Last week, Pew released a survey with the headline ‘Support for Alternative Energy and Offshore Drilling.’ The piece begins, “The public continues to favor a wide range of government policies to address the nation’s energy supply…”

That is accurate, but it doesn’t get at the most striking data.  The most important finding in the survey is the fact that clean energy and mass transit investments are vastly more popular than nuclear investments and offshore drilling.

Here is how Pew presents the data (Figure 1):

As a mini-case study on how informational graphics can add significant meaning to this sort of data, I’ve created a few simple charts.

This chart (Figure 2) shows the approval and disapproval numbers for the four policy options:

And this chart (Figure 3) shows the net approval numbers for the four policy options:

Presenting the information in text only format, as Pew chose to do in Figure 1, leaves the reader to their own devices to identify the most compelling data.  While the data is technically accurate, it fails to bring the meaning of the data to the forefront.  Pew’s accompanying analysis of the polling data also somehow fails to identify the massive gap in net approval for the policies they surveyed.

Creating a simple chart (Figure 2) based on the data itself adds significant value to the presentation of the data, especially for the casual reader.  The reader can tell at a glance that clean energy investments are significantly more popular than polluting energy sources, and that unpopularity follows the opposite pattern.

Going one step further and doing simple arithmetic to determine the net approval for each of the policies in the survey, as I’ve done with Figure 3, brings the most striking data to the forefront.  The fact that more than 50% of Americans support a variety of policies to produce-more or consume-less energy is not, in itself, especially meaningful.  But the fact that the net approval for some of these policies is 40-60%, while it is barely 10% for others, is fairly compelling.

Friends of the Earth:

Friends of the Earth recently released two TV ads in South Carolina and Georgia opposing the Obama administration’s proposed bailout of the nuclear industry.

You can read the press release here and watch the ads below.

New York Times:

In an unusual state foray into nuclear regulation, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 Wednesday to block a license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, citing radioactive leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials and other problems.

Unless the chamber reverses itself, it would be the first time in more than 20 years that the public or its representatives decided to close a reactor.

The vote came barely over a week after President Obama declared a new era of rebirth for the nation’s nuclear industry, announcing federal loan guarantees of $8.3 billion to assure the construction of a twin-reactor plant near Augusta, Ga.

Vermont Yankee’s recent troubles are viewed by some as an imposing challenge to arguments that reactors are clean, well run and worth the enormous investment involved in building and operating them.

Here is the bill, as introduced in the Vermont Senate:

S-289

Blue Hampshire has the roll call.

Watch the vote:

Update — Greenpeace has released a strong statement, which says in part:

“Vermonters sent a message to President Obama and the nuclear industry today,” said Greenpeace’s Nuclear Policy Analyst Jim Riccio. “The nuclear renaissance is dead on arrival. We can retire old, decrepit and leaking reactors like Vermont Yankee and help usher in the energy revolution that America needs.”

“When Americans have the choice about the kind of energy they want in their communities, they don’t want nuclear. Vermont has shut down the myth of the so-called nuclear renaissance. Greenpeace is calling on Vermonter legislators to vote against relicensing in the house as well so that the message to America registers loud and clear.”

By way of this Steven Pearlstein article, Ezra Klein wonders why natural gas doesn’t get as much attention as nuclear energy as a bridge fuel toward the clean energy economy:

My understanding is that natural gas is a really promising candidate as a bridge fuel (a cleaner energy source between the coal/oil economy and whatever comes next), for all the reasons Steve Pearlstein lays out here. But nuclear energy attracts all the political attention. Why is that? Is it just because nuclear energy has traditionally been opposed by liberals and so it’s become an article of faith among conservatives? Does nuclear energy have a more-organized or better-funded industry backing it?

I’ll look at a few factors that may play a role in this below.

Read the rest of this entry »

In four simple steps:

Well, the four steps that we suggest actually help us reach the Kyoto goals for the year 2030. Step 1 was double nuclear power production. Two is offshore exploration of natural gas. Three is make half our cars and trucks electric in 20 years. And finally doubling energy R&D spending to make solar costs competitive. By our computation, we’d actually get where we want to go.

You see, first we round up all of the world’s unicorns…

In the wake of yesterday’s explosion at a natural gas plant in Connecticut, Caroline Howe at Its Getting Hot in Here makes a good point:

Fossil fuels are not safe. They are not safe for our planet, they are not safe for our communities, and they are not safe for the workers inside of their power plants. This is not the first power plant explosion, this will not be the last. It is time for America to commit to a clean and safe energy economy – where our friends and neighbors can work in green jobs that give good wages and safe working environments. My heart and prayers are with the workers at the Kleen Energy Plant and with their families — and with the future of our nation to not face such a tragedy again.

