Where in the world is the USA? Collected statistics related to the environment compare the USA to other nations.

Often in the midst of conversation, Lee Moore will throw out a cogent statistic or two related to the subject at hand. While some folks make up such statistics, Lee's interests have led him to compile reliable statistics on a wide range of subjects. Here are a number of lists largely related to environmental concerns from his personal collection.


Gasoline Prices: USD per gallon (2005)
Norway 6.2
Britain 6.0
Germany 6.0
Italy 5.9
France 5.7
Poland 5.0
Japan 4.4
Australia 3.7
USA 2.4
(Raw cost is everywhere $2/gal; the difference is tax to discourage consumption and fund mass transit.)

Gasoline Consumption : Gallons per person per year (1997)
USA 459
Germany 140
Japan 113
(Germany is the second largest consumer worldwide, so the USA really stands out.)

Fuel Economy : avg passenger vehicle mpg and average engine size (2005)
Japan 48 mpg
Europe 41 mpg 1.6 (avg engine size in liters)
Australia 32 mpg
Canada 28 mpg
USA 24 mpg 3.4 (avg engine size in liters)

Oil Consumption : barrels per person per year (1999)
USA 25
Japan 16
Europe  14
Latin Amer 4

Oil Reserves
Billions of barrels (2005)  and years remaining at current extraction rates. New fields will of course be found.
Saudi Arabia 260 billion barrels, 66 years at current rate
Iran 140 billion barrels, 93 years at current rate
Iraq 115 billion barrels, 100 years at current rate
Kuwait 100 billion barrels,100 years at current rate
UAE 100 billion barrels, 97 years at current rate
Venezuela 80 billion barrels, 73 years at current rate
Russia 75 billion barrels, 21 years at current rate
Kazakhstan 40 billion barrels, 80 years at current rate
Libya 40 billion barrels, 63 years at current rate
Nigeria 40 billion barrels, 38 years at current rate
USA 35 billion barrels, 12 years at current rate
Canada 20 billion barrels, 15 years at current rate
China 20 billion barrels, 12 years at current rate
Mexico 15 billion barrels, 10 years at current rate

Water Consumption: Cubic meters per person, includes agriculture (2002)
USA 1690
Canada 1430
Australia 940
Japan 720
Germany 710
France 700
Britain 200

CO2 Emissions : Tonnes per person (2002)
USA 20
Singapore 14
Czech Rep. 10
Russia 10
Japan 9
Poland 8
Hungary 6
Mexico 4
China 3
India 1.5

Organic Farmland: % agricultural land certified organic (2004)
Switzerland 10.3
Austria 9.8
Finland 7.1
Italy 7.0
Denmark 6.2
Sweden 6.0
Britain 4.2
Germany 4.1
Australia 2.6
Spain 2.5
Canada 0.9
Japan 0.7
USA 0.2

Environmental Taxes: Taxes on energy use, big cars, etc -- as % of total taxes. (2005)
Denmark 9.5
Holland 9.5
Germany 7.0
Britain 7.0
Japan 6.0
Poland 6.0
Spain 5.5
France 5.0
Canada 3.5
USA 3.0
(As total taxes are lowest in the USA, the actual environmental taxes are very low.)

Miscellaneous  Facts

• In 2000 the Total National Energy Use in average BTUs per person per day was 48 in Europe and 368 in the USA.
• The average American generates over 1600 pounds of garbage per year, more than twice that of the average European.
• The average American consumes nearly 750 pounds of paper per year, by far the most in the world.
• If the world's 6 billion people consumed like the average American, we would need at least 4 more planets to supply the resources and absorb the wastes.
• In 2003 the average American consumed 53 times more resources than a Chinese, and 35 times more than an Indian.
• American use of oil:  66% to all transportation, 40% to auto/truck gasoline.

Sources ‒ OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), US Census Bureau, Office of Economic Development, US Energy Information Adm., US Dept of Health, Justice Policy Institute, Standard and  Poor's, UNICEF, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Education Statistics, Eurostat

Some concerned that new South Texas Oil Boom (with Fracking) may destroy our water supply.

Will the Eagle Ford Shale oil boom destroy our underground water supply?

Read all about it in the San Antonio Current Sinking feelings: Gas fracking may already be lowering water tables in South Texas

"Put the Grease in the Bin" : a message for Londoners that applies to San Antonians equally if not more

San Antonio Water System is wrestling with EPA over sewage spills.  The current SAWS "Don't feed the grease monster" campaign is part of an effort to control sewage spills.  When the fat congeals it clogs the pipes.  When the pipes get clogged, they overflow.  This is a problem where ever there are sewers.

In San Antonio Water Systems and the EPA are negotiating on a solution to all too frequent sewer discharges into area rivers and streams.  Grease diversion is believed to play a major role in preventing sewer overflows.

If you care enough about the environment to not litter and to recycle then add diverting grease to your list.

The video below features London sewer workers on location with a message in song concerning keeping the fat out of the drain.

