-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy: Nuclear is not the Answer

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Nuclear is not the Answer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear is not the Answer. Show all posts

7.22.2016

Bill Gates’ Nuclear Pipe Dream convert Depleted U to Pu

If you're like me and read faster than watching a video here are the Transcripts for the interview.  It looks to me like complete madness and explains so much about the Inner Dealings of the Nuclear Industry and points directly to why all the nuclear waste has been left around in different places around the country where it is causing health issues around the St Louis Region and other places 

Paducah, Love Canal, Indian Point, Westlake Landfill, Coldwater Creek, Fukushima, Hartford...

  
Uranium to Plutonium is the grand scheme...

Published on Mar 15, 2016
(EnviroNews DC Bureau) — Editor’s Note: The following news piece represents the second in a 15-part mini-series titled, Nuclear Power in Our World Today, featuring nuclear authority, engineer and whistleblower Arnie Gundersen. The EnviroNews USA special encompasses a wide span of topics, ranging from Manhattan-era madness to the continuously-unfolding crisis on the ground at Fukushima Daiichi in eastern Japan.

READ/VIEW the full report and transcript on EnviroNews here: http://environews.tv/031416-paducah-b...


2.15.2016

Do Not Let the Nuclear Industry Fool You





Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone. Build a Green StLouis Green Building Tips and Resources via: Scotty- St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog
-->

9.15.2015

Part 7 StLouis has racist tendencies-Ferguson Report

The long awaited DOJ Ferguson Report has been submitted and reveals many things that people living in StLouis with Half-a-Brain have realized for years: 

StLouis has racist tendencies and problems


Ferguson Riot Day 3 Image 
With a Republican majority in the MOleg
-will the needed changes come sooner rather than later for the health and well being of our city and as an example to the World?  I seriously doubt as was also stated by  who was just interviewed on



What lessons were learned from ? & discuss new report w/

While reading the StLouis Post Dispatch comments yesterday I realized- there are too many HATERS and that people haven't learned anything yet.

I haven't read the Forward through Ferguson a Path Forward fully yet so I will withhold comment for now.

Here's what some of the local reporters are saying:

  • The Post-Dispatch was given a copy of thereport, titled “Forward through Ferguson, a Path ...
  • Ferguson Commission turns report over to Nixon
    STLtoday.com - 15 hours ago
  • Police kill North County man wanted in fatal shooting of Kentucky state trooper
    STLtoday.com - 11 hours ago
  • Ferguson commission calls for sweeping changes to deal with racial inequity

    KSDK - ‎Sep 14, 2015‎
    The Ferguson commission was established by Nixon in November as anger and protests grew in the months after Michael Brown, 18, was fatally shot by white police officer Darren Wilson.


    Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone. Build a Green StLouis Green Building Tips and Resources via: Scotty- St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog
    -->

    4.15.2011

    Letter Opposing MO Sen Robin Wright-Jones Nuclear Agenda

    Missouri Senator Robin Wright-Jones I strongly urge you to stop the Support of Ameren UEs Nuclear Agenda.  The past does repeat itself and Missouri can do better than Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Production.

    Here are my top 10 reasons-with examples on why I I do not support Ameren UE's Nuclear Agenda.


    1) Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency   


    2) the proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. (A law that the Voting Citizens of Missouri Enacted)

    • legislation-SB 321 and SB 406This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.         


    3)Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
          


    • Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers. 
      • But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium 

    4)Ameren can easily meet Missouri's energy needs through energy efficiency instead of raising your electric rates to pay for a $6 billion nuclear reactor

    • In the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 25, Steve Kidwell, Ameren Missouri Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, said:
      • "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."  
                                                                                                                                                                        
    5)Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."             


    • The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
    • Missouri has Adequate Clean Energy Resources from via: Photovoltaic Electricity and GEO Thermal.  Both of which has no harmful side effects- Such as Nuclear Waste.
    6)According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.


    7) Per Nuclear Reactor in Florida 6 Billion in Projected Costs ends up with total costs of 22 Billion over Budget                                                                                                                                                
    8) The Proposed Nuclear Site is not too far away from the New Madrid Fault Line that Scientist say has a high chance of having an earth quake.  Only the Northwestern Pacific Rim has a higher chance of Rupturing.

    9) If there is a Nuclear Disaster our Great Missouri Land will be destroyed.  Just Like the disaster Japan is currently going thru and what the Soviets went thru with Chernobyl.  I for one don't want to see the Great Missouri Farmland Polluted from Nuclear Waste.

    10) There is no safe way to dispose of the Nuclear Waste.  The Citizens of Nevada have already put a stop to the proposed nuclear waste burial in their back yard- Yucca Mountain.



