This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burlitt, coming up. For the first time
in history, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders the owner of a power dam to remove
it so fish can migrate upstream. We meet the man who has piloted the Elden Research
Submarine and made over 500 dives. Our ear to the ground builds trails and greenways
with help from the government program everybody likes. In our continuing series on the Great
American Harvest, we cut Christmas trees in Wisconsin, where this year's crop is being
ready for the market. These stories and more coming up on the Environment Show.
The Edwards Dam stretches 900 feet across the Kennebec River in Maine and is 19 feet
high. It's said that author Nathaniel Hawthorne watched the structure being built in 1837,
160 years ago. The dam looks like it was built of Lincoln logs. Actually, it's a log
crib which is filled with rocks. Now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC,
says it has to go. FERC just denied the application of the Edwards Manufacturing Company and
the city of Augusta, Maine to relicence the hydropower dam. This is the first time in
history FERC has done such a thing. I spoke with Steve Brook, project coordinator for
the Kennebec Coalition on the day the FERC decision was handed down. The Coalition is
comprised of environmental groups who have been working for this result for over a decade.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued for the first time an order that denied
a new license and requires the removal of an operating dam. Since 1920, this is the first
time that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has taken this type of an action. They did it
because the Kennebec River in the Augusta area is a very unique and a very special resource.
The agency has taken this action to balance the use of the river with the resources that
are there in fisheries. Since 1987, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been required
to give equal consideration both to power values and to non-power values. This is really
one of the first major cases where FERC has very aggressively balanced this and decided
that the river's value is free-flowing as greater value to society than it is as an
impoundment generating a very small amount of power. The dam is 42 miles upriver from the sea
and if removed, will open up additional critical miles of river for fish. Again, Steve Brut.
As the commission has looked at this, they've considered a wide range of things. They've
considered how the power is easily replaced with existing local utilities. They consider
the fact that removal is going to provide nine species of fish with continuous access to
15 miles of very important spawning habitat. I think they feel that it's going to provide
access to at least four species of fish that could never have used fish passage at this
site on the river. I think that they've considered the fact that there are significant wetlands
habitats that will benefit from this. They're considering the recreational, the boating,
the fishing industries that will benefit from this. I think that they're also considering
the fact that there are no major environmental or social drawbacks to this decision.
Before ordering its removal, FERC considered the feasibility of building fish ladders or
other devices to let the fish get over or around the dam.
Peter Affle, communications director for Trout Unlimited, which was one of the groups
in the Kennebec Coalition said the numbers just don't work out.
The environmental impact statement estimated that adapting the dam to pass some of the fish
would cost something like $10 million. And that removing the dam altogether would cost
considerably less than that, just over half that amount. Also, the cost of trying to get
some of the fish past the dam would eventually exceed the revenues that the power from the dam
generated. So it really turned out to be an uneconomical project. The real kicker, though,
was that certain species of fish couldn't get past the dam even with state of the art,
fisheries, passage, devices, fish ladders and that sort of thing. So the only hope for
them was to remove the dam altogether.
The owner of the dam, Edwards Manufacturing Company, will appeal the FERC decision. Mark
Isaacson, vice president of Edwards, thinks the decision to shut down a clean source of
energy was wrong, and it was also wrong to require his company to remove the dam without
compensation.
That is not the current system. The current system says that at the end of the term of
license, either you get a new license or you get your net investment out of this project.
And that is the bargain which every licensey accepts when they accept a license. It is
also the bargain which the government accepts when it issues a license. And what is an
effect happening here is that the government is attempting to get around inside of the
bargain.
Steve Brook of the Kennebec Coalition believes the responsibility of a license holder is
quite different.
This license is expired and now the licensey is being asked to return the river to the
public in the condition that it was before the dam was built. And it is only fair. Once
you have used somebody's public resource, you need to return it to them in an undamaged
condition. So it is fair and it is appropriate that the licensees be required to remove this
dam.
Everyone agrees that the Edwards dam decision will not open a flood of licensed denials.
