Royal weddings: The Crown Estate, renewables and British efficiency

It’s almost here, according to every major news outlet and cable channel in America. The U.S. is all atwitter about one thing: the British royal wedding of Prince William set for this week. It’s almost like the last 200 years of separation from the motherland never actually happened.

Let’s face it: most of the Colonies have royals fever, just like the Brits. We’ve been flooded with royal souvenirs and wedding watch parties and tours of Princess Diana’s personal items as if we’re right next door rather than a large ocean and nearly a half hemisphere away.

So, let’s join in the gusto. Let’s go with the flow. Let’s follow the fray. Let’s talk about the royal family---energy style.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that the royals love renewables, especially offshore wind. Why so specific, you wonder? Well, because they get a good kickback---of course, not a kickback in the mob sense of things. But, it pays to own the seabed, let’s say.

And they do. Literally. A lot of the royal family expenses are, in fact, pulled from public funds at the moment, but that’s about to change. And, the sizeable land portfolio of the monarchy is tied up in what’s known as the Crown Estate. Now, way back when---many, many generations ago---King George III made a trade. He offered the cash made from the Crown Estate to the people and country of England in return for his household expenses being covered by government. Traditionally, this has been a pretty awesome deal for the Brits. (In 2007, England netted about 160 million pounds with this system. The Crown Estate brought in 200 million, but the family cost about 40 million. All in all, an excellent return.)

Well, everyone’s feeling the recession these days, and now the royal household has been told to freeze expenses and even asked to make some cuts. Long story short: It’s said that, in 2012, the household costs will be reconnected to that Crown Estate.

Once reconnected to the cash made from the Crown Estate, you might hear the Queen herself chanting, “Build, baby, build” as offshore wind grows by leaps in bounds. After all, circling back to the top of this long tangent, the Crown Estate owns almost all the seabed (up to 12 miles offshore) off the English coast. So, leasing that to marine/offshore energy companies could make the Crown Estate a pretty penny, since all the rights to lease that area were granted to the Estate by the Energy Act of 2004.

So, with the new royal household set to be connected directly back to the Crown Estate, leasing seabeds to offshore wind facilities may be one way for the new princess to pay those high electric bills at Buckingham Palace.

But, not the only way. Renewables aren’t the only new-fangled energy concept the royals are adopting. They’re also big on negawatts---yep, energy efficiency.

Apparently, Ron Harper, the deputy property manager at Buckingham Palace, sits down every five years and checks on the efficiency of the household, going so far as to looking at heat resonance imaging and energy ratings.

A computerized building management system controls heating and power at the palace for optimum balance. It even controls the use of fans in the palace kitchen. Harper also touts the benefits of Buckingham Palace’s combined heat and power units for energy and the LED technology they are installing to control the lighting more effectively.

Overall, while the wedding this week may be an old tradition in grand old fashion, the British monarchy has shown that it’s actually very cutting edge when it comes to the latest in power sources and efficiency.

It’s Earth Day: Do you know how green your power is?

There’s going to be a lot of celebratin’ going on this Friday. April 22 may be Good Friday to you, but it’s also Earth Day to many, at least to many greenies here in the U.S. Started in 1970 by a U.S. senator concerned after a large oil spill---my how things haven’t changed---Earth Day is supposed to bring communities together to celebrate the sustainable, the healthy and the environmentally positive.

Almost 40 years later, Earth Day is still around, but it’s moved beyond that sustainable celebration to become a massive marketing tool for American culture. This week, even the SyFy Channel turned its logo green in celebration. Of course, watching the SyFy Channel requires using power, which requires, in many cases, the burning of fossil fuels---which those greenies don’t care for. But, really, it’s the thought that counts, right?

Among utilities, there is an equal push to show the “green” side of all sorts of power, even the non-renewables kind.

NextEra Energy's headquarters in Juno Beach, Florida---home to Florida Power and Light Company, NextEra Energy Resources and other NextEra Energy subsidiaries---grabbed Gold-level Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. They’re pushing energy efficiency and energy savings this week. (NextEra is the green arm of things, although that green portfolio does include some bones of contention, including eight nuclear units and some natural gas-fired plants. On the definitely green side, though, they do have 7,540 MW of wind capacity scattered across the U.S. and Canada. No arguments about that.)

