How Does Obama Expect to Solve the Climate Crisis Without a Plan?

The climate crisis is the most important issue of all time. But the White House has no plan to solve it. How do we save the planet without a viable plan?

The ship is sinking slowly and we are quickly running out of time to develop and implement any such plan if we are to have any hope of saving the planet. What we need is a plan we can all believe in. A plan where our country's smartest people all nod their heads in agreement and say, "Yes, this is a solid, viable plan for keeping CO2 levels from touching 425ppm and averting a global climate catastrophe."

At his Senate testimony a few days ago, noted climate scientist James Hansen made it crystal clear once again that the only way to avert an irreversible climate meltdown and save the planet is to phase out virtually all coal plants worldwide over a 20 year period from 2010 to 2030. Indeed, if we don't virtually eliminate the use of coal worldwide, everything else we do will be as effective as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Plans that won't work

Unfortunately, nobody has proposed a realistic and practical plan to eliminate coal use worldwide or anywhere close to that. There is no White House URL with such a plan. No environmental group has a workable plan either.

Hoping that everyone will abandon their coal plants and replace them with a renewable power mix isn't a viable strategy -- we've proven that in the U.S. Heck, even if the Waxman-Markey bill passes Congress (a big "if"), it is so weak that it won't do much at all to eliminate coal plants. So even though we have Democrats controlling all three branches of government, it is almost impossible to get even a weak climate bill passed.

If we can't pass strong climate legislation in the U.S. with all the stars aligned, how can we expect anyone else to do it? So expecting all countries to pass a 100% renewable portfolio standard (which is far far beyond that contemplated in the current energy bill) just isn't possible. Secondly, even if you could mandate it politically in every country, from a practical standpoint, you'd never be able to implement it in time. And there are lots of experts in this country, including Secretary Chu, who say it's impossible without nuclear (a point which I am strongly in agreement with).

Hoping that everyone will spontaneously adopt carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is also a non-starter solution. First of all, CCS doesn't exist at commercial scale. Secondly, even if we could make it work at scale, and even it could be magically retrofitted on every coal plant (which we don't know how to do), it would require all countries to agree to add about 30% in extra cost for no perceivable benefit. At the recent G8 conference, India and China have made it clear yet again that they aren't going to agree to emission goals.

Saying that we'll invent some magical new technology that will rescue us at the last minute is a bad solution. That's at best a poor contingency plan.

The point is this: It should be apparent to us that we aren't going to be able to solve the climate crisis by either "force" (economic coercion or legislation) or by international agreement. And relying on technologies like CCS that may never work is a really bad idea.

The only remaining way to solve the crisis is to make it economically irresistible for countries to "do the right thing." The best way to do that is to give the world a way to generate electric power that is economically more attractive than coal with the same benefits as coal (compact power plants, 24x7 generation, can be sited almost anywhere, etc). Even better is if the new technology can simply replace the existing burner in a coal plant. That way, they'll want to switch. No coercion is required.

Since Obama doesn't have a plan and I'm not aware of a viable plan that experts agree can move the entire world off of coal, I thought I'd propose one that is viable. You may not like it, but if there is a better alternative that is practical and viable, please let me know because none of the experts I've consulted with are aware of one.

The Kirsch plan for saving the planet

The Kirsch plan for saving the planet is very simple and practical.

My plan is based on a simple observation:

Nuclear is the elephant in the room

70% of the carbon free power in America is still generated by nuclear, even though we haven't built a new nuclear plant in this country in the last 30 years. Hydro is a distant second. Wind and solar are rounding error. Worldwide, it's even more skewed: nuclear is more than 100 times bigger than solar and more than 100 times bigger than wind. If I drew a bar chart of nuclear vs. solar vs. wind use worldwide, you wouldn't even see solar and wind on the chart.

So our best bet is to join the parade and get behind supporting the big elephant. We put all the wood behind one arrow: nuclear. We invest in and promote these new, low-cost modular nuclear designs worldwide and get the volumes up so we can drive the price down. These plants are low-cost, can be built in small capacities, can be manufactured quickly, and assembled on-site in a few years.

Nuclear can be rolled out very quickly. About two thirds of the currently operating 440 reactors around the world came online during a 10 year period between 1980 and 1990. In southeast Asia, reactors are typically constructed in 4 years or less (about 44 months)

Secondly, the nuclear reactor can replace the burner in a coal plant making upgrading an existing coal plant very cost effective. Finally, it is also critically important for big entities (such as the U.S. government in partnership with other governments) to offer low-cost financing to bring down the upfront cash investment in a new nuclear reactor to be less than that required to build a coal plant.

