ENV330

ENV330 Module 5a AVP Transcript Title Slide Narrator: Our current energy path is unsustainable, as illustrated by the BP Deepwater Gulf of Mexico disaster, perhaps the single largest degradation of natural capital in history. Our ever increasing population, each with an exponentially increasing energy demand has caused us to take larger and larger environmental risks to try to satisfy our insatiable appetite for ever increasing amounts of energy. With every additional 1000 barrels of oil or 1000 lbs. of coal burned, we add hundreds of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, causing ever accelerating Global Climate Change. We are clearly on a dangerously unsustainable path. We must transition to sustainable energy sources, and increase the efficiency of all energy using activities. There is no other viable option. Slide 2 Title: Energy Consumption Slide content: [image of a big city at night from the air] Narrator: The total annual energy use in the US has almost tripled in the last 60 years, although per capita US consumption has begun to level off in the last 20 years. In the last 25 years unsustainable US coal and oil consumption has increased dramatically and is projected to continue increasing dramatically for the next few decades. Per capita energy consumption in the US, Scandinavia, Saudi Arabia and Australia far exceed per capita energy use anywhere else in the world – with a few minor exceptions. Global use of renewable, sustainable energy is almost three times as great as in the US, where only about 7% of energy is sustainably produced. The global use of Geothermal, Solar and Wind power is 2 ½ times greater in other countries than in the US. Why do you think the world as a whole relies more on renewable energy than the United States does? Slide 3 Title: Our Unsustainable Approach to Meeting Our Energy Needs Slide Content: [image of a body of water with sludge covering the watergrass] Narrator: The recent BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill is an ongoing environmental tragedy which illustrates the folly of our unsustainable approach to meeting our energy needs. This environmental catastrophe will have ecological and economic ramifications for decades. Perhaps it will stimulate public and governmental change towards a sustainable, green, renewable energy future – if we are wise enough to make the change. Slide 4 Title: Political Response to BP Oil Spill in Gulf Slide Content: [image of President and Michelle Obama and Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus standing on a dock]

Narrator: President Barack Obama stated, in response to the BP Oil spill: “the time has come, once and for all, for this nation to embrace a clean energy future”. He also stated that the nation “must acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes.” Additionally he stated “if we refuse to take into account the full cost of our fossil fuel addiction – if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and national security costs and the true economic costs – we will have missed our best chance.” He went on to discuss the need to create more energy efficient cars and homes, more nuclear power plants, and rolling back the tax breaks given to oil companies. These are hopeful signs that perhaps the US government will finally act to push us into a sustainable energy future! Slide 5 Title: Net Energy Ratios Slide Content: [image of an electric heater] Narrator: In considering which energy sources are sustainable, we must consider their net energy ratios for particular tasks. The net energy ratio calculation takes into account all the energy used to discover, mine, transport and use the energy source. A useful rule of thumb is that any energies with low net ratios, like nuclear energy, usually have to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer to keep its price artificially low so that it can compete in the marketplace with high net energy sources such as solar and ethanol. In other words, subsidies and tax breaks must be used to level the playing field for inefficient, low net energy power sources. Question: Are you OK with government using your tax dollars in this way? Can you think of a more sustainable way that government could use your tax dollars to encourage renewable energy development and production? Let’s compare the net energy efficiency for heating a building using nuclear generated electricity to run an electric resistance heater. Compare it with using passive solar to heat the building. Passive solar energy is using free sunlight energy and intelligent architectural design of buildings to maximize this “free” source of energy. Net energy efficiency is calculated by multiplying the efficiencies at each step of the process from the source to the end usage. Using nuclear power to heat the space is only 14% efficient, whereas using passive solar heating is 90% efficient! And, if the entire nuclear fuel cycle efficiencies are considered – the storage and production of long-term nuclear waste -- the nuclear option is only about 8% efficient, that is, there is a 92% WASTE of energy compared with only an 8% waste of energy using passive solar. So, for heating buildings, using passive solar, and using natural gas have the highest net energy ratios, whereas electric heating using nuclear generated electricity, has the worst. Question: What is the source of energy you use in your home? In your office? How are they heated? Although coal has the highest net energy ratio for high-temperature industrial heat generation, it has a very low net energy ratio for heating buildings. To be an Earth sustaining society we must learn to use the appropriate energy for each task so as not to further degrade natural capital. For transportation, ethanol from sugarcane residues or rapidly growing switch grass, makes the most sense whereas corn ethanol, oil shale and coal liquefaction the least sense. Using gasoline for

transportation has only half the net energy benefits of using ethanol from sugarcane residue, as has been done in Brazil for decades. Question: Why do you think we continue to use inefficient ecologically destructive energies with low net energy ratios that require government tax subsidies? It makes no scientific or economic sense! Slide 6 Title: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Slide Content: [image of a large nuclear power plant] Narrator: Let’s consider the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. In order to account for the REAL costs of nuclear power, one must include the entire life cycle, and all the costs of nuclear energy. This includes not only the mining, processing, transportation, power plant production, and transmission of electric energy I just mentioned. To truly compare the real costs of nuclear power generation we must ALSO consider the long-term storage of radioactive wastes – and I DO MEAN LONG TERM - 1000’s to 10’s of thousands of years - from mining to the operation of the nuclear power plant (the whole plant becomes a radioactive disposal issue eventually), to the cost of protection of the facilities from terrorists, and the protection of the radioactive wastes from terrorists who could use it to create nuclear weapons, and to the cost of safely transporting all the radioactive wastes to a permanent storage facility that must be maintained and protected for thousands of years! By the way, NO SAFE PERMANENT STORAGE FACILITY HAS BEEN FOUND YET, after 50 years of searching. No wonder the nuclear power industry must receive such huge subsidies from the government in order to be profitable! Questions:

 Do you think that the market price of nuclear-generated electricity should include all the costs of the fuel cycle?

 Would sustainable, renewable energies like solar and wind be cheaper in comparison to nuclear if we had to pay the whole cost of nuclear power in our electric bills, or if it was included in the price of goods or services using those energies?

 What would happen if we had to pay the cost of Global Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil in our electric bills?

 Why isn’t this the way electricity is priced? End of Presentation