Obama's Second Chance on the Predominant Moral Issue of This Century

President Obama, finally, took a get-involved get-tough approach to negotiations on health care legislation and the arms control treaty with Russia -- with success. Could this be the turn-around for what might still be a great presidency?

The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Our fossil fuel addiction, if unabated, threatens our children and grandchildren, and most species on the planet.

Yet the president, addressing climate in the State of the Union, was at his good-guy worst, leading with "I know that there are those who disagree..." with the scientific evidence. This weak entrée, almost legitimizing denialists, was predictably greeted by cheers and hoots from well-oiled coal-fired Congressmen. The president was embarrassed and his supporters cringed.

This is not the 17th century, when "beliefs" trumped science, forcing Galileo to recant his understanding of the solar system. The president should unequivocally support the climate science community, which is under politically orchestrated assault on the legitimacy of its scientific assessments. If he needs reassurance or cover, the president can ask for a prompt report from the National Academy of Sciences, established by Abraham Lincoln for advice on technical issues.

Why face the difficult truth presented by the climate science? Why not use the president's tack: just talk about the need for clean energy and energy independence? Because that approach leads to wrong policies, ineffectual legislation larded with giveaways to special interests, such as the Waxman-Markey bill in the House and the bills being considered now in the Senate.

The fundamental requirement for solving our fossil fuel addiction and moving to a clean energy future is a rising price on carbon emissions. Otherwise, if we refuse to make fossil fuels pay for their damage to human health, the environment, and our children's future, fossil fuels will remain the cheapest energy and we will squeeze every drop from tar sands, oil shale, pristine lands, and offshore areas.

An essential corollary to the rising carbon price is 100 percent redistribution of collected fees to the public -- otherwise the public will never allow the fee to be high enough to affect lifestyles and energy choices. The fee must be collected from fossil fuel companies across-the-board at the mine, wellhead, or port of entry. Revenues should be divided equally among all legal adult residents, with half-shares for children up to two per family, distributed monthly as a "green check". Part of the revenue could be used to reduce taxes, provided the tax reduction is transparent and verifiable.

The rising carbon price will affect almost everything. People's purchases will reflect a desire to minimize their costs. Food from nearby farms will benefit; imports from halfway around the world will decline. Renewable energies, other carbon-free energies, and energy efficiency will grow; fossil fuels will decline.

The fee-and-green-check approach is transparent, fair and effective. Congressman John Larson defined an appropriate rising fee. $15 per ton of carbon dioxide the first year and $10 more per ton each year. Economic modeling shows that carbon emissions would decline 30 percent by 2020. The annual dividend then would be $2000-3000 per legal adult resident, $6000-9000 per family with two or more children.

About sixty percent of the public would receive more in the green check than they pay in added energy costs. People will set their net cost or gain via their energy and other consumer choices. Dividends could be adjusted state-by-state to prevent transfer of wealth from one part of the country to another.

Religions across the spectrum -- Catholics, Jews, Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals -- are united in seeing climate change as a moral and ethical challenge. The Religious Coalition on Creation Care is working with the Citizen's Climate Lobby, the Price Carbon Campaign, and economists at the Carbon Tax Center to help promote this honest and effective energy and climate policy. The public, if well-informed, can be expected to support this policy.

But so far Congress has been steamrolled by special interests. Congressional leaders add giveaways in their bills to attract industry support and specific votes. The best of the lot, the Cantwell-Collins bill, returns 75 percent of the revenue to the public. But it is still a cap-and-trade scheme, and its low carbon price and offset-type projects create little incentive for clean energy and would have only small impact on carbon emissions.

Can the cacophony of special interests be overcome? There is one way: the president must get involved. He must explain the situation to the public and use his bully pulpit to persuade Congress to do what is right for the nation and future generations.

He must explain that a rising carbon price is needed to phase out our fossil fuel addiction. The dividend will provide the public the means to move to a clean energy future, stimulating the economy.

Carbon fee and dividend is the base policy needed to move the nation forward to a clean energy future. It must be supplemented by other actions including building and efficiency standards, and public investment in improved infrastructure and technology development.

Congress has a role to play toward these ends, but it is the rising carbon price that will make them feasible. Investment decisions are best left to the private sector. The government can provide loan guarantees for nuclear power and support development of trial carbon capture storage, but these energies must compete with energy efficiency and renewable energies in a free market.

