wolf Creek in eastern KY in 2000, which contaminated local drinking water. A Martin County Coal representative told residents that the slurry posed no health threats because everything in the slurry could be found in the periodic table. Whoa, that was reassuring. Once the Bush administration took office, the investigation into the cause was shut down, the one dissenter was fired, and Massey was ordered to pay a fine of only $110,000, which amazingly was later lowered to only $1000 (*check). Yes, that’s what we pay those government regulators for. In 2008 Massey had accrued fines of roughly $2.4 billion for violations of the Clean Water Act; in 2008 they agreed to pay $20 million to the U.S. EPA. Also in 2008 Massey paid $4.2 million in civil and criminal penalties resulting from a mine fire in West Virginia in 2006, the largest financial settlement in the history of the coal industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Coal). Recently I heard on the radio that Massey is involved in a lawsuit that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. It seems a competitor, Harman Mining, refused to sell a coal mine to Massey, so Massey bought all of the property surrounding that mine and prevented access to the property. The competitor sued in court and won $50 million, but Massey appealed it to the State Supreme Court. Massey’s chief executive Don Blankenship arranged donations of $3 million to get Brent Benjamin elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (the $3 million was spent on a character assassination campaign against Benjamin’s opponent). When Massey’s appeal made it to the Court of Appeals Benjamin refused to recuse himself from the case, and ended up casting the deciding vote in favor of Massey. Gee, do you think he was biased? Do you think Massey bought the court’s decision? Why do we allow the public election of judges in this country, anyway? The U.S. Supreme Court head the case in March 2009, and we are currently waiting to see if they reinstate the judgement against Massey.

Here is some dirt on Massey CEO Don Blankenship from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Coal): “On November 22, 2008 the Williamson (Daily News (Williamson, WV) reported that Massey CEO Don Blankenship compared the editor of the Charleston Gazette, James A. Haught, to Osama bin Laden at a public speech to the Tug Valley Mining Institute on Nov 20 ^[59]. In the videotaped speech, Blankenship called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and former Vice President Al Gore "crazies" and "greeniacs" ^[60]. He referred to the support of President Jimmy Carter for energy conservation in the 1970s to communism: "Buy a smaller car? Conserve? I have spent quite a bit of time in Russia and China, and that's the first stage."

On April 3, 2008, ABC News reported that CEO Blankenship attacked an ABC News cameraman at a Massey facility near Belfry, Kentucky as the camerman attempted to question Blankenship about photos published in the New York Times ^[61] showing Blankenship on vacation in Monaco with West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard. "If you're going to start taking pictures of me, you're liable to get shot," Blankenship stated in the video^[62]. Following the incident, Justice Maynard lost his bid for re-election to the West Virginia Supreme Court in the West Virginia primary election ^[63].

Clean coal is an oxymoron, similar to “healthy cigarettes”. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy we have. When Obama refers to clean coal, he means that all of the CO2 is captured and sequestered.

See Clean Coal Air Freshener parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_U1Z0vezw

Clean Coal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLZ-hvVVGmY&NR=1

Water

If there is magic on this planet, it is in water. Loren Eiseley, in “The Flow of the River”, The Immense Journey.

Water is already a limiting resource in many areas of the world, and has been so throughout human history. The earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia such as Sumeria most likely crumbled due to water shortages, specifically salinization of irrigated fields that caused food shortages, and the armed conflicts that ensued (see “Water Conflict Chronology”, Gleick, 2008).

Little [1] gives an example that provides a clear contrast between the sustainable approach and “business as usual”. When farmers in Garden City, Kansas learned from state and federal geologists in the late 1960’s that the water they were pumping was geologic water and would soon run out, they responded in two distinct ways. Most purchased more pumps and began pumping faster. Others like Rodger Funk chose to change their farming methods in order to conserve water and keep their farms viable when the groundwater ran out. Funk started using methods like no-till agriculture, and planted crops like wheat and grain sorghum that required less water. The goal was to rely only on rainwater by capturing and using all rainfall, which averages 18 inches in southwestern Kansas.

