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
Contrary to current industry disinformation: "Nuclear not cost efficient or without grave risk in development is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only 8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation 50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation 5g CO2eq/kWhel). --
OEKO 2007: Fritsche, U. et al (2007): Treibhausg
Interesting; I was unaware of the Carbon Dioxide issue with nuclear generation. Thank you so much.
Actually, what Cottle gives *is* industry disinformation. The industry is Germany's fossil fuel taxation one.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Today's nuclear isn't CO2 free, but the point is nuclear CO2 emissions are comparable to other clean sources such as hydro and wind.
But tomorrows nuclear is CO2 free as I explained in the article referenced at the bottom of my post. Fast nuclear reactors use the waste from existing nuclear plants. We can power the entire planet for centuries just on the DU we already have mined that is just sitting there. No NEW CO2 is generated.
So if you are worried about new CO2, fast reactors are the way to go.
Is this as a result of using fossil fuels to power the enrichment process? Or is it a direct result of the refining? If it is the former, then more use of nuclear would result in less CO2 release per kWh. The issue could be improved even further with fuel recycling and breeding - that would drastically reduce the need for mining new uranium.
Here is another link to g of CO2 per kWh...
http://www
Let's not forget the fossil fuels used to mine uranium, used to clean up the mine waste, used to transport the ore, used to refine the ore, used to enrich the refined ore, used fabricate the fuel rods, used to transport the fuel rods, will be used to transport the waste-eventually and used to tear down the reactor.
I think the answer is regional, not national or multi-national.
Nevada, southern Oregon, etc. are prime locations for geothermal. They're building five plants, right now.
Wyoming, Montana, and most of the plains states are prime for wind generation.
Southern California, Arizona, etc. are great solar and algae-growing areas.
In the northeast, they just started putting together what's needed to put in offshore wind farms.
Some areas prefer nuclear power.
Others produce clean coal, have figured out how to bury their emissions, re-burn wastes, capture methane, grow new strains of bio fuel plants/algae, etc., etc..
No one single method is going to work for everybody. What's needed is merely for the market to catch up to the demand from consumers.
The problem here is that governments tend to get too heavy-handed, too unthoughtful in their approach. We saw it with Carter in the 1980s, when his big plans for alt energy failed due to government meddling and the fickleness of politics.
European countries with cap-and-trade legislation are now considering shutting them down because of the unforeseen impacts they've had.
I know that we'd love to believe that government is the magic pill that can fix everything. I know those in government, whether R/D, love to make it seem so.
People will do it through free enterprise. It's happened countless times before in this country.
Rooftop solar and/or bioFuels work everywhere.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
But they aren't sufficient. Rooftop solar is free in Germany, but they are still building coal plants.
Thank you for an insightful analysis. I concur with your conclusions, and hope it inspires similar sobriety of opinion in others.
Well said. But if we really want free enterprise to work for us, we need a carbon tax. If gasoline users paid for the costs of the oil and energy to make gas, instead of giving tax credits to oil companies for producing oil, and paid to repair the roads we drive on, and all the other costs inherent in our road systems, we would all drive more efficient cars and use more public transportation. Railroads would have enormous price advantages over trucking. I think we will need to use more nuclear power, but it is scary. I used to sail my family in my small boat in lake Keowee in South Carolina. Its that pretty lake you see in advertisements for "sate nuclear power." The power plant is in a pretty meadow and looks so clean and neat. I sailed in that lake, because I felt if they were doing illegal dumping of nuclear waste, it would be in the stream below the dam on Keowee that goes into lake Hartwell. Turns out I was right. Nuclear can help us transition, but it is no panacea. We do need to look at everything. By the way, the U.S. Government owns geothermal and leases it, a great revenue source. You would think they would encourage its development.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
You fail to explain if it is going to happen on its own, why even Germany who HATES co2 is still building coal plants.
Sure we need a mix and sure it's great to have a mix, but we have a HUGE problem to displace all existing coal plants in the US and the rest of the world.
That's impossible to do without nuclear. At a recent Aspen Energy Forum, every attendee agreed nuclear has to be part of the mix.
If we want nuclear to replace coal, we have to make the investment to make it cheaper than coal. Right now, we cannot mass produce nuclear plants in the US. We need to ramp up the volumes and get the costs down. This needs a kick start from the government. It's not going to happen on its own.