But it does show that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is now taking seriously its responsibility
to balance power interests with environmental concerns in the process of re-licensing hydro-power
projects.
The new oceanographic scientists will tell you that deep sea research is easy. Visibility
is poor and the environment is extreme. But for more than 30 years, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute has operated Alvin, a submarine that has assisted scientists in their efforts
to better understand our oceans. While the submarine is small, its contributions to science
have been significant. The environment shows Stephen Westcott recently traveled to Woods
Hole Massachusetts to talk with one of Alvin's pilots about his long relationship with this
unique vehicle.
Dudley Foster, a mechanical engineer and former Navy jet pilot, came to Woods Hole Ocean
ographic Institute on Cape Cod more than 30 years ago. At that time, the Alvin project
was just coming together. His job was to help develop new equipment to be used with Alvin.
Since then, Foster has become one of the sub's most experienced pilots. Just this past
year, he took part on his 500th dive in the sub. Foster has been all over the world
and places man has never been before. He says the most important part of being a submarine
pilot is the ability to help yourself if trouble occurs because rescue capabilities are minimal
when you are thousands of feet below the surface.
One of my very early first training dives were we went down on a dive was one of our other
pilots at that time. He was just qualified as a pilot. We had gone down to pick up some
rocks and science samples. The variable ballast system we have, which allows the submarine
to get heavier light, he decided we were a little bit light so he turned the switch on to
flood some water into some tanks to get a little bit lighter or get a little bit heavier
and continued to do some other manipulative tasks. Then the batteries were getting low
so we decided it was time to come up but then he discovered that he left the switch on.
To make matters worse, the low batteries prohibited the pilot from flushing the water out. In
the end, Foster says rock samples collected during the dive were removed which allowed the
sub to return to the surface. But had they not been successful in raising the sub, those
on board may not have suffered the worst. Alvin is equipped with an eject button, something
no other submersible in the world has. The forward portion of the submarine where the
people are, which is the personnel sphere, can be released from the rest of the submarine.
So it's like an ejection seat on an airplane like I used to fly and the advantage of that
is that if the some volume in the submarine got flooded like the problem I had or the
submarines after portion propellers get snagged in a cable or something that you can't get
loose of, any condition that would be where you drop the amount of weights that you could
and you still couldn't get off the bottom, then the pilot can turn a shaft in the bottom
of the sphere, 90 degrees and then the four body floats loose of the rest.
The sub is a little over 23 feet long, 12 feet high and has a gross weight of 34,000 pounds.
Alvin has the ability to die 15,000 feet enough to cover more than 80% of the ocean floor.
Its cockpit is about 7 feet long, pretty tight quarters when you're carrying three people.
All the dangerous conditions and sacrifices made by foster and other scientists are great,
three wards are even greater.
Foster says in its 30 year history, Alvin has been part of some very important oceanographic
and geological findings, including the theory of plate tectonics.
Some people will disagree about when they decided that was a real something that really
happened not just the theory and I think that the results of the work we're doing on
the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was pretty definitive that plate tectonics was a reality not just
the theory.
There are other people that think there were other physical properties that really had
to be proven in order to support that theory, but I think the geology told the story.
In addition, Foster says Alvin provided scientists with their first look at hydrothermal vent blasts
located off the coast of Mexico.
The vents emit a mineral rich black smoke that reaches temperatures of 650 degrees Fahrenheit.
Foster says helping scientists from across the U.S. make new discoveries is very interesting
and rewarding work.
He says he doesn't dwell on the opportunities he has had too much, but when he does, they
can be emotional recollections.
Because when you think about it, I'm looking out the window of Alvin when I'm moving along
the bottom and I'm seeing a few square meters of the earth's surface that nobody else has
ever seen in the history of mankind.
And likely never we'll see again because the oceans are so vast and the sea floors so vast
it's unlikely that anybody's going to go to that same very spot, see that same view.
So that's pretty unique.
Foster was even able to view the Titanic three times in the 1980s, but today he is taking
part in fewer dives.
Much of his time now is spent on managerial and engineering work, something he doesn't
mind since weeks at sea can take its toll even on the heartiest of souls.