    All the Information Provided on this Article is from the Green Blog: St Louis Renewable Energy I give the sources for all the information provided.  Please research the True Costs of Nuclear.  It is clearly not what Missouri Needs- when there are more feasible alternatives- that not only cost less but have no harmful effects to the Environment.

    I urge Everyone who opposes this Nuclear Movement to contact your legislation Department at: Missouri Legislature Contact Link 


    Listen to Her Interview about the Ameren UE Nuclear Agenda-
    "The Way I Roll" http://www.missourinet.com/2011/04/14/nuclear-plant-site-bill-delayed-audio/
    --

    scottscontracting@gmail.com
    http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
    http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

    http://twitter.com/StLHandyMan
    https://www.facebook.com/GreenMeUPScotty

    4.12.2011

    Join Me to Protest Ameren UE's Nuclear Reactor Agenda

    Protest
    Ameren Shareholders Meeting
     
    Thursday, April 21 · 7:30am - 9:30am
     

    Powell Symphony Hall, 718 N Grand Blvd, Saint Louis, MO
    Ameren Missouri is holding their annual Meeting of Shareholders to vote on several issues pertaining to their governing laws.
     
    The anti-CWIP law states that investor-owned utilities, like Ameren, are not allowed to collect money from ratepayers for costs associated with new power plants until they are producing electricity. 
     
    This law saved Ameren ratepayers $400 million after the completion of the 1st nuclear reactor in Callaway County. Ameren wants to repeal part of this law. Know the talking points and make a difference.
     
    ----------
    Find Additional Information on Ameren UE and Nuclear Energy


    Ameren UE's Greed Missouri Nuclear Agenda

    4.05.2011

    Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy

    ...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
    ________

    Steven Cohen Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth Institute
    When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

    The President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

    Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.

    The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.

    I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.

    Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.

    Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.

    By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.

    The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

    While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.



    --
    Scott's Contracting
    scottscontracting@gmail.com
    http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
    http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

    Nuclear Vs. Coal-

    I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
    ____________________
    A No-Win Ethical Dilemma


    Kelly Rigg Kelly Rigg Executive Director, GCCA crosspost via Huff Post Green
    Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant are rightfully being hailed as heroes. A glimpse into their lives shows the high price they are paying to stave off a nuclear catastrophe -- 12 hour shifts, very little food, deplorable sleeping conditions and an expectation that some of or all of them will soon die. It's heartbreaking and telling that industry insiders refer to them as "glow boys" despite their immense sacrifice.


    The fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is spreading and we need to get prepared for the consequences. I'm not referring in this case to the contaminated particles that have seeped into the land and sea surrounding the crippled plant, but fallout of a less radioactive and far more political variety.

    In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the anti-nuclear Green party won a stunning upset victory over Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union on March 27, despite Ms. Merkel's last-ditch effort to win voters by announcing the temporary closure of some of the country's oldest reactors. China temporarily suspended approvals for new nuclear plants, and announced that it would likely scale back its nuclear ambitions, decreasing the proposed share of nuclear power from 5% to 3% of the total power supply by 2020. In the UK, Deputy Prime Minister Clegg suggested the government may be rethinking its plans to build a new generation of reactors:
    We have always said there are two conditions for the future of nuclear power: [new plants] have to be safe, and we cannot let the taxpayer be ripped off," he said. "We could be in a situation now where the potential liabilities are higher, which makes it more unlikely to find private investment.
    That sounds like the understatement of the year. Governments and investors must be starting to realize that the smartest money is on clean energy. New research by the Pew Environment Group is backing this assumption:
    The clean energy sector is emerging as one of the most dynamic and competitive in the world, witnessing 630 percent growth in finance and investments since 2004," said Phyllis Cuttino, director, Pew Clean Energy Program. "In 2010, worldwide finance and investment grew 30 percent to a record $243 billion.
    The biggest risk right now is that governments will look to high carbon energy sources such as coal, shale, or tar sands to warm their cold nuclear feet. But the urgency of climate change suggests this is no time to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
    It's also worth remembering the ongoing devastation wrought by the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, whose one-year anniversary is coming up in April. BP set up a $20 billion fund, of which $4 billion has already been paid, to settle claims by businesses and individuals. This is on top of the actual costs to BP itself (and its insurers). Moreover, US authorities are considering prosecuting BP managers for manslaughter due to their cost-cutting measures which compromised safety.

    And let's not forget the thousands of coal miners who die each year, or those who die of respiratory illnesses linked to air pollution spewed out by coal-powered plants. A report by Sierra Club puts the death toll at 4,000 per year in just the Northeastern region of the U.S. alone (PDF).