A company down in the Lone Star State is opting to purchase RECs to show their commitment---but just for Earth Day. Renewable energy credits (RECs) are a bit of a gray area for greenies, too. The buying of RECs---which are produced by renewable power companies when they make green power but aren’t always sold with the power itself---is basically a company saying, “OK. So, we don’t personally have enough renewable sources of our own to make this requirement. So, we’ll buy some.” It’s not really planting the tree yourself, but more like buying the dirty t-shirt off the guy who planted the tree---and some of his good karma, too, let’s say. While positive in the fiscal support of green power, it doesn’t actually physically offset the carbon-produced power product used. RECs are created by the government to give renewables more market muscle, but it doesn’t mean that the power said company will give Texas that day is actually from a green source.

Tampa Electric is offering $1.5 million in rebates each year for five years to help customers install renewable technologies like photovoltaic (PV) solar systems and solar water heating. They actually announced that last week, but they added it to a press release touting some Earth Day events their employees are participating in this week. This could help interest the local greenie in PVs, but it doesn’t, again, do much to impact fossil fuel use on a larger scale, which would make for a super excited greenie on Earth Day.

Of the three Earth Day announcements listed here---and, believe me, they are only three of many---Tampa Electric’s is probably the most in tune with the original thinking of Earth Day: getting the community involved in sustainability---in Tampa Electric’s case, getting them hands-on involved. Actual steps in sustainability may still be of the “baby” variety here, but, behind all the marketing chatter for Earth Day, there remains a core truth to believe in.

After all, these concepts wouldn’t sell so well if there wasn’t a market for them. While the real legacy of Earth Day may reside heavily in the realm of whitewashed PR at the moment, the very fact that Earth Day still garners such attention---right down to the greening of the SyFy logo---gives all greenies hope that, in the future, there may be real, massive renewable power behind the annual celebration.

We’re not there yet, but we may be able to hitch an EV-powered ride to that future soon.

Does your utility really care about security?

Security, of both the physical and cyber varieties, has been on the lips of power insiders for decades now. Discussions about the physical side of the issue usually peak after accidents like the one slowly evolving at Fukushima Daiichi over the last month or attacks like the ones on the World Trade Center in New York a decade ago. The discussion comes and goes with a social ebb and flow that mimics human behavior patterns: It’s high when humans have something to fear in the recent memory; it’s low when that recent memory begins to fade from the synapses.

The cyber ones, on the other hand, don’t really ebb much. They have been steadily growing in strength and decibel level as the smart grid gets more of a foothold and creates more potential security endpoints to cover. Concerns in that area rarely grow less numerous, and a recent study by the Ponemon Institute may kick up a few new arguments as well.

Unfortunately, the study shows that pesky patterns of human behavior are apparent with the cybersecurity elements of power as well---namely that workers don’t think management understands the value of their work, that compliance is something everyone has to do but few think is valuable, and that the “terrorist” you really need to worry about may already be inside your cyber walls, so to speak.

The study, “State of IT Security: Study of Utilities and Energy Companies,” was published this week by Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Q1 Labs. They surveyed 291 IT and IT security people in the energy industry for the results, picking people specifically involved in securing assets, systems and infrastructure.

My favorite finding is one gripe that you could find with any gig, anywhere, in any office in the U.S.: The boss totally doesn’t get what I do or how important it is. 71 percent of the survey respondents said “the management team does not understand or appreciate the value of IT security,” according to the survey’s specific wording. Now, keeping in mind that the people doing the talking here are likely not a part of the management team, this seems quite standard for corporate America: The boss doesn’t get it. Unfortunately, however, we’re not talking businesses that make bingo cards or bracelets or BB guns. This is the power structure we’re chatting about---the backbone of health, security, luxury and industry.

If the boss really doesn’t get it, we’re all in a lot of trouble here---not just the corporate employees, but all of us in this power hungry society. Adding to the issue, those employees in the survey don’t see what they’re working with as state of the art technology, nor do many of them think their companies are very proactive in keeping risk at bay in this area. So, the bosses don’t get it, aren’t forking over cash for it (likely because they don’t get it) and really don’t want to think about it or plan ahead for it.

Again, we can all hope this is just a problematic human perception and not the actual truth, but it’s still a bit scary to think about. Still, even if the boss doesn’t get it, they have to comply with NERC standards and regulatory objectives that force the utility into security compliance, right?