In his article “How Much is Clean Water Worth”, Jim Morrison [2] makes clear that investments in water conservation and in preserving ecosystems that provide fresh water pay for themselves. In the field of ecological economics, ecosystems are capital assets because they provide services such as clean water. For example, New York City relies on the Catskill Mountains to the north to provide fresh water. It was cheaper for NYC to preserve that ecosystem by spending $1.3 billion on upstate sewage treatment plants than it would have been to build a filtration plant in the city for $6-8 billion and operate it for $350-400 million per year. Thus, the value of the water that the Catskills provides is easily hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars per year. The Catskills provide other ecosystem services such as flood control, food, and shelter, in addition to its scenic beauty and the recreation activities it provides such as trout fishing, both of which bring in lots of tourism dollars to the area. Another excellent example that Morrison [2] provides is the restoration of the Napa River in Napa, California to its original floodplain to reduce flooding. This project cost only $250 million, but it saved an estimated $1.6 billion in flood damage repair costs over the next century. And within one year of restoration, flood insurance rates dropped 20% and real estate prices rose 20%. There are many examples like this that illustrate that taking the soft path and relying on nature to provide ecosystem services is not only cost effective but preserves the beauty of nature.

The movie “Flow” [3] describes the problems of water exploitation by multinational corporations and the privatization of water supplies in developing countries. Since water-borne diseases are the leading killer of children less than 5 years old in the developing world, efforts to provide clean water in these countries should be a top priority. What is the best approach? Since water is essential for survival, we must consider access to clean drinking water a fundamental right. The chosen approach must therefore guarantee access to all. It is this one essential requirement that seems to have been overlooked in efforts to privatize water supply in countries like Bolivia. The World Bank pressured the government of Bolivia (which is deeply in debt to the World Bank) to privatize their water, which they did in 1999. Although the agreement was for the multinational corporation Suez to provide universal access to water, they neglected to provide water to the poorest citizens. Civil demonstrations turned into riots, and in 2007 the government rescinded their contract with Suez and returned the water to the people. In other countries like South Africa, even the poorest of the poor are required to pay for their water; when they cannot afford to pay, they are forced to steal water or drink unsafe water, which often leads to death.

Why didn’t privatization work in these countries? On the surface, it makes sense to contract a corporation with decades of experience to set up a water distribution system. This is a complicated, expensive task that many countries in developing countries are not prepared to execute. And when water is in short supply, it makes sense to treat it as a commodity, because charging for water encourages people to conserve it and not be wasteful. However, governments need to work with the corporations to ensure that they provide water even to the poorest. They should subsidize access to water so that the poorest do not have to pay. In the U.S. we subsidize food and water, heating oil, and telephone access, because these are essential needs (telephone access is necessary for emergencies). If private companies don’t build the water infrastructure in developing countries, who will? The government could oversee the planning and sub-contract the construction, but since it’s unlikely that anyone in the government has experience in developing water distribution systems, it’s doubtful that the process will be effective. Governments in developing countries need to work closely with multinational corporations to build their infrastructure. The goal is to build safe, reliable, and cost-effective water supply systems as quickly as possible to save as many lives as possible. The U.N. estimates that it would cost 30 billion U.S.D. to provide safe water to everyone in the world. This is a pittance; probably over 100 individuals in the world have that much money, and it could be used to save millions of lives each year. Ironically, 100 billion U.S.D. are spent each year globally for bottled water.

Another problem highlighted by the movie “Flow” [3] is the strong financial incentive for multinational corporations like Nestle and Coca-Cola to extract groundwater to bottle and sell. In most countries, including the U.S., you are allowed to pump as much groundwater as you please out of the ground, as long as you own the land. This is why smart people like T. Boone Pickens are extracting groundwater from their land for free and then selling it to cities. This policy is particularly unfair when multinational corporations like Coca-Cola buy land in developing countries, extract all of the water out of the ground at no charge, bottle and sell it for four dollars per bottle, and when the water dries up, pack up and leave the country. The indigenous people get no money from the sale of their most valuable resource, and they are left with no water. As long as people continue to pay outlandish prices for bottled water, there will be an incentive for corporations to exploit the developing world.

The movie "Flow" [3] and many other environmentally-themed movies and books paint a very bleak picture. That is because the authors are trying to motivate their audience and encourage them to take action to improve the situation. However, watching many of these movies or reading many of the papers may lead you to conclude that there are just too many problems and that we can never fix all of them. Just remember that you can always look at these problems in two ways: is the glass half empty, or half full? The reality is that several hundred years ago most human beings in towns and cities lacked access to clean drinking water, and a much higher percentage of humans died from water-borne diseases. In the developed world these diseases have been almost entirely wiped out, which was a huge accomplishment. What remains frustrating is that, although we know how to eliminate water-borne diseases, we haven't done so in many countries of the world. So while the situation has improved, it hasn't improved enough.

1. Little, J.B., The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water Source. Scientific American Earth 3.0, 2009.