    As governments grapple with the implications of Fukushima, we have a window of opportunity to fill the nuclear vacuum with safe, reliable renewable sources of energy. Japan is already thinking along these lines. As reported by Kyodo News:
    Pursuit of solar power, bioenergy and other clean energy sources will be a key pillar of the government's reconstruction strategy to be drawn up for areas hit by a massive quake and tsunami following the country's worst nuclear accident, top government spokesman Yukio Edano said Tuesday.
    Just last week, yet another study was published showing that we can make the transition to a completely renewable energy infrastructure, in this scenario by 2030.
    But some low-carbon advocates, normally friendly to the environmental camp, have environmentalists stretching their heads. Rather than leveraging the crises at hand to help accelerate the shift to renewables, they are running a rearguard action to promote the benefits of nuclear power.

    This brings to mind an old joke about the absurdity of tunnelvision. Three guys are shipwrecked on a remote desert island. One day a bottle washes ashore and out pops a genie who grants them three wishes. The first guy says, "I want to be home, enjoying a home-cooked feast with all of my friends," and poof, he's gone. The second guy says, "I wish I were home, making love to my beautiful wife," and poof he disappears as well. The third guy looks around and says, "Gee, it's kind of lonely around here... I wish those other guys were back here on the island."

    But choosing our energy future is no joke. Given the 30-50 year lifespan of a power plant built today, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to get it right. Quite apart from the long-term risks from climate change, I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
    If not, then what moral right do you have to ask others to make such sacrifices?

    --
    Scott's Contracting
    scottscontracting@gmail.com
    http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
    http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

    3.31.2011

    Latest News on Missouri Nuclear Reactor Agenda

    Nuclear siting bill awaits committee action (AUDIO))
    by Bob Priddy on March 31, 2011 cross-posted via: Missourinet
     
    Four bills focused on how to pay to pick a site for a second commercial nuclear power plant are stuck in a Senate Committee.  Senator Jason Crowell, the sponsor of one of the bills, chairs the committee that held a seven-hour public hearing about three weeks ago. The committee has not considered whether to recommend full senate debate.
    For him, the big issue is who will pay for the site selection.  He thinks the utility company and its stockholders should bear that cost.

    The sponsor of one of the proposals, Jefferson City Senator Mike Kehoe, thinks most senators are comfortable with having consumers pay for the site selection—but be repaid if no site is picked or no plant goes into operation.

    Crowell worries that having consumers pay for the site selection is the first step toward repealing the construction work in progress law that says consumers won't be billed for construction costs until the plant is running.  Kehoe says he favors whichever approach is the most economical way to build the plant.

    Kehoe comments 7:38 mp3                   crowell comments 4:03 mp3


    --
    Scott's Contracting
    scottscontracting@gmail.com
    http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
    http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

    3.30.2011

    Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

    Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.


    • Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
    • The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
      • The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
    • To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.                                                                                                                                                                                        
    • Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
      • Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars                                             
    • Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.  But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium                                                                                                                                                                          
    1.  
      "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here


    -Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
    and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!     
    Active Participation is Suggested
    Tell My Politician



    --
    Scott's Contracting
    scottscontracting@gmail.com
    http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
    http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

    3.25.2011

    Nuclear crisis forces Japan to rethink energy needs

    Mar. 25, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- Reporting from Tokyo-- The first pitch of Japan's baseball season has been pushed back so that people don't waste gasoline driving to games. When the season does start, most night games will be switched to daytime so as not to squander electricity. There'll be no extra innings.

    Tokyo's iconic electronic billboards have been switched off. Trash is piling up in many northern Japanese cities because garbage trucks don't have gasoline. Public buildings go unheated. Factories are closed, in large part because of rolling blackouts and because employees can't drive to work with empty tanks.

    This is what happens when a 21st century country runs critically low on energy. The March 11 earthquake and tsunami have thrust much of Japan into an unaccustomed dark age that could drag on for up to a year.

    "It is dark enough to be a little scary.... To my generation, it is unthinkable to have a shortage of electricity," said Naoki Takano, a pony-tailed 25-year-old salesman at Tower Records in Tokyo's Shibuya district, in normal times infused by pulsing neon lights.

    The store has switched off its elevators and the big screen out front that used to play music videos late into the night, a situation that Takano expects to last until summer.

    Japan's energy crisis is taking place on two fronts: The explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear compound and the shutdown of other nuclear plants owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) have reduced the supply of electricity to the capital by nearly 30%.