Well, yes and no. There are, indeed, standards for this sort of thing, but the respondents in this survey overwhelming said that compliance isn’t a major push with their company and that, besides, it’s super difficult to comply anyway. Plus, in the end, the regulations in place don’t really help with security. They’re just not very effective.

Just in case you want to keep score, here’s the bottom line so far: The boss doesn’t get how important security is, isn’t paying for it, isn’t bringing in the right technology and, in the end, what we’re all forced to do by those pesky regulations doesn’t help a whit anyway.

Scared yet?

Finally, in the area of just how much they will cost and who exactly is causing those security issues, you might get to breathe a small sigh of relief. It’s not nearly as frightening as you think. No multi-million dollar price tags are popping up today, and no terrorists are rearing dangerous heads. While those survey respondents admit that an “exploit” on their company network could occur in the next year, the average breach would clock in at a modest cost of $156,000. (OK, that’s not modest to me, but it is modest to a large corporation, let’s say.)

Additionally, we don’t need to fret so much about outsiders and scary terrorists. Most of those breaches will be caused by people who already work at these organizations. While leadership issues (like who the heck is really responsible for security) are contributing to the problem, there isn’t an overwhelming need to shore up systems against angry outsiders---just a need to get a good look at potentially angry insiders.

This small survey may note, inadvertently, the biggest hurdles to cybersecurity that power systems face: ourselves. Someone needs to be in charge of security and take responsibility for it. Someone needs to think it’s important, invest money in it and really figure out how regulations can help, rather than hinder, the issue.

The problem remains though: Who will be that mysterious “someone” for your utility?

One year later: Remembering the Upper Big Branch mine disaster

One year ago today, 29 men died in the Upper Big Branch mine, the worst coal mining disaster in the U.S. in 40 years. The incident prompted multiple investigations, including one by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and a criminal look into the mine's chief of security. No final answers are available as of yet. Those answers may still be months away. And, if we're honest with ourselves, final answers may never come---at least not answers that make the families feel any better.

After the disaster, there was a national call for new safety regulations, but those have yet to materialize (and many efforts have stalled out in the new Congress and the state legislature).

In honor of this solemn anniversary this week, I'm rerunning a commentary I wrote immediately after the accident. Despite various blogs from me over the last year that lament the logistical problems of renewables, I still believe that renewables are the answer to getting us away from mining disasters such as Upper Big Branch. And I hope we find a way to get to that renewable horizon fast enough to save ourselves future mine disasters and future families grieving over the needless deaths of fathers, sons, brothers and friends.

Coal Mine Disaster Brings New Reason to Consider Renewables
Originally published April 6, 2010.

The rather dramatic irony of this blog entry is that I thought about writing it yesterday after reading about China’s flooded mine and all the men trapped there. At that point, I was thinking about how much safer our own mines are here in the U.S., how that probably wouldn’t happen here after all the OSHA safety requirements and other issues involved. I was going to write about that, slant the article to say we can help China make mining less dangerous. Then, this morning, I read about the coal mine blast in West Virginia that has killed 25 people with four still missing.

Coal mining is a dirty, nasty business---even with our OSHA regulations, even with our laws and safety requirements. We’re not so different, at the core, from China, after all. It may, in fact, be impossible to make mining a really safe endeavor.

I come from a long line of coal miners. I’ll bet you are surprised by that revelation. My grandfather was a coal miner. And his father. And his father’s father. My family’s dug a lot of black chunks out of the ground.

My grandfather used to talk sometimes, quietly about what miners fear most---back then it was a scary term called “blackdamp.” Blackdamp is the removal of oxygen in the air, which is replaced by toxic gases. Pretty much all tight, sealed environments can create blackdamp, but it’s especially nasty in coal mines because the coal itself adds to the problem. Coal, once exposed to air, begins absorbing oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide and water vapor.

My grandfather used to talk about blackdamp as if the mine itself was breathing, cutting off air from the miners inside its gullet. You can’t smell blackdamp. You usually only become aware when you get lightheaded and dizzy, uncoordinated like you’ve had way too much to drink. Blackdamp was what miners feared most in my grandfather’s day. But, that wasn’t usually what killed them. It did kill some, of course, but most miners were killed from the force and power of collapses or accidents, not from the creeping blackdamp.

Still, the blackdamp scared them most---that slow, crazy spiral to asphyxiation that it represented. My grandfather said the scariest thing was an awareness that death is coming down that mine in bits and parcels, in small steps and strides. And you had to watch. You had to realize what was coming.

