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:
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.Nuclear is the elephant in the room
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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Fortunately, wind, solar and other alternative sources are coming along rapidly and will shut down the call for dirty and dangerous nuclear in just a few short years.
Nuclear is completely untrustworthy. It hides under the banner of 'national security'. Whenever anything bad happens the press and all other inquiries are tightly controlled -- leaving the industry to essentially police itself.
Nuclear is much more dangerous than we are lead to believe.
Unfortunately, wind, solar and other alternatives are untrustworthy (assumed availability of ~15% of rated capacity).
The allegation that issues with nuclear power are suppressed is patently false - I have seen national news reports of insignificant occurances at nuclear plants - fatalities that occur at other generating facilities frequently go unreported
http://www
http://www
http://www
From what I can see, a thunderstorm knocked out power in the area and the plant automatically shut down - this is what it is supposed to do. This is not "hiding behind national security".
Doesn't prove nuclear accidents aren't suppressed. Since the same people who build and run nuclear power reactors also do our weapons facilities, there is a national interest in downplaying "nuclear incidents" . Remember too that nuclear power facility are considered terrorist targets, and are therefore subject to great secrecy.
Rooftop solar in CA and the sunny parts of the world averages about 25% of capacity, fortunately solar is "Peaking generation" since it happens when electricity is need most.
BioFuels, biochar of wastes can supply all the fuels and additional energy needed.
And we have natural gas for backup if we replace it's big use with solar.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Regarding "Nuclear is much more dangerous than we are lead to believe" I think the comments here show the opposite..
I'm only proposing nuclear where you can't replace a coal plant with a rewewable plant.
Which would you rather have in your backyard?
As for danger, according to the government estimate, a meltdown would have to occur every week or so somewhere in the United States before nuclear power would be as dangerous as coal burning. See http://www
A renewable wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, thermal gradient, energy efficiency, energy conservation, mass transportation, biomass, natural gas and hydrogen driven economy.
Nuclear reactions inside our planet's core power global tectonics and volcanoes. There are many places around the globe where the Earth's mantle has hot spots relatively close to the surface. The vast majority of these hot spots have not yet been tapped into. If we would use a fraction of the governmental resources that were used at one time to build the nuclear reactors that are in use today, we could harvest an immense amount of "low hanging fruit" in the georthermal power sector.
Our government has, in the past, used its resources for projects as varied as building the nation's hydro power plants, in the 1930s, the nation's highway system, in the 1950s, going to the moon, in the 1960s, and the nuclear reactor network, from the 50s to the 70s. I would like to see us duplicate the vast efforts of the past, to build up our alternative energy network in solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, ocean current, and biogas. As with the other programs that we have pursued, the benefits would be manifold and long lasting. The consequences of not pursueing such a program may be that other nations will surpass us as the world leaders in this area.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
I think geothermal is great. We should use it where it is available and keep doing research so we can tap it in more places (EGS).
If it works it would be great advance.
MIT suggested we invest $1B over 15 years to to do this.
See:
http://en.
We should be pursuing ALL of these options.
$1B is good, but $10 billion is better, and $100 billion is best.
If your newfangled, untested 'fast reactor' works out maybe we can consider it too.
"Nuclear reactions inside our planet's core power global tectonics and volcanoes"
Where do you get this idea from?
The prevailing scientific opinion on the topic is that Earth's core still retains much of the heat that was generated when the Earth was formed. It also holds that earth's core has been steadily cooling for the last 3 + Billion years which has been the heat source driving plate tectonics and vulcanism. A few papers are out there attributing some heat generation to radioisotopes but none of these link it to vulcanism or plate tectonics.
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
Geothermal causes earth quakes.
Mr. Kirsch:
It would behoove you to research on the effects of Low-Level Nuclear Radiation on the atmosphere, environment and the occurrence of cancer; never mind the storage probelm. Please do this before profligating any more false infomation about this deadly form of energy.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
But even in our worst disaster (Three Mile Island), nobody died. And nobody died from cancer.
But suppose we assume you are right.
Nuclear power plant emit 100 times less radiation than a typical coal plant! In addition, coal plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year.
And new nuclear designs have a Three Mile Island type of failure once every 29 million years.
So I'm proposing replacing coal plants with a much safer alternative.
Can you tell us what you are doing to shut down coal plants? I'd bet nothing. I'll bet you've never even posted anything about the dangers of coal plants. So why are you getting so upset about nuclear which is 100 times safer than coal (radiation wise which was your complaint) when you aren't getting upset at all about coal???