    Nine oil refineries also were damaged, including one in Chiba, near Tokyo, which burned spectacularly on television, creating shortages of gasoline and heating oil. Gasoline lines in the northern part of Honshu, Japan's main island, extend for miles. About 30% of the gas stations in the Tokyo area are closed because they have nothing to sell.

    Economists say it is difficult to parse out how much is the result of scarcity and how much comes from hoarding.

    "We are close to getting back to the gasoline capacity we had before the earthquake, but we are hearing demand has been two- to threefold the normal volume," said Takashi Kono of the policy planning division in the natural resources and fuel department at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. "With that much demand, of course we're looking at a shortage."

    The U.S. military has allocated up to 250,000 gallons each of gasoline and diesel for use in the relief operation.

    Energy analysts expect the gasoline crisis to ease in the coming weeks as supply lines reopen and panic buying subsides. The electricity shortage, however, is likely to linger for months and might get worse as the weather warms up and people try to turn on their air conditioners.

    Tokyo's Asahi Shimbun newspaper on Tuesday quoted an unnamed senior official of Tokyo Electric, which serves 28 million customers, as saying rolling blackouts could last a year.

    Electricity is the talk of the town. Newspaper readers pore over detailed schedules of the rolling blackouts printed on the back pages. Many movie theaters are closed, companies have switched off unnecessary lights and advertising, restricted use of elevators and shortened working hours.

    For now, gasoline shortages are disrupting both daily life and relief efforts.

    In Akita, a city 280 miles north of Tokyo, the few gas stations that are open have lines extending as long as a mile and limit purchases to four gallons. It would hardly be worth the wait, except that people want gas for emergencies -- for example, if they need to flee radiation from the disabled nuclear plant.

    The lack of gasoline for delivery trucks has aggravated shortages of key products, especially milk, bread, batteries, toilet paper and mineral water.

    "You can't buy anything, you can't go anywhere, you can't do anything. We're basically hanging out at home," said Megumi Fukatsu, an accounting student in Akita.

    Some of those left homeless by the quake and tsunami still have cars but can't use them, while relatives who would otherwise rescue them don't have the gas to reach the coastal areas. Some trying to flee the dangerous spewing nuclear plant in Fukushima prefecture weren't able to do so because their gas tanks were empty.

    Around Japan, a sympathetic public has been energized to help out earthquake victims with collections of clothing, blankets and food. But there is no way to get the aid to victims.

    "Everybody is willing to donate. How we will drive this stuff to the coast, I don't know," said Noriyuki Miyakawa, a 19-year-old from Akita who was stuffing thick, fuzzy sweaters into cartons at a community center.

    The electricity shortage will be harder to fix. Nuclear Waste Disposal Crisis

    Besides the damage to the nuclear reactors, two thermal power plants were knocked out by the earthquake. And the energy grid in Japan is split in two, a peculiarity that means the energy-starved north cannot borrow from the south.

    On the baseball diamond, Japan's Pacific League, which has a team in Sendai near the quake epicenter, has pushed back its season opener until April 12 to allow for rebuilding and energy conservation. The Central League has delayed its opener by four days, until March 29. Both agreed to avoid night games and extra innings.

    If there is a silver lining to the crisis, energy analysts say, it will be an awakening in Japan about energy efficiency and conservation.

    "It is going to be a different world," said David von Hippel, an energy analyst with the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, a think tank. He predicts that the nuclear accident at Fukushima will turn Japanese public opinion against nuclear power and force the nation to look more closely at energy efficiency. "They'd done a very good job at improving efficiency in the first two oil shocks in 1974 and 1979, but since 2000, the curve has been pretty flat."

    With energy twice as expensive as in the United States, Japan is a world leader in energy-efficient appliances, but homes here are often poorly insulated and bright lights are kept on late into the night for advertising. "You see these all-night vending machines lit up 24/7," said Von Hippel.

    Yoko Ogata, 68, of Akita said that young Japanese will have to take a cue from the generation that remembers the deprivation after World War II.

    "The young people take it all for granted. They don't know how to cope with shortages the way that we do," said Ogata.

    The scope of the disaster does appear to be motivating the younger generation to take action. Students at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo last week organized a campaign for earlier bedtimes to save electricity.

    "Lights out at 9 p.m.!" wrote the students on Mixi, Japan's most popular social networking site. If "I go to bed three hours early, and I did this for a week, that means I would have saved 21 hours -- almost a full day of electricity -- and I can pass that energy on."

    barbara.demick@latimes.com Mar 25, 2011 Los Angeles Times


    Special correspondent Yuriko Nagano in Tokyo contributed to this report.

    Newstex ID: KRTB-1430-102027817

    Connect with Scotts Contracting

    FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest