Article Critique Reducing Emissions From Automobiles 475 Words /Environmental science

The Future of Energy AMARJIT SINGH, F.ASCE

ABSTRACT: What should the world do about global warming and air pollution as a result of burning fossil fuels? The argument isn’t about whether global warming exists or not, but rather what really causes it. There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels and automobile emissions adversely affect the health of humans, animals, and birds. We have seen that solar cycles might be entering a significant stage, such that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels, global warming would likely continue apace. Hydrogen fuel cells will actually contribute to global warming because water vapor emissions are a greenhouse gas. The planet and humankind will, nevertheless, survive a warming onslaught. But, air pollution is a bigger disaster caused by the burning of fossil fuels that may irreversibly affect �or mutate� humans. I argue that nuclear energy is the choice of last resort that has to be activated now. Nuclear energy costs are comparable to costs for energy from coal and fossil fuels.

W e know the facts: the Earth is warming. But, at what rate? Hansen et al. �2006� from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration �NASA� put the rate at

0.2°C per decade over the past thirty years. Maybe that really isn’t so much, well tolerable by humans, but current tempera- tures, according to Hansen et al., are the highest they’ve been in the past 12,000 years. They made this assessment by obtaining a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from themagnesiumcontent intheshellsofmicroscopicsea-surface animals recorded in ocean sediments. However, Robinson et al. �2007� establish that sea-surface temperatures in the Sar- gasso Sea were higher in 1,000 AD by 1°C and in 1,000 BC by2°C.Theydiscovered thisbydetermining isotope ratios of marineorganismremains insedimentatthebottomofthesea. The surface temperatures in the United States mainland rose by 0.05°C per decade in the last century, which amounts to farlessthanshownbyHansenetal.�2006�.

Antarctica is reported to have warmed only 0.2°C from 1850to2000.Antarcticaactuallycooledmarkedlyduringthe 1990s while the Southern Hemisphere rose by 1.4°C over the past century �New evidence 2006�. Data for this came

from oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in ice cores that received morethan15 inches of snowperyear.Accordingtodatapro- vided by Robinson et al. �2007� the average ice core tempera- tureswerelastthishigh110,000 years ago.

Although Kuplinski and Byrd �2008� report that the sun isnotcausingglobalwarming,Robinsonetal. �2007�arefirm that the sun is the cause. Handwerk �2006� reports solar astronomer Peter Foukal saying that the sun can’t be blamed for global warming; however, Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson claims that the “Earth’s current global warming is a direct result of a long,moderate1,500-year cycle in the sun’s irradiance” �Avery 2007�. Patterson’s research team drilled sediment cores in the mud in deep local fjords off Canada’s westcoasttoget5,000-year climateprofiles.

Between science writers and climatologists, astronomers and solar-terrestrial physicists, atmospheric scientists and astrophysicists,chemistsandpaleoclimatologists,andsomany other scientists, the differences of opinion and interpretation are substantial. These differences take place among reputable and distinguished scientists, with scientists tearing each other down like game �which begs the question, can any scientist really be considered distinguished?�. Kaplincki �2006� very succinctly discusses the disputes between the scientists, espe- cially inrelationtotheroleofthesuninglobalwarming,mak-

�9Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

ing us wonder whether anyone is right, and whether we really will get anywhere without doubt. At times like this, I feel so happythatI’maconstructionengineer.

Not all parts of the Earth are heating uniformly. What’s more, the Earth has a history of reversing temperature direc- tion without warning. Scientists, as proud as they may be, are no match for the universe and Earth—at least not yet. With their tools and equipment, they are probably as good as the scientist attempting to measure the depth of an ocean with a one-foot ruler. Sarcasmaside, scientists can scarcelypredict the future. What’s more, theories today are cast aside tomorrow. Remember how they bled George Washington to death? So, let us remember that our scientists are still learning and that our science is still evolving. We should not make the same mistakeasthecommissioneroftheU.S.PatentOfficein1899, Charles Duell, who stated “Everything that can be invented hasbeeninvented”�seeMichalko2006�.

Ofonethingthereisnodoubt:globalwarmingisafactand has been an old story for the past 15,000 years, helping us emerge from the ice age into a beautiful garden. It is also pos- siblethatglobalwarmingcanmelttheoceansandraisesealev- els over the short term. The alarm about global warming is important,butmustbeplacedinperspectiveandnotexagger- ated�“Globalwarming”2003;Michaels1998�.

WHICH GREENHOUSE GASES? It is commonly believed that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, perhaps the main culprit of global warming. If Al Gore and others are to be believed, elimination of CO2 should solve our climate problem, because greenhouse gases defi- nitely prevent the Earth’s heat from escaping into space. Ac- cording to Al Gore, these greenhouse gases are supposedly cooking us like a “microwave.” Well, not exactly.

Important greenhouse gases are water vapor, methane, ni- trous oxide, carbon dioxide, and miscellaneous gases such as chlorofluorocarbons �CFCs�. Greenhouse gases—produced by natural and industrial processes—result in CO2 levels of 380 parts per million per volume �ppmv� in the atmo-

sphere. From ice-core samples and records, we know that current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 parts per mil- lion �ppm� higher than during preindustrial times, such as in the medieval era, when direct human influence was neg- ligible. The levels in 1900 were about 300 ppm. �Wikipe- dia, Greenhouse Gas 2008c; Patterson 2005�.

Water vapor has been shown to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gases by far �Lindzen 1992�. “Global warm- ing” �2008� reports that 95 percent of all greenhouse gases are water vapor. Table 1 gives their breakdown.

“Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter Earth’s atmo- sphere each year from all sources, only six billion tons are from human activity. Approximately ninety billion tons come from biologic activity in Earth’s oceans and another ninety billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decayinglandplants�“Globalwarming”2008�.

Moreover, CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by activities on Earth. Biological activities in the oceans and plant kingdom are the great repositories �source and sink� of CO2 that we cannot aim to get rid of, unless to our own demise.

Greenhouse gases are 95 percent water vapor, which con- tributes to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. Carbon diox- ide is only 3.6 percent of the greenhouse gases, and contrib- utes by approximately that percentage to the warming effect. Apparently, only 3.2 percent of atmospheric CO2 is gener- ated from human activities such as coal plants and fossil fuel burning, whereas the plant kingdom and natural volcanic activity contribute to natural CO2. In contrast, 99.99 per- cent of water vapor is natural and comes from oceans and clouds, and 18 percent of methane and 65 percent of CFCs are from human activity �“Global warming” 2008�. Even if all human-induced methane and CFCs increased ten times, which is realistically impossible, they would have a minis- cule effect on global warming. In addition, Essenhigh

Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect „Modified from “Global Warm- ing: A Closer Look at the Numbers” 2008…

Greenhouse gas �based on parts per billion adjusted for heat retention characteristics�

% of all greenhouse gases % natural % human-made

Watervapor 95 94.999 0.001 Carbondioxide 3.618 3.502 0.116 Methane 0.36 0.294 0.066 Nitrousoxide 0.95 0.903 0.047 Othergases�CFC,etc.� 0.072 0.025 0.047 TOTAL 100 99.72 0.28

�10JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

�2008�, a professor of energy conversion, believes that CO2 is simply unable to drive global warming, but that global warming may drive CO2 increases, if they occur at all. Lindzen �1992� and “The real” �2006� also believe that CO2 is simply unable to be the major contributor of greenhouse effects. And, if humankind wishes to reduce the greenhouse effect of water vapor, it is absolutely beyond our control.

It is believed that the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 380 ppm. An increase of 2°C can occur if the CO2 concentration increases to 450 ppm, which may take a century or two �“How much” 2006�. But, this esti- mate is based on models that make too many assumptions and can therefore not stand up to scientific rigor. Brahic �2007� asserts that human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter. At most, the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28 percent, which is also too small to matter �“Global warming” 2003�. Meteorologist Haby �2008� writes that whereas CO2 is indisputably a more efficient greenhouse gas in trapping long-wave radiation, “the green- house effect from water vapor is important while carbon di- oxide is not,” largely because there is sixty times more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2.

Even though reckless insertion of CO2 into the atmo- sphere can dramatically influence the greenhouse effect, it can quite safely be deduced that CO2 is probably not the big culprit of global warming that the media has made it out to be �Chandler 2007; Beck 2006�, though it is not entirely causeless. Michaels �1998� wrote:

“The result is that the administration �Clinton–Gore�now positions itself in front of virtually every unusual weather event and blames it on human-induced climate change. Each of these assertions has been dramatically flawed, and thescientificinaccuraciesandinconsistenciesarebeginning toharmcredibility”�emphasisadded�.

SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? AIR POLLUTION If human-induced CO2 is indeed causing global warming, we must be on our guard. If human activities and CO2 are not really causing global warming, what is all the fuss about? Frankly, there is evidence that there has been a lot of mis- guided testimony presented in the media. For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy reported in October 2000 dur- ing the Clinton–Gore Administration, that 99 percent of greenhouse gases were CO2 �“Global warming” 2008�. However, they did not include water vapor in their submis- sion, ignoring the most important contributor of all. This type of science reporting does not serve humanity very well. If the problem is not really one of global warming, which

humankind will be able to survive, there is still the problem of air pollution. How did we get to this?

HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION

FogandSmog The fact is that while the relatively small amounts of CO2 and nitrous oxides put into the atmosphere do not have a significant impact on global warming, they have a very sig- nificant impact on air pollution and air quality. This is evi- dent by the “soot” that appears in cities such as Beijing, Kolkata, Hong Kong, and Mumbai. The soot is a height- ened version of smog that happens when water particles coa- lesce around smoke and gas particles. Empirically, smoke +fog=smog �“Air pollution soaring high” 2008�.

Nitrogen oxide gases are produced from fossil-burning power plants and the transportation sector. Nitrogen oxides �NOx� emitted from the deisel and gasoline used by auto- mobiles, airplanes, ships, and construction equipment, as well as the burning of low-grade coal, which is high in sul- fur, contribute to smog that becomes manifest in hazy skies for many days. Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide generate the yellow-brown clouds over many cities. They irritate the lungs of humans, birds, and animal species, causing bronchi- tis. Owing to reduced resistance to respiratory infections, they increase the incidence of pneumonia among humans.

Several pollutants are produced by burning fossil fuels and contribute to the noxious fumes that cause smog; these include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocrabons. Hydrocarbons, emitted mostly by auto and truck exhaust, evaporation of gasoline and solvents, and pe- troleum refining, combine in the atmosphere to form tropo- spheric ozone that descends to surface levels and becomes a major component of smog.

“Humanexposuretoozonecanproduceshortnessofbreath and, over time, permanent lung damage. Research shows that ozone may be harmful at levels even lower than the current federal air standard. In addition, it can reduce crop yields”�“Thehidden”2008�.

Cars, buses, airplanes, industry, mining, and construction cause air pollution collectively. Dust from tractors plowing fields or construction earth-moving activity, and trucks and cars plying on dirt or gravel roads cause pollution, as does smoke from wood and crop fires. Our entire industrial activ- ity, which is supposed to alleviate the human condition, is creating conditions that harm us as well. Sixteen million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere every twenty-four hours by human use worldwide �Solar Energy International 2008�. A breakdown of air pollutants and their sources are provided in Table 2.

�11Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

Exposure to carbon monoxide can cause oxygen depriva- tion, which in prolonged large doses can cause death, but in slow dosing causes cancer. Much as oxygen deprivation causes heart disease, sustained oxygen deprivation causes can- cer, too. As smog and pollutants take up greater portions of the air, oxygen ratios are decreased. These decreased oxygen ratios in the atmosphere are sufficient to cause the stated health damage. In the late 1990s, almost half of all Ameri- cans and Europeans died of heart disease; by 2010, virtually all Americans dying naturally are predicted to die either of heart disease or cancer �“Statins and cancer” 2008�.

AcidRain The phenomenon of acid rain occurs mostly in industrialized areas that emit nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. These gases—and smog—combine with water vapor in clouds to form sulfuric and nitric acids, which be- come part of rain. As the acids accumulate on the surface after acid rain, lakes and rivers become too acidic for plant and animal life �“The hidden” 2008�. Further, carbon diox- ide combines with water in the clouds to form carbonic acid. As a result, humanity is simply hurting itself.

Acid rain falls on a third of China’s territory and 70 per- cent of Chinese rivers and lakes are toxic, unfit for drinking. Moreover, the sulfur dioxide �SO2� produced in coal com- bustion, in addition to causing acid rain, causes about 400,000 premature deaths a year. “Most of these deaths are from lung and heart-related diseases as SO2 causes constric- tion of the finer air tubes of the lungs, thus making it diffi- cult to breathe naturally” �“Air pollution soaring” 2008�.

Ozone Although CO2 is not a lung irritant, Jacobsen �2008� found that increased levels of CO2 serve to increase ground-level ozone. This increased ozone is an air pollutant and lung irri- tant. Increasing CO2 even in small amounts, such as through industrial processes, increases lung irritation. Over the last 150 years, burning fossil fuels has resulted in a 25 percent increase in CO2 in our atmosphere �“The hidden” 2008�. Cases of asthma have gone up from a rare case here and there a century ago to one in fifteen people in 2000; by 2020, there could be twenty-nine million Americans suffer- ing from asthma �Pew 1998�.

Further, ground-level ozone is the major source of air pol- lution in most cities. Ground-level ozone is created when engine and fuel gases already released into the air interact with sunlight. Ozone levels increase in cities when the air is still, the sun is bright, and the temperature is warm. Thus, areas in northern India, Kashmir, and southwestern Tibet create conditions most conducive to increases in ground-level ozone �United Nations 2006�. Ground-level ozone should not be confused with the “good” ozone that is miles up in the atmosphere and that protects us from the sun’s harmful radiation �“The hidden” 2008�

HealthRisks Undoubtedly, air pollution can irritate eyes, nasal linings, and throat passages. Children are more quickly affected by air pollution and more easily develop bronchitis and earaches �“Outdoor” 2008�. It is well known that the incidence of respiratory diseases is on the rise all around the world. People

Table 2. Sources of Air Pollutants „Modified from “Air Pollution Soaring” 2008…

Pollutants Sources

Carbondioxide Fossil fuel,deforestation Sulfurdioxide Volcaniceruptions;fossil fuelsthatcontain

impurities�e.g., low-gradecoalthatnormally hashighamountsofsulfurasimpurities�

Nitrogenoxides Automobiles Carbonmonoxide Automobiles, incompleteburningofbiomass

fuels Ground-levelozone Industries,vehicles Hazardousairpollutants Chemicalplants,automobiles Volatileorganiccompounds Vehicleemissions,solventsusedforindustrial

andhouseholdusages Microscopicparticulates Constructionworks,mining,fossil fuels,

industrialprocesses,agriculturalburningetc.

�12JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

living with asthma or heart diseases are specially affected by air pollutants. In addition, air pollutants have been strongly linked to increased rates of cancer.

In one of the longest, largest studies on the effects of air pollution on lung cancer and heart diseases, 500,000 adults were surveyed in more than one hundred cities from 1982 to 1998. Pope et al. �2002� found air pollution as a convincing cause of increased lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases.

“More than 220 million Americans breathe air that is one hundredtimesmoretoxicthanthegoalsetbyCongressten years ago, according to figures calculated by the Environ- mental Defense Fund �EDF�. And for eleven million people, the cancer risk fromtheirneighborhoodair ismore than one thousand times higher than Congress’s goal, the groupsays”�“MostAmericans”1999�.

And,

“The District of Columbia, for example, shows a higher per-capita cancer risk in its air than any of the fifty states despite having virtually no major industrial facilities, says EDF. Car and truck traffic and the Ronald Reagan Na- tional Airport were its main sources of air toxins” �“Most Americans” 1999�.

In addition, carbon emissions from air pollutions have been linked to human mortality �“Carbon dioxide” 2008�. Further,

“The data confirm that emissions from cars, trucks, and non-roadenginescontribute tothecancer risk fromair tox- ins,particularly inurbanareas. Formore thanonehundred million Americans, toxic emissions from mobile sources aloneareresponsible foranaddedlifetimecancerriskthatis morethantentimestheacceptedstandard.

. . . A 2000 study by state and local air quality administra- tors estimates that soot from diesel engines is responsible for more than 125,000 additional cancers in the United States over a lifetime of exposure” �Environmental News Service2002�.

GlobalEffectofAirPollution The air quality in China and India are particularly bad. Lev- els of particulate matter consisting of sulfur and nitrous ox- ides �known as PM10� are the highest and second highest in Delhi and Beijing, respectively �United Nations 2006; Mo- lina and Molina 2004�. A report last year identified China as the worst air polluter in the world; 656,000 Chinese per year die from diseases caused by air pollution alone. The corre- sponding numbers for India are 527,000 deaths per year

�Platt 2007�. We also know that air pollution from China is traveling across the Pacific. NASA satellite data have con- firmed that nearly 10 billion pounds of aerosol pollution reached North America from East Asia �NASA 2008�, the largest contributor of which was China. Cliff �2006� reports that we are already breathing Chinese pollution in North America. Hong Kong has changed dramatically in only the past two years: pollution blowing in from neighboring Guangzhou Province makes it difficult to see the sky any- more. In Beijing and New Delhi a mix of dust and pollution obscures the sun during the day and the stars at night. This should be alarming to all humans. It has been reported that U.S. pollution reaches Europe �“Air pollution the environ- mental imperative” 2008�, as does pollution from oil fires from Persian Gulf states. Thus, in this era of globalization, we are sharing not only information technology and trade, but also our pollution.