Under my plan, we now have a way to economically displace the building of new coal plants that nobody can refuse. People will then want to build modular nuclear plants because since they are cheaper, last longer, and are cleaner than coal. No legislation or mandate is required.

My plan is credible since it doesn't require Congress to act. Power companies worldwide simply make an economic decision to do the right thing. No force required.

My plan would provide huge economic benefits to the United States. We'd create jobs, improve our trade deficit, and get a nice on-going monthly cash flow from the plants we finance. So whether you believe in global warming or not, this plan works.

The only political impediment to overcome is to convince those countries that have a ban on nuclear to reconsider. However, this is not strictly required since the few countries that have such a ban have relatively small coal emissions compared to the countries that have no such ban.

Nuclear waste and proliferation issues are quite manageable. These issues are covered in my Huffington Post article "Climate Bill Ignores Our Biggest Clean Energy Source."

Do we really think we solve our biggest crisis without a plan? That would be insane. If the White House doesn't like my plan then they should propose a more viable plan, communicate it to the world, and start implementing it now, while there is still time.

Follow Steve Kirsch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spamguy

Comments

[ceolas]

Yes I agree that a direct simple approach is better
Cap and Trade is an unwieldy mess.
Transport and Electricity generation account for 4/5 of emissions - not only is it easier and better to focus on them and easier to achieve international agreements without trade etc problems, they also have benefits in themselves, regardless of the value or not of the CO2 lowering effects the changes also bring.
Energy efficiency regulation is wrong and not needed.

Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

The Way Forward
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
Introduction — Funding and Impact — Energy Efficiency — A New Electric America
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation

[ceolas]

Yes I agree with a simpler more direct approach including nuclear expansion.
Cap and trade is clearly an unwieldy mess.
Transport and electricity generation account for 4/5 of emissions - put the big focus there, forget the rest, in any first phase reduction agreements.

Rather than writing a long blog post here, those interested can read more via the links.

Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

The Way Forward
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
Introduction — Funding and Impact — Energy Efficiency — A New Electric America
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation

[BruceCarson]

It's Republicans who favor nuclear energy. Bush passed the Nuclear 2010 program which encouraged more nuclear power and made it easier to get regulatory approval. Palin wants small nuclear reactors for towns in ALASKA. Do we really want to be on the same side of the issue as Palin, of all people?

Let's stick to green energy & safe energy. Also, Obama closed Yucca, and as he said we need to address the waste issue and safety issues before we consider nuclear as an option in the future (he said this back in 2008). Let Republicans have their nuclear power and nuclear waste.

[research]

Doesn't require governmnet intervention?

Except for insurance!

It's better than coal? Not really, does that mean I want coal? No.

Rooftop solar is the cheapest electrical source available.
1.85 per peak watt! retail!
http://www.atensolar.com/14.html
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

Please go to these sites, you can purchase pallets of solar collectors for less than 2$ per peak watt, 3 cents per KWH plus 1 cent for inverters and connect.

Please provide the web site for ordering new nuclear power plants delivered this week please? No? And it will cost more? And it will allow more dirty bombs and proliferation?

Where is the logic?

If you have the right location and roof, please find out what programs are available to reduce and finance your solar installation.

What Rooftop Solar can't provide, biofuels and natural gas can.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

To: rf-hawaii, alvdh1, and research

Rather than keep going down rat holes, I think it would help to summarize your position for the readers.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Today, the Australian government has realized that they can't meet their energy needs relying only on renewables. Let's assume they read this blog and all the comments and they agree with you that both coal and nuclear are both evil. But unfortunately, they are now down to those two options in some areas of their country. Would you advise them to build coal? Or nuclear? Or would you say it doesn't matter that they are equivalent?

2. The IFR reactor technology we developed in the US is safer and cleaner than any of the existing nuclear reactor designs. Let's assume for a second that that is a fact (we can debate that next). For countries who have made a commitment to nuclear, do you think we should give them our technology so that they will have less waste and less chance of an accident? Or should we withhold that technology from them?

3. The IFR reprocessing is a cleaner and safer way to dispose of nuclear waste than any of the alternatives. It is also financially attractive to dispose of waste this way. Let's assume again that both those statements are true for the moment. Do you believe we should withhold this technology from countries with a nuclear waste problem? Or give it to them?