Is the Texas Department of Transportation making ugly the Texas Highways that Lady Bird Johnson sought to beautify? Dr. Royce Keilers says yes they are!

by Dr. Royce Keilers (Republished by permission of Show Daily Magazine,the comprehensive guide to the twice annual Antique Week in and around Warrenton, Texas.)


In the 1960s, Lady Bird Johnson reportedly said to John Connally, as they sat in their car under one of the giant live oak trees on the highway, that the beauty of State Highway 159 in Fayette County should never be destroyed. Her opinion was that Highway 159 is one of the most beautiful roads in Texas. One passing of TXDoT’s broadcast of poison has changed all that. Brown ugly limbs and swaths of dead grasses are now seen along many Texas highways.

Poisoning the beautiful highways throughout the state of Texas is leaving an ugly scar on our landscape. In the name of economy, TXDoT trucks are spraying thousands of gallons of herbicide, killing and disfiguring beautiful trees, vines, and shrubs. The poison affects grapes, dewberries, and other edibles that both humans and wildlife ingest. The wildflowers, of which we Texans are duly proud and which attract thousands of visitors annually, can be killed by spray drift. Clusters of dead birds and fish have been found in sprayed roadside areas.

TxDot claims that they cannot afford to spend funds on trimming. They further claim that esthetics must be sacrificeds because all TxDoT money is needed for paving. TxDoT claims that it costs thousands of dollars per mile to trim trees versus one hundred per mile to spray.  It is hard to imagine that trimming is ten times costlier than spraying. One cannot help wondering whether this cost comparison includes the funds for specialized spraying equipment, on-going training, worker turnover, quality control oversight, and other hidden costs.

There is the matter of motorist safety. It has been stated that spraying is necessary in order to give a clear view of highway signs. However, the decay of sprayed obstructing branches requires years, and one can’t read the sign through dead limbs. The danger of limited visibility could be corrected immediately by a few minutes-or even seconds-of trimming. Should we wait years for the ugly dead branches to fall off-or be blown onto passing cars during a windstorm-before that sign warning of dangerous curves can be seen by the approaching motorist?

The chemical in question, aminopyralid, was banned in England after malformed vegetables grew from fields fertilized with the manure of cattle that had eaten grass from sprayed areas. Birds, rabbits, and other small animals use fence-line growth as homes and as covers to protect from predators. Organic farmers cannot grow chemical-free crops if runoff from roadways contaminates their fields, which may be rendered unusable for years. Rain from sprayed ditches runs onto our fields and pastures and into farm ponds. If this poison can deform vegetables, what could happen to our fish, frogs, and their affected food sources? This poisoning must be stopped before the damage done is irreparable.

The EPA says that this chemical is safe; however, in the past they also stated that many other poisons were safe. Despite aminopyralid’s current designation as a “green” chemical, in years to come it may be found to have caused problems unimagined at this time. Remember DDT? Chlordane? Agent Orange? An award-winning website, helpfulgardener.com, posts the following quote: “lf something is easy, it will usually have detrimental consequences .... So, my advice is to not use any poison at all as it will not only cause future ill effect on your soil and plant life but, also for you and your community.”

Herbicides used in a responsible manner can be beneficial to mankind in the proper circumstances, but irresponsible blanket spraying with thousands of gallons of this poison, as currently utilized by TXDOT, is harming Texas. It affects Texans, our wildlife, our vegetation, and ultimately those tourists that we hope to attract to beautiful rural Texas. Who want to look at dead roadsides?

Public opinion must prevail in making this issue known, by Texans and our visitors alike. Only by negative publicity and pressure on our elected officials can we stop this atrocity by TXDoT. Remember, this agency follows the directions of our state and local governments. We need the public to help spread the message and to influence your officials. Timing is critical, as poisoning continues even now! 


(Dr. Royce Keilers  a nationally known leader among osteopathic physicians has been advocating for the health and well being of Texans for many decades.)


Show Daily Magazine serves as a four color guide to the unbelievable number of antique related activities that take place in the vicinity of Warrenton and Round Top, Texas during the twice annual Antique Week.  It is an indispensable guide to the show. Many thanks to them for allowing us to republish Dr. Keilers' article and to make it available to an audience beyond Antique Week.

Appreciate what you have: The Minature Earth Project transforms influential Donella Meadows "State of the Village Report" into moving video

A version of this with a different sound track is available at the Miniature Earth Project.

Watch "The Corporation" on Hulu.com. 2006 Documentary examines the nature of corporations and their effect on society and the environment.

Watch the entire documentary on Hulu.com with limited commercial interruption.

WWF video demonstrates how littering has consequences

It All Comes Back To You - Click here for more blooper videos

In honor of Arbor Day: The Man Who Planted Trees

There is a power in stories.  After this tale has engraved itself on your heart be sure to visit this site to learn more. 

Paul Stamets' Six Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World

This TED talk by Paul Stamets is more than two years old but it is a classic. He has found ways that mushrooms can produce energy, fight our common pathogens (bacteria and viruses), fertilize, sequester carbon, kill and then repel carpenter ants and termites and remediate toxic chemicals in the environment.

The Death of Coal by Terry Tamminen (Will someone please tell CPS?)

Here's a link to an essay by Terry Tamminen  on the Fast Company website.  He gives several reason why he believes that coal has been unmasked as not only a dirty source of power but also as an uneconomical one.  

The Death of Coal by Terry Tamminen on Fast Company

The new international hit: "The Story of Bottled Water" disects the actions of the water pushers

The makers of "The Story of Stuff" are back with an entertaining analysis of the forces selling us bottled water. You can watch it below or even better go to the storyofstuff.org website.



More than one writer has connected The Story of Bottled Water to Chris Jordan's mind blowing depiction of the two million plastic beverage bottles consumed in the USA every five minutes in his "Running the Numbers" project.

Think outside the box! Hilarious but thought provoking sustainable designs by Tom Geisler

Tom Geisler has a knack for parody and for patent style drawing.  On his site, Reduce, Reuse, Reinvent he presents outlandish but professionally illustrated means of baby humanure disposal, electrical power generation by sleepers and the reduction of smog by containing exhaust in plant filled trailer terrariums.  These are chindogu but with a sustainable outlook.

Interview with Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage scientist Abraham van Luik

Build Blog has a profusely illustrated, magazine length piece, "One Million Years of Isolation: An Interview with Abraham Van Luik" by Geof Manaugh and Nicolla Twilley.  Luik, who works on the nuclear waste entombment site at Yucca Mountain, has the the task of finding a way to store the waste for 1 million years.

In the interview he goes into some of the history of the choosing of Yucca Mountain and the various approaches taken by other nations to disposal of their waste.  He notes that one of the other sites considered for the national depository was Texas.

Robert Kennedy Jr tells Solar Energy Industry Association that green technology will overthrow and democratize the energy system in the USA

At the Solar Energy Industry Association, Solar Power 09 conference October 27,2009, Robert F. Kennedy Jr delivered the keynote in which he pointed out that he believes that green technology including solar power will overthrow the oil and coal industries and democratize the energy system in this country which has corrupted our system of government in many ways.

He says that we are now learning that we must protect nature not for the birds but because nature is the infrastructure of our communities. He connects pollution to bad government saying, ""Where ever you see the large scale destruction of the environment you will also see the subversion of American democracy."

RFK Jr's talk begins three minutes into the video below. His voice is affected by spasmodic dysphonia but it doesn't stop him from delivering a powerful and insightful fact filled speech that brings together environmentalism, history, political philosophy and economics.





Thanks to Time is Energy for pointing out this presentation.

Is Satan Green? Thomas D. Rowley's new letter from Screwtape provides an answer

Is Satan Green?

By Thomas D. Rowley

In the three years since PBS’ Bill Moyers asked “Is God Green?” the answer from American Christendom has become a resounding “yes!”  Proclaimed by everything from eco-friendly Palm Sunday fronds to the soy-based, Kermit-hued ink in the Green Bible, God’s color has been decided.

But what about Satan’s?

I know. I know. Talk of the devil these days is déclassé. Too fire-and-brimstone for our post-everything mindset. Plus, everyone knows he’s red with horns, tail and a pitchfork. Right? But what if C.S. Lewis were still uncovering missives from that diabolical Undersecretary of Temptation, Screwtape to his nephew and Junior Tempter, Wormwood?  What might that reveal about Hell’s slant on the environment? With apologies to Lewis, perhaps something like this…

My Dear Nephew:

I see a certain despondence in your last correspondence. The long-delayed awakening of Christians to the Enemy’s directive to steward the Earth has gotten you down. Particularly, the awakening of that pesky group called evangelical Christians--a label that writers of the New Testament might well have thought redundant! Do not let it. As with all surges of that army, this, too, can be redirected. Confusion is the order of the day, dear Wormwood. Confusion!

To begin with, keep striking the chords that have proven so successful for us already. Keep your patients focused on the politics of it all--feeding the notion that the Enemy simply could not mean them to side with those they growlingly call “tree-hugging liberals.”

At the same time, nag them with doubts about science; keep them asking, albeit subconsciously, how something associated with abortion and evolution (thanks to your good works, Nephew) could ever be trusted?

Play, too, the note that says “it will all burn anyway, and the sooner the better.” Ah, there’s nothing finer than bad theology mixed with hopelessness for turning them aside.

Finally, addle their puny brains with false dichotomies: Surely, they cannot evangelize and care for the poor, for example, while also stewarding nature! Needless to say, you must keep hidden from them the indisputable facts that nature sings so disgustingly of the Enemy who created it and that upon nature the poor of the world so heavily depend.

As always, keep them from thinking deeply on any of these matters. There lies our undoing! Instead, fill their minds with the busyness of life—the grocery list, the children’s piano lesson or the church committee meeting. Should you detect a serious thought forming, however, simply give a nudge that now is the perfect time to text message, email or turn on some enlightening talk radio. Oh, how I love that last one! What victories it has given us!

Should these attempts fail to keep them off balance and ignoring the Enemy’s directive, we, too, can become green—at least our own shade of it. Here, I, of course, mean money, that ancient yet infallible tempter. How they love their money! Forgetting as they so laughably do that it is not theirs and that the Enemy has warned them again and again about what He ridiculously refers to as idolatry. I’ve also learned of a new shade of green developed by our labs: that of the perfect green lawn. How delightful! The illusion of health and beauty fostered by poison, copious amounts of precious water, and the weekly toiling behind a deafening, fume-belching machine! Brilliant! Simply, brilliant!

Above all--and I really shouldn’t have to warn you of this--keep them from opening that dastardly book the Enemy gave them! Rare indeed is the patient who can be retrieved once he has devoted himself to study there.

Finally, make sure to keep our correspondence secret. Human ignorance of our plans is one of our very best weapons. Nevertheless, should this letter leak to the press, I am confident that misunderstanding and emotion (never forget the power of emotion) will cause such a disturbance that you and I will be dismissed as the depraved imaginings of some witless human writer.

As always, your affectionate (and green if need be) uncle

Screwtape

This commentary is intended to help A Rocha USA "mobilize Christians to steward the Earth.” The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and may not reflect the views of A Rocha.
PLEASE HELP BUILD THE MOVEMENT BY FORWARDING TO OTHERS. THANK YOU!

Learn how to save money and help the environment with information from CleanAirDrive.com

CleanAirDrive.com is a partnership of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, VIA, SAWS, CPS, Drive Clean Across Texas and Alamo Tree Partnership.

On their site you will find information on ridesharing, alternative fuels, and the Walk and Roll program.

Sol Center presents: Caring for the Earth: the Edwards Aquifer

This course has already started and it is probably too late to attend but it sounded interesting so I wanted to include information on it on the chance that you may be able to catch the last three sessions. Call the SolCenter office (210-732-9920) to find out.

From their website:

In this class, we will explore our interconnectedness and interdependence with the natural world through two lenses: 1) New legal approaches and 2) The needs of the Edwards Aquifer. We will share moments of prayer, reflection, and discussion based on short readings. Each of the four sessions will explore a specific approach - regulation, property, precaution, and rights - and several strategies within each approach, considering ways each strategy might or might not help the Edwards Aquifer.

Participants should attend the films, Trouble the Water, on August 29, 6:30 p.m. and Hurricane Ike Documentary on September 13, 6:30 p.m. This course is for any interested person who wants to further his or her Earth literacy and is curious why the legal system is not better protecting the Earth: teachers, grant funders, religious leaders, policy makers, activists, attorneys, volunteers, and students.

About the instructor: Libby Comeaux, a Texas native and Colorado lawyer, recently spent a year in Miami and Orlando at the Center for Earth Jurisprudence, founded as part of the Great Work envisioned by the late Thomas Berry.

Texas Trashfest underwater clean-up of the Comal October 3, 2009

The Texas Gulf Coast Council of Diving Clubs once again hosts Texas Trashfest on the Comal River in New Braunfels on Saturday October 3, 2009 with diving for trash in the Comal from 8:00 am to 3 pm.

Teams of up to 8 (including non-divers who serve as grounds crews) can register early until September 25, 2009 for $40. Regular registration is $60. All divers must have their C-Card.

Crews are responsible for providing their own trash bags and for transporting the trash to the collection site. A celebratory barbeque is included with registration. Last year over $27,000 in door prizes were distributed to participants.

For more information go to www.tgccdiving.org/trashfest/index.html

San Antonio's Consumer Energy Coalition makes a case against CPS nuclear power expansion.

San Antonio's Consumer Energy Coalition is a genuine grassroots organization. They describe themselves as "A citizens’ lobbying group looking for better ways to produce energy" and as "a volunteer group of citizens including pharmacists, lawyers, teachers, computer analysts, small business owners, doctors, environmental planners,and more who believe: To supply our future energy needs we can either generate much more, or use what we have more productively."

They believe that "San Antonio should spend rate-payer money on energy efficiency, renewable energy and co-generation.These are clean, inexpensive, distributed, fuel-free and available now. San Antonio should not spend tax-payer money on nuclear power plants or coal power plants."

They are an active participant in the anti-nuclear coalition Local Power / Energia Mia www.EnergiaMia.org which is operating in high gear to oppose the expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project.

At the 2009 Green Camp San Antonio, the Consumer Energy Coalition resented a thoroughly researched and footnoted powerpoint presentation. The presenter / author gave SASL permission to adapt that presentation to the blog format. (The views expressed are strictly theirs. The SASL as a group does not take a position on any issue. Some of the authors academically correct footnotes may have become garbled by the transfer and use of hyperlinks.)


The Myths of Nuclear Power

San Antonio should not spend tax-payer money on nuclear power plants or coal power plants.
Nuclear and coal power plants are polluting, expensive, centralized megaprojects and have a long build time.

People have forgotten why nuclear power has languished for thirty years. It is not just an energy technology. "Nuclear power is a unique complex of technical, economical, [environmental, medical,] political, and military interests" Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Ceedata Consultancy, Netherlands

Why We Are Concerned About Nuclear Power(and think you should be)

Corporate and institutional interests have far more access to the politicians who appropriate capital expenditures while taxpayers have no equivalent forum in which to be heard.

This overly restrictive and preferential system allows the industry to reap the profits associated with selling power while taxpayers are forced to back most of the costs and risks associated with mining, building, and storage. This is not free market capitalism. This is risk without benefit for taxpayers. Taxpayers, not ratepayers, are actually assuming the risk.

Taxes will pay for energy that the taxpayer never sees or uses. Ratepayers should pay for the energy they receive; taxpayers should not pay for energy they do not benefit from.

We believe the ratepayers should be included in this decision because we will fund the construction, pay for the extraction of the fuel and pay to secure the resulting waste for millions of years. Ratepayers are on the hook for these risks. Ratepayers should be able to make this decision.

There is a lot of “myth-information” about nuclear power. Here are the most common ones.

Myth: Nuclear power is cheap.
Myth: Nuclear power is clean.
Myth: Nuclear power is safe.
Myth: Nuclear power is secure.
Myth: Nuclear power is sustainable.
Myth: Nuclear power creates local jobs.
Myth: Nuclear power is reliable.
Myth: Nuclear power can be implemented quickly.

These statements are not true, but are put out by the nuclear industry and, incredibly, by our publicly-owned utility, CPS.

We present our findings, with sources, and respectfully ask you to consider them.

The truth: Nuclear power is expensive.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cost Data



If utilities admit that a nuclear plant is more costly than other options they would sound unwise, so they say it’s the “least costly” of the options they have considered. (Source: Craig A. Severance, CPA and co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976) Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power.)

CPS has said repeatedly at recent board meetings that nuclear power is the “least risky” option for providing its ratepayers with new energy.

Nuclear power is very risky in almost every aspect we have considered, making this sound as if CPS is trying to sell us on nuclear power, rather than allowing us to evaluate it objectively. We can start by looking at the reactors already built at the South Texas Nuclear Project.



“Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter.” (The Economist Magazine. May 19, 2001, Cover story).

Where does all this money come from? Private investors don’t risk their money on nuclear energy. Venture capitalists vote with their dollars. If an industry is healthy, they bet on it. In 2007, renewables like wind and solar energy received $71 billion in private investment. Nuclear power received none. (Lovins, A. & Sheikh, I. (May 27, 2008). The Nuclear Illusion. pg. 44-45. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008 from The Rocky Mountain Institute Web site:)

If the market looks for robust companies to invest in, how market-healthy are the companies applying to build STP Units 3 and 4? NRG, Inc. has never built a nuclear reactor anywhere, (Push the Pause Button On More Nuclear Plants. (2008). Texas Public Citizen. Retrieved on February 27, 2009 ) In the third quarter of 2008 NRG, Inc. had a bond rating of Baa, the lowest tier of investment grade debt. (NRG News Release. Retrieved on February 27, 2009 ) NRG, Inc. went through bankruptcy proceedings in 2003. (Lynn M. LoPucki’s Bankruptcy Research Database. Retrieved on February 27, 2009, from Web BRD website.)

Exelon has been sued for radioactive leaks, sleeping security guards, and other safety violations. (llinois sues Exelon for Radioactive Tritium Releases since 1996. (Mar. 21, 2006). Chicago, IL. Retrieved Nov.18, 2008, from the Environmental News Service Web site and Attkisson, Sharyl. (2007, Nov. 3). Guards Caught Asleep At Nuclear Power Plants: CBS Exclusive Looks At Who Is Protecting Sites, and Getting Plenty of Shut-Eye on the Job. CBS News (Web broadcast) York County, PA, Station WCBSTV. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008)

“Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero.” (Taylor, Jerry. (Oct. 22, 2008). Nuclear Energy: Risky Business. The Cato Institute. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008 )

If the money doesn’t come from private investors, then from where does it come?

Subsidies of All Kinds


Federal Subsidies

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress insures against accidents by extending Price Anderson Act until 2025 which insures utilities against catastrophic accidents with federal money; private insurers won’t take the risk, gives 1.8 cents per kWh production tax credit for first 6,000 MW of new nuclear generation for first 8 years of operation, insures utilities for construction delays due to hearings or litigation, provides $2 billion for uranium enrichment ventures (private sector refused to finance), promises to store nuclear waste, has collected only $20 billion in nuclear waste fund from industry (ratepayers), yet not provided a viable facility. (The National Academy of Sciences says $100 billion will be needed, The nuclear industry is suing the federal government for not providing a facility).

The 2005 act also fast tracked the licensing process, eliminating safety redundancies from 5 to 1, gives industry (Sources The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants. (Sept. 19, 2007) Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. presented to the Utah State Legislature Public Utilities and Technology Committee by Schlissel, D. Retrieved February 16, 2009, and Nuclear Subsidies in Energy Bill. (2008). Retrieved from the Physicians for Social Responsibility website on February 27, 2009)

And yet, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the industry will default on its loans more than 50% of the time. (Cost Estimate: S.14 Energy Policy Act of 2003. (May, 7, 2003). Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008 from the Congressional Budget Office Web site )

“CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.”