KYOTO AGREEMENT In a nutshell, the Kyoto Agreement accepts that global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels, which we have shown is possibly false. The Kyoto Agreement goes a step further in their false premise and requires that gaseous emis- sions �they identified methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocar- bons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride� be cut to specific levels—the goal being to see, by 2012, participants collectively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 per- cent below the emission levels of 1990 �Bloch 2008�. This is a lot like saying that since smoking results in lung problems, a smoker should cut down on smoking from ten packs a day to 9.48. At best, the effect of the Kyoto Agreement would be a reduction in global temperature by one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050 �“Global warming” 2003�. This is, of course, minimal and ineffective. Thus, even in its own argument, the Kyoto Agreement doesn’t go far enough. Al- ready the damage to our environment from a health perspec- tive is tremendous, and nothing short of a reversal is mean- ingful. Moreover, the Kyoto Agreement allows China and India to continue burning fossil fuels for electric power be- cause they are “developing countries.” Consequently, the U.S. government was logically consistent in not signing the Kyoto Agreement, although their reasons were totally differ- ent and untenable.

An international agreement that recognizes the problem for what it is and takes corresponding measures is needed rather than an agreement that is politically driven and doesn’t have the best of humanity at heart. Alcoholics are not advised by physicians to cut down from drinking a bottle of whisky a day to drinking only three-quarters of a bottle; they are advised to chuck the habit altogether. In the case of the Kyoto Agreement, a deeper and bolder agreement is needed, one that has real teeth, like eliminating coal generation by 2050.

�13Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

SO, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? If we accept the premise that humans will not forego their electricity usage and modes of transportation, and will thus resist reverting to the Middle and Dark Ages, what is the solution if we don’t want to damage our health? It is evident that we must target energy production, industrial processes, and transportation �cars, automobiles, aircraft, and ships� to stem the tide of environmental degradation. Of these, two areas stand out as the most prominent: energy production and transportation �automobile, aircraft, and ship� fuel.

Technologists propose renewable energies such as solar, wind, and geothermal. However, as any energy engineer will tell you, the electricity that can be potentially harnessed from these sources is not more than 25 percent of our needs. What’s more, hydroelectricity causes severe ecological dam- ages of its own. Many novel sources of energy, such as tidal and wave power, are still being researched for safe and reli- able implementation, since hostile ocean conditions pose challenges for wave structures �“Wave and tidal” 2000; “Wave power” 2008�. Ocean thermal energy conversion is a new possibility for renewable energy, but one that lacks a track record for generating electricity in �gigawatt� quanti- ties �“Ocean thermal energy” 2008; “Ocean thermal energy conversion” 2008; U.S. Department of Energy 2008�. The cost of limited generation can be around 15 cents per KwH, which is good where electricity is more expensive �Krock 2008�, but will not be economically attractive for the United States, Europe, India, or China where conventional technologies can produce electricity in gigawatts for 5–6 cents per kilowatthour �kWh�. So what’s next if we want to steer away from fossil fuel energy but still want a decent standard of life?

BACKGROUND OF ENERGY PRODUCTION Let’s analyze this closely: the aim now is to produce clean energy, in large quantities, with no environmental effects. The key words here are “clean,” “large quantities,” and “en- vironmental effects.”

The total electric installed capacity in the United States was 1,000 gigawatts �GW� in 2005 �“Industry” 2008; American Energy Association 2008�. The distribution was approximately as follows:

Coal, 49 percent; Natural gas 18.7 percent; Fuel oil 3.0 percent; Biomass 1.6 percent; Nuclear energy 19.3 percent; Hydropower 6.5 percent; Wind 1.2 percent; and Geothermal and solar 0.6 percent.

Thus, 73 percent of the electricity was generated by burning fuels that emit pollutants into the air �coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and biomass�. The United States alone con- sumes 12,000 kWh of electricity per person per year. This is twice the amount that Germany produces, and nine times the world average �“Solar/Wind” 2008 based on 1997 data�. The United States has just 5 percent of the world’s popula- tion but consumes 23 percent of its energy �“Population” 2008�.

The World Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency �2006� says that “the current pattern of energy sup- ply carries the threat of severe and irreversible environmental damage—including changes in global climate.” Therefore, it is imperative to reverse the trend of energy production in the world.

Moreover, the world is fast running out of oil, which will bring fossil fuel electricity generation and transportation closer to a standstill. Some other form of energy generation will have to be substituted. World demand is quickly de- pleting oil reserves. The oil company Royal Dutch Shell es- timates that “. . . after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand” �“Shell” 2008�. The same article consequently concludes that there will be a need for nuclear power and alternate sources.

It is possible to produce a maximum of 20 percent of the United States’ energy needs through wind power �Solar En- ergy International 2008�, another 5 percent by solar power, and about 7 percent by hydroelectric power. However, these will not replace or close down existing fossil fuel power plants, unless repealed by legislation, which is definitely rec- ommended. The total world installed capacity for solar power is a mere 0.8 GW �“Solar/Wind” 2008�. Although I can think of legislative methods to force increases in solar power consumption by leaps and bounds, such as requiring all public and residential buildings to have solar panels, it is estimated that the total energy contribution will still be lim- ited. Solar power for consumption on a mass scale is cur- rently impeded by technical difficulties in storing energy during cloudy and partially cloudy periods. The technology is simply undeveloped for a reliable, continuous supply of electric power using solar energy alone. One paper claims solar-thermal-electric technology can supply 90 percent of the United States’ grid electricity. While this would be a welcome development, the technology proposed is un- proven. The proposal is to use solar energy for heating water to run turbines. However, the amount of land they need for their solar cells equals 9,600 square miles, or approxi- mately the size of Vermont �Madrigal 2008�. It is difficult to imagine how that much land can be made available in the United States, even in the deserts of Nevada. The feasibility of this technique is not established, thus, we have to think of

�14JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

“clean” alternates other than solar energy to meet world en- ergy demands.

Hydroelectric energy has potential, but damming rivers irreversibly damages the local ecology. Though hydroelectric- ity does not produce greenhouse gases, per se, dams have depleted fish and local fauna, and affected migratory patterns of birds, often impacting endangered species even further. Large-scale hydroelectric dams involve massive relocation of populations, such as is evident with China’s Three Gorges Dam, Clyde Dam in New Zealand, and Ilisu Dam in Tur- key �Hydroelectricity 2008�. China produces the most hy- droelectricity in the world �145 GW installed capacity�; many of the dams are small scale, but China forces this method on poor villagers in remote areas, compelling them to relocate. Besides generating electricity, hydroelectricity also generates resentment in the local populace because of the dislocation �Jing 1999; Mphanda 2008�, something that would be impossible in the West. In Mphanda, the dam has taken away the livelihood of the local populace, as well as their food supply of river fish species �Mphanda 2008�. Surely, there must be a better way to generate electricity. Luckily, there is.

NUCLEAR POWER Of the known methods for generating electricity, fossil fuels and biomass are air polluters, and hydroelectricity damages local environments and upsets the livelihoods of the local populace. Wind and solar are weak sources of energy unable to meet demand. What then, can give us what we want— clean, environmentally friendly electricity, in large quantities at reasonable costs? The only logical and available answer is nuclear power, at least for the foreseeable future or until some other technology proves to be effective.

ProductionCapabilityandTrends One ton of nuclear fuel delivers as much energy as 20,000 tons of coal. Consequently, there are myriads of ad- vantages in the logistic management of uranium compared to coal. No more long train cars and large storage sheds by railway yards, and no more surface mining of coal that cre- ates its own environmental degradation in large quantities.

Of the relatively large countries, France’s electricity comes 70 percent from nuclear energy, while the United States pro- duces 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear fuel. China and Russia are extremely busy cornering the world’s nuclear fuel market and India is also on the path of nuclear renais- sance. The United States has two applications pending for construction of new nuclear plants, with a possible thirty- four to be constructed by 2050. The United States is plan- ning a nuclear revival, if possible.

There are 442 nuclear power plants in the world, of which 104 are in the United States. These plants use 180 million pounds of uranium each year, of which only 110

million pounds are available in the world market �Hender- son 2008�. This has resulted in some uranium reactors being shut down or having their hours of operation greatly re- duced, which recently happened in India. Nuclear reactors in Sweden are scheduled to go offline, starting 2010, as they reach the end of their service life �“Nuclear comeback” 2007�. Owing to the uranium shortage, China continues to acquire uranium from around the world. In 2006, China signed major uranium export contracts for supplies from Australia �“China to buy” 2006�.

Twenty-four new plants are under construction world- wide. United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Italy, and China have signed reactor construction contracts with Areva of France, the largest uranium company in the world. Belarus, Bul- garia, and Switzerland aim to construct nuclear power plants �World Nuclear News 2008b�. India is in discussions with the United States for supplies of nuclear fuel and construc- tion of nuclear plants. Worldwide, thirty-four reactors are under construction, and 280 are proposed. China has broken ground on five nuclear plants �Lustgarten 2008�, and Russia has a plan to build up to forty-two new plants by 2020 �World Nuclear News 2008a�. China has announced plans to increase its target for installed nuclear power capacity to 60 GW by 2020 and to 120–160 GW by 2030. The country currently has eleven nuclear reactors in operation generating 8.6 GW; 116 new reactors are planned or pro- posed �“Uranium” 2006a,b; Freeman 2005�. General Elec- tric, the world’s largest utility company, plans to enter into partnerships for nuclear construction around the world �“General” 2007; “New nuclear” 2005�. These statistics il- lustrate that the world is moving head-on toward nuclear power.