[alvdh1]

Steve,

Read the Amory Lovins article called: Forget Nuclear and address energy efficiency and its costs on a per kw basis creating negawatts of energy. Then address how the the 48 state monopoly utilities enjoy prevents private industry from producing electricty at their industrial plants utilizing waste steam.
Frome here discuss how this monopoly enjoyed by utilities eliminates competition from other energy suppliers especially residential and small business potential producers of wind, biomass and solar.
Then further expand on this notion of how the monopoly structure fosters energy waste as opposed to energy efficiency. Specifically, how the utilities can go to the PCS/PUC and ask for a rate increase to build another inefficient coal fired power plant when their capacity has been absorbed under a structure that discounts rates to commercial users which does nothing to encourage energy efficiency or conservation because the true price of coal is not reflected on the customers bill. Those being the externalized social and environmental costs.

Then explain how the playing field would be leveled by allowing all producers to feed excess capacity into the grid at full market rates under a Independent Service Operator (ISO) structure where the ISO owns the grid and buys the power. Then imagine and then explain how this would foster the ide spread development of cogeneration power plants at the industry level, solar, wind and biomass.

Then explain how the ISO system would create defacto time of day pricing that would encourage conservation during peak demand periods.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

Seriously, you need to answer two things first:

1) why is any of that relevant to whether nuclear is a better option than coal
2) given a choice between nuclear or coal, which would you rather have in your backyard?

[research]

It's relevant because it another misrepresentation you have made of many.

Amory Lovins is totally against nukes, but you claimed he was for them. You claimed no one has died from radiation, you claimed solar was expensive when it's just 3 cents per kwh, you claimed nukes were cheaper, when the historical total cost of nukes is 25 cents per kwh, you claimed that all the technical parts were in place,m but the reprocessing system you propose has not been tested at scale.

You lost on every possible factual argument already:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html

Now you try to convince that "everybody else is doing, so why shouldn't we".

Why are you so desperate to ignore the facts and push this deadly nuclear boondoggle?

You know humans are not ready to Nukes, we cannot be trusted with them.
Others following this argument can see more proof at my profile.

[alvdh1]

The problem Steve is you keep saying it is either or when it come to coal or nuclear. Neither is a good option. Austrailia has banned the incandescent light bulb as a start for negawatt of electric power. I find it hard to believe that the majority of Australia is desert with limitless sunshine and the government would say they canot meet their energy needs with alternative energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, tidal, wave, biomass, thermal gradient, geothermal and hydorgen produced from wind, solar, biomass, tidal, wave, geothermal, and thermal gradient as a back up energy carrier for night time electrial production. Whenever you get into an either or arguement you get boxed in with few options. This is exactly where you have positioned yourself in an attempt to limit the discussion. Whenever someone mentions alternatives, you fall back to the either or arguement as a defense of your nuclear promotion. You can't have it one way and everytime you post an article with limits of choice you will most assuredly get the same challenges.

There is no better energy plan than what Amory lovins promotes from an economic and climate change perspective. I would encourage you to read him in detail so that at least you can argue against his plan from a knowledge and fact based position. Reducing it to coal or nuclear is no arguement which allows for debate.

[research]

rooftop solar is 3 cent per KWH versus nukes 25 cents per KWH.

Rooftop solar is ready to go now.

And we don't have to risk proliferation.
See my profile for proof.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

Let's assume you are right (which you aren't, but let's assume it). Then explain why they are building new coal plants and nuclear plants in China.

[research]

That's is just not an argumnet.

Other people are doing it? Did you parents let you get away with that?

And you sure misrepresented Amory Lovins view of Nukes, didn't you?

Ask them. Maybe they want more weapons material.

The fact is, Solar is 2$ per peak watt installed for commercial, and near that for the DIY'ers.

[alvdh1]

Steve,

In 2007 China, Spain and the U.S. added more windpower capacity than the world added nuclear capacity and micropower capacity grew 18 times faster.

Just so we are clear Steve:

I am directly quoting Amory Lovins from his conclusion to his Spring 2008 Solutions article called: Forget Nuclear. Again this is a direct quote- which is verifiable by Huffington Post, you or anyone else by visiting the Rocky Mountain Institute Website and reading the conclusion to the article.

"So why do otherwise well-informed people still consider nuclear power a key element of a sound climate strategy? Not because that belief can withstand analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, because of a superficially attractive story, an immensely powerful lobby, a new generation who forgot or never knew why nuclear power failed previously (almost nothing has changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly all main governments, deeply rooted habits and rules that favor giant power plants over distributed solutions and enlarged supply over efficient use, the market winners' absence from many official databases ( which often count only big plants owned by utilities), and lazy reporting by an unduly credulous press.