Because for the future Foster says he doesn't see more subs like Alvin being built, he says
a lack of funding limits the research scientists can do at sea, which probably makes the research
currently being conducted even more important.
For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burler.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S. and Jenny R. Donaldson Charitable Trust,
Bob and Marilyn Schumann and Hemings Motor News, the monthly Bible of the collector
Car Hobby, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
The Environment Show would like to hear from you.
Who knows, we might even put you on the air.
Give us a call.
The number is 1-888-49-Green.
That's 1-888-49-Green.
Our email address is green at wamc.org.
That's green at wamc.org.
You're listening to the Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burler.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Eard of the Ground with stories about people affecting
change in the environment.
This week, beyond the boundaries of the National Park.
Consider the most popular government agency.
The National Park Service has been around since 1916.
Its purpose is to take care of the National Park Service.
This is to take care of a number of federal properties, which today total more than
370 units.
These include monuments, historic sites, battlefields, and most notably, the big parks like Yellowstone
and Yosemite.
All of these resources explains Tom Ross, Assistant Director of the Park Services Recreation
and Conservation Division, are managed on the behalf of the American people.
Yet, it's not the only way the Park Service carries out its mission of protecting America's
natural and cultural resources.
Ross oversees a program called the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program,
or RTCA.
The River Trails and Conservation Assistance Program was started back in the late 1980s
through the work of one of our regional offices and principally working with river resources
and working with local groups and organizations that were working to promote access and
opportunities for recreational long rivers.
Or protecting rivers and streams or building trails for hiking and biking.
Projects are done always through the invitation of a local organization, be it local governments
or conservation groups.
Ross says RTCA does not initiate any of the projects, but rather acts as a partner providing
technical assistance.
We go in and we work to build community, help build community consensus, help facilitate
all the various interests in various particular resources.
We share the kinds of experiences and the kind of things we've learned around the country
and working with communities and organizations on benefits of things like trails and green
ways and rivers.
In many cases we are able to, because of our experience and our expertise, tap into a
variety of funding sources.
For example, Ross says the RTCA worked in Portland, Maine with citizens who wanted to reconnect
part of the community that had been cut off by a roadway.
Eventually the project grew and led to the vision of a 30-mile network of trails within
the city.
Ross says through RTCA's assistance the project was able to receive over $2.5 million from
a variety of sources, including the Department of Transportation, Neighborhood Groups and
local businesses.
Projects may range from only one month to several years, like the one in Portland.
They can be in rural communities or urban ones.
Whatever or wherever Ross says the RTCA is helping communities rediscover those important
natural and recreational resources in their own backyards or main streets.
Converting a band in railroad cartors into trails, getting access or preserving a river
corridor that may have been used for industrial purposes and converting it now into a recreational
area or conservation area, providing trail networks through a community that open up the
community to access by foot or by bicycle.
The RTCA program overall is very small.
Ross says they get about half of 1% of the National Park Service budget, operating 20 offices
around the country.
There are more projects than they can handle, so there is a selection process.
RTCA tries to have an equal mix of trails versus river projects, local versus statewide
significance, and special consideration is given to projects facing development pressures.
Groups interested in working with the RTCA should contact the National Park Service through
a regional officer.
Tom Ross says it's very important for people to realize how valuable the natural resources
are in their own communities.
Most Americans, he says, do not have the opportunity to visit National Parks on a regular
basis, but through programs like the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program,
Ross says the park service comes to where people live.
With ear to the ground, I'm Linda Anderson.
And now it's time for the Earth Calendar.
We continue our series on the Great American Harvest.
As we broadcast, Christmas trees are being cut and distributed for the holiday season.
While they're grown all over the United States, Wisconsin is one of the country's largest
producers.
Brad Miller is owner of the Christmas tree farm in Mendoro, Wisconsin, located on the
western edge of the state along the Mississippi River.
Miller says pruning is one of the most important parts of producing quality trees.
The pines, mostly long needle trees such as white pine and scotch pine, Norway pine.
There are furs such as balsam fir, freezer fir, white or con-color fir, and then there
are the spruces.
