[Biofuel] 'World class' may not mean much when it comes to oil spill response | rabble.ca
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/david-suzuki/2016/11/world-class-may-not-mean-much-when-it-comes-to-oil-spill-respons [links in on-line article] 'World class' may not mean much when it comes to oil spill response By David Suzuki November 1, 2016 In July, a pipeline leak near Maidstone, Saskatchewan, spilled about 250,000 litres of diluted oil sands bitumen into the North Saskatchewan River, killing wildlife and comprising drinking water for nearby communities, including Prince Albert. It was one of 11 spills in the province over the previous year. In October, a tugboat pulling an empty fuel barge ran aground near Bella Bella on the Great Bear Rainforest coastline, spilling diesel into the water. Stormy weather caused some of the containment booms to break. Shellfish operations and clam beds were put at risk and wildlife contaminated. Governments and industry promoting fossil fuel infrastructure often talk about "world class" spill response. It's one of the conditions B.C.'s government has imposed for approval of new oil pipelines. But we're either not there or the term has little meaning. "This 'world-class marine response' did not happen here in Bella Bella," Heiltsuk Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett told Metro News. If authorities have this much trouble responding to a relatively minor spill from a tugboat, how can they expect to adequately deal with a spill from a pipeline or a tanker full of diluted bitumen? The simple and disturbing truth is that it's impossible to adequately clean up a large oil spill. A 2015 report commissioned by the City of Vancouver and the Tsleil-Waututh and Tsawout First Nations concluded that "collecting and removing oil from the sea surface is a challenging, time-sensitive, and often ineffective process, even under the most favourable conditions." What the oil and gas industry touts as "world class spill response" boils down to four methods: booms, skimmers, burning and chemical dispersants. An article at Smithsonian.com notes, "For small spills these technologies can sometimes make a difference, but only in sheltered waters. None has ever been effective in containing large spills." Booms don't work well in rough or icy waters, as was clear at the Bella Bella spill; skimmers merely clean the surface and often not effectively; burning causes pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and dispersants just spread contaminants around, when they work at all. Researchers have also found that cleaning oil-soaked birds rarely if ever increases their chances of survival. A tiny spot of oil can kill a seabird. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off the Alaska coast, industry only recovered about 14 per cent of the oil -- which is about average -- at a cost of $2 billion. The 2011 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has cost more than $42 billion so far, and has not been overly effective. In that case, industry bombed the area with the dispersant Corexit, which killed bacteria that eat oil! Record numbers of bottlenose dolphins died. We're not going to stop transporting oil and gas overnight, so improving responses to spills on water and land is absolutely necessary. And increasing the safety of pipelines, tankers and trains that carry these dangerous products is also critical, as is stepping up monitoring and enforcement. With the Saskatchewan spill, the provincial government deemed an environmental assessment of a pipeline expansion connected to the one that leaked as unnecessary because the Environment Ministry did not consider it a "development." University of Regina geography professor Emily Eaton, who has studied oil development, told the National Observer that Saskatchewan "gives a pass" to most pipelines it regulates. Beyond better response capability and technologies, and increased monitoring and enforcement, we have to stop shipping so much fossil fuel. The mad rush to exploit and sell as much oil, gas and coal as possible before markets dry up in the face of growing scarcity, climate change and ever-increasing and improving renewable energy options has led to a huge spike in the amount of fossil fuels shipped through pipelines, and by train and tanker -- often with disastrous consequences, from the Gulf of Mexico BP spill to the tragic 2013 Lac-Mégantic railcar explosion. Spills and disasters illustrate the immediate negative impacts of our overreliance on fossil fuels. Climate change shows we can't continue to burn coal, oil and gas, that we have to leave much of it in the ground. If we get on with it, we may still have time to manage the transition without catastrophic consequences. But the longer we delay, the more difficult it will become. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns
http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/ [images in on-line article] France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns 11/01/2016 | Lee Buchsbaum [Note: This article will appear in the forthcoming December 2016 print issue of POWER.] The discovery of widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components has crippled the French power industry—20 of the country’s 58 reactors are currently offline and under heavy scrutiny. France’s nuclear safety chairman said more anomalies “will likely be found,” as the extent of the contagion is still being uncovered. With over half of France’s 58 reactors possibly affected by “carbon segregation,” the nation’s nuclear watchdog, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) has ordered that preventative measures be taken immediately to ensure public safety. As this story goes into production in late October, ASN has confirmed that 20 reactors are currently offline and potentially more will shut down in coming weeks. The massive outages are draining power from all over Europe. Worse, new questions continue to swirl about both the safety and integrity of Électricité de France SA’s (EDF’s) nuclear fleet, as well as the quality of some French- and Japanese-made components that EDF is using in various high-profile nuclear projects around the world. Backbone of the French Grid EDF’s nuclear power plants (NPPs) provide up to 75% of France’s power needs. Its NPPs are spread out over 19 sites and include 34 900-MW units, 20 1,300-MW units, and four 1,450-MW units. As the fleet suffered through shutdowns, inspections, and reviews, production fell in September to its lowest level since 1998—just 26.6 TWh, according to French grid operator Reseau de transport d’electricite. With more NPPs scheduled to go offline, that figure may continue falling. Earlier in October, EDF reduced its 2016 generation targets from 395–400 TWh to 380–390 TWh, while estimates for nuclear output in 2017 have also been lowered to between 390 TWh and 400 TWh. For perspective, annual nuclear production averaged 417 TWh in the period 2005–2015. Although in 2009 output fell to 390 TWh, for the last decade production has consistently been above 400 TWh and exceeded the target range of 410–415 TWh in both 2014 and 2015. Following EDF’s reduced nuclear generation forecast, wholesale power prices immediately began jumping with Q4 2016, Q1 2017, and calendar 2017 baseload contracts trading up by €1.70/MWh, €1.65/MWh, and €1.20/MWh, respectively. To address the energy shortfall, France is turning to coal and other fossil fuels, as well as imported power. Despite the COP21 carbon emissions agreement, which recently went into force, France is now burning coal at its highest levels in 32 years. Despite the COP21 carbon emissions agreement, which recently went into force, France is now burning coal at its highest levels in 32 years With so many plants now offline, Reuters reported that French wholesale 2017 power prices hit a contract high of €45.60/MWh on October 27, with more gains possible in the coming weeks and months. Additionally, prices in Germany, Europe’s largest power supplier, are also rising. As that nation diversified its power sources and bulked up its renewable capacity, much of its conventional fleet has become underutilized or marginalized. Many of those German plants are now revving up as they send power into France, thanks to a high level of interconnectivity. Not coincidentally, Reuters reported that German year-ahead power prices hit a two-year high of €33.65/MWh in late October as well. Questionable Materials and Documentation At the heart of France’s nuclear crisis are two problems. One concerns the carbon content of critical steel parts, steam heat exchangers, and other components manufactured or supplied by AREVA SA, the French state-owned nuclear engineering firm and global producer of nuclear reactors. The second problem concerns forged, falsified, or incomplete quality control reports about the critical components themselves. Excessive levels of carbon in the steel parts could make them more brittle and subject to sudden fracture or tearing under sustained high pressure, which is obviously unacceptable. Initially discovered at the troubled 1.65-GW Flamanville 3 project (Figure 1) in 2014—one of the first in the vaunted European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) nuclear plant series that EDF also plans to use at the newly approved Hinkley Point C plant in England—more flaws have since been discovered throughout the existing nuclear fleet. An internal probe of the forge at Le Creusot (Figure 2), where many of the components in question were created, has uncovered new anomalies. According to an October Bloomberg report, AREVA is now reviewing all 9,000 manufacturing records at the forge dating back as far as 1943, including files from
