Powerful Sources

With regard to the article “Ontario Quits Coal” [News, March], there are many citizens in Ontario (and elsewhere in Canada, for that matter), who believe that the current Ontario government’s approach to energy management is, in fact, outright mismanagement. The provincial premier, Dalton McGuinty, announced during his campaign and shortly after his election that he was committed to closing a number of the province’s coal-fired generating stations—a laudable goal and one that no doubt garnered votes and approving nods from the public, but one that is utterly impractical.

Now he is busy backpedaling, in classical political fashion. And he is announcing major initiatives to launch crippling conservation measures and to construct additional renewable energy-generating capacity, such as the one highlighted in your article (boring the trench to carry water from the Niagara River to a new power-generating facility).

Notwithstanding the usefulness of the contribution of such renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro), there is no comparison between these and the brute-force capacity that is the hallmark of a nuclear generating station. What the public and the government have fallen victim to is the disinformation that the antinuclear lobby in Canada continues to foist upon an already brainwashed population about the “dangers” and the “risks” of the nuclear industry.

A single 1000-megawatt nuclear station, occupying less than 50 acres of land, replaces thousands of acres of solar collectors or wind turbines of comparable capacity, with zero environmental impact and with potentially 95-plus percent availability.

Building additional nuclear generating capacity immediately makes the closing of coal-fired stations practical, but the provincial government dragged its heels even to approve the refurbishment of existing nuclear reactors. By the way, there were two full four-unit stations temporarily shut down (Pickering A and Bruce A), in order for Ontario Power Generation (at that time Ontario Hydro) to regroup and strengthen its nuclear management processes and procedures. Within a decade, Pickering A was fully refurbished and brought back on line, along with a new dry-storage facility (which addresses many of the medium-term spent-fuel storage concerns), while two of the Bruce A units were brought back on line during the following decade. The last two units at Bruce are now undergoing refurbishment and will be back on line within the next couple of years, no thanks to the current government. Restarting of these eight units adds nearly 7000 MW to Ontario’s power grid—power that is not subject to the climate, not controlled by the rotation of the earth, not at the mercy of the water cycle, and one that has virtually no environmental impact.

What this province needs, what this country and others need is the political backbone to recognize and acknowledge the obvious and reestablish the preeminence once correctly enjoyed by the nuclear industry.

Dave Winlow

IEEE Member

Muskoka Shores, Ont., Canada

Editor’s note: The author is a retired nuclear engineer.

Controlling the Climate

William B. Gail’s excellent article on this topic, “Climate Control” [May], needs a bit of refinement, specifically more discussion of photosynthesis. The natural photosynthesis in today’s biosphere can in no way cope with the billions (yes, billions) of tons of carbon dioxide that we spew into the atmosphere annually. The massive forests that existed centuries ago have largely been cut down, and the fields that replaced them are being paved over. Simultaneously, we are burning the products of past photosynthesis producing this CO₂—an unfair fight to say the least.

But there is hope. Significant research is being conducted in universities all over the world on artificial photosynthesis. First suggested as a possibility in the journal Science in 1912, it was basically ignored throughout most of the 20th century, largely, I suppose, because there was no real need for it. Only during the past couple of decades has research been intensified. We may not be able to increase natural photosynthesis to any large extent, but we may be able to develop artificial photosynthesis to convert the CO2 to carbohydrates, oxygen, and hydrogen (if we so desire). This is a fledgling research program at present, but much progress is being made.

The proceedings of an international symposium on this subject held in 2003 in Australia are presented in the book, Artificial Photosynthesis: From Basic Biology to Industrial Application, Collings and Critchley, eds., Wiley-VCH, 2005. The work is impressive. No one is saying that these scientists have all the answers, but they are making a good start, and further research is certainly warranted. And I believe the time is ripe for a large-scale development program. We can do great things when we put our minds to it. From a few tens of feet of powered human flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903 to the moon (and back) less than seven decades later is really impressive, and it illustrates what we can do. Do we dare imagine a similar future for artificial photosynthesis?

The task is huge, the time is late, and we need to get started immediately with a massive program. Artificial photosynthesis could solve our climate (and energy) problems.

Warren Felt

IEEE Life Member

Northridge, Calif.

The politics of bad science hit a new low when IEEE Spectrum published the article, “Climate Control” [May], written by an author from Microsoft, William B. Gail. It would actually be funny, except we now have billions of dollars chasing bad science. Billions of dollars that could be used for real science or just left in the taxpayers’ pockets. But who could blame the scientists? They have house payments and kids to put through college.

As someone who grew up in Pittsburgh, I truly understand the importance of cleaning up the environment, but I am also an engineer and have a practical side that has developed after watching environmental extremists over the last 40 years. I have lived through environmentalist campaigns that warned us about global cooling, Smokey the Bear, plastic Christmas trees, coal versus nuclear—and my favorite—paper or plastic when I leave the grocery store.

I guess we have removed too many particulates from the air. Global cooling is no longer a threat, so we now have a new problem: global warming. Smokey the Bear was a great idea, but it turned out the forest needs fire to renew itself. The lakes need the ash from the fires to neutralize the acid buildup. Plastic Christmas trees were a great idea until the landfills started to fill up. Then people started to realize that the forests were a renewable resource, so now my real Christmas tree ends up as mulch in my local park every year.

So this article boldly points out we have been “chemically cloud-seeding” to make it rain. What the author has left out is that we no longer seed hurricanes because of the severe droughts it causes in the northeast. How about sulfate seeding? The author seems to be oblivious to the fact we make the oil companies take the sulfur out of the oil. How about we leave the sulfur in the oil, build 1000-foot smokestacks and bring back acid rain?

The author does correctly point out, though, that it is all about the sun and that there are other greenhouse gases such as moisture. What he fails to tell you is that, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the cause and effect between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the Earth has not been established. The NOAA goes on in great detail to say that when the oceans get warmer, they release more CO₂, something the author only hints at. The NOAA actually has made presentations on such subjects as why the El Niño this year in reality caused a drought in Southern California, eliminating all the hand-wringing over man’s involvement.

 As a resident of coastal Southern California, I know we have a lot of worries—earthquakes, tsunamis, liquefaction, mud slides, droughts, forest fires, you name it. One thing I do not worry about is oceans rising because of global warming, especially after a winter of record frost. I do worry about environmental extremism, which almost caused a catastrophic flood in Southern California.

Twenty miles north of my home is an earthen dam that protects millions of residents from the possibility of the area flooding, yet the environmentalists allow the Army Corps of Engineers to work on the dam only during the rainy season. Why? During that time of year they do not scare the birds. Yes, a few years ago we almost lost the dam while some repairs were being made during the one of the heaviest downpours in the last 100 years.

My other great worry is our education system. The fact an article this void of science—or common sense—could actually get printed by this great institution is truly a sign of how far things have fallen. I pay way too much money to the IEEE and expect to see a much tighter review process to separate science and politics.

So which is better for the environment? Plastic or paper bags? Does the fact my trash company recycles the plastic bags affect the answer? Last question: what is the correct temperature for the Earth?

James J. Jones

IEEE Member

Costa Mesa, Calif.