My point is coal is viewed as an acceptable risk in the US since people like RhodaA don't complain about it. Yet nuclear is 100 times less risky. My suggestion is that if we can't use renewables, that we replace the coal plants with something 100 times less risky. What's wrong with that?
Mr. Kirsch:
Don't bet against me. You are wrong to make assumptions about what I've done. Besides, you sound angry rather than concerned.
I am not talking about a short-term potential disaster such as a "Three-Mile Island." I am talking about the longer-term effects of LOW-LEVEL radiation. One source you may consider reading is "Poisoned Power." But there are many. To decry nuclear energy DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN an acceptance of coal. Nuclear and fossil fuels are both Deadly.
Thanks.
Why don't you speak of the radiation created by a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant. When explained in this fashion, it dwarfs the amount of radiation created by burning coal.
The equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima sized bombs worth of radiation per year per 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant. It is so much easier for you to mask the true quantities when you gloss over the real facts. Lastly, it is a safe bet that anyone on this site who is against nuclear power is against the burning of coal.
Neither are needed to supply our energy needs if we institute strong incentives for energy efficiency, energy conservation followed by incentives and access to the grid for alternative energy such as biomass, geothermal, tidal, wave, thermal gradient, solar wind, natural gas and hydrogen. If there is a shortage after all of these are fully developed, then we can take a look at limited nuclear.
Ending the 48 state utility monopoly structure of a guaranteed rate of return coupled to cap and trade or a carbon tax with access to the grid for residential and small business producers of solar and wind who receive full market rates for their excess capacity will force coal and nuclear to compete on a more level playing field. Specifically, when a utility has a monopoly, there is no competition or reason to encourage energy efficiency or conservation.
So the choice is to suffocate over a few decades, unless you drown in the floods, or wait for the next Chernobyl to take out a state or two in one shot. I lived near TMI a few years after the event. I honestly didn't give it a thought until I received a copy of the evacuation plan for those living within a few miles of the remaining reactor. When I read it, it was apparent that it was hopeless, too many peole and too few roads. So if you are willing to have these nuke plants in your backyard or maybe in Texas (a place far from me and responsible in part for the past 8 years of total ignorance) or some place similar, I'll pass on any new ones.
Stop subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear. Put the money saved into genuine energy research.
Nobody died?
The friends and relatives of those that got sick and died a year or two later would disagree.
I assume they don't count in your assessment.
Do some google searches on Three Mile Island and learn for yourself.
People died from Three Mile Island and are still dying.
http://www
The theory that low level chronic radiation is insidious is based on the adoption of the Linear No-Threshold Model for REGULATION of radiation. I agree with the use of the model for exposure control since it is a simple model, and emphasizes minimizing exposure. However, the model is NOT accurate when it comes to the actual EFFECTS of low levels of radiation.
There is quite a bit of research that shows that there is a Radiation Hormesis effect - essentially that low levels of ionizing radiation (actually a bit above background) are BENEFICIAL. There are HUNDREDS of studies supporting radiation hormesis.
http://en.
I understand that this flies in the face of commonly held beliefs about radiation and is a little counterintuitive, but this is what the research shows. Radiation Hormesis is an example of the old saw "The Dose Makes the Poison". Example: Iron is toxic in large doses but vital in low doses.
http://www
Please research Radiation Hormesis with an open mind before profligating any more false information about this amazing and safe form of energy
http://1ec
watch the video.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
The 1 minute video makes it sound like if you have a nuclear reactor you can build a bomb. That is silly.
Any nuclear reactor can be made to produce plutonium.
But it is not so easy at all to take that material, purify it, and build a nuclear bomb and be able to launch and target that bomb accurately. Only countries have the resources to do that.
And if they have the resources to do that, getting the material is the least of their problems.
The genie is already out of the bottle on that one.
Steve,
It really doesn't matter whether it is a nuclear bomb or a dirty nuclear bomb. The mass panic from either will be enough to shut down nuclear power and turn the world into a police state. The genie is out of the bottle so it apparently makes sense to make the situation worse according to your logic. Read the March 23, 2009 Alternet article on the the pending French nuclear catastrophy and respond. Read Dr. John W. Gofman's book, Poisoned Power and respond. Watch Amory Lovin's MIT video, Winning the Oil End Game and repond to your half baked comment that nobody has a solution.
Nuclear; the most expensive way to boil water known to man.
The worst nuclear disaster in the history of America happened 50 years ago this month, just a short drive north of Los Angeles. For weeks, after one of several nuclear reactor meltdowns at the Rockwell facility in the Santa Susanna mountains, radioactive leaks into the air and into the ground went unchecked. Many tens of thousands of people were exposed to elevated levels of radioactivity, and the leak was kept secret from the public for more than a decade. The radioactive contamination at the site has still not been cleaned up.