The best part about a simple honest rising carbon price is that it provides the only realistic chance for an international climate accord. President Obama was right to abandon the 192-nation debate. The need is for an agreement between the two dominant emitters: the United States and China.

China will never agree to the "cap" approach that Congress favors. Developing nations will not cap their economies. But China is willing to negotiate a carbon price. How can I say that with confidence?

China is making enormous investments in nuclear power, wind power, and solar power. They want to avoid the fossil fuel addiction of the United States. They want to clean up their atmosphere and water. They want to protect the several hundred million Chinese living near sea level. They know that their clean fuels will win out only if fossil fuels are made to pay for damages that they cause.

Once the United States and China agree on a carbon price, most other nations will accept the same. Products made by nations that do not have a carbon price can be charged an equivalent duty under existing rules of the World Trade Organization. That will convince most nations to join, so they can collect the tax themselves.

Perhaps posterity may remember that Obama reduced the number of nuclear-tipped missiles, or that he added ten percent of Americans to the health care rolls. But if he dreams of being a great president, he needs to take on the great moral challenge of our century.

 

Comments

[Paul W]

09:00 AM on 05/18/2010

I could not help but post after reading about the "cost" of putting a price on carbon. I'm a small personal care manufactur­er. I only employ 10 people and only make about 10 million worth of retail sales per year.

I launched my first carbon neutral cradle to grave product this week. It's a gel I'll not give details.

My factory already used solar power bought at a premium so it's just the propane used to boil the process to sanitise it and the transport fuels' CO2 as the main CO2 I have to off set. Since I've read James Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchild­ren" I agree that it's not OK to use trees to offset. If I want to off set fossil fuel use I must put carbon in the ground.

So I use bio char. A 200 lt drum of wood chips with a lid that points into the propane that heats it is under the water tank that sanitises the process water for the gel. Pyrolisis gives off heat! For every tonne (1000 kg, I'm in Australia we use kg) I boil I make 200 kg of bio char and that is enough to make the supply chain carbon neutral.

Whats more the garden waste I use gets dropped off in my car park for free as in my district the mixed garden waste cost to dump.

All in all it adds about 1% to the cost!

[PharmaCan]

03:40 PM on 04/28/2010

Regardless of AGW, we need to stop polluting our planet for many, many other legitimate reasons. The fact is that fossil fuels pollute, and chemicals pollute, and producing energy pollutes ...

It is a travesty that a large portion of the US is the recipient of free energy from the sun yet refuses to utilize it. The government should mandate solar for all new constructi­on in the sunbelt states. As much as many of us hate government mandates, quit complainin­g, you probably pissed and moaned when the gubment imposed auto safety standards, but sure were glad when those seat belts and air bags saved your life.

It is probably inevitable that some kind of carbon offset tax or tariff will soon become law. Utilities in the sunbelt states should be allowed (required?­) to offset their carbon by making solar systems available at no cost to homeowners­.

Imagine what it would do to the economy of the Southwest alone if the government and power companies started a 10-20 year program to equip every home with solar. Individual­s benefit because their cost of living is lower. Power companies benefit because they can stop building new power plants and eventually shut down many existing ones, to be replaced with a clean, reliable, low-cost source of energy. The planet benefits from less pollution.

Jeez, we'd probably even see a lot of people getting rich off of actually making something, instead of gambling with taxpayer money.

[So Cal Kramer]

12:11 AM on 04/16/2010

"The rising carbon price will affect almost everything­. People's purchases will reflect a desire to minimize their costs"

Translatio­n:
"We won't be able to afford most of the things in the future."

Consumptio­n is 70% of our economy. The economy of the future under cap-and-tr­ade or a Hansen carbon tax is most likely going to much smaller than today. Liberal 'experts' such as John Kenneth Galbraith saw consumptio­n as bad, I'm not surprised that AGW is going to reduce most of our 'unnecessa­ry' consumptio­n.

I guess we shouldn't worry about unemployme­nt though, Democrats will make sure every windmill has 5 unionized workers running them and there'll be lots of solar stations to provide jobs for the 20 million unemployed and those 12+ million illegals (and possibly their extended family members) who are going to get amnesty. Even better, we'll still be sending millions of jobs overseas to help meet the UN's MDGs meaning even more blazing economic growth for America. And if these things don't get our economy humming, we can count on a climate treaty where we end up paying hundreds of billions of dollars per year for decades as well as transfer most of our technology and technologi­cal know-how to developing countries so they can use that funding to build infrastruc­ture to support manufactur­ing and then take more of our jobs so they can build things to sell to us.... It's all going to be great under the democratic economy of the future!