2. Morrison, J., How Much is Clean Water Worth? National Wildlife, 2005: p. 24, 26-28.

3. Salina, I., Flow: For Love of Water. 2007, Oscilloscope. p. 84 min.

Peak Oil

The public hates negativity and pessimism. When Geophysicist M. King Hubbard predicted in 1956 that oil production in the U.S. would peak in the early 1970’s, both the scientific community and the public made him a pariah. However, when production peaked in 1970 as he predicted, many scientists accepted him as a prophet (most of the public remained unaware of his predictions). Many people don’t remember that up until the early 1970’s the U.S. was the Saudi Arabia of the world. However, since the early 1970’s the U.S. has increasingly depended on foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to feed its voracious appetite for oil. We now rely on unstable third world countries to fuel our cars, and we finance despots and wars to maintain our precious oil supply. Even George W. Bush acknowledged in 2008 that the U.S. is addicted to oil. The effects on foreign countries of the U.S. addiction to oil are very similar to the effects of the U.S. addiction to illegal drugs: the flow of money from the wealthy U.S. leads to corruption, crime, and political instability in third world countries. Our addiction has caused scores of countries and millions of people to suffer. Moreover, our dependence on foreign countries for oil has obviously decreased our national security.

Now that the U.S. depends on foreign countries for 2/3 of its oil, we must be concerned not only about the reliability of our existing suppliers but also the natural limits to oil production. When will global oil production peak and then begin a steady decline of decreasing supply and increasing demand and cost? In his book “Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage”, a Geologist from Yale University named Kenneth Deffeyes [1] argued that the peak would be somewhere close to the year 2005. I used data made available by BP Oil on their website to plot world oil production through 2007:

 

The data indicate that oil production peaked in 2006 (we will need to collect data for a few more years to confirm this). The increase in gasoline prices and the gas shortages of 2008 certainly made U.S. citizens acutely aware of their addiction to  gasoline:

Good evidence that the peak has already arrived is given by Andrew Nikiforuk in his book “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent”[2]. He notes that the biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. is no longer Saudi Arabia, but our next-door neighbor Canada. U.S. citizens are happy because there is less of a risk that money we spend on oil will end up in the hands of terrorists who target us. However, Canadian oil primarily comes from the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, and mining of this “dirty” oil creates huge environmental problems, including much higher CO2 emissions per unit energy because large amounts of natural gas are used to refine this dirty oil. Production of tar sand oil emits roughly 100 to 650 pounds of CO2 per barrel, compared with North Sea oil that emits only ~20 pounds per barrel. Nikiforuk calls this “a switch from bloody light oil to dirty heavy oil”, and concludes that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. or Canada.

Of course, the concept of peak oil is neo-Malthusian. There is a finite supply of oil in the ground, so it cannot last indefinitely. I don’t think that Cornucopianists dispute this; rather, they believe that through our ingenuity we will find other sources of energy. However, it bears reminding that any non-renewable resource can ultimately become depleted, so taking the long-term view, it makes sense to increase our reliance on renewable sources of energy. Non-renewable resources are finite and subject to Malthusian limits. Renewable resources are unlimited.

Let me give an example of how knowledge can give you an economic advantage. I have always favored small cars, initially because they produce less pollution, but later because I knew the price of gas would increase due to Malthusian limits. Having small, fuel-efficient cars gave me some decided advantages. For example, in the wake of hurricane Rita in 2008 there were gas shortages in several major cities, including my home in Nashville. My family’s fuel-efficient cars were able to get us through the weeklong shortage without a refill. Also in 2008, the price of gas increased to $4 per gallon. Suddenly everyone wanted to trade in his or her large SUV’s for smaller, more economical cars. The value of large vehicles plummeted, and it became so bad that car dealers stopped buying large used SUV’s, and wouldn’t even take them for trade-ins because they were piling up in the dealer’s lots. Domestic auto manufacturers, who had promoted large vehicles for years, were caught off-guard. The market had changed suddenly, and most of the vehicle models they offered were no longer in demand. Sales and profits plummeted, and the auto manufacturers started hemorrhaging money. In this case, the market punished both individuals and large corporations for their short-sightedness. Individuals not only were stuck filling up their gas-guzzling trucks and SUV’s with $4 per gallon gas, but the value of their vehicles plummeted and they had great difficulty selling them. Although the price of gas dropped precipitously in late 2008 due to the economic recession, I can state with confidence that it will soon go back up to $4 per gallon and higher. Take my word for it: don’t buy a large vehicle. It is a bad investment. Purchase a small, economical car, preferably a hybrid car, because it will not only be a better investment, but will also be better for the environment.