My grandfather stopped fearing the blackdamp in 1947 because he stopped being a coal miner in 1947. March 26, 1947, to be exact.

He was running late for his shift at the Centralia Coal Company’s No. 5 mine on the edge of Centralia, Illinois. He wasn’t usually the type to run late---at least not as I recall. (We always made it to the movies and the circus early enough to get sodas and popcorn when I was a kid.) But, that one day in 1947, he was a bit behind.

He told me the reason was something to do with a family birthday celebration that had kept him up way too late the night before. The celebration hadn’t, however, slowed down my great-grandfather. Not a bit. He was bang on time for the mine collapse---the worst coal mine disaster that the country had seen in nearly 20 years.

111 men died in that mine disaster, including my great-grandfather Jacob Rethard. My grandfather, Raymond, would talk about digging with shovels and picks and bare and bloody hands---anything to get to his father and those other men trapped, even though they knew just minutes after the shaft fell that hope for the lives of those men was completely futile: If the force didn’t get them, the blackdamp and growing lack of oxygen certainly would.

It was a race against time, and they didn’t have the equipment to win. Still, my grandfather kept digging until he recovered the body of his father. His father was no. 110---the 110th body. No. 110 out of the 111 dead men pulled from that mine. And my grandfather walked away from that disaster dirty and bloody and done.

He left coal mining behind without a second thought.

As human beings, we are incredibly resilient. My grandfather certainly was. He became a security guard, working everywhere from Vegas to Oklahoma City. He raised a family and rarely talked about that coal mine collapse that killed his father. He was funny, a great cook, and he used to build the most amazing blanket-and-kitchen-chair forts in his living room, much to the annoyance of my grandmother. He pressed on.

As a society, we often mirror my grandfather’s ability to move forward. Hundreds of men in China die, and it really doesn’t stop us from flicking a light switch. We don’t make that connection much. 25 men in West Virginia died today, and it hasn’t stopped me from using my computer or my television. We have a great capacity to accept and move on. But, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to adapt.

I’ve thought a lot about the place of renewables in this industry in the last few years---most of it focused on the practical. I still think they are expensive and lacking in a certain economy of scale. But, perhaps I should think less about the financial cost of renewables and more about the lives they might save---not just with reducing global warming but direct human lives like those we lose regularly in coal mines around the world.

Jacob Rethard was a solid, tough family man who was proud to be a coal miner, but it cost him his life. My grandfather, Raymond Rethard, walked away from that disaster that killed his father a changed man, one who saw coal mining as not worth the risk.

In the end, he died at a ripe old age surrounded by family---not by darkness and blackdamp.

Perhaps we should pay more attention to the humanity embroiled in the dangers of mining. If renewables become more prevalent, could we save more men in China and in West Virginia and in Illinois from dying in the dark? Years ago I made a definitive choice to never buy diamonds because of the human cost they sometimes require to mine. It was a change in attitude, and I know I’m not alone in that attitude or choice. Perhaps we, as an industry and as a society, also need to consider a change in attitude and adjust our social concepts and technological advances to give the advantage to renewables, even if they are more expensive.

We should remember that we sometimes pay a very large, very human price for very cheap power. And, bottom line, that human price may be much, much less if renewables were given a stronger foothold in power production. It would be a nice change if no man had to fear the dark blackdamp in our smart energy future.

Where’s the logic in our rush to renewable the world?

I’m coining a new phrase today: “to renewable.” “To renew” is taken, and it can mean a variety of refreshing tangents across a number of delightful industries---it’s especially popular with cosmetics companies---but “to renewable” is specific to just power and will represent our headlong rush to make everything inside our arena lean and green---and, therefore, more appealing.

After all, when we act, as a group, “to renewable,” we’ve pushed aside pesky things like global warming (or just air pollution for those conservatives still insisting that global warming isn’t real) and nuclear regulation and massive fuel reserves and dependence on foreign oil fields that are sometimes run by angry despots.

So, with the great rush “to renewable” we can solve a lot of social, cultural and fuel-related issues. We clean up the environment when we hunker down “to renewable,” and, yet, it doesn’t impact our World of Warcraft time together. And, even politicians can love “to renewable,” cuz that means we can, metaphorically, flip the bird at those angry despots we think are holding all the oil we need---gallons of political hostage.