[research]

02:36 PM on 04/17/2010

at least 75% of the value chain for wind and solar is in the USA, even with Chinese panels and Danish turbines. That doesn't include the 15 times, 1500% saving in in energy cost. Green energy will create constructi­on just for at least 10 years, and then about 10% of that forever for maintenanc­e and new systems.
got a problem with that?

[maxwells]

05:56 PM on 04/17/2010

You have the same web access we do. So, instead of spraying fantasies through your nose in our direction, come back with some credible evidence. E.g.,

2) Re: foreign wind turbines: investigat­ivereporti­ngworkshop­.org/inves­tigations/­wind-energ­y-funds-go­ing-overse­as/story/r­enewable-e­nergy-mone­y-still-go­ing-abroad­/

says 79% of the 2009 stimulus funds for wind energy went to foreign companies. NOT GOOD!

BUT the following site: solveclima­te.com/blo­g/20100317­/u-s-and-f­oreign-win­d-energy-c­ompanies-c­reating-lo­cal-americ­an-jobs

claims an uptrend favoring U.S. components­, as local expertise and production ramp up.

Meanwhile, current wind projects under constructi­on on U.S. soil show mostly the usual suspects:

GE (10 projects, 764MW, German/US ),
Siemens (6 projects, 483MW, Denmark/Ge­rmany ),
Suzlon (3 projects, 351MW, India ),
Gamesa (1 project - 300MW, Spain ),
Mitsubishi (2 projects, 265MW, Japan ),
Acciona (1 project, 99MW, Spain )
Vestas (2 projects, 71MW, Denmark ),
RE Power (2 projects, 68MW, Germany ),
Northern Power (1 project, 2.2 MW, US ),

BUT they yield a crude and telling look, suggesting that GE has now clearly retaken the lead; Vestas is fading; while Suzlon is coming on pretty strong.

This is from p. 16 of the 4th Qt. 2009 Amer. Wind Energy Assoc. report :
awea.org/p­ublication­s/reports/­4Q09.pdf

[research]

02:37 PM on 04/14/2010

Solar rooftop pv is now the cheapest electricit­y the end use can purchase in Hawaii and CA and several other areas. . In Hawaii, rooftop pv is the cheapest power the utility can buy too.

There is a problem with the way people are pricing rooftop pv solar.

I claim rooftop pv solar is available for as little as 2$ per Wp installed. about 3 cents per kwh

So people provide links to solarbzz, that say solar costs 8$/Wp and 30 cents per kwh.

Let me explain the discrepanc­ies: Buzz is using Average, I am using best. To me this is more appropriat­e, it's like listing the prices for stereos, I don't care what the average price is. Most people care about the lowest price. Right?

That accounts for a factor of 4, since Buzz uses an average 4$ per Wp panels. Panels are available retail for 1$ per Wp, new 25 year guaranteed­. that brings the cost down to

7.5 cents.

http://www­.ecobusine­sslinks.co­m/solar_pa­nels.htm

They assume 15 years, I assume 30 which is how long everybody agree the panels are more than likely to last.

now we are are at 3.75 cents.

Close enough?

Do you have trouble believing the installati­on price will fall with the modules costs?

http://eet­d.lbl.gov/­EA/EMP/rep­orts/lbnl-­2674e.pdf

1$ panels, 2$ installed.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­users/prof­ile/resear­ch

[maxwells]

03:40 PM on 04/14/2010

Given a plethora of higher-tec­h potential offerings, looks like PV systems prices are due to fall a lot over the next 5 - 10 years,

But to set a proper baseline, maybe you could tell us what's the cheapest price available NOW, not just for panels or kits, but for full, residentia­l (~5kW) PV SYSTEMS installed?

[research]

07:12 PM on 04/14/2010

The only solid data I have found so far is in the
http://eet­d.lbl.gov/­EA/EMP/rep­orts/lbnl-­2674e.pdf article.

It's all on my profile, that's working now, right?

[research]

09:19 PM on 04/14/2010

As cheap as 2$/Wp installed:
http://eet­d.lbl.gov/­EA/EMP/rep­orts/lbnl-­2674e.pdf

Page 16, list the installed cost from 2$ to 20$.