Nuclear energy is indeed very clean, at least until it isn't.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
And nobody died in that worst nuclear reactor accident you cite!
Fortunately though we aren't basing our decisions today on 50 year old technology!
Design safety of modern day reactors are orders of magnitude better than original nuclear plants. A thorough risk assessment was done on the GE-Hitachi ESBWR and found that a 3 mile island style meltdown accident (where the reactor was damaged but nobody was killed or injured from the radiation) could occur once every 29 million reactor years.
I think that is a pretty acceptable risk, don't you? Especially when the alternative is game over for the planet.
Steve,
Apparently you haventy heard of the cold corpse theory nor do you care to. You ignore all of the grim details and history of the nuclear power industry past and present, Then you have the audacity to say nuclear poison is the answer to our climate change salvation because no other solutions exist. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Unless, as you are, blind to the alternatives.
You are nothing less than a sycophant for the nuclear industry who has a penchant for omitting the facts. When confronted with the facts, you blandly gloss over them as if they do not exist. I have challenged you in every advertisement you have posted on Huff Post to respond to the March 23, 2009 Alternet story on the French nuclear power industry. Without fail, you have ignored the pending nuclear catastrophy in France. When challenged by me to respond to Dr. John W. Gofman's research you have run for the hills with your tail between your legs.
When put to the task, as the gentle above did, you respond with your glib nobody died lies and things will be better going forward with new designs. Apparently you didn't read the Huff Post by Michael Rose on July 14, 2009 regarding the L.A. Sodium Reactor Experiment. Just read the story and tell me how you came to the conclusion that nobody died. The whole fiasco has been buried for 50 years. Yet, you have the audacity to say nobody died.
We cannot depend on the independent contractors or on our government to tell us when nuclear accidents have happened, if the case of the multiple meltdowns and leaks in Ventura County in the 50s and 60s are to be used as an example. The point is not just that nuclear accidents have happened, but that when they happen next time, we cannot depend on those responsible to tell us that one is underway.
The accidents in Ventura County exposed many, many thousands of Americans to elevated levels of radiation in the air, ground, and water, and the radiation has not to this day been cleaned up. This one accident alone dumped much more radioactivity into the biosphere than did Three Mile Island.
Studies have been done which concluded that we can never know exactly how many people died prematurely due to their exposure to the radiation leaks just north of Los Angeles, but that it is reasonable to conclude that thousands of Southlanders died from cancer sooner than they would have otherwise.
A large geothermal electrical power plant in California, The Geysers, just north of San Francisco, produces about half of all the geothermal power on the planet. Why not duplicate this effort?
For a few decades, until we found out how expensive and unsafe they are, our government funded nuclear power plant construction. I would like to see us make a similar effort today in the alternative energy field.
People died.
http://www
No one died, no one died, no one died ...
In your scoring system if they didn't croak the first day they don't count.
There is nothing acceptable about your risk. Unless profit is all that matters.
People like you need to be made to live in one of these disaster areas for a year or two to enjoy the safe clean air.
Why would we ever want to risk the lives of fellow citizens in this terrible way? Even if it was cheap, which it's not -- the human price is too damned high!
Whenever there's a hint of danger to human life and there's an alternative then there should be no question which choice to make. If only bean counters would remember their humanity from time to time.
Livestock industry is the primary cause of climate change, it's not coal industry. It's wiser to attack the primary problem.
Vegans have weak bones, are pastey-looking, and are chronically unhealthy. As a species we are omnivorus when we must be, carnivorus by choice.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Your statement lacks any scientific basis whatsoever. Your "fact" seems to have escaped the thousands of scientists who worked on the IPCC report.
While a surprisingly large amount of pollutants are produced in association with feedlot operations, the amount of CO2 produced is not as large as that produced in coal and natual gas power plants. Also not to be outdone is the pollution associated with burning petrochemicals in our cars and trucks, which is reported to account for about 25% of our CO2 production.
Steve,
"...Unfort
Your words.
BUT, as you know, my brother, TOM BLEES, has proposed just such a plan in his "Prescription for the Planet". Let's give credit....
Jim Blees
Anchorage, AK
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
You're right. It should have read, "Nobody (except Tom Blees) ..."