How can CPS possibly claim that nuclear is the “least risky option”?

The industry is remarkably forthcoming about its dependence on subsidies. In 2008, Constellation Energy’s Co-CEO Michael Wallace said in the New York Times that "Without loan guarantees we will not build nuclear power plants.” (Andrews, E. Published on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 by the New York Times US Energy Bill Aids Expansion of Atomic Power. Retrieved from the CommonDreams.org website )

This led Jerry Taylor, of the conservative Cato Institute think-tank to write: “Those who favor nuclear power should adopt a policy of tough love. Getting this industry off the government dole would finally force it to innovate or die - at least in the United States. Welfare, after all, breeds sloth in both individual and corporate recipients.” (Taylor, Jerry. (Oct. 22, 2008). Nuclear Energy: Risky Business. The Cato Institute. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008)

State subsidies
The 2007 Texas Legislature passed property tax breaks and created a state decommissioning program. The Governor’s task force recommended fast-tracking water permits, increased uranium mining and licensed one radioactive waste dump in Texas

From 1984 to 1993, electric utilities in states with nuclear construction projects wrote off in excess of $17 billion for abandoned plants throughout the country.
(The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants. (Sept. 19, 2007) Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. presented to the Utah State Legislature Public Utilities and Technology Committee by Schlissel, D. Retrieved February 16, 2009)

Compare amount of subsidies to marketplace success
The Primacy of Prudence

If utilities admit that a nuclear plant is more costly than other options they would sound unwise, so they say it’s the “least costly” of the options considered. Remember, CPS told its board “nuclear is the least risky option” of its choices?

The primary requirement of a utility is to act with prudence. This is a legal term for public utilities. Utility rate-making law is founded on the principle that a utility is allowed to recover from ratepayers all costs which are prudently incurred. Costs judged to be imprudent may not be recovered from ratepayers.

Prudence means avoiding the choice of high-risk options, when a lower-risk option will “get the job done.” Shifting the risks to the ratepayers does not make the risks go away, it only privatizes the profits while socializing the risks. Those who make bad decisions walk away from the effects of their imprudence. After the market meltdown, the public has no more stomach for this. (Severance, C. (2009). Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power. Retrieved February 16, 2009)

State Regulatory Agencies

In the 1980s alone, state commissions disallowed from utility rate bases more than $7 billion of nuclear costs due to construction imprudence.

Another $2 billion in nuclear costs were disallowed due to the imprudence of building new capacity that was in excess of what was needed when completed.

Texas utilities were forced to write off $1.2 billion disallowance of Comanche Peak (near Dallas) nuclear plants. (The Risks of Building New Nuclear Power Plants. (Sept. 19, 2007) Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. presented to the Utah State Legislature Public Utilities and Technology Committee by Schlissel, D. Retrieved February 16, 2009 and Severance, C. (2009). Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power. Retrieved February 16, 2009 and Lovins, A. & Sheikh, I. (May 27, 2008). The Nuclear Illusion. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008 from The Rocky Mountain Institute Web site)


What effect do subsidies used with imprudence have on local economies?

Utilities pass them on to the ratepayer. Nuclear megaprojects may charge customers during construction, who then pay for zero watts of energy. Higher rates risk lower demand; customers do without (efficiency) or make own (renewables) which adds up to imprudence. Credit ratings go down, financing for further projects is unavailable, investors don’t invest, developers are driven to high debt ratios. Growth is stymied and the entire economy of the area is downgraded.
(Severance, C. (2009). Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power. Retrieved February 16, 2009)

“The cost and complexity of building a new nuclear power plant could weaken the credit metrics of an electric utility and potentially pressure its credit ratings several years into the project.”(Moody’s Investment Service, June 2007)

We risk that CPS, in stranded costs would be unable to provide San Antonio with its 35% contribution to revenues. Our economy would quickly become unhealthy. (Schneider, M. 16 September 2008. 2008 world nuclear industry status report: Global nuclear power. From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website accessed on March 5, 2009. "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007," Prepared by author for the Greens-European Free Alliance in the European Parliament.)

Perhaps the most infamous boondoggle was the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on the Long Island Sound. The Long Island Lighting Company spent twenty-five years and $6 billion, eighty times the original estimate, trying to get it up and running. But it was never licensed to operate. The debacle saddled Long Island residents with some of the nation’s highest electricity rates and pushed the regional economy to the brink of ruin. Washington Monthly website Blake, M. (Jan/Feb 2009). Bad Reactors. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from the Washington Monthly website)

If not nuclear, then what? Let’s compare Construction Cost per Megawatt:

Wind: $2.5 million
Solar:$3.6 million
Nuclear:$6.5 million
(Source: Stranahan, S. Nov. 13, 2008 Nuclear Delusions, pg 59. Rolling Stone Magazine.)