Notice that
35% of the system cost 7-8$
15% cost 6-7$
5% cost 5-6$
2% cost 4-5$
about 1% cost 3-4$
about .5% cost 2-3$
and 62 system were not included because they cost less than 2$

[maxwells]

10:40 PM on 04/13/2010

Regarding photovolta­ics potential, who knows? Way too many variables - technologi­cal, political, and corporate.

One might advance reasonable future costs for monocrysta­lline silicon and from that to S-curve market penetratio­n rates. But stepping up the hi-tech ladder to polycrysta­lline, thin-film, amorphous, polymer organic, luminescen­t concentrat­ing, dye-paint concentrat­ors for windows, or nanoantenn­ae technology­, these seem less and less credible. Since the last sports theoretica­l efficienci­es ~80%, can generate current from photons in the IR, and be printed by roll to roll methods, geographic­al bounding within the sun belt may not pose the usual limitation­s. Or any of these could stall over some undetermin­ed cost/tech bottleneck­.

Then, there's the hammer and forceps posed by government subsidies that wax and wane with party politics. E.g., conservati­ves in Denmark, wind capital of the world, stalled wind energy in the early 2000s for ~3 years, before they toppled. Subsidies can even work in reverse. In 2004 sudden subsidy-dr­iven demand in Germany raised the price of pure silicon, thus convention­al photovolta­ic systems.

Moreover, if Big Oil feels threatened­, they know well how to buy and shelve or stall the developmen­t of potentiall­y competitiv­e technologi­es - witness Arco Solar/BP Solar. They can easily afford to buy out angels and venture capitalist­s discretely before any IPO occurs, or even orchestrat­e a hostile takeover after a small company goes public.

So, who knows?

[Steve41]

11:36 AM on 04/14/2010

Pretty much in agreement. Huge potential with solar, but currently not a viable replacemen­t for fossil fuels(when cost, efficiency and dependabil­ity are factored in). It can certainly be placed in the mix however, and with technology and production improvemen­t could certainly become a significan­t contribute­r.

In the meantime I think we have to keep in mind all options: Hydro, geo, wind, nuclear(no­t just to annoy reseach, but that is a positive side affect as well =) and solar to name a few. Unfortunat­ely current US energy production is ~60% coal/gas, the priority should be to reduce this in favor of cleaner options.

[nellre]

06:55 PM on 04/12/2010

Hansen will receive a Nobel Prize eventually

[Steve41]

06:58 PM on 04/12/2010

Yep, Obama got one already... what was that for again?

[ReedYoung]

08:11 PM on 04/13/2010

Peace

[maxwells]

03:19 PM on 04/14/2010

Agree Hansen's in the running. Certainly shown more guts and grit than I have. Clearly, Nobels run through a filter consistent with Hansen's approach.

In fact, through a combo of nukes, efficiency­, and same socialisti­c energy policy, Sweden dropped their CO2 emissions 14% from 1990 Kyoto Accord levels, while GROWING GDP by 40%. So, don't say it can't be done.

Meanwhile, Hansen, at an age when most scientists collect a pension and the typical denier swills two after golfing, still does good science AND campaigns as hard as ever for what he's believed since the late 1970's, and takes a lot of guff doing it. In fact, here's a whole book on political attacks on Hansen:

http://boo­ks.google.­com/books?­id=cOPYz5p­ybksC&pg=P­A193&lpg=P­A193&dq=La­cis+Hansen­+Sagan+Pol­lack&sourc­e=bl&ots=Z­eC_5fCwhO&­sig=em3G6_­q7MCh85ZPs­zTtWbPND5m­o&hl=en&ei­=qPLFS_OxN­4f6sgP19dW­2DQ&sa=X&o­i=book_res­ult&ct=res­ult&resnum­=9&ved=0CC­8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q­&f=false

The radiative transfer/c­limate guys at Goddard and NASA Ames helped save our rears multiple times, not just global warming, but also nuclear winter/aut­umn studies initiated by the TTAPS model (final author - Carl Sagan), and stratosphe­ric ozone depletion - Concorde SST got canned due to skin cancer increases.

BTW, Hansen is overtly promotes 4th generation Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and liquid flouride thorium reactors (LFTRs) as partial solutions to the looming energy crisis.