But, in that great rush we also create an issue, a big ol’ tech issue that we’ve known about for years. See, your World of Warcraft time there at the computer may not be when the sun shines. In may be in the dark hours of the night when the rest of the world is sleeping. And, it may not be when the wind blows. It may be during a night of complete and utter calm. So, if the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining when you sit down to play, you’re going to need power from another source because renewables are, for the most part, pesky in their intermittency.

Now the intermittency of our rush “to renewable” has, of course, been around since the dawn of power itself. We’ve know about it forever, and, in fact, it has kept us burning fossil fuels in recent history because renewables just weren’t reliable. But, now we’ve turned a corner, decided to forge ahead, made a pact “to renewable.” We’re resolved---yet, no one has solved that pesky “sun’s not always shining” issue.

Still, we don’t, as an industry, talk about it. It’s the elephant in the room that we’ve painted to match the wallpaper so it just doesn’t stand out quite as much. When we hear there will be change from the governments above us and hear an echoing call for change from consumers below us, we just don’t feel like we have a lot of choice but to disguise that problem. When we talk about those problems, the governments above us think we’re stalling and the consumers below us think we just want to keep the status quo because of money---and we're stalling. So, the rush is on. And, we’ll just do some camouflaging and be done with that elephant for as long as we can possibly ignore it.

But, intermittency is bound to have impact as we grow more and more dependent on renewables. You can’t hide an elephant that darn big forever.

European consultants Poyry recently completed a study on the growing push “to renewable” and how power based on weather patterns could impact the market. Among their findings (which focused on Northern Europe): “By 2030, wholesale market prices in some countries will have become highly volatile and driven by short-term weather patterns.”

Poyry’s report also noted that there will be more “peaks” in prices: When there are lots and lots of renewables all going at once, the price will death spiral, but when there is no renewable power option, the price will skyrocket. Intermittency leads to volatility. That’s the first major lesson of our rush “to renewable”: It’s going to be a rollercoaster ride for prices, if prices are open to a market based on the fickle whims of weather. Add in the costs of renewable subsidies and the cost of keeping a back-up in baseload, and now items are trending higher more often than they are trending lower. It may always regress to mean, but, in the future, that mean may be a significantly higher price mark.

While there are options to mitigate those crazy price spikes by interconnecting more renewables across more space (as the ability to push power over lines gets easier) and creating demand-side management programs, these concepts are band-aids for a wound that won’t stop bleeding (and those concepts involve convincing governments and consumers to work together for the good of the utility, which is often not so easy to sell). In the end, until we can find a way to logically solve the technical issue of intermittency our rush “to renewable” will always be plagued by a problematic lack of logic and not nearly enough serious thinking about practical solutions.

I want our attempts “to renewable” the world to work, but it seems like we’ve gotten caught up in the excitement and money available---the soap-opera drama of it all---and forgotten that there are, indeed, some valid reasons to burn stuff to make power. If we want to get away from burning stuff, we need to spend more time mulling over the issues before we run out of the house with saws and drills in hand to build, build, build those renewables.

Can we build our way out of an energy crisis?

While the world stares down Japan in an attempt to seal off nuclear containment with collective Superman eye lasers none of us actually possess, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu touched on the crisis for just a moment in his speech to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He discussed how the U.S. is helping Japan with detectors, experts and assessments of contamination.

Nuclear may have been on his mind, of course, but not just in the form of the ongoing Japanese issue. Chu was on Capitol Hill to discuss nuclear and other forms of energy within the context of the President’s budget plans for the Department of Energy.

Diversity was key for Chu’s speech. He included nuclear, despite the crisis, along with fossil fuels and renewable efforts. But, what the President and Chu really want to do is make stuff.

“President Obama has a plan to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of the world.” Chu said.

Can we build our way out of an energy crisis? Well, you can spend your way out of a financial crisis. So, I guess it’s technically possible, depending on what, exactly, you want to build. The President, it seems, wants to build lots and lots of clean energy bits---so much so that we could get 80 percent of our power from clean sources by 2035.

Biofuels, the smart grid, R&D and carbon capture are all mentioned in this long-term goal, along with loan guarantees for renewables and energy efficiency tech. Nuclear got a push, too---up to $36 billion to help deploy a “new generation of American nuclear reactors.” Whether that will be in the final budget is hard to say. It likely depends on how well the Japanese walk the tightrope between potential meltdowns and how scared the average American is by all of that front page news.