One of the main bottlenecks with nuclear energy is the shortage of nuclear fuel, since 110 million pounds per year are being produced in comparison to the demand of 180 million pounds. Currently, Australia, Canada, and Kazakh- stan are the world’s largest producers of uranium, while the United States has only 4 percent of the world’s known ura- nium reserves �Spencer and Loris 2008�. The current price of uranium fuel is $71 per pound, down from $155 last year, but up from $8 per pound, eight years ago. It takes ten years to develop a uranium mine, so if the world wishes to take advantage of nuclear fuel, it has to get serious about it many years in advance. Kazakhstan plans to quintuple its uranium production between now and 2015. The number of applica- tions to mine uranium has increased 200 percent in Colo- rado and Utah since 2003 �Lustgarten 2008�.

However, there is no shortage of uranium on Earth. Ura- nium can even be extracted from sea water. There are about 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium available in the world’s oceans �“Uranium from seawater” 2006a,b�. This is enough to last humankind approximately 36,000 years—compared

�15Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

to 130 to 300 years from coal reserves—for electricity production �World Coal Institute 2008; Elert 2005�.

In December 2007, the U.S. Congress passed an energy appropriations bill funding key nuclear energy programs to- taling more than $970 million and implementing a clean- energy loan guarantee program for new plants. The latter provides $18.5 billion for new nuclear power plants �World Nuclear News 2008a�. As many as twenty-nine new reactors may receive licenses for construction in the United States �Biello 2007�.

In an MIT study that aimed to expand current world- wide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold by the year 2050, it was found that 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon emissions would be saved annually �MIT 2003�. This much is equal to about one-third of the total current carbon emis- sions. Nuclear energy production is not “carbon-free,” but it does minimize carbon emissions in its process cycle �Nuclear comeback 2007�. The world has no choice but to resort to the only electricity generating technique that can deliver the goods, once fossil fuels are depleted, which is expected to start around 2012 �Shell 2008�.

Needless to say, the period between 2015 and 2020 will be tumultuous for the world owing to energy shortages. For one, fossil fuel costs are expected to skyrocket and gasoline supplies are expected to dwindle, which will further affect food distribution, probably causing widespread famines around the world �Edwards 2000�. The disruption to society from mining to manufacturing to transportation, and the effect on jobs and economies and electioneering will be tre- mendous. Should the recommendations made in this article be implemented, we may be able to avoid such worst-case scenarios.

NuclearWaste That nuclear waste has a disposal problem is a myth from the days of old technology when conventional thermal reac- tors operated in a “once-through” mode. Today, it is possible to recycle spent nuclear waste from thermal reactors by re- processing in a “closed” fuel cycle, or from fast reactors by reprocessing in a balanced “closed” fuel cycle �MIT 2003�. One of the above two techniques was supposedly developed by Indian nuclear scientists of the Bhabha Atomic Energy Commission, who were working on ways to recycle scarce nuclear fuel denied to them owing to international sanctions on nuclear supply. U.S. scientists had long suspected that such recycling was possible �Perkovich 2001�.

Robinson and colleagues �2007� report that the problem of nuclear waste has been politically created by U.S. government-imposed barriers to American fuel breeding and reprocessing. They affirm that spent nuclear fuel can be re- cycled into new nuclear fuel and does not need to be stored in repositories, such as the Yucca Mountain repository in

Nevada. Much of this problem—this myth—is suspected to come from environmental lobbyists and representatives of coal and other power generation industries who would stand to be in competition with nuclear power.

Moreover, if there was any nuclear waste, the storage problems are miniscule, because large underground reservoirs can be constructed with thick concrete to last thousands of years, in which time the radioactive decay has completed its cycle and the fuel is not dangerous or harmful anymore. The permeability rate of water in concrete can be made as low as 1 inch in 854 years with appropriate state-of-the-art con- cretes �Kosmatka et al. 2002�.

Even the matter of radioactive decay has been mitigated. A European patent claims to reduce radioactivity by bom- barding samples with photons �World Intellectual Property Organization 2008�. A few years ago, I heard an MIT pro- fessor appear on a television interview where he claimed that they had been able to develop methods that could reduce the radioactive decay to one hundred years �from the common 3,000 years�. Hence, there are multiple techniques to miti- gate radioactive hazards that make nuclear energy attractive as an alternate fuel.

SafetyofNuclearPower The safety of nuclear power plants centers on two main issues: �1� maintaining public safety in the event of radioac- tivity leaks, and �2� eliminating damage through malfunc- tions or accidents.

Radioactivity leakage has been a concern for many de- cades. The atomic power plant in Kota, Rajasthan, was shut down due to malfunctions and reports of leaks so large that grass had stopped growing within miles of the station �Ka- ran et al. 1986; “Nuclear chronology” 2008�. Citizens living around the power plant in Pickering, Ontario, Canada, are constantly on the alert for radioactivity leaks; many citizens reported that radioactivity leaks exceed standards, but for years the Canadian government had been in denial �Nuclear Awareness Project 1997�. However, in 2000, four of the eight reactors were finally shut down as a result of tritium leaks; tritium is a cancer causing substance �Sierra Club 2001�. In addition to various other reports of elevated levels of radioactive substances found in the vicinity of nuclear plants, the Oyster Creek Plant in New Jersey was reported to have elevated levels of cesium-137 in leaf and soil samples near the plant. Cesium-137 is another carcinogenic sub- stance �Cacchioli and Larsen 2006�. In Japan, an inexperi- enced worker accidentally triggered an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction at the Tokai Uranium Reprocessing Plant, exposing some workers to extremely high levels of radiation �“Radiation leak” 2008�. There are many more such stories around the world. Thus, when citizens are concerned about

�16JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

radioactivity leaks from nuclear power plants, it is not alto- gether without reason �“Leak forces” 2000�.

The Three Mile Island �Pennsylvania� accident was con- tained without immediate harm to anyone, and the world can be confident that a Chernobyl type of poor design will never be repeated again, though human errors cannot be ruled out. In over 12,700 cumulative reactor years of com- mercial operation in thirty-two countries, there has never once been a death outside of Chernobyl. Three Mile Island occurred when the world had 2,000 cumulative years of re- actor experience, while Chernobyl, in 1987, occurred when the world had about 4,000 cumulative years of reactor expe- rience. However, current reactor design emphasis has shifted in the last eight years from reliance on containment struc- tures to safety through improved design of the reactor plant itself �“History of nuclear” 2008�.

After Chernobyl, nuclear safety was taken very seriously around the world. In the briefing paper Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors �“Safety” 2007� it is reported that

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission �NRC� speci- fies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000- year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this.U.S.utilityrequirementsare1in100,000 years,the bestcurrentlyoperatingplantsareabout1in1million,and those likelytobebuilt inthenextdecadearealmost1in10 million.”

Advanced nuclear reactors, known as next-generation re- actors, such as the ones going up in Japan �the first of which was constructed in 1996�, contain numerous safety improve- ments based on operational experience. Beyond the safety engineering already standard in Western reactors, they have passive safety systems, which require no operator interven- tion in the event of a major malfunction. All modern reactors are designed to automatically shut down in the event of earthquakes. Safety systems account for about one-fourth of the capital costs of modern reactors �“Safety” 2007�. Addi- tional technicalities of modern reactor safety systems, post- Chernobyl, are described in “Safety” �2007�. “Safe” �2004� reports that Generation-IV reactors, which will be in service by 2030, will provide dramatic improvements in reactor de- sign. Generation-III� reactors are already markedly im- proved over the Generation-I reactor first constructed in 1996. These assure that radioactivity leakage will be mini- mized below harmful levels.

PilferageandProliferationofNuclearPower There has been general concern that a multitude of nuclear power plants in the world will make them more susceptible to pilferage of nuclear material for terrorist operations. There

are many hurdles that can be erected to prevent this from happening:

1. All new nuclear power plants must be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency �IAEA� safe- guards. This ensures daily monitoring of raw materi- als and operations; any time used or unused fuel is found missing, IAEA monitors are tasked to flash a warning sign that can lead to closing nuclear opera- tions.

2. Enhanced security, much of which is already in place at nuclear plants around the world, will further offset the chance that nuclear material will be stolen.

3. Nuclear material used for power generation is puri- fied to 5 percent. Weapons-grade plutonium and ura- nium require purification up to 80 percent levels. Thus, any nuclear pilferage will need to acquire ore- refinement equipment, which is not easy to obtain without detection at some point.

4. Generation-IV reactors are designed to be more resis- tant to attempts to divert material for illegal weapons manufacturing �Safe 2004�.

Safety fromTerrorism In various studies done since September 11, 2001, it has been found that current reactor designs are safe against a Boeing 767 slamming into a reactor. The studies show that nuclear reactors would, in fact, be safer against terrorist threats than conventional industrial facilities such as ore re- fining or coal generation plants �“Safety” 2007�. With a Boe- ing 767 hitting head on at 560 kilometers per hour �km/h�, there would be no penetration of the containment. In another test by Sandia laboratories, they demonstrated that an F4 Phantom jet hitting a 3.7-meter concrete slab at 765 km/h would have 90 percent of the kinetic energy of the airplane used in destroying the plane itself. Penetration of the concrete in this case would be only 6 centimeters �“Safety” 2007�.

Because the containment structures are massive, even a terrorist attack inside a plant �which are heavily defended in themselves�, causing loss of cooling, core melting, and breach of containment, would not result in significant radio- active releases �“Safety” 2007�.

SafetyComparisonwithCoalandOtherSources How safe is nuclear energy compared to its rivals coal and fossil fuels? For the period 1970–1992, immediate fatalities were as follows: coal, 6,400 workers; natural gas, 1,200 workers and public; hydroelectricity, 4,000 public; nuclear, 31 workers �all in Chernobyl�. These data are self- explanatory, the number of fatalities from coal and natural gas is much higher despite the talk of nuclear catastrophe.

�17Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

Because all deep-earth minerals contain radioisotopes, coal being among them, they generate radioactivity when burning �McBride et al. 1978�. An interesting study by Aubrecht �2003� reported that coal has uranium and tho- rium radioisotopes ranging representatively from 1 ppm to 2 ppm. Their conclusion was “that Americans living near coal- fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses, par- ticularly bone doses, than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.” The Environ- mental Protection Agency actually found higher values of coal generated radioactivity of 1.3 and 3.2 ppm. Moreover, “clean coal” is a classic oxymoron, as if dirt can ever be clean. Combined with the carbon and PM10 emissions, coal and fossil fuels come out as far more dangerous from a health perspective than nuclear energy.

Gabbard �2008� found that American releases from each typical 1-GW coal plant in 1982 were 4.7 metric tons of uranium and 11.6 metric tons of thorium, for a total na- tional release of 727 metric tons of uranium and 1,788 metric tons of thorium. And, Francis �2001� discovered that “�a� coal plant releases about 74 pounds of uranium-235 each year, enough for two or more nuclear bombs.” If nuclear power plants released so much uranium-235, there would be wide public protests. It is only a matter of time before rogue nations begin to tap into the uranium from coal plants to use in atomic weapons. Consequently, coal power plants are more dangerous for the world from this perspective than are nuclear plants because coal plants are less stringently moni- tored.

CostsofNuclearPower Various studies have shown that it is cheaper to produce nuclear energy than energy from coal—gas being the most expensive of the three—while other studies find nuclear en- ergy comparable or slightly more expensive than coal. Table 3 gives a summary of some of the cost studies undertaken between 2003 and 2007. This table reveals that nuclear elec- tricity is cheaper in some countries and regions but coal is cheaper elsewhere. Overall, nuclear power is competitive with coal from a cost perspective. A report from the Orga- nization for Economic Cooperation and Development

�OECD� further stated that nuclear power was cheaper than fossil fuels, among 80 percent of the countries in the sample �countries such as Finland, Slovakia, Romania, and Canada� �Nuclear Energy Agency 2005�. Korea and the United States were the only countries where the projections for nuclear costs were higher than coal. The price for wind en- ergy was given in the study as a uniform 8 cents/kWh for all nations. Data were projected to the year 2010. Table 4 shows the details.

However, the World Nuclear Association �WNA 2006� claims that the OECD �2005� report underestimates the nuclear advantage and so claims that the generating costs for the year 2010, projected at a 5 percent discount rate, are 2.1 to 3.1 cents/kWh for nuclear energy; 2.5 to 5.0 cents/kWh for coal; and 3.7 to 6.0 cents/kWh for natural gas. Ad- ditionally, nuclear energy production costs in the United States have dropped from a total of 2.47 cents/kWh in 1981 to 1.72 cents/kWh in 2003, showing a gradual improve- ment through all those years. It is worth mentioning that the production costs must have taken a hike last year because of the rapid rise of the cost of uranium fuel. Nevertheless, the costs for coal also went up last year, much as all commodity costs have risen through 2007 and the first half of 2008. Coal prices rose by an aggregated 42 percent, from $16.78 per short metric ton in 2000 to $23.78 in 2006 �“U.S. price” 2008�, far outstripping the consumer price index. Fur- ther, operating costs of nuclear plants in the United States dropped by 44 percent between 1990 and 2003, and by 9.2 percent between 1981 and 2003 �WNA 2006�.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: ANALYSIS In another OECD study of 2005, nuclear power construction costs were believed to be in the order of $2.3 billion for a 1.2-GW nuclear plant �“Projected costs” 2005�. Add to this the economies of scale that can bring about an added 15 percent in savings �Marshall and Navarro 1991�. In an out- dated article that falsely predicted three more Chernobyl- type accidents between 1997 and 2000, the authors reported that construction costs could be anywhere from $3 to 5 bil- lion �“Some” 1997�. Holt and Behrens �2003� report that

Table 3. Relative Costs of Generating Electricity in U.S. Cents per Kilowatt-Hour Based on Currency Conversions in June 2007 „Modified from “The Economics of Nuclear Power” 2007…

France 2003

UK 2004

MIT study 2003

EU 2007

Chicago Univ 2004

Canada 2004

Gas 5.8,10.1 5.9,9.8 5.8 4.6–6.1 5.5–7.0 7.2 Coal 5.2 4.2 4.7–6.1 3.5–4.1 4.5 Nuclear 3.7 4.6 4.2 5.4–7.4 4.2–4.6 5.0

�18JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

costs range anywhere on average from $3 to 6 billion. It is not clear what size the plants are in these two latter reports. Many nuclear plants are constructed with two and three re- actors together; for example, the CANDU reactor in Picker- ing, Canada, had eight reactors. In this regard, the final OECD cost data as verified in Robinson et al. �2007� are taken as representative. Given that the data are a few years old, and adding inflation, where the producer price index has increased by 12.15 percent from January 2005 to December 2008 �U.S. Department of Labor 2008�, the current esti- mated cost of constructing a 1.2-GW plant is $2.6 billion. However, it takes four years to construct a nuclear plant, so add inflation of 4 percent per year for another two years, which brings the total estimated construction cost to $2.8 billion.

Using the electricity data distribution provided earlier in this article, where 20 percent of the United States’ current electricity needs of 1,000 GW comes from nuclear energy, and also assuming that there will be an expansion of alter- nate “clean” energy methods in the order of 20 percent— mainly with solar and wind power—it remains that 600 GW of “dirty” electricity �from coal, natural gas, etc.� needs to be replaced. To construct 600 GW of nuclear elec- tricity would come at a 2010 cost of $1.4 trillion.

Also consider that over the next forty-two years, the growing U.S. population will need 66 percent more electric- ity, since it could grow from 300 million now to 500 million in 2050 �U.S. Bureau of Census 1996�. If the rate of con- sumption does not change �i.e., 12,100 kWh/person/ year�, the United States will need to construct an additional $1.55 trillion worth of nuclear plants at 2010 dollars, bring-

ing the total to $2.95 trillion. Spread over 42 years—a rough economic estimate—brings the total annual invest- ment to $92 billion, which is easily financed in the current economic environment of the United States.

How much do coal-fired plants cost to construct? More than 130 new coal-fired plants have been proposed over the next ten to twenty years. However, Odell �2008� reports, “The costs of constructing and operating these plants are highly uncertain due to multiple factors in the industry, and the owners will face significant financial, economic, and en- vironmental risks.” Given that coal plants might simply be shut down due to air pollution concerns, implies that inves- tors will be unable to recover their invested sums. This is making bankers and lenders balk. In May 2008, the federal government held up the licenses, at least temporarily, of new coal plants because of concerns about global warming �though we know that coal plants cause air pollution haz- ards, and maybe no global warming at all�. In October 2008, the Hawaii state government signed an agreement that stated no coal plants could be constructed in the state. Nevertheless, coal plants are typically cheaper than nuclear plants. A 1-GW coal plant can be expected to cost between $1.3 to 1.4 billion depending on whether it is a traditional plant, an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, or a fluidized bed plant �“What is a coal fired plant” 2008; En- ergy Information Administration 2008�.

Parametric estimates of coal power are expressed by Wald �2007�, where an 800-megawatt unit in 2005 in North Carolina was slated to cost $1.83 billion, amounting to $2.28 billion per 1 GW. Add inflation of 4 percent to this as well, and we arrive at $2.77 billion for a 1-GW coal

Table 4. Costs of Generating Electricity by Nation; Cost Projections for 2010 Based on 5 Percent Discount Rate in U.S. Cents per Kilowatt-Hour, 2003 Dollars „Modified from “Projected Costs” 2005…

Nuclear Coal Gas Nuclear cheaper than coal �%�

CzechRepublic 2.30 2.94 4.97 −21.77 France 2.54 3.33 3.92 −23.72 Canada 2.60 3.11 4.00 −16.40 Germany 2.86 3.52 4.90 −18.75 Finland 2.76 3.64 — −24.18 Switzerland 2.88 — 4.36 Romania 3.06 4.55 — −32.75 Slovakia 3.13 4.78 5.59 −34.52 Netherlands 3.58 — 6.04 Japan 4.80 4.95 5.21 −3.03 Korea 2.34 2.16 4.65 +8.33 UnitedStates 3.01 2.71 4.67 +11.07

�19Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

plant. �Wald �2007� releases a graph from the Electric Power Research Institute that reveals that prices of plants and equipment have increased 31 percent from 1998 to 2007. This represents a compounded year-over-year increase of 3 percent for the period.� So, coal plants could be half as ex- pensive to construct, or else nearly as expensive as nuclear plants, but definitely more expensive to operate. It does not appear that there is a shortage of cash for investment in nuclear energy. The final decision may well be one that is driven by regulation and policy rather than cost.

FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE OPINION OF NUCLEAR POWER In the eyes of the public and numerous bureaucrats and leg- islators, nuclear power is still a dirty word. The damage to the good effects of nuclear power was considerable after the Three Mile Island episode. Hawaii had already prohibited nuclear plants in the state in 1978 during a constitutional convention. As of late, Virginia bureaucrats continue to block uranium mining, despite the fact that southern Vir- ginia has the nation’s largest uranium reserve valued at $10 billion. In fact, the bureaucrats have even prohibited a feasi- bility study of uranium mining there. This is ironic given that Virginia has had strong supporters of nuclear power and still gets much of its electricity from nuclear sources �Spencer and Loris 2008�.

In other parts of the United States, however, public opin- ion is becoming more favorable toward nuclear power. In a survey, Bisconti �2007� discovered that “using a mix of low- carbon sources, including nuclear energy and renewables, makes sense to the public for producing the electricity we need while limiting greenhouse gases. There is near consen- sus �85 percent� on this concept, and this consensus encom- passes the range of demographic groups” of all political in- clinations across the length and breadth of mainland United States. Fifty-six percent of the public would “definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future,” while “72 percent agree that we should keep the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future.” Overall, about 63 percent favor nuclear energy, while 31 percent oppose it. Thus, there is an approximate 2:1 ratio between those who favor nuclear en- ergy and those who oppose it. It can thus be interpreted that there is a more than good chance that nuclear energy will come to be a reality in the United States in the next few years, perhaps starting as soon as the next administration in 2009.

WHICH TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION? We generally conclude, so far, that nuclear electricity genera- tion will be free of carbon and other harmful emissions, will serve the environment, and is reasonable in cost compared to coal power plants. However, solving the matter of electricity

generation is only one side of the air pollution problem. The other side is automobile and heavy equipment exhaust emis- sions.

The types of fuel for cars, ships, and airplanes are gener- ally: gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, air, and nuclear. Of these, gasoline combustion is strictly prohibitive. Hydro- gen fuel appears attractive for the main reason that it’s only by-product is water vapor. The trouble is that water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas. I cannot say how much more water vapor the atmosphere can tolerate because I could not find any models for this. Nevertheless, if global warming is a serious concern, humankind must steer away from any automobile that produces greenhouse gases.

Air-powered and nuclear-powered cars are still in the realm of science fiction. However, it is possible to use nuclear generation for ships, to start with, since submarines and air- craft carriers have been safely using nuclear power for half a century. Nevertheless, regulation and terrorism issues will need to be addressed for the 30,936 large merchant ships ��1,000 gross register tons� in the world �Wikipedia, Ship Transport 2008e�. This is not going to be easy, since piracy exists in the world today.

EthanolCars By elimination, this leaves electric and ethanol-powered cars. The main objections to ethanol powered cars are �1� that they actually produce more greenhouse gases through the energy they consume than they would save by eliminating car emissions, and �2� that it is immoral to use food for powering automobiles, raising the price of corn for commu- nities that have corn as their staple diet. Argument 1 is ren- dered moot once nuclear generation is adopted. Argument 2 carries some moral merit that cannot be discussed within the scope of this paper.

ElectricCars Finally, it is well known that electric cars produce miniscule greenhouse or pollutant gases during use. However, they do produce greenhouse and pollutant gases during manufacture. This is due to their very large batteries. A study at Sekei University, Japan, determined that whereas electric cars gen- erate more pollutant and greenhouse gases during manufac- ture than do gasoline cars or hybrid cars, their overall life cycle emission was one-half that of hybrid cars and one- fourth that of gasoline cars when hydroelectricity or a similar clean energy method, such as nuclear energy, is used to gen- erate electricity �“Automobiles” 2001�. Thus, with nuclear energy being used to produce electricity, electric cars are the best alternative for automobiles, since it is doubtful if the world can do without automobiles altogether.

The electric car concept was made famous by the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car. In 1999, General

�20JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Electric produced 457 of the world’s first electric cars. Known as the EV, the electric car was priced on the higher side in the car market. While EV could perform as well as gasoline cars, except for a speed limitation of 80 miles per hour, their main drawback was their maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, compared to 500 miles for economy gasoline cars �Wikipedia, Who Killed 2008f�. Re- charging took a full eight hours, although 80 percent re- charge could be obtained in two to three hours. General Motors also claimed that the expected breakthrough in bat- tery technology did not take place and that there were draw- backs with the nickel metal hydride batteries �Wikipedia, General Motors 2008b�. Where lithium batteries are used, there is an immense world shortage of lithium �“The com- ing lithium shortage” 2005�. However, new fuel cell tech- nologies hold immense promise for the future �Vanston and Elliott 2003�, although they are still in research and devel- opment. Nevertheless, nickel metal hydride cars were used in the EV, which ran very well.

General Electric is working again on an electric car, this time to be known as the Chevrolet Volt. The Volt, which will recharge from a 110-volt line, is actually a hybrid that will compete with Toyota’s Prius �see Wikipedia, Chevrolet 2008a�. Many other companies have produced models of electric cars. A company in Bangalore, India, released its model version of REVA in 2002. Since then, it has teamed up with British consortiums to export 250,000 cars to Eu- rope, and received export requests from China, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and the United States �“Sweet” 2002; “REVA Electric” 2002�. More REVA cars have been produced than any other electric car, but the cars are only qualified as neigh- borhood vehicles because their range is only 50 miles. They are also substantially unsafe in crash tests �Wikipedia, REVA 2008d�. It is expected that making the REVA robust in crash tests will be an easy achievement once demand for electric vehicles picks up, since this is a matter of economics not high technology.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Coal and oil still contribute up to 50 percent of the world’s electricity, but we don’t have time on our side to continue using them. It can be argued that CO2 is not currently a major greenhouse gas, nor a major pollutant; however, the accompanying gases and particulate matter that go into the air through burning coal and fossils fuels are major air pol- lutants that have serious health risks for world citizens and animal life. In addition, CO2 does cause surface ozone to form, which is a lung irritant. It is appropriate to ask what type of air we are bequeathing to future generations. The unwanted gases we have been emitting have become much too much. From an engineering and medical perspective, we have to reverse direction now, not just set meager standards

for lessening the pollution coming from cars and power plants. In this respect, the Kyoto Agreement was much too mild.

Nuclear energy is an available alternative to the hazards of burning coal, biomass, and fossil fuels for electricity. I argue that neither radioactive waste, nor the safety of nuclear plants, nor the threats of terrorism are significant concerns in relation to nuclear energy. In fact, all spent fuel can be re- cycled. Moreover, nuclear plants emit less radioactivity than coal plants, since all deep-earth materials, such as coal, have some uranium and thorium. More ominously, however, uranium-235 can be extracted from coal emissions. Sooner or later, every country in the world, rogue or not, will be able to do so.

I have discussed the costs of constructing and operating nuclear plants and shown that the operating costs of nuclear plants are on the decline �costs less than coal plants in 80 percent of countries in the sample considered�. While the capital costs for coal plants to install 1 to 1.2 GW of elec- tricity range from half the cost of nuclear plants to equal the cost, the increasing health hazards of coal plants are begin- ning to make coal plants a risky venture that is turning away financiers. Operation costs of coal plants are significantly higher than nuclear plants, not to mention the enormous logistics of transporting huge quantities of coal from coal extraction factories to coal power plants.

The public opinion of nuclear energy has turned favorable by a 2:1 ratio, making it very likely that the future of energy in the United States and the world will be nuclear energy in the years to come—at least until 2050.