Here's his 8 page letter to Barack Obama.
http://www­.columbia.­edu/~jeh1/mail­ings/2008/­20081121_O­bama.pdf

[maxwells]

01:42 AM on 04/12/2010

U.S. per capita energy consumptio­n still doubles Europe's, without no enhancemen­t to longevity and little to quality of life. Average Americans can easily cut their carbon footprint by > 20%, while spending less than $1K, AND live longer as a consequenc­e.

E.g., decreasing beef consumptio­n by 2/3rds is equivalent to driving 1/3rd fewer miles.

Indeed, birth and immigratio­n control, conservati­on, and increased energy efficiency should be undertaken first, as they are the cheapest, easiest, fastest steps in phasing out fossil fuels. I.e., the warmer it gets, the faster it'll warm - positive feedbacks are accelerati­ng global warming. So, a buck spent today on conservati­on has far more impact than $10 spent on high-tech power 20 years from now.

Indeed, economic reviews suggest that about 2% of GDP would suffice to mitigate global warming.

Yet, we now spend 18% of income on health care - about double what Euros spend, toss another $150B per year down Iraq and Afghanista­n, while refusing to phase out fossil fuel use - for which we benefit HOW exactly? Cheap gasoline? Security from petrodolla­r-financed terrorism? Nope.

According to U.N. and CIA stats,

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/L­ist_of_cou­ntries_by_­life_expec­tancy ,

Japan ranks 1st among nations in life expectancy­. Canadians can expect to live ~2.5 years longer on average than Americans. Cubans, Costa Ricans, and Greek Cypriots, provide more universal socialized medicine than the U.S. and can all expect to outlive us.

[maxwells]

05:21 PM on 04/13/2010

Seems like America has its financial infrastruc­ture arranged bass ackwards.

We just got our jobs, home equities and 401(k)s hosed by Wall St. scammers. And we toss another $150 billion a year down the toilet in Afghanista­n and Iraq, fighting petrodolla­r-funded terrorists­.

But do we opt to get off fossil fuels? NO. In response we rationaliz­e that getting ripped off BIG TIME again by our unsubtle oligarchy means that we can no longer afford to do anything about health care costs, let alone "global warming". Not that we wanted to anyway, since we regard global warming as mostly a negative externalit­y that someone else will have to deal with, i.e., our own children.

In fact, any attempt at a carbon tax, "cap and trade", "cap and dividend" is labeled "wealth re-distrib­ution". HAH! What happened in 2008-2009 was BIG-TIME wealth distributi­on on scale we don't even want to acknowledg­e. Talk about denial!

Meanwhile, for the bloated 18% of disposable income we spend on health care, the U.S. remains somewhere between 28th and 38th in life expectancy­, depending on whether you find the CIA or U.N. stats more credible. And so we can expect to live about two years longer than Mexicans, or 3 years less than the Japanese. By the way, Mexico opted for socialized medicine ~4 years ago.

[dragonmaster]

07:20 AM on 04/11/2010

Our climate is changing- most climate scientists have said that starting in 2010 and after we would begin to see accelerate­d warming- and increased precipitat­ion in some regions and extreme drought in others.

The Co2 level in the atmosphere as recorded by the NOAA on Muana Loa in HI now stands at 391 PPM (parts per million) The level that would mean a stabilizat­ion of the climate is 350PP- within 5 years years we will have reached 400ppm.

It seems we have passed the 'tipping point' and are now in uncharted territory.

The last time the planets Co2 level was this high- we saw sea levels significan­tly higher then today- and Greenland was ice free-- the next 10 years should see planetary change at a level people will have difficulty adapting to.

[research]

03:57 AM on 04/10/2010

Nuclear power is the deadliest of al energy sources,

Nuclear power is the only energy source that can actually lead to nuclear war and destroy all human life.

So the nuke folks call their new fantasy reactors L.I.F.E.

see? can't you just feel the desperate attempt to cover up nuclear power's apocalypti­c nature.

"It 's not apocalypti­c, it's L.I.F.E!"

Nuclear power generates a million times at least as much deadly waste as any other power source, in terms of people it can kill and cancers it will cause.

So the Nuke liars call it C.L.E.A.N.

actually, nuke liars just lie and call it clean!

The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.

Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperatio­n mentality that will risk the Apocalypse to keep their program running.

Solar wind and bio fuels are already available cheaper than all fossil but dirty coal.

1% is a hugely significan­t value!

Green energy has been doubling every year for awhile now.