1. Deffeyes, K.S., Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. 2001, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 208.

2. Nikiforuk, A., Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Greystone Books.

Book Outline

Introduction

What is sustainability?

Why should I try to live sustainably?

Unsustainable Societies

The Collapse of Ancient Civilizations

Ghost Towns

What is the Evidence that our Current Lifestyle is Unsustainable?

How Should I Start Living Sustainably?·

What are the near-term challenges to sustainability?

Population Growth

Globalization

Energy

Energy Resources: Introduction

Energy Supply and Demand

Sustainable Energy Policy

Peak Oil

Global Warming

The Evils of Coal

Water

Food

Air

What are the Solutions?

Stabilize Population (brief)

Switch to Renewable Energy

Wind

Solar

Biofuels

Why Not Nuclear?

Change the energy infrastructure

Hydrogen for energy transportation

Change the Economics

Economics and Capitalism

Personal Financial Considerations

The Role of Corporations

Change the Way You Live: Living for the Future

Reduce Your Consumption

Reduce Your Waste

Change Your Home

Move to High-Density Housing Close to Your Workplace

Design Your Home Wisely

Sustainable Architecture

Make your home efficient

Energy Conservation

Water Conservation

Change Your Transportation

Change What You Drive

Change How You Drive

Use Mass Transit

Change What You Eat and Drink

Change How You Use Your Land

Sustainable Landscaping

Organic Gardening

Be Good to the Environment

Steps I have taken to reduce my impact on the environment

The Role of Education

Where is the U.S. Headed?

What if the Worst Happens?

Survivalism

What is Most Likely to Happen
References

Steps I have taken to reduce my impact on the environment

I've been pretty busy the last two weeks, so while I have several sections that are partially complete, I don't have a completed section of text to post. In the meantime, I thought you, my readers, might be interested in looking at what I have done so far to reduce my environmental impact.  I think that it's important to "walk the walk", not just "talk the talk".

• Reduce
  • Have reduced consumption of meat, particularly red meat
  • Print less frequently, almost always duplex
  • Water
    • Low-flow showerheads
  • Electricity
    • Switched from desktop to notebook computers, use energy-saving modes, turn off at night
    • Have replaced over half of my lighting fixtures with compact fluorescent bulbs
    • Use motion-activated security lights
    • Routinely shut off lights in rooms that are not being used
    • Have energy star-rated clothes washer, dishwasher, window AC unit, printer, computer monitor
    • Use smart outlet strips to reduce vampire currents
  • Gas/Transportation
    • Bought fuel-efficient cars
    • I drive a 1994 Saturn with > 115,000 miles that gets ~30 mpg
    • Combine errands to save gas and time
    • Keep car tires properly inflated
    • Shop at local farmer's market each week, purchase locally-grown organic foods

• Reuse
  • Have always avoided disposable products; recently stopped using disposable water bottles
  • Stopped using disposable shopping bags, or when I do I reuse them for storing recyclables (paper) or as trash bags (plastic)
  • Give old products to Goodwill or Amvets rather than throwing out
  • I have worn hand-me down clothes my entire life; I had two older brothers, and more recently I wear hand-me down clothing from my father, father-in-law and brother-in-law (everything but underwear)
  • Buy used clothes at the thrift store

• Recycle
  • Recycle cardboard boxes, paper, plastics, aluminum, glass, tin cans, batteries, computers

• Increase efficiency
  • Paid extra $ for energy efficient HVAC
  • Bought house close to work

• Have continuously increased the proportion of organically-grown foods in diet (including those purchased in supermarket)
• Started a compost pile
• Started organic farming of vegetables
• Do not use pesticides, very limited use of locally applied herbicide (not broadcast)
• Stopped using antibacterial soap (contains triclosan, which is an endocrine disruptor, can react with chlorine to form chloroform, a carcinogen, and can promote the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria)
• Invest in green (socially responsible) mutual funds
• Caulked windows
• Started using phosphate-free dishwashing detergent
• Switched to paperless bill paying and billing
• Reduced the volume of junk mail we receive (I forget how I did this)
• Set the thermostat temperature low in winter and high in summer:

Plans for future:

• Switch to TVA's Green Switch program to invest in alternative energy sources
• Use a clothesline instead of a dryer
• Replace old incandescent holiday lights with light-emitting diode lights(LEDs)
• Have chickens in backyard for eggs & meat
• Grow tra (Vietnamese catfish) in a pond
• Replace all disposable batteries with rechargeable batteries
• Replace refrigerators, clothes washer, and dryer with Energy Star models
• Cancel newspaper