What does business have to say?

Jerry Tayor writes“I …work at the Cato Institute, and blaming government for economic problems is what keeps me in business. But…government [regulation is not] the reason investors were saying “no” to [nuclear] loan applications.” and “How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built.” (Taylor, Jerry. (Oct. 22, 2008). Nuclear Energy: Risky Business. The Cato Institute Retrieved Nov. 18, 2008)

Forbes Business Magazine recognized how profoundly dysfunctional the industry is when it wrote: “This failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale.” According to Forbes, “only the blind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent.” Nuclear Power's Failed Promise. Public Citizen website; Retrieved February 16, 2009)

The truth: Nuclear is not cheap. Nuclear is astoundingly expensive.

The Myths of Nuclear Power: Nuclear power is clean.

The truth: Nuclear power pollutes in some of the most dangerous ways known.

Nuclear energy pollutes when it releases radioactive gases and liquids, both routinely and accidentally and when it leaves behind tons of deadly, long-lived waste.

The industry claims it creates no air pollution. It does. During construction of the plant and mining of uranium tons of carbon dioxide are produced. But worse, during operation radioactive gases are released routinely and legally. We don’t know about them because, unlike smog or particulate matter, we can’t see, hear, feel or smell them. It’s easy to say they aren’t there, but they are deadly none-the-less. (Caldicott, H. Nuclear Power is Not the Answer. (2006). New York. The New Press.)

We need a short, (painless!) lesson here, to understand how radiation works.

Radioactive substances (radionuclides) are elements that are unstable. Imagine them as a person trying to hold onto twenty billiard balls at once. They will feel one falling, move to catch it, and in the process start to drop another. This is an unstable arrangement. If the person drops a few of the billiard balls, he finds he doesn’t have to exert as much energy to hold on to fewer of them.

Elements are made of atoms that are unstable like this. They have so many particles that it takes too much energy to hang on to all of them. Radioactive elements also release particles and energy to be more stable.

It is these particles and rays of energy, released from atoms of elements, that are radiation. Radioactive elements all produce radiation that is harmfully energetic (meaning it destroys the normal functioning of living cells – which are what keep us alive).

Again, you can think of it like two people playing dodge ball. The harder you throw the ball at the other, the bigger the bruise.

When strong energy hits a living cell it can kill it, damage it, or cause the DNA codes to be disrupted so the cell does not function properly. The more energy, or the more times it hits, the more damage done to the cell.

We need these cells to be healthy; they manage the processes that keep us alive. When they are damaged, that part of the body doesn’t work. Cancer occurs when cells multiply rapidly and needlessly. Cancer in a body disrupts the activity of healthy cells, and causes the death of the whole organism.

This is why radioactive elements need to be isolated from the environment and kept away from us

Nuclear power generates electricity by splitting atoms (helping them drop the particles and energy that make them unstable) and therefore releasing radiation. It is not the only source of radiation. You are exposed to naturally harmful radiation whenever you fly in an airplane at 30,000 feet. This is because earth’s atmosphere protects us from the harmful radiation of the sun and, at 30,000 feet there is less atmosphere so more harmful rays can reach you. There is no safe dose of radioactive energy of the kind we are discussing.(U.S. Panel Recognizes No Safe Dose of Radiation. (July, 2005). U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved on March 7, 2009.)

The nuclear industry, however, is being purposefully disingenuous when it implies that a little radiation won’t hurt you. Even natural radiation that is energetic enough to disrupt cell function is harmful. We aren’t protected when we fly at 30,000 feet, but most of us are willing to take the risk of a little exposure to have the convenience of fast travel. The government sets the standards, and we live with the risk.

We all choose to take risks, it’s part of life. However, we should know which risks we’re taking and be given the choice as to whether to take them. When we choose to drive a car, we know that many people die in automobile accidents. We try to minimize the risk by wearing seatbelts, taking driving lessons, and not drinking alcohol, but we know it’s there when we make the decision. What is not acceptable is when a small group of people decides for us which risks we’re going to take and isn’t honest about the consequences.

That is what is happening with nuclear energy. A relatively small group of utilities, corporations, and the politicians that they lobby, have decided the amount of radiation we, the public, will be exposed to. They are doing it to make a profit. And we don’t know when we’re exposed, because radiation can’t be felt, smelled, seen, or heard. We don’t know when we’re getting it or how much we’re getting.


Nuclear energy pollutes when it…

Releases radioactive gases and liquids routinely.

Radioactive substances build up in reactors and must be released for the safety of workers. The NRC permits these releases. The pollutants produced are a potpourri of radioactive elements, not just one. Here are some and how they affect the body


Strontium-90 is released in small amounts daily, large amounts during accidents, is treated like calcium by the body which concentrates it in any kind of milk, breasts, and bones, causing cancers years later. Its radioactive dangers last 600 years.


Iodine-131 is quickly absorbed by thyroid, especially in children. Potassium iodide tablets lower risk of thyroid cancer, but are seldom made available.