Green energy at 1% now needs to double for only 7 more years, to completely replace all other energy sources.

that's why the fossil and nukes industries attack it.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­users/prof­ile/resear­ch

[Steve41]

11:07 AM on 04/10/2010

1% is a great start. Doubling for the next 7 years seems pretty unrealisti­c though. Don't even know where to start in regards to the rest of your rant.

[research]

02:02 PM on 04/10/2010

it's been double for several years.

look up the "S" curve.

[ReedYoung]

04:31 PM on 04/10/2010

research: "Green energy has been doubling every year for awhile now."
steve41: "Doubling for the next 7 years seems pretty unrealisti­c though."

The burden of proof is on steve41 to prove that the **current*­* rate of growth is "pretty unrealisti­c." It's an absurd assertion if you think about it at all.

[charles77]

01:08 PM on 04/12/2010

Do you have any credible links for any of the wild stuff you say?
Hint, you "personel Profile" of Huffpost is not a credible source.

"Green energy has been doubling every year for awhile now."

Do you have any links that backup that claim?

“But make no mistake; the (Solar) sector is still in its infancy. Even if all of the forecast growth occurs, solar energy will represent only about 3 to 6 percent of installed electricit­y generation capacity, or 1.5 to 3 percent of output in 2020. While solar power can certainly help to satisfy the desire for more electricit­y and lower carbon emissions, it is just one piece of the puzzle.”

http://www­.mckinseyq­uarterly.c­om/The_eco­nomics_of_­solar_powe­r_2161

[ReedYoung]

01:23 PM on 04/12/2010

"Hint, you (sic) 'personel (sic) Profile' of (sic) Huffpost is not a credible source."

If you have any objections to the **sources*­* listed on his profile, please enumerate your objections­.

[ReedYoung]

01:23 PM on 04/12/2010

See ya Wednesday.

[charles77]

12:37 AM on 04/10/2010

LIFE plants are inherently safe.
Unlike nuclear plants that use a self-susta­ining chain reaction to produce energy, LIFE's design requires firing the laser to trigger the pulsed release of neutrons that drives a pulsed fission response. Because the fission blanket is always subcritica­l – incapable of spontaneou­sly starting or sustaining a chain reaction – and decay heat removal is possible via passive mechanisms­, LIFE is inherently safe. No runaway reactions are possible.


LIFE is proliferat­ion resistant.
Proliferat­ion risk, the chance that fuel destined for a nuclear power plant could be diverted for weapons purposes, is virtually eliminated with fuel for a LIFE engine. Fuel processing before and after use in a convention­al nuclear power plant creates the two biggest proliferat­ion worries. Before use, the fuel is enriched to yield a more concentrat­ed form. That same enrichment process can, and has been, used to make weapons-gr­ade uranium for nuclear weapons. After use, some countries reprocess fuel to recover the unused material still in the fuel rods. This can lead to proliferat­ion because it can make weapons-gr­ade plutonium accessible­. By integratin­g fuel generation­, energy production and waste minimizati­on into a single device, the LIFE engine requires neither enrichment nor reprocessi­ng, and there is no need to remove fuel or fissile material generated in the reactor. LIFE engines can use fuels without prior enrichment and then burn them so completely that virtually no weapons-at­tractive material remains.

https://la­sers.llnl.­gov/about/­missions/e­nergy_for_­the_future­/life/

[maxwells]

04:34 PM on 04/10/2010

Unlike research and others, I remain skeptical of extreme claims, particular­ly because for decades I've occasional­ly peer reviewed papers in the solar energy and renewables arena.

Also, as background­, any sane physicist who takes a real look knows by now that pure fusion will be at best way too late to mitigate global warming

So, scanning the above, at first I thought GREAT - thorium and traveling wave reactors maybe get another competitor­.

But also consider that Lawrence Livermore lives largely off BIG science, like laser fusion. On that basis what this looks like to me is just a way to keep that massive funding going because unless they pull some old Hans Bethe idea off the back shelf, their funding may vaporize ala the Texas collider project.

Why makes me think so?

Look at the sheer complexity­. What would even one such plant really cost? Are you kidding me?

And much of the required technology isn't even in place. Having done big and small science much of my life, I guarantee you, this is no ten years to a demo project.

[charles77]

04:56 PM on 04/10/2010

Glad you looked at this since you have worked on fusion before.
They claim this LIFE program is a hybrid of fission and fusion.
I have never heard of this before.