While fossil fuel plants emit greenhouse gases and air pollutants, so do automobiles and heavy equipment, ships, and airplanes. For automobiles, the technology is on the ho- rizon to produce electric cars that emit virtually no pollut- ants during operation. Though the emission of pollutants during manufacturing of electric cars is higher than for gaso- line cars, the life cycle emissions are one-fourth as much. Thus, with nuclear energy and electric cars we can save our planet, though we will have to turn our attention quite soon to ship and airplane transport fuels as well. I can postulate that the end of air travel, as we know it, will adversely affect world economies unless new and safe air transport systems are developed.

It takes four years to construct a 1-GW nuclear plant, and ten years to develop uranium mines. Thus, if we are serious about maintaining our quality of life, and breathing clean air, and if we love Mother Earth, we must make a conscious policy agreement now to switch to nuclear energy and elec- tric cars. In addition, if we want to be spared the uncertain- ties of oil from the Middle East and Russia that is poised to run out sooner than later, we have no alternative. The world has no other sensible alternative left. As humans, we might

�21Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

be enjoying our life on Earth, but we are slowly and surely hurting ourselves if we remain bent on pursuing our current path. Like fish will die if we pollute the medium of their existence, water, humans stand to suffer if we pollute our medium, the air we breathe. The future of energy is staring us in the face and the technology is sitting there for us to adopt.

REFERENCES “Air pollution soaring high.” �2008�. �http://

www.shamskm.com/env/air-pollution-soaring- high.html�.

“Air pollution, the environmental imperative for renewable energy: An update.” �2008�. �http://www.crest.org/ repp_pubs/articles/envImp/02airpollution.htm�.

American Wind Energy Association. �2008�. “Wind power: U.S. installed capacity �Megawatts�, 1981- 2007.” �http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html�.

Aubrecht, G. J. �2003�. “Nuclear proliferation through coal burning.” Physics Education Research Group, Depart- ment of Physics, Ohio State University, �http:// 209.85.173.104/search?q�cache:1e_i81fWw7cJ:www. physics.ohiostate.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf �safety�coal�plants�v.�nuclear�plantsandhl �enandct�clnkandcd�10andgl�us�.

“Automobiles: Electric vs. gasoline.” �2001�. Seikei Univer- sity, Institute for Life Cycle Environmental Assessment, Tokyo, �http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html�.

Avery, D. T. �2007�. “Canadian climatologist says sun caus- ing global warming.” Canada Free Press, July 7, 2007.

Beck, C. �2006�. “Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect.” �http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/ 12/22/222357/40� �December 25, 2006�.

Biello, D. �2007�. “Nuclear power reborn.” Scientific Ameri- can, �http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id�nuclear- powerrebornandref�feedburner�.

Bisconti, A. S. �2007�. “Public supports climate change ac- tion; but is unclear on nuclear energy’s role in preventing greenhouse gases.” Perspectives on public opinion, Nuclear Energy Institute, �http://www.nei.org/filefolder/popo- may.pdf�.

Bloch, M. �2008�. “What is the Kyoto protocol?” �http:// www.carbonify.com/articles/kyoto-protocol.htm�.

Brahic, C. �2007�. “Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter.” NewScientist environment, �http:// environment.newscientist.com/channel/Earth/climate- change/dn11638�.

Cacchioli, J., and Larsen, E. �2006�. “Radioactive isotope found near Oyster Creek nuclear power plant.” Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, �http://a4nr.org/library/ failures/12.16.06-asburyparkpress�.

“Carbon dioxide tied to air pollution mortality.” �2008�. Sci-

ence Daily, March 4, 2008. Chandler, D. L. �2007�. “Climate myths: CO2 isn’t the most

important greenhouse gas.” NewScientist Environment, May 16, 2007.

“China to buy Australian uranium.” �2006�. BBC News, �http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4871000.stm�.

Cliff, S. �2006�. “We are breathing Chinese pollution.” New Perspectives Quarterly, 23�4�, 78–79.

Edwards, R. �2000�. “July 2030: Going back to the fu- ture.” The ecologist, �http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ m2465/is_5_30/ai_63859387�.

Elert, G., ed. �2005�. “Price of coal.” The physics factbook, �http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/ CarolineGeorges.shtml�.

Energy Information Administration. �2008�. �http:// www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html�. Electric Power Monthly, March 2008.

Environment News Service. �2002�. “Air pollution boosts cancer risk for Americans.” �http://www.ens- newswire.com/ens/jun2002/2002-06-03-07.asp�.

Essenhigh, R. �2008�. “Does CO2 really drive global warm- ing?” �http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/ special/may01_viewpoint.html�.

Francis, D. R. �2001�. “Energy study gives black marks to coal, boost to nukes.” The Christian Science Monitor, 29 May 2001.

Freeman, M. �2005�. “China’s 21st century nuclear energy plan.” Executive intelligence review, �http:// www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208china_ htr.html�.

Gabbard, A. �2008�. “Coal combustion: Nuclear resource or danger?” ORNL review 26, �http://www.ornl.gov/ ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html�.

“General Electric interested in Lithuania nuclear power plant project.” �2007�. Space Daily, �http://www.spacedaily. com/reports/General_Electric_Interested_In_Lithuania_ Nuclear_Power_Plant_Project_999.html� �January 23, 2008�.

“Global warming: A chilling perspective.” �2008�. �http:// www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html�.

“Global warming: A closer look at the numbers: Water va- por rules the greenhouse system.” �2003�. �http:// www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html� �January 2003�.

Haby, J. �2008�. “Carbon dioxide vs. water vapor as green- house gases.” �http://www.theweatherprediction.com/ habyhints/155/�.

Handwerk, B. �2006�. “Don’t blame the sun for global warming.” National Geographic News, September 13.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D. W., and Medina-Elizade, M. �2006�. “Global temperature

�22JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

change.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 103, 14288– 14293.

Henderson, I. �2008�. “Uranium price could hit $US105/lb by September.” �http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/ view/mineweb/en/page38?oid�49764andsn�Detail�. Financial Times, London, February 21, 2008.

“History of nuclear power safety.” �2008�. �http:// users.owt.com/smsrpm/nksafe/�.

Holt, M., and Behrens, C. E. �2003�. “Nuclear energy in the United States.” Congressional Research Service. �http:// www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/nuclear_ energy.shtml�.

“How much CO2 emission is too much?” �2006�. �http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/ 11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/�. �November 6, 2006�.

“Hydroelectricity.” �2008�. Wikipedia, �http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power�.

“Industry statistics.” �2008�. Edison Electricity Institute, �http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_ and_statistics/industry_statistics�.

International Energy Agency �IEA�. �2006�. World energy outlook, IEA, Paris.

Jacobsen, M. Z. �2008�. “On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality.” Geophys. Res. Lett.

Jing, J. �1999�. “Villages dammed, villages repossessed: A memorial movement in northwest China.” American Ethnologist, 26�2�, 324–343.

Kaplincki, J. �2006�. “A cosmic connection.” Nature �Lon- don�, September 14, 2006.

Karan, P., Wilford, P., Bladen, A., Wilson, J. R. �1986�. “Technological hazards in the Third World.” Geogr. Rev., 76�2�, 195–208.

Kosmatka, S. H., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W. C. �2002�. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. 14th Ed., Portland Cement Association, Ill.

Krock, H. �2008�. “Ocean thermal energy conversion.” Semi- nar, University of Hawaii, Manoa, September 17, 2008.

Kuplinski, D., and Byrd, D. �2008�. “Sun is not causing Earth to warm, says expert.” �http://www.Earthsky.org/ radioshows/52334/sun-is-not-causing-Earth-to-warm- says-expert�.

“Leak forces pickering shutdown.” �2000�. CBC News, No- vember 10, 2000, �http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/ 1999/08/23/pickering990823.html�.

Lindzen, R. S. �1992�. “Global warming: The origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.” Regulation, 15�2�. �http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/ reg15n2g.html� �September 19, 2008�.

Lustgarten, A. �2008�. “Nuclear power’s white-hot metal.” Fortune Magazine, March 27.

Madrigal, A. �2008�. “Solar company says its tech can power

90 percent of grid and cars.” �http://blog.wired.com/ wiredscience/2008/03/solar-company-s.html� �March 6, 2008�.

Marshall, M. J., and Navarro, P. �1991�. “Costs of nuclear power plant construction: Theory and new evidence.” Rand J. Econ., 22�1�, 148–154.

McBride, J. P., Moore, R. E., Witherspoon, J. P., and Blanco, R. E. �1978�. “Radiological impact of airborne effluents of coal and nuclear plants.” Science, 202, 1045.

Michaels, P. �1998�. “Global deception: The exaggeration of the global warming threat.” Center for the Study of American Business, Policy Study No. 146.

Michalko, M. �2006�. “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” �http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/ PLNK24DBG857DQTBJ� �September 19, 2008�.

MIT. �2003�. The Future of Nuclear Power, An Interdiscipli- nary MIT Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

Molina, M. J., and Molina, L. T. �2004�. “Megacities and atmospheric pollution.” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 54, June 2004.