Colorado, white, black, Norway.
And each has to be handled a little differently.
The pines, which grow only from the end of the branch, that is they have a bud on the
end of the branch, and then each year that bud breaks and extends and then sets another
bud, which becomes next year's growth.
They must be trimmed probably in Wisconsin between early June and the end of July.
If for some reason the tree is not trimmed within that period of time, then they're probably
lost as Christmas trees.
That is they will have large gaps and large openings and will be unsalable as Christmas
trees.
Miller says fur and spruces have buds along each branch and can be trimmed anytime they're
not actively growing.
Once the trees are ready for cutting, he has workers harvest the trees for both retail
and wholesale distribution.
But Miller says many people prefer the cut your own method, which is grown in popularity
especially in recent years.
Well, it's a real experience and if the weather cooperates here in Wisconsin, obviously
if it's a 20 degree below windshield, people don't want to be walking around in the woods
cutting their own tree.
But if the weather is acceptable, it can be a lot of fun.
People come and make a whole day of it.
They tailgate.
They bring their pets.
They bring grandma and grandpa.
They bring the neighbors.
They make a whole experience of it.
The addition of horse-drawn sleigh rides and my farm has drawn a lot of people.
I have people come and cut their tree and then come back later to ride on the sleigh with
their kids.
And it becomes a source of tradition, I think, especially for young families, families
with young children.
I can look forward to every year and compare one year's experience with another.
Miller says for those preferring pre-cut trees, freshness is most important.
He says consumers should first look at the needles.
If needles come off easily within your fingers if they snap or are pulled from the tree without
much resistance, then the tree is dry.
That is the unusual situation to be found on a tree lot.
What usually happens is that the tree is taken home and then not cared for properly.
It should have a fresh cut so that it will draw water and then it is critical that cut
always be kept below a water line.
Fresh cut Christmas tree when first put up in a house might take a gallon or more of
water in the first day or two.
But it happens typically that people aren't conscious of the fact that the water reservoir
in there and their stand has been depleted and then that cut heals over and the tree will
no longer draw water.
It takes between seven and twelve years to produce a Christmas tree depending on the
species.
But when the tree is harvested, consumers receive instant gratification.
And unlike some forestry, Christmas tree growing is an example of sustainable agriculture.
So enjoy your tree and we'll give you a green tip of the later show on how to dispose
of it.
Unless of course you want to keep it up all year round.
Thanks for listening, this is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
Still ahead.
An irrigation engineer from Zimbabwe says one of the challenges is building canals with
animal escapes so antelope and wildebeests don't drown.
We talk green about global warming and nuclear power.
Will efforts to limit fossil fuel use resuscitate the ailing nuclear industry?
And author David Peterson takes us to his special place in southern Colorado where the
aspens trees define the seasons.
Now it's summertime in Zimbabwe Africa.
It rains at this time of year typically in torrential amounts for about 40 minutes starting
in the early afternoon which is then followed by light showers.
This falls a heat build up in the morning.
During the Zimbabwe winter from April through mid-October there is no rainfall so irrigation
is vital to Zimbabwe's agricultural production.
John Pudgeoli is an irrigation engineer.
A native of Zimbabwe he lives in Harari and is area manager for Central Africa for
Ranggood International, a multinational company that sells irrigation equipment.
We have no rainfall from about April right through to middle of October.
That is considered our winter months.
So irrigation on crops like wheat is very very important.
Our main crop is tobacco and they start planting it in October which they start to pre irrigate
to bring the soils up to what they call fuel capacity.
Various forms of irrigation have taken place over the years.
The first one being flood and still one of the most commonly used throughout Zimbabwe
in our southern region where we have hiragane we have mainly all flood irrigation.
With now more and more sprinkler irrigation being introduced.
Pudgeoli says the big irrigation can also present difficulties for large wild animals such
as edelope, impala, kuru, ilan and wildebeest and also for smaller wildlife like baboons,
wild dogs and jackals.
We are very careful about putting in what we call animal escapes because of the size of
these canals.