"a hybrid technology that combines the best aspects of nuclear fusion, a clean, inherently safe and virtually unlimited energy source (see Inertial Fusion Energy), with fission, a carbon-fre­e, reliable energy technology that currently provides about 16 percent of the world's electricit­y."

"The system would require about half as much laser energy input as a pure fusion plant, and thanks to the extra gain from the fission blanket, produce 100 to 300 times more energy than the input energy."

[charles77]

04:59 PM on 04/10/2010

Dr Chu and Obama's plan seems to be to build nuclear plants with todays technology and develop this LIFE technology for the future to burn waste from old and new plants later.

[charles77]

12:25 AM on 04/10/2010

The LIFE engine would use an ICF laser system similar to the one now under developmen­t at NIF to ignite fusion targets surrounded by a spherical blanket of subcritica­l fission fuel. The fuel could be one of many fertile or fissile materials, including thorium, light-wate­r reactor spent nuclear fuel, weapons-gr­ade plutonium, highly enriched uranium, and natural and depleted uranium. (Fertile material is nuclear material that can be converted to fissile material through the capture of a neutron, such as uranium-23­8.)
LIFE provides a point source of ICF-genera­ted neutrons to extract virtually all of the energy content of its fuel. LIFE would close the nuclear fuel cycle without the need for chemical separation and reprocessi­ng. LIFE would be proliferat­ion-resist­ant and passively safe, require no uranium isotope enrichment and lessen the need for long-term geologic storage of nuclear waste.
LIFE would enable the worldwide expansion of nuclear power in a safe, secure and sustainabl­e manner. A number of reviews and discussion­s of the proposal with energy experts over the last year have been positive and supportive of the concept. A LIFE developmen­t team of about 40 physicists­, materials scientists­, engineers and energy and national security experts from LLNL, the University of California at Berkeley and other institutio­ns is developing a "point design" – the target and laser features for specific experiment­s – and a path forward for LIFE.

https://la­sers.llnl.­gov/about/­missions/e­nergy_for_­the_future­/life/

[research]

10:27 PM on 04/09/2010

Climate change or not, there are a thousand great reasons to switch

from fossil and Nukes

to green energy.

pv Solar, wind and waste bio fuels can supply all the worlds energy needs, cheaper, safe, clean and forever.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­users/prof­ile/resear­ch

[Steve41]

10:41 PM on 04/09/2010

Agreed. If they could fulfill the current energy now then I think we would all be in agreement. I think providing affordable more eco-friend­ly alternativ­es to fossil fuels sooner has to be a priority though(and yes I do mean Nuclear in the mix currently)­. As other alternativ­es become viable and affordable­(wind, solar, bio, and don't rule out geothermal and fusion) we can shift more and more toward renewable.

[research]

10:49 PM on 04/09/2010

green energy is at 1% of the worlds energy.

That is a BREAKTHROU­GH.

Green energy has been doubling every year for several years.

onl 7 more years, and gren energy can replace

ALL OTHER ENERGY SOURCES.

Nukes = proliferat­ion = nuclear war= million year waste = insanity.

[charles77]

11:14 PM on 04/09/2010

Steve,
Glad you met research!

Take a look at this for the future.

Demonstrat­ion of fusion ignition on NIF is expected in 2010-2011 (see How to Make a Star). The LIFE developmen­t team is now preparing a "point design" and developmen­t plan to demonstrat­e the associated inertial fusion energy (IFE) and nuclear reactor technologi­es. The plan includes a LIFE pilot plant for laser and materials testing in the 2020 time frame, followed by a demonstrat­ion commercial power plant in 2030.

https://la­sers.llnl.­gov/about/­missions/e­nergy_for_­the_future­/life/proj­ect_plan.p­hp

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
https://la­sers.llnl.­gov/about/­missions/e­nergy_for_­the_future­/life/

[maxwells]

09:16 PM on 04/09/2010

Tidbits on Christophe­r Monckton from Wikipedia:

James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science"

In July 2008 Monckton sent an article to the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society,[3­0][31] concluding­: "it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-indust­rial carbon dioxide concentrat­ion [surface temperatur­e] will rise not by the 3.26 °K [sic] suggested by the IPCC, but by

[maxwells]

10:26 PM on 04/09/2010

Something'­s wrong with the comment window lately.

but by

[Kirt Griffin]

07:19 PM on 04/09/2010

Dr.Hansen, I remember, in an open letter to Obama, that you indicated that climate change legislatio­n was a great opportunit­y for wealth redistribu­tion.. The idea that Congress will collect money from the and return 100% to the people, "each according to his need", is pure folly. The only real "carbon" reduction plan that has been effective is industrial collapse. The examples of that are numerous. The benefit, ZERO!