"It is time to forget about nuclear power? Informed capitalists have". To Be Continued below.

[alvdh1]

China is a communist country and choices are limited by the ruling government. They do plan to install 100 gigawatts of wind by 2020. They have massive solar subsidies. Merkel is the new leader of Germany and her decision to expand the use of coal is a bad decision, especially when she is simultaneously cutting feedin tarrifs for solar. I am not in charge of China or Germany. Eventually, they may see the fallacy of their coal plans. It doesn't make me limit my choice to promote energy efficiency and conservation first and then alternative energy. Being a zealot of one choice is tantamount to putting all of your eggs into one basket. We need energy diversity not a monoculture of energy reliant on nuclear soley. What happens if we put all of our eggs in the nuclear basket and there is terrorist attack or a major accident occurs at a nuclear facility. The nymby syndrone will kick in and how reliable will that be. Nuclear starves cheaper choices of energy of much need capital.

[chapluqa]

I haven't read through all the previous comments, but it appears that no one is mentioning the other "elephant in the room" with respect to nuclear power - where do you get the fuel? The fact is that uranium is getting harder and harder to find and take out of the earth, and so there are massive amounts of CO2 being produced by all the heavy machinery used in the mining and transport process. Calling nuclear power "carbon free" is disingenuous because it is only looking at the amount produced at the plant itself....
I agree that some places may need to use nuclear as a transition energy source, but it is NOT the answer that Steve Kirsch makes it out to be. As for a concrete plan to transform the energy sector, perhaps no one has made one for the US, but here in Australia (where 80% of the energy supply comes from burning coal), one of my colleagues has written and entire book devoted to the subject, (called "Greenhouse Solutions With Renewable Energy") which presents a clearly laid out, economically feasible plan to move away from coal and into renewable energy, with a transition phase using some natural gas before shifting to renewable energy. The technologies exist and the economics are sound, but political will is lacking - let's stop pretending otherwise and start lobbying the government. As long as the powerful corporate interests have the attention of the politicians, nothing will ever really change.

[guinganbresil]

Fuel is not a problem.

Through repreocessing (PUREX), the U235 can be recovered from a spent core and recycled. The U.S. does not currently do this as a result of a misguided policy regarding non-prolif­eration...

The Pu can be recovered and used in mixed oxide fuels (also a good way to get rid of old weapon cores.). To get EVEN more fuel, reactors can be designed to convert U238 into Pu (breeding). This is a DRASTIC increase because U235 is only a very small fraction of natural uranium - the rest is almost all U238. If we did this, it would significantly reduce our need to mine - and would provide a non-military demand for depleted uranium!

If push came to shove (1000's of years from now!) we could start including Th232 in the mix and breed U233. All of the natural thorium is Th232, and it is more abundant than uranium! If I recall the numbers correctly, it could supply us with energy for tens of thousands of years.

[research]

reprocessing multiplies the waste stream 100 times and only adds about 20% to the total energy from the fuel.

[research]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

reprocessing the fuel rods is not worth it. Ask the French.
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-2/charpin.html

reprocessing is NOT breeding new fuel, it is just getting the last 5%-25% energy out of the fuel, NOT 20 times more energy reprocessing creates over 100 times as much nuke waste.

MIT "Insurmountable Risks":
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf

[research]

"Reprocessing does not recycle nuclear waste, but separates it into different waste streams and increases the total volume of nuclear waste to be disposed of by a factor of twenty or greater."

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/global-nuclear-energy-partnership.pdf

[guinganbresil]

On the carbon front, there is some CO2 emissions during the construction and as a result of fuel enrichment. The CO2 outputs of a nuclear plant are very, VERY low on a per kWh basis compared with other sources. It actually beats out wind and solar! - it is a little worse than hydro, since hydro has no fuel CO2 emissions over its lifecyle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html

[NL207]

"noted climate scientist James Hansen "

The fellow whose model predictions have consistently overstated warming? He has no credibility as a climate forecaster.

"averting a global climate catastrophe"

What catastrophe? Ceratinly not from getting 1 or even 3 degrees C warmer. Now, if you want a catastrophe to human life, let the climate cool 1 or 2 degrees C. We know all about what that does from the Maunder, Sporer and Dalton mimina.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

If you don't like Hansen, then rely on the IPCC report. They always undershoot the target.