Cesium-137 acts like potassium in the body, is captured by muscle cells and causes cancer. Dr. John Gofman, discoverer of uranium-233, estimates that 100 reactors operating for 25 years, preventing cesium leaks 99.9% of the time, would still release enough cesium to equal 4 Chernobyl accidents.


Noble Gases damage lung, liver, skeleton, digestive tract; often settle near testes and ovaries, causing birth defects. 2.97 million curies released by U.S. reactors in 1974; some can be filtered, some cannot. They often decay into more deadly radioactive elements like cesium-135, which has a half-life of 3 million years,

Plutonium-239 less than one millionth of a gram will cause lung cancer if inhaled, resembles iron, so body sends it to bone marrow, and causes blood cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia, It is stored in liver and causes liver cancer. Being teratogenic, which means it enters a developing embryo through the placenta it can be stored in testicles causing mutations in offspring and testicular cancer, as a half-life of 24,000 years, making it dangerous for over a half million years.

Tritium as a gas is easily absorbed through skin, Tritiated water (1,360 curies released yearly) is an isotope of water, so it is absorbed like water in the cells, can be ingested in food, water, inhaled, or absorbed through skin, dangerous for 120-248 years,Taken in by plants, and animals in environment; bioconcentrates in food chain, causes tumors in lung and digestive tract, shrinks testicles and ovaries even at low doses, causing birth defects, mental retardation, Down’s Syndrome, smaller brains and deformed fetuses, and reproductive loss in offspring Some of these radionuclides, like plutonium, are extremely long-lived. It’s half-life is 24,000 years.

Radiation is measured in curies. For reference, a large medical center with 1000 laboratories may have a total of 2 curies of radioactive materials. The average operating nuclear power reactor, by contrast, will have around 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is equivalent to 1000 Hiroshima bombs. The nuclear power industry routinely releases millions of curies yearly.

(Sources Caldicott, H. Nuclear Power is Not the Answer. (2006). New York. The New Press. Gofman, J. M.D., Ph.D. Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation (HEIR) Reports. From the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility’s website, accessed on March 7, 2009, Radiation Basics. (1999). Prepared by Folkers, Cindy. Retrieved on March 7, 2009,
Alvarez, R. Radioactive Wastesand the Global nucleaR eneRGy PaRtneRshiP.Accessed on March 7, 2009)


Accidental vs. planned releases of radioactivity

We’ve been describing planned releases. Accidental releases happen all the time and are called “incidents” by the industry. They occur due to human or mechanical error.

As our fleet of nuclear reactors age we can expect to see more of these “incidents.” Metal fatigue causes structures to become fragile and brittle, and the radioactivity inside a reactor is intense.

Even more concerning is the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC), which monitors the industry is planning to extend the time reactors can be used from 30 to 70 years, and decrease the number of safety redundancy requirements from 5 to 1.

Nuclear energy also pollutes when it leaves behind tons of deadly, long-lived, radioactive waste.

The U.S. has now produced over 77,000 tons of waste from nuclear energy production.


The volumes are staggering:
by 2020 France expects to generate 1.9 million cubic meters annually.
England produced 470,000 cubic meters as of 2005, enough to fill the Albert Hall 5 times over.

The nuclear industry is not being honest when it claims that very little waste is produced, which it does repeatedly. (Lochbaum, D. 02/11/03. How Nuclear Power Works. Principles of Nuclear Power. Conway, E. November 28, 2006, Nuclear waste stockpile soars. Retrieved on March 7, 2009, from theTelegraph.co.uk website)

Yucca Mountain

The only repository in the world that has been (partially) built to store nuclear waste is Yucca Mountain, a site in Nevada100 miles from Las Vegas.

This site is geologically active, prone to earthquakes, collects moisture inside the mountain causing rust on metal containment vessels. The National Academy of Sciences doubts the accuracy of data collected at the site. It will only be able to hold the waste already generated.

Nevadans have fought for decades to keep the waste out of their state. No one around the world is requesting to host a high-level nuclear waste dump.

Land used to store nuclear waste is land sacrificed; it will never be used by humans safely again.

(Sussex, A. February 2003. The Road to Yucca Mountain: Nuclear Waste and Terrorism. CNN.com Inside Politics. Stranahan, S. Nov. 13, 2008 Nuclear Delusions, pg 59. Rolling Stone Magazine. Senator Harry Reid. June 13, 2001. Yucca Mountain site poses many problems. Accessed on March 7, 2009, from The Hill website.


To be continued... The original ppt is 128 slides long.

Leading San Antonio architect working to bring sustainable water design to San Antonio

The San Antonio Business Journal has an excellent short article on the Mission Verde Parks plan from Bob Shemwell, of Overland Partners. The plan brings some of the work he and his firm have done around the country on water management to San Antonio. Be sure to follow the link to Five Minutes with Bob Shemwell - 'New Water Ideas".

Thanks to Joe Barfield for passing on this March 20, 2009 article. At the San Antonio Clean Tech Forum in April, Joe says that Bob was calling the plan "Aqua Verde". So look out for that name as well.