This push up for renewables and nuclear loan guarantees is balanced by the elimination of some fossil fuel subsidies that have been deemed “unnecessary.”

This plan of Obama’s is lean and green, but is it mean? I get where he’s going. There’s a great logic to unhooking ourselves from fossil fuels and imports, creating power from the wind and sun that blesses most of the American landscape daily. But, to get to 80 percent is quite a lot of building. And, the one area that might have helped bridge that gap---nuclear power, which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases---may be sidelined.

And all renewables goals aside, we’ll never get to that 80 percent without significant improvements in energy storage---or building the world’s largest battery. Or both.

While it’s very nice to see the Administration taking a long-haul look at energy, I’m still left wondering exactly what we’re going to build to go from our current energy portfolio (with coal leading at 45 percent and renewables---not including hydro---at 4 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration) to that whopping 80 percent renewables. Like our attempts to stop Japan’s nuclear disaster, we may need some super powers for that.

Nuclear energy, Florida sunshine and emotional meltdowns

This week, I'm attending Elster's EnergyAxis event in sunny Bonita Springs, Florida. I may be working, but most people around these parts this week are all about leisure---after all, it is Spring Break. Flip flops and board shorts and bathing suits are everywhere, mixed in with the suits and khakis of the conference, but, whatever we're wearing down here, we're all enjoying the warmth of the sun.

But, not all warmth is good. While we play here in Florida, Japan is trying to stave off overheating nuclear reactors to prevent potential radiation leaks. And, the world watches and speculates about nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area, about regulations, about precautions and, really, about the safety of nuclear energy as a whole.

And the discussion is heating up. It's been all over the news. It was on Good Morning, America this morning. I watched bits of it, including their energy correspondent in a protective suit, while enjoying my sunny view of the bay.

Warmth is emotional. With the Spring Break crowd here in the Sunshine State, it's positive. We're basking in the heat. Japan, on the other hand, is emotionally cooking. Their warmth (potential and otherwise) is negative emotionally. People are afraid of that heat, of the dangerous fallout (possibly literally).

I was thinking of these dichotomies this morning, this splitting of the whole of what warmth can mean emotionally in the areas of energy, during the keynote presentation by Suzanne Shelton, president and CEO of the Shelton Group. She was discussing the tendency of people to make an emotional decision and then create reasoning to rationalize that decision.

"You cannot fight an emotional argument with a logical one," she said. Her suggestion was to focus on areas that speak to both the emotional and rational in people.

People aren't very rational about nuclear energy, even before the Japanese issue. Nuclear energy has always been squarely an emotional decision---either "for" or "against" depending on whether you are concerned about energy independence or health and safety. The reasons to rationalize the very emotional decision that nuclear will help us be energy independent fall squarely into cost and security issues. The reasons to rationalize the very emotional decision that nuclear is too problematic with health and safety issues often circle around natural or manmade disaster possibilities, reinforced, at the moment, by what's unfolding in Japan.

But, the immediacy of the Japanese tragedy certainly brings the emotional question of health and safety to the forefront during these trying days. With enough distance, however, I wonder if worries about nuclear will continue to fall on that side of the emotional argument.

To be sure, nuclear is not 100% safe. That's really very obvious right now; there are men at those Japanese reactors risking their lives to prevent a radiation leak. But, no form of energy, really, falls into a completely safe category. Oil issues killed 11 men in the gulf last year and unleashed an environmental disaster that an entire region may never fully recover from, yet we still continue to drill.

Coal and other fossil fuels contribute to climate change. And, while that isn't as immediate of a disaster as nuclear fallout, it is still predicted to be a disaster---and not one confined to a single region.

So, safety, as an emotional issue, has variables. And, our reactions to the dangers of all energy are not consistent.

In the end, will the benefits of nuclear energy---that it doesn't add to climate change, that it's a steady and reliable source of power---outweigh our fears of disaster as it often does with oil and fossil fuels? I think the final decision on that emotional argument is being played out right now in Japan. If a meltdown occurs physically and radiation leaks from the reactor, nuclear energy may burn through any remaining goodwill in the arena of public opinion.

And, if that happens, I doubt any of the rational positives about nuclear power will manage to make even a small dent in the negative emotional argument for decades to come.