As for 3 degrees C, I high recommend Mark Lynas' book "Six degrees". It's the most comprehensive look at what happens at 3 degrees that I've run across.

[Ozarks]

i agree with your comment about nuke plants not being built for the last 30 years. See 8th Circuit 1981 case which, relying on my direct , rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony did NOT remand or overturn MoPSC exclusion of Wolf Creek nuke plant regarding its "cost overruns" and not being "used and useful". A nuke plant today would cost $30 Billion. State Rule compliance with Fed Statute requiring a "Decommissioning Trust Fund" causes another $20 to $30 Billion funded over 27 economic life of a nuke plant, just to decommission your allegedly "clean" nuke power. All nuke plants now store nuke fuel rod waste in "temporary storage pools" with an economic life of 27 years and real life of maybe 40 years.. As for your "Nuclear waste and proliferation issues are quite manageable"; This one line joke is reprehensible if you take a look at the Yucca Mountain $9 billion rat hole fiasco. Pres Carter vetoed Senate bill 1445 because reprocessing fuel rod waste would reduce lethal half life of radioactive isotopes from 100,000 + years to 3000 + years but have a by product of your alleged "manageable" weapons grade Plutonium. YOU are a joke if you call 3000+ years storage "manageable. bud

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

I said it is manageable and I explained how in the post that apparently you didn't read (the one referred to at the bottom of this post). I said 300 years is mangable in my blog post. How you got 3,000 is a mystery to me.

Of course there are bad ways to manage it (as we've seen), and I'm optimistic that they'll finally decide on fast reactors and pyroprocessing which is the best way to manage the waste.

I only said you can do it.

[guinganbresil]

3000+ years is definitely manageable from a technical point of view.

Proof of concept: Mother Nature constructed a few reactors in Oklo, Gabon...

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

"Plutonium has moved less than 10 feet from where it was formed almost two billion years ago."

Hanging political failures (Yucca Mountain, President Carter...) and legal obstructionism on nuclear technology is disingenous.

[research]

Humans cannot be trusted with nuclear waste. it will always be a temptation to do the cheap thing, rather than the right thing.

Yucca mountain on a fault line, and will be full in ten years.

If it were just the law, no nukes would get insurance, and none would be built.

[Catmandu85219]

France has over 90% of its power supplied by nuclear plants. They are the leaders in nuclear power. The newest plant they are working on is using a method to create zero nuclear waste.
It should be online very soon. We should follow France's lead, or take the lead ourselves and build safe and effective power plants.
Most of my power here in the Phoenix AZ area is nuclear.
We cannot return to a Neolithic lifestyle, we must move forward.

[alvdh1]

What a joke. You are not really referring to France as a leader in nuclear technology. Read the Alternet March 23, 2009 article on the ongoing catasprophy involving the French civilian nuclear reactor program.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

And the French reprocessing is exactly the reason the US should restart the IFR and its pyroprocessing. That waste isn't going away. The best way to handle it is with our pyroprocessing technology which uses the French waste for power. That's what the DOE found after studying the problem for 20 years.

Now if you know something different than what the experts at the DOE know, you should enlighten us all.

What's your better solution to the French waste that beats pyprocessing in both cost, safety, and proliferation? I'm all ears.

[research]

And Kirsch won't bother to tell you that the reprocessing part of his nightmare hasn't been test on commercial scale.

[research]

Great reference!

http://www.alternet.org/world/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3b_let%27s_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./

[rf-hawaii]

Interesting that you minimize the current growth and impact of the various renewables, suggesting they haven't arrived yet, when your vaunted fast reactor itself has never even been built.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm happy to have renewables grow as fast as possible. I am only advocating nuclear when the choice is between a coal plant or nuclear. If you can replace a coal plant with a renewable plant, GREAT!

But you can't do that in all areas, so that's why nuclear is essential.

And please stop making false statements like "your vaunted fast reactor itself has never even been built." That is re-writing history. The reactor was built and operated without a mishap for 30 years. Where are you getting such misinformation?

You should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II for more information.

And if you were forced to choose between a coal plant or a nuclear reactor, which would you rather have in your backyard?

[research]

But the reprocessing system has NOT operated ever.

[research]

They have not run a prototype full scale or near scale on site reprocessing system of the type you include in you design.

"# Reprocessing nuclear fuel using pyroprocessing and electrorefining has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale. As such, investing in a large IFR plant is considered a higher financial risk than a conventional light water reactor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Key_disadvantages

[entropygal]

What I like most about conservative energy plans: they decry that we won't open up these pristine areas to oil drilling. Then they say how we cannot put wind power on land plots because they are unsightly and the tourists won't like them.

Solar and wind are a blip because we haven't begun to convert to them yet. All energy sources start as a blip sometime. Nuclear is hazardous, another reason why conservatives love that alternative so much.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

In the entire 50 year history of commercial nuclear in the United States, one person is estimated to have died in the Three Mile Island accident.

Newer reactors are even safer. A thorough risk assessment was done on the GE-Hitachi ESBWR and found that a Three Mile Island style meltdown accident could occur once every 29 million reactor years.

You think this is "hazardous"?!?!? Give me a break!

[alvdh1]

When you use NRC and industry statistics, the world appear bright and rosy. When you take it a step further and read the reports and research from independent scientist, the story isn't so rosy. Read the IIS Investigation of the Three MIle Island Unit 2 accident. People died and lots of them, just not in the immediate aftermath of the accident. The Mikemeny Commission and NRC reports are a complete coverup of the truth of what occured at TMI-2.

[guinganbresil]

I can't speak for conservatives, but the data indicates that nuclear is safer than Wind and Solar.

The footprint of a nuclear plant is much smaller than an equivalent solar or wind plant - they are even looking at smaller designs...

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

[research]

bs

16 million deaths from nuclear radiation?

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/RB89.html

More deaths from nuclear power waste:

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radchart.htm

More radiation Deaths:

"The researchers also found that 28 Oak Ridge workers died of leukemia, a relatively rare blood cancer, a rate of death 63 percent higher than expected among white men as a whole."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/20/us/study-links-cancer-deaths-and-low-levels-of-radiation.html

Not to mention global nuclear war or dirty bombs caused by increased proliferation. Always missing the systemic risk, aren't you?

[alvdh1]

Steve Kirsch,

You replied to a comment of mine regarding Amory Lovins, the founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
His organization is dedicated to energy efficiency first and alternative energy. You stated in your reply that Amory Lovins has said that we cannot eliminate nuclear power. I would like for you to provide your source or retract your comment. Amory has spent his life defining how energy delivery is best delivered through decentralized power stations and local alternative power in the form of solar, wind, biomass, tidal, wave, geothermal and natural gas. Never has he endorsed nuclear power in any form.

Therefore, please provide your source or fully retract the statement.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

My source was an email from Tom Blees to Carl Pope dated Feb 8, 2009 at 12:38am when Blees pointed out that when he finally met with Lovins a few weeks earlier that even Lovins had a hard time arguing against Hansen's position that we should build an IFR as soon as possible.

So why don't you call up Carl Pope and he can verify that I didn't make this up? And then you can post an apology.

But why should that surprise you? That's consistent with EVERY SINGLE ENERGY EXPERT that attended the Aspen Institute Energy Forum earlier this year. None of them said we can rule out nuclear. Not one.

So for Lovins to actually take such an extreme position that we can ABSOLUTELY rule out nuclear would in fact be surprising and pretty irresponsible.

For example, in the UK, they did an analysis and couldn't rule out nuclear. The electric power companies in Japan did the same thing. Couldn't rule out nuclear.

[alvdh1]

I will call Amory.

[research]

Armory Lovins is passionately AGAINST nuclear:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes

[rf-hawaii]

Nuclear went to theory to production is ten years. There's no reason the much safer alternatives can't do it in less.

This is the nuclear industry's last chance and they know it. We need to hold them off just a little longer.

[Steve Kirsch - Huffpost Blogger]

That's a great hope. I wished it were true.

Can we get back to reality for a sec?

Explain how Japan will get this renewable power, for example. They basically have no solar, hydro is tapped out, and there is very little wind.

See: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/19/we-need-a-real-global-plan-for-carbon-mitigation/

Then explain how you propose to power Japan with these safer alternatives.

[alvdh1]

It is pretty simple Steve, tidal, wave, geothermal, solar, biomass, wind, energy efficiency, natural gas, hydrogen, energy conservation mass transportation, car pooling, bicycles and the list goes on and on.

[rf-hawaii]

Can we get back to reality for a sec?

Japan is one tiny little piece of the world. Give them their darn nuclear and let's get back to figuring out what's right for the rest of us.

[RhodaA]

WE CAN. Keep writing senators and congressmen. Here is a good first paragraph:

Dear . . .
The Nation is sickened by bloated lobbyists and their agents in Congress who have no conscience; who would feed us backdoor garbage, and use money in a way that defiles our planet and quality of life.