Greenhouse gas emissions aside, here are a few recent environmental problems and public health concerns associated with generating electricity from coal, nuclear and natural gas:

• Yesterday — Middletown Power Plant Explosion Caused By Gas Leak, Officials Say: “Early reports were that a natural gas leak could have caused a devastating explosion Sunday morning that killed two and injured as many as a dozen more at a power plant being built south of the city on the Connecticut River.”
• Last week — Radiation Levels Spike Near Vt. Nuke Plant; Leak Source Not Yet Found: “Levels of radioactive tritium mushroomed Thursday in a new monitoring well at the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, an indication the leak was coming from water that runs through the reactor itself, according to the Department of Health.  These are very high concentrations,” said William Irwin, radiological health chief for the Department of Health, who was at the reactor Thursday. “We’re not dealing with a minor system. It’s an important source that needs to be quickly found.”
• Last week — The EPA released “engineering assessments of 40 more coal ash impoundments showing they have the ‘high’ or ’significant’ potential to cause loss of human life, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure.”
• 9 months ago — 8 Firefighters, 1 Gas Employee Burned In Natural Gas Explosion: “Eight firefighters and a gas company worker were injured in a natural gas explosion at a strip mall in Forestville, Maryland on Thursday afternoon. Despite being caught in the violent explosion, only two of the injured remain hospitalized.”
• 13 months ago — TVA spilled 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash in Eastern Tennessee. “A test of river water near the spill showed elevated levels of lead and thallium, which can cause birth defects and nervous and reproductive system disorders”
• Natural gas drilling has contaminated the water in several states.
• Coal mining releases methane, carbon monoxide, soot, copper lead and mercury at levels known to pose risks to human health.

And here are some recent environmental problems and public health concerns associated with generating electricity from solar, wind and geothermal:

• …
• …
• Actually, there are no environmental problems or public health concerns associated with generating electricity from wind, solar and geothermal sources.

Just something to keep in mind when you hear people talk about ‘cleaner burning natural gas,’ ‘clean coal,’ and ’safe nuclear power.’

Update — Senator Lautenberg has questions:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said Monday that a fatal explosion at an unfinished natural gas-fired power plant in Connecticut over the weekend underscores safety concerns about a proposed natural gas pipeline in New Jersey.

An explosion Sunday at the Kleen Energy Systems plant in Middletown, Connecticut killed at least five workers.

“This tragic incident reminds us that natural gas, while cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, comes with safety risks. The explosion raises a red flag about the construction of a natural gas line that would run through New Jersey primarily for the benefit of New York,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement.

Tommaso Boggia at Funding Our Future writes:

During the CitizenTube State of the Union Q & A discussion, President Obama severely dodged a question submitted by young activists about his support of dirty energy.His answer is unwise, and deceitful. I hate to say this about the President that has done more to invest in a clean energy economy than anyone before him (not a hard accomplishment since W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter were the only presidents in office since clean energy became an issue), but young people are tired of being lied to by the White House and congress.

He continues:

Despite the evidence and public support, President Obama’s comments disregarded the potential of renewable energy. Instead, he championed dangerous and dirty alternatives like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (for some incomprehensible President Obama keeps on calling it ‘clean coal’) and nuclear energy even though many studies question their ability to quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. CCS is extremely inefficient, forcing us to dig up and burn much more coal per unit of energy produced (that certainly won’t help our friends in West Virginia fighting to protect their mountains). Nuclear energy consumes large amounts of fresh water, already a precious resource that will become even more rare as the climate warms up.Is President Obama’s support for these dirty forms of energy just a gimmick to schmooze voters?

It is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that President Obama truly embraces the Republican mantra of ‘all of the above’ as an energy policy. One problem: ‘all of the above’ is a catchphrase, not a plan for sustainably powering our economy for decades into the future. Acknowledging that there is legitimate role for coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in our energy mix is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even with the right policies and investments it will take decades to alter our energy mix to a somewhat-sustainable balance. But when President Obama uses his rhetorical gifts to sing the praises of dirty energy — and encourages increased oil/gas drilling and loan guarantees for constructing new nuclear power plants — he is moving our energy mix in the wrong direction and making the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy more lengthy and expensive.

You can watch the question and answer session here at the 31:38 mark:

President Obama spoke today at the GOP House Issues Conference. After his remarks, he took questions from several Republican members of Congress. In response to a question from Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the president expanded on his praise of polluting energy sources in this week’s State of the Union Address.

On coal, President Obama said:

“For example, nobody has been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. Testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.”

“We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it’s going to be different. And that means there’s going to be some transition. And that’s where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there’s going to be a transition process — and we’re not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away — that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.”

On nuclear, President Obama said:

“I’ve said that I’m a promoter of nuclear energy, something that I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don’t think it makes sense.”

On energy policy in general, President Obama said:

“So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again with respect to energy, I’m for a lot of what you said you are for.”

The full exchange is below.

Update — JW Randolph at the Front Porch blog has the video.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is just awful:

Workers at a nuclear power plant in southern India were treated for poisoning after drinking water was deliberately spiked with radiation, senior government officials said Sunday.

Routine tests showed 55 employees from the plant in Kaiga in the state of Karnataka had increased levels of the radioactive element tritium, which is used in nuclear reactors.

B. Bhattacharjee, a member of the National Disaster Management Authority, said someone had inserted contaminated water into a water cooler, according to the Press Trust of India.

This is not a surprise, but I still don’t like the sound of it:

“The bill I’m trying to craft will be very pro-nuclear,” Mr. Graham offered. “We also have to utilize the coal we have and make it clean coal. I’m trying to combine energy independence with the renaissance of nuclear energy and controlling carbon.”