In 2007, the unreformable majority of Miami Dade County Commissioners approved a special use permit sought by FPL that committed county agencies and staff to help plan the pesky local details of two new nuclear reactors in South Dade. Fortunately, county government is not turning a blind eye to the real consequences of climate change. The problem is that we don't have leadership in local government to make the connection. It's cheaper, I guess, for electricity consumers to spend $20 billion until we're all wearing hip-waders. Doubly strange: while FPL is adapting its energy portfolio to global warming, its corporate officers and key planners are studiously ignoring how much global warming will cost rate payers who live at sea level, who pay for nuclear power, and who will be forced to shoulder costs of decommissioning nuclear plants stranded by sea level rise.On April 30th, Miami Dade's environmental agency made a presentation of imagery created in cooperation with other government agencies. The event was not reported by The Miami Herald. These images are not a tree-hugger, doom sayer's fervid imagination. They were built by Miami-Dade County planners and engineers using the latest data and software to overlay precise elevations with sea-level rise. (Here is the county website on climate change, well worth a visit.)
The science committee of the Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force has reached several conclusions. These have been shared with the world's top climate change scientists. Here is what the science committee reports: "What is happening in the Arctic and Greenland, (there will be) a likely sea level rise of at least 1.5 feet in the coming 50 years and a total of at least 3-5 feet by the end of the century, possibly significantly more. Spring high tides would be at +7 to +9 feet. This does not take into account the possibility of a catastrophically rapid melt of land-bound ice from Greenland, and it makes no assumptions about Antarctica." (please click 'read more')
50 years is clearly within the serviceable lifetime of the two, new planned nuclear reactors at Turkey Point. So why hasn't sea level rise been incorporated early and often in discussions whether or not to permit them? What you are looking at, is a new graphic of what one foot of sea level rise will do to South Dade. What one foot in rise means is that these areas will be wet, most of the time. The little red square is Turkey Point. If you think this is something to be concerned about, wait until you see what two and four foot rise looks like. No longer are lands just wet: they are under water.
So how does FPL intend to address the threats to its facilities from sea level rise and the costs that will become apparent with each inch rise in sea level: emergency access? Who will pay to elevate all the roadways leading to the plant, the issue of the rate base model: ie. what happens to FPL's customer base? How long does de-commissioning a nuclear facility take and shouldn't FPL be including the timeline and costs of closing the plants be factored into the equation? Surely FPL can afford economists to paint that picture for permitting agencies and ratepayers.
These images need to be interpreted through common sense. Data shows not only will Turkey Point be isolated and likely unserviceable without major public infrastructure upgrades, but the entire rate base-- ie. future consumers-- will be severely disrupted by sea level rise.
The Governor and Cabinet should take a very close look at this imagery, even if the Miami-Dade County Commission won't because it is lead by an unreformable majority. Let's hope the Obama White House and the NRC also a hard look at the costs of both maintaining and decommissioning nuclear facilities that are surrounded by low-lying land at sea level.
Let the record show that at least a few people took the time to understand what the Idiocracy has done to the state of Florida. I am not categorically against nuclear power. But I am categorically against new nuclear power inside the time horizon and inside the footprint of anticipated sea level rise from global warming.
10 comments:
And all in our kid's lifetime - not way off in the future. And not speculation as the results of current sea level rise can be seen throughout south Florida and the Keys.
Here's an idea: a federal law holding descendants of electric utility corporate executives liable for any additional costs than those agreed to before nuclear is built. Under that condition, guess how many nuclear power plants would get built? ZERO.
Common sense has no political donor - and therefore no voice at the Miami-Dade County Commission. Cooling Canals UNDER WATER! Are these people out of their MIND?
Even more concerning is that the maps illustrate only static topographic inundation. Add to those rudimentary maps tidal influence and the need to stack fresh water on top of the salt water to keep our well fields from being compromised then this won't be just a coastal issue. Keeping any part of the city dry during rainstorms will become more difficult and regular inundation of roadways and farmland will become more common.
The County expects this 1 foot rise to happen over the next 40 years or so and it could be as much as 3 feet. That map is not on the site, but 4 foot is.
Mr. Sunshine, you're right. We are already seeing in downtown Miami some serious spring tide flooding issues around new condos. So, 1) you have a nuclear facility whose access needs further protecting; ie. elevating all access roadways above the worst case scenario. Who will pay for that? Is it in the planning? 2) FPL really needs to do a needs analysis under the case of sea level rise. Right now, the needs analysis is likely based on population rise pre-Crash. I haven't seen the data. But there is no question that South Florida (and lots of the rest of Florida) will become a much smaller place under sea level rise. Would you spend $20 billion on new nuclear (not the full cost per above and the cost of decommissioning) against the risk of how quickly your rate base will dissolve?
I am quoting from the county web site here: "All of this is not good news for a State dependent on tourism based largely on its natural resources. The loss of beachfront, corals, and the Everglades would devastate our local economy." -- ok, or is it just me that is wondering what is wrong with this statement. We are going to have waterfront everywhere. I am thinking that the real problem is that we will be living in a Bayou out here in West Kendall. Call me silly, but I don't think people will be thinking about tourism at that point.
As someone who goes to the Climate Change Task Force meetings, the outlook is much bleaker than what is being discussed in public. One of the bug topics being discussed is the need to raise public awareness of these issues in anticipation of them happening. Some of the leaders of the Committee fear that releasing this information now will kill real estate in this town. Forget about adding 1,000 people a day, we will be hemorrhaging people.
Oh, I feel so much better knowing our "Climate Change Task Force" is on this. I say this, knowing how forward thinking our county is and how much we have been a leader in sustainable development and green initiatives. Perhaps someone should get the President on the phone and let him know we have it covered.
Let's see, the city of Palmetto Bay approved a 9 story senior living facility where Andrew dumped 19 (or22 foot depending on the tale) foot surge 17 years ago, without any rise in sea. And that is okay.
Heck, the city just BUILT a 2 story library in the same spot and the county is building a fire station there. Great place for first responders in a hurricane prone area!
The question is: How long can we tread water?
Well, evidently Palmetto Bay is forward thinking as well. They made the senior living center two story so that they could move everyone upstairs. You see, in this economy, they would only have 50% of those rooms filled anyway. They are way ahead of you, Out of Sight. Don't even try to keep up with their thinking. They are visionaries.
Post a Comment