Are people apathetic about life and death issues or just ill-informed? In either case, the mainstream media bears some responsibility. Here are a few examples that, taken together, illustrate the point.
First, there’s a reprint in Saturday’s Miami Herald from the Palm Beach Post. At the annual meeting of FPL. “… three environmental groups totaling 15 people were outside waving signs as they protested plans by Florida Power & Light to build a natural gas plant in western Palm Beach County.”
The Miami Herald, “FPL/ Turkey Point: Nuclear plant eyed for Dade" reports, “FPL’s effort to extend Turkey Point’s operating license for 20 years, approved by the NRC in 2002, drew only a smattering of objections from activists—though the surrounding area has experienced a suburban boom since.”
Read at one sitting, it would appear that there really aren’t that many people interested in where our energy comes from.
Or is it the case that the mainstream press simply under-reports or badly reports, as these complex issues unfold within groups, in litigation, or annual meetings of public corporations where CEO compensation in the tens of millions is on display?
In 2002, the “smattering of opposition” to the Turkey Point license renewal was due to insurmountable rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission related to intervenors. It is David versus Goliath, for individuals or groups to deal with the NRC on permitting issues.
It is easy to describe opposition as a "smattering" and a good way to offload a story that deserves closer scrutiny.
If the NRC rules that you don’t have admissable contentions or an administrative court rules that you don't have "standing" in contests against regulatory agencies where industry can throw millions of dollars in legal counsel, far in excess of what the public interest side can muster, what good is opposition?
The Miami Herald never reported—not once—the fine detail of opposition to the Turkey Point relicensing.
In the case of the Glades power plant, FPL has cut legal corners in providing opportunities for public input—like its midnight deal with county commissioners from affected areas.
On the nuclear plant issue, why is it that the Miami Herald appears to take for granted the presence of additional dangerous capacity in a very difficult-to-evacuate area?
Why hasn't the Herald, for instance, ever asked the question: if other places with nuclear power plants stockpile potassium iodide in the event of a nuclear accident, why doesn't Miami Dade?
This is from the NRC website, “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised a section of its emergency preparedness regulations. The revised rule requires that States* with a population within the 10-mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) of commercial nuclear power plants consider including potassium iodide as a protective measure for the general public to supplement sheltering and evacuation in the unlikely event of a severe nuclear power plant accident.”
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/protect-public/potassium-iodide.html
Unlikely event?
On April 7, 2006, the FBI publicly announced, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD), Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) are seeking the public's assistance to locate and identify any individuals that were involved in damaging a pressurizer pipe at the Turkey Point Unit 3 Power Plant. A reward of $100,000 is being offered by FPL for information leading to the identification of the person(s) responsible. On March 31, 2006, the Unit Three power plant was going through pre-startup testing, following a scheduled shut-down for maintenance. While the system was being tested and inspected, workers found that a small hole had been drilled in a pipe that is part of the unit's pressurized cooling system. The plant remains in a safe condition and at no time was the public's safety at risk.”
The public's safety is at risk when the mainstream media declines to look, in depth, at the world around us.
Why, for instance, hasn't the Miami Herald reported on the story highlighted by the LA Times on alarm in the science community about the effect of very small doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on human development?
This is a massive concern in Miami Dade County where surface waters containing polluted storm-water runoff are hydrologically connected to drinking water aquifers, and where drinking water standards lack, utterly, protections from hormonal disrupters.
Here is an excerpt: (Published on Friday, May 25, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times, "Common Chemicals Pose Danger for Fetuses, Scientists Warn", by Marla Cone)
"In a strongly worded declaration, many of the world’s leading environmental scientists warned Thursday that exposure to common chemicals makes babies more likely to develop an array of health problems later in life, including diabetes, attention deficit disorders, prostate cancer, fertility problems, thyroid disorders and even obesity.
The declaration by about 200 scientists from five continents amounts to a vote of confidence in a growing body of evidence that humans are vulnerable to long-term harm from toxic exposures in the womb and during their first years.
Convening in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, toxicologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists and other experts warned that when fetuses and newborns encounter various toxic substances, growth of critical organs and functions can be skewed.
In a process called “fetal programming,” the children then are susceptible to diseases later in life - and perhaps could even pass on those altered traits to their children and grandchildren.
The scientists’ statement also contained a rare international call to action. The effort was led by Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark, and Dr. Pal Weihe of the Faroese Hospital System, who have spent more than 20 years studying children exposed to mercury.
Many governmental agencies and industry groups, particularly in the United States, have said there is no or little human evidence to support concerns about most toxic residue in air, water, food and consumer products."
Think this has nothing to do with reporting on energy generation in Florida, or elsewhere?
For decades, industry groups in the United States associated with Big Energy and Electric funded research to sow confusion about the reality of global warming, and for the most part during that time, the mainstream media followed, anxious to preserve "balance": meaning that reporting from the public interest side of the equation simply disappeared.
Well, at least in the blogsphere: we're back.
15 comments:
OK, I’m beginning to see the light; you guys don’t want any more power plants at all in FPL territory. You are apposed to the coal plant in Glades county and are opposed to the nuc at Turkey Point. I know that you are also opposed to growth so I guess that’s how the need to eliminate the need for any new power plants. Well the growth is not going to stop so where do you propose we get reliable electric from?
California. Lots of information available to answer your hostility, online.
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Egy_Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf
Look to the people you elected to office to answer the question why Florida has failed to reward utilities and consumers for conservation, or, benefited from massive investment in making existing plants more efficient.
Because of its energy efficiency standards and program investmens, electricity use per person in California has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years while nationwide electricy use has increased by almost 50 percent.
Annonymous one...
no one has said what you said. what i said was: If it is such a good idea, why did they hire 9 lobbyists? And to add, if it is such a good idea, why is there a $100,000 reward by the FBI to catch the person who drilled a hole at the Turkey point nuclear power plant. If someone got in to drill a hole, what else can they do. There are lot of things one could do there. And, what if that gas powered plant blows up?, and if there is a problem -- how are you going to evacuate the people in the keys that have to drive past the plant. Maybe you need to do some research. Just because you want more people doesn't mean you should ever put people in harms way. Is getting a third reactor stupid? How many plants in the United States have 3 reactors, an oil and gas powered plant all in the same place. I would hate to be a sitting target.
As Anonymous 1 I did not mean to be hostile. In the months of following this blog I have formed the opinions expressed in my first posting. I also don’t disagree with the limits on growth proposed by many entries in the blog by its authors, I even support them. But, I am a realist and know that the growth will continue. With that in mind and the apparent slant of the blog to any increase in generating capacity by FPL I just wonder where the electric capacity will come from? That was not a hostile question.
As to the number of lobbyists, unfortunately that’s the way business is done today. Lobby reform needs to come from the legislative side. I don’t like it and will not try to defend it.
As to the $100,000 reward by the FBI to catch the person who drilled a hole at the Turkey point nuclear power plant. Obviously someone with access to the secure areas of the plant and the tools to do it was the culprit. Drill motors and bits are a requirement to do work in the plant and did not require them to be smuggled in. Things that could do much more harm would be harder to get in. There is risk in everything we do, you can be sure that from a federal point of view and an FPL view there are things being put in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
I just get a little upset with the FPL bashing. When the power goes out bash FPL. FPL wants to build a substation in a neighborhood bash FPL. FPL wants to improve the reliability of power in Redland, bash FPL with “stop the 40 foot poles” signs. We all want the power to come on when we flip the switch but we don’t want the other consequences.
To set the record straight I also want to say the following:
I am a retired FPLer. I don’t agree with everything FPL does. I am concerned with the coal plant planned for Glades County due to the mercury issue. I am not afraid of nuclear power and have spent time at both Turkey Point and St Lucie and had a badge for unescorted access to secure areas for a period of time at both plants.
I am also concerned about dependence on foreign oil and support a mix of fuels for power generation. I feel that natural gas combined cycle power plants are a good way to go but I also don’t think FPL should put all its “eggs” in that basket. By the way natural gas and its transmission come with great risks also.
Another point FPL, through FPL energy, is he largest generator of wind generated power in the world. Even wind power has it problems with bird kills, noise, and throwing ice to name a few.
To make my entries on the topic I will use the name “tag” exFPLer
To anonymous 2
I went to ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Egy_Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf many of what it points out are also being done here in Florida. Energy audits, Rebates for efficient appliances, lighting, and equipment, Design assistance and Marketing and outreach are currently being done by FPL that other utilities in Florida.
As for the “Implementing the 2004 updates to building and appliance standards will avoid the need for five large power plants in the next 10 years and reduce consumer utility bills by $3.3 billion.”, time will tell. I’m sure that the need to add generating capacity can and will be deferred, I would bet it will not be five power plants.
As for Califorina having its own appliance standards and should Florida follow in the same footsteps I don’t think pushing appliance standards down our throats is the answer. A recent finding by consumer reports says that by setting the higher standards for clothes washers many washers do not get clothes clean. Efficient for efficiency sake does not solve the problem without preserving the reason for the appliance to exist in the first place.
By the Way this is California, the state that had all the blackouts and brownouts during 2001.
Again, not FP&L bashing, just asking the hard questions that the Herald does not ask nor address. We are unique in South Florida. We are on a narrow strip of land boxed in by water and the Everglaades. Is increasing the population sustainable on this narrow strip?
With the drought, sustainability issues should FINALLY be addressed. Creating desal plants and more energy plants is just a quick fix so we can put dense populations where maybe they don't belong. It is like putting a finger in the dike - a temporary fix.
To keep the dialog going; you bring up some very good points. “We are on a narrow strip of land boxed in by water and the Everglades” is a good one. Unlike other states Florida is not surrounded by other states and other utilities. We do not have the luxury of having the electric grid backed up by other power companies. Also this presents transmission grid challenges at to where to site power plants. Plants cannot all be in one location but must be spread out to serve areas where the concentration of load is. I don’t think any other state has the same challenges as Florida due to the peninsula issue and the fragile ecosystem located right dab in the middle of it all. At least we don’t have earthquakes even thought the nucs have been reinforced to withstand one.
With all that said, assuming we must add power plants due to growth. Lead times are measured in decades, not years, and it better be done right to avoid a shortfall in power, what kind of plants, if any, should be built and where should they be built? I don’t think there are a lot of options. What about fuel mix? What types of fuel should be used to generate power? Should all plants use the same fuel? All fuel types have their problems, what are the best power plant fuels for Florida?
All questions I cannot answer. I believe we should try and find the best way to provide for the energy needs of Florida not just try to poke holes in the ones proposed. Weigh the options, you may fine that we need to accept the risks. Then again you may not.
I have solar heat. How many of you bloggers debating expansion of FPL make an effort to reduce reliance on electricity? Sure solar heat is a drop in the bucket but multiply that by 1 million housing units in just Miami-Dade and the result would be impressive. Statewide, astronomical.
If you are referring to solar hot water I've had it for 15 years. Doing the bulb replacement also.
ExFPLer,
I consider myself a realist.
You, I consider a defeatist.
That is not an attempt at flaming, I work with a bunch of otherwise smart folks that are also defeatists-They don't like what is going on in our community, but they also won't do anything to stop the events from occuring.
"Growth will happen ,we just have to deal with it" they say.
One even quit voting because he says that it does no good.
I on the other hand, say that you must stand up for what you believe in, and I believe in quality of life in Florida.
I suffer thru Commision meetings , burning up valuable vacation time that could be used on outdoor adventures, So that at least my voice will be heard.
I don't believe growth is neccesary here until we address the lack of concurrency for CURRENT RESIDENTS, not people that want to move here in the future.
When our elected leaders vote to represent people that don't live here (or their lobbyists) we all lose.
If more of you realist=defeatist folks would do some research and stand up we might have a shot at change.
Until then, we all suffer.
I have lived in CA and done some research on the CA Air Resources Board (who are also not free of knobbiest pressure and corporate influence). However, the door to door efforts of LAs DWP (Dept of Water and Power) in the early 1990s by far exceed anything FPL has ever pretended to do. And it worked to build conservation. Moreover, if your have read (like The Smartest Guy in the Room) or watched anything critical to do with Enron it is easy to figure out that those CA blackouts and brownouts were dreamed up in the corporate boardrooms and trading floors (and there are tape recording to prove it).
I agree that in cloudy South Florida solar is not the answer, ocean wave it too far off, oil-gas clear issues but nuclear has alot of cooling problems increased by our the rising temperature of our oceans due to Global Warming. As recent studies in the New York Times show, many nuclear plants have had to be shut down across the world because the waters they rely upon are getting too hot to cool the reactions and preserve the fish. With Global Warming what FPL is doing is creating a 20 maybe 30 year solution and a 1000 plus year disaster, can your not at least see that? All so that we avoid a little conservation.
In my experience, one thing is true about FPL; their employees - both current and ex - are very loyal to (and extremely sensitive to any criticsm of)their employer. It speaks well of the company as a place to work I suppose. Nevertheless, FPL is a for-profit megacorporation like any other, and one with a monopoly in this region to boot. Speak ill of FPL to an FPLer, and they are likely to react as though you dissed their momma. Face it. The name of the game in any business is to produce as much product as you can, as cheaply as you can, and sell it for as much as the market will bear. That is what FPL intends to do and who can blame them? But please FPLers, don't act as though you are doing us any favors. After all, you don't give the stuff away.
One question though. Where are you going to get the fill on which to expand the Turkey Point plant into the surrounding wetlands?
There may have been a time for business as usual in the pollution business but now, until further evidence comes to bear on recent Global Warming changes, the stakes are too high for the planet and humanity. In South Florida we are trying to re-engineer the very basis for human civilization (fresh water sources, hurricane proof settlement construction, and avoid paying for the true costs of it all as set by the market) just to build another global fun in the sun destination?
As to anonymous who called me a defeatist, maybe I am. My questions reflect the fact that at least for the next decade or so Florida population will grow. No mater what happens the momentum is too great to stop it. Assuming that is true, what is the best way to provide for the energy needs of Florida? If you think that not adding any new generation capacity is the answer then so be it. On the other hand, I think we will need new capacity. If that is a defeatist view then label me as you wish. I try to avoid name calling and/or attacking anyone on this blog.
Assuming FPL “must” go forward with new generation, I will ask again:
What kind of plants, if any, should be built and where should they be built?
What about fuel mix? What types of fuel should be used to generate power? Should all plants use the same fuel? What are the best power plant fuels for Florida?
What are your views? I get the impression that most of the people on this Blog just oppose building ANY power plants.
As to the comments about FPL loyalty from employees and ex-employees; I can only speak for myself but I don’t think FPL “walks on water”. As a native of Miami I have over my 60 years of life seen mistakes made by FPL harm the environment and cause other problems in Florida. You are right “FPL is a for-profit megacorporation like any other, and one with a monopoly in this region to boot.” I’m not sure the current model for investor owned electric utilities is the best one, but in Florida it’s the most prevalent and the one we have. If you don’t think this model is the correct one for Florida work to change it.
On the question “Where are you going to get the fill on which to expand the Turkey Point plant into the surrounding wetlands?” Good question, I don’t know the answer. I don’t work there any more.
Why are we building Nuclear plants in such a dangerious area? How stable is FL over the next 1000 years? What kinds of storms are going to occur over that time frame? Where will sea level be? How will all of these huge and heavy cement foundations hold up in our porus limestone land? Does anyone know? Even if we dont store spent fuel there, which we most likely will, there are still other polutions to worry about.
The most interesting thing upon examining nuclear power is how much those who run the plants lie. The BBC did a documentary about the UK program and asked both radical leftish Tony Ben (who was in charge of PM Clement Atlee nuclear policy) and radical conservative Nigel Lawson (Thatchers Chancellor of the Exchequer) about the UK programs and they both said that both the industry and government employees lied to them about accidents, mishaps, problems. Sometimes it came to other governments telling them about mishaps that occured on the UK own soil. Its more than just regular power elite colusion the advocates of nuclear power are often true believers and will do anything to ensure that nuclear power avoids it quote bad rap.
The French claim that they have a great system that provides 80 percent of the nations power with no mishaps, however, however this is not verified by anyone and the environmental movement in France does not have the resources to check this independently.
Post a Comment