Your right. It should have reave read, "Nobody, except Tom Blees, Amory Lovins and thousands of other people if you actually bothered to look as you didn't do with the L.A. reactor commentary-Michael Rose July 14, 2009 Huff Post article.
the thing i love most about this plan, is that..., unlike oil..., uranium doesn't deplete
there's no such thing as peak uranium
and the uranium ores will remain high grade forever
it's very well thought out
OK..., time for plan B
from a physicist or some other scientist please
Recycle U-235, Breed Pu-239 from U-238, Breed U-233 from Th-232...
Nuclear can supply power for THOUSANDS of years!
go ahead and do it
so everyone else can follow your lead
i should add...
you will need to build these and scale them up very fast
becuase unless iraq starts producing allot more oil soon...,
or biggest immediate problem isn't climate change...,
it's PEAK OIL
and we've been on a plateau since 2005
so the sooner you get this project going, the better
"unlike oil..., uranium doesn't deplete
there's no such thing as peak uranium
and the uranium ores will remain high grade forever"
That's closer to the truth than 'leduck' thinks. A brief price spike to $360,000 per tonne a few years ago has led to a gradual, continuing production increase, despite the subsequent fall of the price to $140,000 or so per tonne. Meanwhile, fossil fuels stay at a million per U-tonne-equivalent (coal) or four million (natgas) or more (oil), and taxes of a million or two per U-tonne-equivalent are important revenue sources for Western governments. Interestingly, strong U production increases have been occurring in countries without so many oil and gas tax payers, and so less governmental conflict of interest.
There is no such thing as peak uranium because the rate of uranium usage is limited not by supply, but by legal limits that will undoubtedly someday be set on the fraction of the Earth's infrared output that is due to heat from human devices; maybe a two-percent limit will be set. This will put a ceiling on how much U can be put through once-through reactors like today's of about 100 million tonnes per year. If the breeders 'guinganbresil' mentions become dominant, they will eat up the thermal limit using only one million tonnes a year. Either way, a plateau not a peak.
I plan to challenge Obama in the next election
my plan to deal with climate change is to move everything to mars
You lose. It has been getting warmer on Mars as well as Earth. Obviously those damned Martians have been burning too much fossil fuel.
Mr Kirsch:
Your plan is absurd, in that it ignores three basic realiites.
First, energy efficiency is the cheapest, most abundant source of new energy -- at a price equivalent to between 2-4 cents per kW, the US could cut it's energy use in half.
Second, nukes are extraordinarilly expensive, costing more that 20 cents per kW to build. For example, Canada recently ditched a planned expansion of their Darlington nuclear power facility because it cost too much -- $26 billion. Finland dropped a smaller nuke because it came in at $8 billion -- double the cost projectied, and that was already expensive.
Third, we don't need them. With unconventional natural gas reserves going up, we can support a baseload grid using renewables with natural gas backup at a relatively low cost. This would give us a clean and relatively cheep power base. Since we'd be using less (by being more efficient) the net cost would be very low or negative.
That's a plan.
If nukes would work, I'd be marching in the streets to support them. I believe the risk of some small nuclear residuals is negligible compared to global warming. But they cost too much and we don't need them.
Nuclear power isn't the elephant in the living room, it's the White Elephant.
J,
great comment that sums this discussion up nicely.
I don't think it has sunk in just yet that the predicament we are in precludes some of these grandiose solutions people are always coming up with.
I find it ironic that the most effective plans are the simplest solutions- like conservation. But we like our sexzy gizmoes and ponzie schemes better.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
You better start marching then.
If we don't need them, then why are China, India, and even Germany still building new coal plants?
And they are not extraordinarily expensive. There are expensive ways to build them, but there are also companies that build them on time and on budget. And the new modular nuclear designs are dramatically less expensive. If you mass produce them, you drive down the costs to be less than coal. THAT'S the thing you are missing.
According to the jbatch plan, India, China, and Germany wouldn't be building any new coal plants. But they are, aren't they?
YOUR PLAN HAS FAILED.
Time to start marching.
His plan has just gotten started.
Yours' isn't even that far along.
There is a diference between an economy that profligately wastes energy (us -- we use more than twice as much per unit of GDP as any other advanced economy) and one such as India or China which needs massive new capacity. I'd rather they build nukes tha coal plants. And I'd rather they do CSP, wind, and geothermal than either.
But you were talking about the US and Obama, remember? And with the capacity to cut our energy use in half, we simply don't need nukes. Period. Or new coal, for that matter. In fact, we can retire coal, and use combined cycle natrual gas, cutting GHG by 70% at little or no cost.
Sorry, no marching here.
Maybe you should stick to facts. And go sell nukes to India and China. A question, first -- if nukes are so cheap, why are they building coal plants?
A majority of the expense and difficulty in building nuclear plants are a result of uninformed people marching against them.