“Most Americans face cancer risk from toxic air pollution.” �1999�. �http://healthandenergy.com/air_pollution-and_ cancer.htm� �April 23, 1999�.

“Mphanda Nkuwa Dam, Mozambique.” �2008�. �http:// internationalrivers.org/list/article/102�. International Riv- ers.

NASA. �2008�. “Satellite measures pollution from east Asia to North America.” Goddard Flight Space Center. �http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/ 2008/pollution_measure.html� �March 17, 2008�.

“New evidence shows Antarctica has warmed in last 150 years.” �2006�. Science Daily, September 6, 2006.

“New nuclear power plants consortia.” �2005�. �http:// www.aaenvironment.com/NewNukes4.htm�.

Nuclear Awareness Project �Canada�. �1997�. “Seven Ontario hydro CANDU reactors to shut down.” �http:// www.ccnr.org/nucaware_hydroletter.html�.

“Nuclear chronology.” �2008�. �http://www.nti.org/e_ research/profiles/India/Nuclear/2296_2803.html�.

“Nuclear comeback.” �2007�. �Videorecording�. First Run/ Icarus Films, New York.

Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency. �2005�. Projected costs of generating electricity, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Odell, AA. M. �2008�. “New coal plants: At what cost?” Sustainability Investment News, March 20.

“Ocean thermal energy.” �2008�. Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, �http:// hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/renewable/otec� �Septem- ber 2008�.

“Ocean thermal energy conversion.” �2008�. Wikipedia,

�23Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009

�http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_ conversion� �September 2008�.

“Outdoor air pollution: Possible health effects.” �2008�. �http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/ common/asthma/triggers/085.html� �March 2008�.

Patterson, T. �2005�. “The geologic record and climate change.” �http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id �010405M�.

Perkovich, G. �2001�. “India’s nuclear bomb: The impact on global proliferation.” Updated Ed., Harper Collins, New Delhi, India.

Pew Environmental Health Commission. �1998�. “At- tack asthma: Why America needs a public health de- fense system to battle environmental threats.” �http:// 72.14.253.104/search?q�cache:oo4ms7oG_ ioJ:healthyamericans.org/reports/files/asthma.pdf �growth�in�asthma�in�numbers&hl�en&ct �clnk&cd�4&gl�us&client�firefox-a�.

Platt, K. H. �2007�. “Chinese air pollution deadliest in world.” National Geographic News, July 9, 2007, �http:// news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709- china-pollution.html�.

Pope III, C. A., Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., and Thurston, G. D. �2002�. “Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long- term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.” JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 287, 1132–1141.

“Population and energy consumption.” �2008�. �http:// worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/energy/�, World popula- tion balance.

“Projected costs of generating electricity.” �2005�. Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD Publication 53955, Paris, France.

“Radiation leak.” �2008�. Web currents, �http://www. learnersonline.com/weekly/archive99/week39/ index.htm�.

“REVA Electric plans 2.5 Lakh Classe unit exports to UK, EU in 10 years.” �2002�. The Financial Express, No- vember 14, 2002, �http://www.revaindia.com/2002_ 35.htm�.

Robinson, A. B., Robinson, N. E., and Soon, W. �2007�. “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79–90.

“Safe, secure and inexpensive power from latest generation of nuclear reactors.” �2004�. Inside Science News Service, �http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2002/041.html�.

“Safety of nuclear power reactors.” �2007�. Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 14, �http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm� �September 2007�.

“Shell predicts energy shortage by 2015.” �2008�. Calgary Herald, January 26, 2008.

Sierra Club of Canada. �2001�. “The Canadian nuclear

lesson.” �http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/ atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/nuclear-and- clim-chg-6-01. html�. �September 19, 2008�.

Solar Energy International. �2008�. “Energy facts.” Solar Energy International, �http://www.solarenergy.org/ resources/energyfacts.html�. �March 2008�.

Solar/Wind. �2008�. �http://www.ecomall.com/biz/solarcat. htm�.

“Some important facts about nuclear power.” �1997�. Nuclear Energy Information Service, �http://www.neis. org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm� �April 1997�.

Spencer, J., and Loris, N. �2008�. “Uranium mining is im- portant for securing America’s energy future.” The Heri- tage Foundation, March, 25.

“Statins and cancer—The hidden story.” �2008�. Middle-East health, �http://www.middleeasthealthmag.com/cgibin/ index.cgi?http://www.middleeasthealthmag.com/ jan2008/feature11.htm�.

“Sweet little car REVA Classé is unveiled.” �2002�. The Delhi Age, �http://www.revaindia.com/2002_36.htm� �No- vember 14, 2002�.

“The coming lithium shortage.” �2005�. �http:// priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-news/27863- lithium-shortage.html�.

“The economics of nuclear power.” �2007�. �http:// www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm�, Uranium Information Centre Briefing Paper �December 8, 2007�.

“The hidden cost of fossil fuels.” �2008�. Union of Con- cerned Scientists, �http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/ fossil_fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil-fuels.html�.

“The real ‘Inconvenient Truth’: Some facts about greenhouse and global warming.” �2006�. �http://www.junkscience. com/Greenhouse/� �September 19, 2008�.

United Nations Environment Programme. �2006�. GEO Year Book 2006, Earthscan Publications Ltd., Lon- don, U.K.

“Uranium from seawater �Part 1�.” �2006a�. Peak Oil De- bunked, �http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/ 01/207-uranium-from-seawater-part-1.html�. �Blog� �January 7, 2006�.

“Uranium from seawater �Part 2�.” �2006b�. Peak Oil De- bunked, �http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/ 01/208-uranium-from-seawater-part-2. html� �Blog� January 8, 2006.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. �1996�. “Population projec- tions of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050.” Current Population Reports, Se- ries P25-1130, March 1996.

U.S. Department of Energy. �2008�. “Renewable energy: Ocean thermal energy conversion.” �http:// apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/renewable_energy/ ocean/index.cfm/mytopic�50010�.

U.S. Department of Labor. �2008�. “Producer price in-

�24JA N U A R Y 2009 Leadership and Management in Engineering

dexes.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, �http://data.bls.gov/ PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action �wh&graph_name�WP_ppibrief�.

“U.S. price of coal: Annual data.” �2008�. �http:// www.econstats.com/spot/rt_coal.htm�.

Vanston, J., and Elliott, H. �2003�. “Fuel cells, a technology forecast,” Texas State Technology System, �http:// system.tstc.edu/forecasting/reports/fcells.asp�.

Wald, M. L. �2007�. “Costs surge for building power plants.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/ worldbusiness/10energy.html?_r�1;oref�slogin. New York Times, July 10.

“Wave power.” �2008�. MIT energy initiative, �http:// web.mit.edu/mitei/research/transformations/ocean.html� �September 2008�.

“Wave and tidal power.” �2000�. Fujita Research Reports, �http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/tidalpower.html�.

“What is a coal-fired plant?” �2008�. Appalachian voices, �http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/air/coalplants/�.

Wikipedia. �2008a�. “Chevrolet volt.” �http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt�.

Wikipedia. �2008b�. “General Motors EV1.” �http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1�.

Wikipedia. �2008c�. “Greenhouse gas.” �http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas�.

Wikipedia. �2008d�. “REVA.” �http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/REVA�.

Wikipedia. �2008e�. “Ship transport.” �http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_transport�.

Wikipedia. �2008f�. “Who killed the electric car?” �http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_ Car%3F�.

WNA. �2006�. “The new economics of nuclear power.” World Nuclear Association.

World Intellectual Property Organization. �2008�. “Method of enhancing radioactivity decay.” �http://www.wipo.int/

pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA�WO1997%2F15104&WO �1997%2F15104&DISPLAY�DESC�.

World Coal Institute. �2008�. “Where is coal found?” http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp? PageID�100.

World Nuclear News �WNN�. �2008a�. WNN, London, �http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ nwsltrdisplay.aspx?id�15020�. �Jan.–Feb., 2008�.

World Nuclear News �WNN�. �2008b�. WNN, Lon- don, �http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/� �March 13, 2008�.

Amarjit Singh is associate professor of construction engineering management at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He formerly worked in engineering and admin- istrative positions in the construction industries of Canada,Kuwait,Nepal, andIndia,workingfor the larg- est contractors in the regions. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, where he played field hockey on his university team for four years and was general secretary of the Student AffairsCouncil.HeearnedhisPh.D. incivil engineering from Purdue University, West Lafayette. Dr. Singh chairs the executive committee of the International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, is director of the faculty union at the University of Hawaii, served as chair of the Hawaii Council of Engineering Societies, was North American Editor of Construction Management and Economics, and is the editor- in-chief of the new ASCE Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. His researchinterestshavelatelyfocusedondiscoveringeco- nomic global solutions for human needs using modern technologies, such as for adequate housing, electricity, andtransportfuel. LME

�25Leadership and Management in Engineering JA N U A R Y 2009