It is in an area where there are a lot of animals and to try and make sure that a large percentage
of them they will want to come and drink water they will try and jump the canal and unfortunately
some will get caught in it.
However, every kilometer along these big canals we have what we call animal escapes.
That is to ensure that if a large antelope goes in there is a 98% chance that it will come
out at one of these animal escapes.
An animal escape consists of a series of steps which enable the beast to climb out of
the water and over the canal bank.
The power to drive irrigation pumps come largely from the Kareba Dam.
Pudgeoli says as more dams have been built recently Zimbabwe has given greater consideration
to the downstream environmental impact of the dams.
Back in the early 1960s when Kareba Dam was first constructed I would say yes they didn't
think about those kind of ecological problems and there was operation and other which was
put into practice.
Because of the flooding to move the animals because those were the ones mostly affected
and the people in that area in terms of resettlement to areas that were where the waters wouldn't
reach.
Now I think Zimbabwe has learnt a huge lesson from that and where dams are constructed
it's basically where there is a crying need for water, mainly purely for never mind irrigation
but for people living and working in that area.
Pudgeoli says another thing that is changing is that international companies such as the
one that he works for are bringing a stronger commitment to the environment than was the
case in the past.
Pretty much they are very concerned about the environment and in my experience which
is very very good to see and I think this is a considerable change to 20 years ago.
They definitely have a much higher concern for what is happening around them in that country
and which is very pleasing and it's one of the reasons why the Zimbabwe government is
encouraging more and more investment in that area.
In Pudgeoli's opinion agriculture in Zimbabwe and its current form is sustainable.
While tobacco, sugar and corn are major crops he foresees an increase in the production of
citrus, macadamia nuts, mangoes, asparagus, tomatoes and cabbages for markets in Europe
and South Africa.
This will come about as more efficient irrigation techniques are put into practice.
We're talking green and I'm Peter Burlet.
Today we're talking about climate change, reduction of carbon dioxide or greenhouse
gas emissions and nuclear energy.
In anticipation of the Kyoto conference on climate change a lot of material has been
disseminated by the nuclear power industry to the effect that nuclear power is indeed the
way to keep the lights on without adding to carbon dioxide emissions.
Until the question is should concern about climate change cause us to take another look
at nuclear power or perhaps less charredly is climate change merely a twig that an inefficient
and environmentally undesirable dinosaur, IE the nuclear power industry, is grasping
at as it sinks into extinction in the swamp.
That should generate some comment.
We want to hear your views.
Give us a call.
Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
That's 1-888-49-Green and I have two guests with me today.
One is Scott Peterson and he is Senior Director of External Communications for the Nuclear Energy
Institute which is a nuclear energy industry group.
And Alka Piersma.
He is Energy Policy Analyst for the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project.
Public Citizen is a consumer and anti-nuclear group and they are both with us from Washington
DC.
So I would like to start with you Scott Peterson from the Energy Institute.
He is nuclear energy in a appropriate way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Absolutely Peter.
In fact we have got a long history of doing just that since plants began coming online
about 40 years ago, nuclear energy has in fact been the clean air alternative to climate
change.
And we think the world's need for nuclear energy is likely to be the subtext in fact
of climate change talks in Kyoto in December.
In the United States we have got more than 100 nuclear energy plants generating about 20%
of our electricity today which is by far the cleanest source of electricity that we have.
If you look at the carbon dioxide reductions that have taken place in this country since 1973
in the electric utility industry, nuclear energy is responsible for 90% of those reductions.
Okay.
Well Alka Piersma from the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project, I would presume you have
probably see this somewhat differently.
Yeah and indeed we do.
I think there are two major issues to nuclear power as the answer to climate change.
And it's funny I think this is one of the few times the nuclear industry and public
citizen agree on an issue in terms of climate change being a problem that we have to address.
However we're concerned with nuclear power as the answer and essentially it comes down
to two things.
One, economics which everyone needs to talk about.
And the second one of course is nuclear waste.
I would like to look at the economic issue since I gather we also all agree that if you
do produce electricity through nuclear power you're not adding to greenhouse gases but I
think we all agree that whatever is done is going to be economically sound.
Scott we see nuclear power plants closing all over the United States for a major reason
and that is that economically they just can't cut it.
They can't generate electricity on an economic basis in a competitive market.
How do you cope with that at the same time when advocates that we spend this is an energy
source?
Well if I can just correct one point we've had less than a handful of plants shut down
in recent years because of economics and what we're facing now in the electric utility
industry is a move toward deregulation in the states and from a competitive standpoint
we see that as good news for the nuclear energy industry.
When you look at the price of electricity and how that's going to be marketed in this
new climate it's going to be based on production costs of how cheaply can you produce electricity
based on things like operating and maintenance and fuel costs.
When you look at nuclear energy it costs on average about 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour
for us to produce electricity at nuclear power plants that's essentially equal to coal
as the lowest cost producer and as far ahead of natural gas which is about 3.5 cents.
So when you look at the cost of producing nuclear energy now and going forward into a competitive
environment we see that as a very favorable environment for nuclear power to continue
to operate.
Okay does that match your look at the numbers?
Not quite.
The only way to power is competitive in an open competition market is by bailing them
out first and that's what they're asking for.
They're asking for what they term straining costs which essentially is everybody in their
local utility base have to pay them extra money just because and the problem with that is
that we don't think you should be bailing out industry and then turn around and say
that industry is economic.
It doesn't make sense.
And so Scott how do you deal with that stranded cost issue if it's not by charging the
rate pair?
Well you look at stranded costs and exactly what that is and what that is is recovering
the cost of the plants that the utilities have paid ahead of time that each state regulator
of utility industry says okay we'll give the utility 40 years to recover these costs.
It's an established way of doing business and it's something that they'll have to deal
with not only with nuclear power plants but with coal plants and with a lot of energy efficiency
and low income heating and cooling programs.
So we think that these costs have already been judged prudent in each state.
The states that have passed legislation so far to deregulate the nuclear power industry
and the electricity industry as a whole have recognized that these costs are indeed prudent
and that they should be paid for as we transition into a competitive environment.
But before we get to the environmental piece which is really what this show is about we
did a story quite recently for the environment show about a planet Connecticut in which
it was being decommissioned and yet the costs that that was going to involve the money that
it was going to take to take that thing apart exceeded the reserves that they had to do
that by a factor of 100% or more so that the costs seem to be huge to take the thing apart
and that raised some real questions at least in my mind as to whether this whole thing
was economic or not.
Well there are costs involved with decommissioning and rightfully so that sometimes they are
large costs because you want to return the site to the condition in which you found
it. Utilities do cover these costs over the lifetime of the plant and as operation goes
forward every so often they check the fund to make sure that it is in line with what
it is going to cost to decommission the plant.
One of the issues that you have when you do shut down early as the plant in Connecticut
did is you may not have sufficient time to recover those costs if you have an early
shutdown.
In fact that is one of the important issues that the industry has moving forward is to
ensure that as we go into competition we go into deregulation that these costs are again
something that is provided for as we move forward in the same fair mechanism that they
are required for now.
But that Connecticut shutdown was occasioned at least according to the folk running the
plant was they just couldn't hack it economically anymore it just couldn't sell the stuff at
a price that would let it go.
But let's go to the environmental issue.
Alka, let's suppose Tim Worth or whoever is going to be hitting the delegation calls
me up calls you up and says succinctly why shouldn't from an environmental perspective we
look at the nuclear option as an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Two words nuclear waste.
Essentially you think about it compared to the tobacco industry and it's like giving
up smoking by taking up crack.
That's the comparison to make here.
Climate changes are a serious issue but nuclear waste is potentially a much worse issue.
Redirective nuclear waste that comes out as reactors last a million years and nobody has
any concept of how to deal with in a long term.
The federal government currently is studying a site to try to attempt to bury it but even
if you think about burying a nuclear waste for a million years you can't comprehend what
needs to happen for that million years to make sure the waste stays there and doesn't
come up and contaminate anybody or contaminate even worse drinking water.
And so from your perspective the waste issue alone means that we just got to do this
another way.
Exactly.
And Scott, when you look at the nuclear waste issue where are places that you think it's
doing right which would be done right which would justify continuing the effort?
Well, when you look at managing the use of fuel from these facilities there's international
scientific consensus that it can be done safely and it's not a technical problem.
It's more of a political problem and one of political will here in the United States.
But the commonly accepted method of managing this fuel is deep geologic burial not only
but they don't put the fuel in the ground by itself.
They encase it in a robust canister that has been designed, has been tested, has been
licensed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And these canisters are designed to last and designed to keep the radiation inside the
cask and not let it leak out.
But when you say this is a political problem we live in a political world in which in
the democracy people express their views.
If nobody wants to put this stuff in their backyard do we need to tell them to do it anyway?
Well, what you have now is you have the responsibility of the federal government to accept this fuel.
That's been a longstanding responsibility since the Atomic Energy Act in 1954.
Both houses of the Bay of Congress this year have passed legislation to give the Department
of Energy a sensible plan to move forward with this.
The only thing now that steps in the way is the White House which is threatened to veto
the bill.
We think that the White House would drop its veto threat and sign the legislation that's
coming out of Congress with strong bipartisan support.
But wasn't again back to the politics wasn't one of the things that was happening here was
a Republican Congress was putting this into Nevada where you have a couple of democratic
senators who opposed it vigorously but any who got the president on their side.
But the Congress was reacting to the science that they had in front of them and when the
Department of Energy sent it scientists to look at three potential sites back in the 1980s
they sent back a report and in that scientific report in nearly every case the site in Nevada
and the Yucca Mountain which DOE continues to study today came out the top in every technical
scientific criteria that they looked at.
Okay what we're hearing is that scientifically this is a problem that's solved or has been
solved and therefore all we've got to do is worry about the politics.
Do you agree with that?
No I think that while politics is playing a key role here the scientific debate is far
from over.
Firstly you have to understand that Yucca Mountain is which is the site that proposing to
bury the waist and is by no means a done deal.
There are several major scientific uncertainties in the mountain the least of which is implications
of rainwater coming down from the surface and a much faster rate than they expected previously.
There's also issues of earthquakes with major fault zones running through the mountain and
yet we think it's safe to put nuclear waste there.
Let's move aside from Yucca for a moment and think again about climate change.
The US is not the only country that wrestles with the nuclear issue.
We see a huge amount of power being planned and contemplated in developing countries.
What are the alternatives do they have?
What should the negotiating posture be at Kyoto when the United States comes to grips
with this?
Again, I'll call it start with you.
What do you think the US should be saying?
I think the US should take a much stronger stance than they have already.
They should disregard the industry claims that this will cost us our economic well-being
clearly that's not true.
The US should see itself as an environmental nation and we should push forward this debate.
It's clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy can take a much longer role in dealing
with this issue.
Scott, what is the industry saying to the US about the position it should take and also
to developing countries who are looking at this issue perhaps more seriously than we are?
I think we agree with Alkan in terms that there is a need for renewable sources and efficiency,
but you have to take a long look at base load power, the large sources of electricity.
Some of these countries like Japan have limited natural resources to generate electricity
with.
Nuclear power is an important source to them.
Japan is already 34% nuclear and they have announced that they're going to order another
20 nuclear plants just to meet their clean air goals.
China is doing the same thing.
It has an enormous air quality problem with all the cold it it burns and during the recent
US, China, some of the President Clinton authorized the sale of US reactors to China as one
way that it can combat its air quality problem and they plan to build two nuclear plants
a year through the year 2020, which is a very significant program.
Alkan, sounds as though a lot of people elsewhere are moving forward pretty fast.
Are there alternatives that we should be offering them?
Clearly, I think the US would be much better served by offering up its incredible lead
and what it already has in energy efficiency.
If the US energy efficiency market were to surge forward, we'd create a lot more jobs
back home than if the nuclear power market were to surge forward.
And more importantly, we would protect the world from nuclear waste and from preparation
concerns that are a part of all this debate.
Okay, well I'm afraid our time is up.
I've been talking with Scott Peterson who is Senior Director of External Communications
of the Nuclear Energy Institute and Alka Piersma who is with Public Citizen Critical
Mass Energy Project.
We've been discussing global warming and nuclear energy.
We'd like to hear your views.
Call us at 1-888-49-Green.
We've been talking green and I'm Peter Burling.
You can hear the environment show anytime through our web page and also talk to us.
The address is www.enn.com.
Send us an email at green at wamc.org.
We all have places that are special to us.
For some it's a city street, for others it's deep in the wilderness.
For author David Peterson it's the mountains of southern Colorado.
His new book is entitled The Nearby Far Away.
Looking from a section of his book Autumn Aspen Haiku, Peterson presents a portrait of
the seasonal changes in this pristine landscape.
During all the young years I've fredded in cities, I counted the turning of the seasons
by calendar pages.
Since moving to the southern Colorado Rockies nearly 20 years ago, I've learned to rely
on nature as my calendar, the trees in particular, here in the Quaking Aspen Forest I call home.
One time begins the day the winter snow has melted sufficiently to reveal the first pink
delicate wildflower, Claytonia, and becomes official when the Aspen catkins burst, releasing
seed to the wind.
Summer arrives on the wings of Scarlet and Yellow Western Tannagers, timed to the leafing
of the Aspons.
Autumn, simultaneously the saddest and most sublime of seasons, is heralded by the
brassy bugling of rutting bull elk and mountains set aflame with dying Aspons.
Early as August, Yellow leaves begin dotting the ground, though no visible sign of change
is apparent in the lime green canopy of the groves.
By months in, however, these southern mountains are near solid gold, with one of the most beautiful
processes in nature having begun.
Given favorable conditions, the shimmering glory can linger well into October.
This is recited the annual Autumn Aspen Haiku.
Yellow leaf flutters to forest floor.
No where is death, more beautiful.
Finally, inevitably, winter returns with the first major snowstorm, bleaching the mountains
of their residual brilliance and reducing the Quakes to stark naked skeletons.
This year, winter's first storm arrives at night, in a boisterous arctic howl, flake
by perfect flake, the wet white sleets down, piling up until by morning, many younger,
still flexible Aspons or bowed tips to ground, like so many horseshoes turned open ends down,
their luck spilling out.
When a foot has accumulated, a few aging, ailing Quakes, they resolve, dissolved in the
face of another long mountain winter, release their existential rootings and make slow, somber
pratfalls to stasis.
At a snow depth of two feet, more Aspons, middle aged, healthy looking, roots firmly
rooted, but torso's gone rigid with arthritic disposition, try to resist the indomitable
force of mass times gravity, are overwhelmed, snapped clean and two, and their tops come
crashing down.
I hear the rifle cracks of these violent decapitations almost every time I venture out into the frigid
night to melt snow with used coffee.
On the second morning the storm having blown itself out, I strap on snowshoes and
trudge around inspecting the pale corpses of broke-backed trees.
In the marrow of every last one is exposed the punky tissue diagnostic of Aspenheart rot.
A discreet and efficient predator is winter's first storm, culling the feeble, the inflexible,
the irresolute, a sharp fang wolf at work amongst a bloated flock.
It's a seeming disaster now, but come spring the survivors will emerge leaner, stronger,
straightening, stretching, flexing, reaching for the sun, enjoying more room to grow and
prosper, the vigorous products of adversity endured.
Aspen as exemplar.
That was author David Peterson reading from his latest book entitled The Nearby Far Away.
It was published by Johnson Books.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burling.
Don't buy that used nuclear power plant without a copy of the program.
Call 1-888-49-Green and ask for show number 414.
The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Shartock is executive producer, produces a Rachel Phillips and Stephen Westcott.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W.A.W.
East Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Oliver S. and Jenny
R. Donaldson Charitable Trust, Bob and Marilyn Schumann and Heming's Motor News, the monthly
Bible of the collector car hobby, 1-800-CAR-HRE.
Be good to the earth and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0