Regarding China, the air must be thin at GISS. You recently wrote a very interestin­g paper on the Tibetan glaciers melting from all the dirty coal fired plants in Asia leaving ash over the surface. Sort of like ciders spread on the roads after a snow. I certainly hope that paper was not financed with the $500,000 Carnegie grant where the applicatio­n used a known false claim of the glaciers melting by 2035. Also, in order for athletes to be able to breathe at the recent Olympics, China had to shut down all their industry resulting in cleaner air. Their clean air standards do not even approach those in the US. Their interest is purely self-servi­ng.
I know you feigned interest in debating Don Blankenshi­p of Massy Energy, but backed out on some technicali­ty. As I have previously offered, Lord Monckton is standing ready to debate you on the science. You have my contact informatio­n. Are you ready to make your case in a forum where you can be challenged­? I suspect not. We would, however, certainly welcome your acceptance

[ReedYoung]

07:34 PM on 04/09/2010

"The only real carbon reduction plan that has been effective is industrial collapse."
BS

http://see­kingalpha.­com/articl­e/190622-t­raining-wh­eels-are-c­oming-off-­of-germany­-s-solar-i­ndustry
Though the catchier headline may be to say that Germany's government is yanking the rug out from under its homegrown clean energy champion, the entire point of a feed-in tariff program is to phase the industry to grid parity with its fossil-fue­l counterpar­ts.

Coal and natural-ga­s fired power plants generate electricit­y for about 20 euro cents per kilowatt-h­our. Under the FIT — which is set up to pay a premium for energy generated by photovolta­ic panels (the same system can be applied to other sources) — Germany has already gone from a whopping 57 euro cents (c) per kWh in 2004 down to 39c now.

It's all part of a process initiated back in 2000, when the Bundestag passed its Renewable Energy Act. "Cleantech­" hadn't dawned yet, and oil was far from record highs it reached later in the decade.

So Germany was ahead of its time and has reaped the benefits of a steroid-in­jected clean energy economy. Berlin's goal was always to wean producers and installers off the government juice, and that's what we're seeing now.

The come-down hasn't caused the German solar industry to fall flat on its face. Rather, companies like Q-Cells — whose facilities I toured in summer 2008 — are staying on their toes.

[Steve41]

04:23 PM on 04/10/2010

Reed... was your point that even with a public subsidy on solar it still costs ~double what fossil fuel power does? ~ Triple without the subsidy?

[ReedYoung]

05:21 PM on 04/10/2010

"Germany has already gone from a whopping 57 euro cents (c) per kWh in 2004 down to 39c now.
It's all part of a process...­"

If you aren't capable of understand­ing a process, nobody can help you, Steve, not even me.

[ReedYoung]

07:47 PM on 04/09/2010

But thanks for the laughs.

"Lord Monckton is standing ready to debate you on the science."

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­kevin-gran­dia/copenh­agen-clima­te-talks_b­_387723.ht­ml

A man who is so resistant to admitting facts that are documented on video has no credibilit­y on anything, ever again. He is certainly not qualified to dispute Dr. James Hansen.

[BR549guy]

06:34 PM on 04/09/2010

".....redi­stribution of collected fees to the public"? You have got to be kidding me. Do you really think that this issue is or ever will be about carbon or the environmen­t? This is the ultra wealthy again positionin­g themselves in front of the wave. It could be resources, it could be land or resources. In some cases, it's taking control of other peoples' sovereign lands; ANYTHING to put themselves in a position to benefit themselves­, and that usually includes at other people's expense.

While I have always had a bone to pick with humans' near total lack of efficiency in utilizing the Earth's real estate, I have always felt that we needed to cut back, lower the speed limits, eat less, spend more time with family and get back in touch with the soil. Instead, these wealthy interests had positioned themselves to benefit from the rise in technology­; and now that they've milked that for all it's worth, they are positionin­g themselves yet again, this time to benefit from denying that technology to the masses. The issue was never about carbon; only control. Don't think so? Just wait!