Bless those people.
The logic that we already HAVE a lot more nuclear power and therefore can much more easily switch is one (I recognize only one) of the pillars of this argument. It is bogus. The question is what are OVERALL, the cheapest sources of energy including all the ecological factors. I suggest that Steve Kirsch get in touch with Michio Kaku, who is a professor of physics at CUNY and has the radio show "Explorations" broadcast on wbai.org and elsewhere. Michio has had a one hour program at one point devoted specifically to the idea of trying to use nuclear to solve the electric generating branch of the greenhouse gas (GHG) problem. His guest (an expert I can't remember but could be tracked down) explained that nuclear, even w/o external diseconomies, is way to slow to get moving and way way too expensive. Indeed, even with current technology you can get the same electricity generated with cleaner sources like wind and solar faster and cheaper. And the latter are advancing rapidly while nuclear is indeed an elephant -- a WHITE elephant. It's also an uninsurable risk and its problems are NOT minor
The assertion that nuclear power is an "uninsurable risk" is not correct.
http://www
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Your comments about "nuclear is way to slow to get moving and way way too expensive.
As I pointed out in an earlier Huffington Post article, 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).
And as I pointed out in this post, there is 100 times more nuclear generated power than solar or wind worldwide.
As far as expense, nuclear today is cost competitive with other forms of generation (see http://www
Toshiba is building a micro reactor that is 100 times smaller than a typical nuclear plant, at 6 feet by 20 feet. It produces 200 kilowatts of energy at about 5 cents per kilowatt hour — cheaper than coal-fired power in most places in the U.S.
Biomass plants can produce using gasifier technology produce 200 kw at 2 cents per kwh and sequester the carbon in the form of biochar from trim trimmings, trash, animal waste and crop waste. Don't even challenge me on this one Steve, because I am working with the company. Try this puppy on for size, the cost to build and install is $1,000,000 per megawatt with no radioactive waste.
"And as I pointed out in this post, there is 100 times more nuclear generated power than solar or wind worldwide.
Who cares. Nuclear went from theory to practice in 10 years. Solar is much farther along than that. By the time one new nuclear plant can be commissioned solar will be in high gear. Safer, cheaper, cleaner and more trustworthy.
There is zero possibility of a solar plant melting down and poisoning the environment for thousands of years.
Steve, the envioronmentalists are the sole reason nuclear power plants are no longer built in this country
The environmentalists are to be commended. Thank you, one and all!
How financially connected is this writer to the nuclear industry?
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
No connection.
In fact, a couple of years ago, I wrote an op-ed on the evils of nuclear power.
That was before I knew about the IFR. That has changed my thinking.
Apparently, your mind is changeable. So why not read Gofman's book, watch Amory Lovin's MIT video "Winning the Oil Endgame" read Michael Rose's Huff Post article from July 14, 2009 and read Dr. Helen Caldecotts scientific research. While you are at it, perhaps you could read the British peer reviewed studies conducted by Dr. Alice Stewart and George Kneale.
"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."
I'm not certain it's really the last minute, and our new technology isn't magic at all, unless you consider latest-generation liquid-fuel rocket science "magic". But I will go so far as to say that our newly developed hydrogen-oxygen renewable energy co-generation system IS capable of "rescuing" all of us from the need to ever burn coal to generate electricity again.
We've demonstrated economic viability using current renewable energy pricing. The system is capable of survival in the real world of power politics and the financial giants in the energy sector. With humble apologies, we're a small startup that has put all of its resources into R&D, based on a firm belief that we are onto something truly dramatic. For those who just can't wait, feel free to email me at att.netred@att.net
Best of luck, Doug. There are quite a number of good technologies coming online now. Absolutely no need to mortgage our future and our health by embracing nuclear fission. It's too damned dangerous. And now, unnecessary.
I personally have no issue with nuclear generation. Yes, it's clean. Unfortunately, the elephant moves its bowels on a regular basis, and when it does we're saddled with rather large volumes of nuclear waste that won't go away for a bazillion years. What do you propose to do with all that radioactive "feces"?
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
You need to read the post referenced in the article that covers how we dispose of the nuclear waste. The article explains why Secretary of Energy Chu talks about fast reactors.
The technical details of fuel reporocessing and disposal were worked out quite some time ago. Misguided ideology resulted in bad policy decisions that through wrenches in the process. If we were to bring regulations and policy back in line with the science and technology, nuclear would clearly be the safest, cleanest and most cost effective form of energy.
Nuclear will never be safest.
Nuclear will never be cleanest.
Nuclear will never be most cost effective.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