You propose to build a nuke or coal fired power plant that boils water at a 35% thermal efficiency, transport it long distance over transmission grids losing another 10 percent then flip a switch to turn on an incandescent light that converts 5% to light and 95% to heat and you can't see negawatts of energy savings by switching to LED lighting that converts 85% to light and 15% to heat. Take that logic to electric motors, appliances, geothermal heating and cooling and then power those things with solar and wind where the power is being consumed. Build new super efficient buildings that take adavantage of natural light. Back it up with natural gas, geothermal, tidal, wave and biomass.
Why not take it a step further and eliminate the most wasteful energy structure in America? The Guaranteed Rate of Return Structure enjoyed by the utilities in 48 states should be eliminated yesterday. When I can gain access to the grid and get paid full market rates for my excess capacity produced from wind and solar at my house, then the utilities will have to compete. Slap a carbon tax on their coal emissions and they will start shutting them down because they can't compete. End the government sponsored mopoly enjoyed by our nations coal and nuclear fired utilities and force them to compete on the open market with a level playing field instead of them receiving an unfair advantage that encourages energy waste on the backs of ratepayers.
"Right now, we cannot mass produce nuclear plants in the US. We need to ramp up the volumes and get the costs down. This needs a kick start from the government. It's not going to happen on its own."
Need to actually build your newfangled plant and see if it actually works in production -- work the bugs out. You make it sound like it's ready to go, but that's apparently not the case.
Well-funded renewables are actually much farther along than your 'fast reactor'. A real reactor needs to be built and run for five or ten years or more to know what the unforseeable problems are. Solar and wind and geothermal and hydro and tidal, perhaps even fusion energy will thankfully own the world by then.
And we'll all be saved from the proliferation of a way too dangerous technology.
Headline should read: " How does Obama expect to solve the climate crisis without a crisis?"
We need a second crisis to solve the first one?
The objective is not to solve CO2, it is to transfer money to Goldman Sachs. Do everything you want in the USA, they are still building 1 new coal plant per week in China. ALL changes proposed around the world are insignificant to the increases from China. Then add India and Brazil. China already consumes 40% of the worlds coal. So let's tax the American people and force more jobs to China.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
But you haven't explained what's wrong with making nuclear plants that are cheaper than coal plants. We have the technology to do that, but we' ve just been sitting on it for 15 years (see the post referenced at the bottom of my article).
If nuclear plants are cheaper than coal plants, China will be building nuclear plants. They aren't stupid.
Steve,
you can fool some of the people some of thetime, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Given the fact that the nuclear industry is subsidized from start to finish- from mining to disposal, how do you arrive at the riduculous conclusion that government subsidies are not part of the cost. Add this to the Guaranteed Rate of Return enjoyed by utilities in 48 states and you more of a deceiver than even you believe.
Forget nukes! Future cars can pay for themselves!
This can be done more rapidly and safely than building nuclear plants.
Breakthroughs include the MagGen™. These magnetic generators will initially make it possible to cut the cord on a plug-in hybrid so it no longer needs to plug-in. Later, they can replace the batteries in an electric car. Then, the MagGen can run when the car is parked and sell power to the utility. Prototypes are under development.
Next is a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE™, which can power a hybrid. It will need no fuel and is another path to ending the need to plug-in. The engine can run when parked. Both systems can wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.
The SPICE will be powered by hydrinos - which let a barrel of water equal hundreds of barrels of oil.
Scientists and engineers will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda.
Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Payments to car owners driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantial.
The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power. Parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective path to ending the need to burn fuel and accelerate a rebirth of the automobile industry - and generate employment across the world economy.
Where is the evidence (objective and external) that verifies MagGen is a breakthrough?
Independent laboratory tests are on the horizon.
We've seen your PR stuff everywhere. Blah, blah blah. Better yet, I have some swamp land to sell you.
Just skip the second law of thermodynamics and you have it made. I had the good fortune to spend years evaluating many of these "breakthrough" energy technologies. There are always snake oils salesmen in every generation.
Out work at Chava Energy - see www.chavae
As stated above, we do not believe many scientists or engineers will believe it is possible until such independent validation takes place. Toys are on the horizon - no batteries required. They are likely to make it difficult to deny this evolving, extremely cost-competitive, science and technology.
Since building nuclear plants is a 10 or more year exercise, long before new nukes are producing power, it will be widely accepted that they are a costly, dangerous, unnecessary boondogle.
Supposed nuclear plant production also provides cover for countries such as North Korea and Iran to continue with nuclear weapons development.
you need to google the laws of thermodynamics
I think this quotation is more to the point -
"I firmly believe we're on the edge of some radically new paradigms in science that will inform the ways science can continue to constitute a cornerstone of life on our planet."
Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer, Ph.D., in her address entitled: Scientific Anomalies and How the Mind Manages Them
Please take a look at the cover of Al Gore's DVD:
http://www
Notice the hurricanes coming from the smokestack?
Remember Al standing in front of a picture of Katrina predicting gloom and doom?
http://www
"As the middle of July approaches, Northern Hemisphere TC activity begins to pick up with the WPAC, EPAC, and NATL basins often seeing plenty of strong cyclones.
In terms of ACE, the NH total to date has varied considerably during the past 30-years. The figure shows the calendar year ACE to date for the past 30-years for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. July 13, 2009.
Using a longer-database of hurricane tracks for the globe, the recent downturn in global TC energy is nearing record low levels of inactivity - the lowest in 50-years."
If the climate scientists and Al Gore were wrong about hurricanes, isn't it possible they were wrong about other aspects of the global warming theory?
It's possible, but I wouldn't bet the future of the earth on it.
Perhaps they weren't wrong?
If global warming does indeed cause increases in both frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones, yet tropical cyclone activity is at historic lows, then perhaps there are no massive hurricanes because their isn't any global warming?
Right, Noooorm! And perhaps, and perhaps and perhaps! Sure nooorm, to you no massive hurricanes means no global warming and if there were many massive hurricanes that means no warming also! Sure! It is all part of the fantasy world deniers live in!
This denier tactic of cherry picking a few time frames and presenting it as a climate trend has got to stop. If you stuff down a pound of bacon and 10 flapjacks at 7 AM in the morning then eat 4 burgers and 3 orders of fries for lunch at noon, you can't pick the time between 7:30 and 11:59 and say you are on a diet.
Climate is about long term trends, not about slices of time carved out of a long term record in order to support your bias.
And comparing the last few years to a long toerm trend is particualrly phony, since the reason there's such a long huge drop off is 1) there's been a record increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes, and 2) I fyou look at global trends (hint, it's GLOBAL warming) no such drop off has occurred.
Your post is just more denier sophistry.
Please check out the timeframe from 400K YA to present... Long terms trends indicate we are near the end of an interglacial. I am curious if the climate models that the IPCC and other climate scientists are using would predict the end of this interglacial if they assumed no anthopogenenic CO2. If not, then they do not take into account major factors and cannot be trusted to predict future temperatures. Just a thought.
I found other info in this link interesting as well.
http://www
Sir,
The term Elephant in the room refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue that is obvious, but which is ignored by a group of people, generally out of embarrassment or taboo. (thanks wiki)
Nuclear is more like a mouse in your pocket- ya gotta feed it.
Where is the money to come from? We are broke and the last thing we need is a bunch of un-finished plants eating up what capital we have remaining after the depression.
Have you heard this? "Many countries have hit peak uranium and are not able to supply their own uranium demands any longer and have to import uranium from other countries or abandon nuclear power. Thirteen countries have hit peak and exhausted their uranium resources.
Future energy solutions will need to be low tech remedies as opposed to big buck gambles on gizmoes and ponzie schemes that enrich the rich (sorry for the pun).
Conservation anyone?- hello-- Anyone?
"Nuclear waste and proliferation issues are quite manageable".
How so? Nevada has been in a more than decade long legal brouha against the US for its refusal to accept nuclear waste in its storage site at Copper Mtn, with no other states stepping up to the plate.
OPPS!
wrong commentor, eh?
Since depleted uranium shells and munitions are made from the castoffs from the power plants, which are the largest nuclear wastes from plants and uranium production, all we have to do to keep nuclear power sustainable is keep blowing stuff up and slaughtering people with endless warfare.
Who knew G.W. was such a closet genius?!
--Aaron
http://www
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
I explain how to manage the waste in the article I referred to in my post. You should read that. The link is right in the article.
Or you can read George Stanford's Scientific American article on the subject.
Or you can read Chuck Till's wonderful article on Plentiful Energy and the IFR: http://www
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
You should read the post referenced at the bottom of my article.
Using fast reactors, we can power the planet until the Sun goes super nova and still not run out of uranium.
You should also read the MIT study on the Future of Nuclear. Worldwide, there is still plenty of uranium for the current once through reactors.
But we should be starting on fast reactors ASAP. There, the fuel source is close to unlimited.
MerrieWay Winches: Plans executed, when? Changing global nuclear power practice, begs the primary question? Who is the global magician that could convice multiple countries to agree? Where do we start in Chenoble? We need to start in our own backyard..
Withstanding over population, decades of rhetoric, red-tape, debate, back-burner policy has produced the current CO2 emmisson growth and energy quagmire.
You're pretty.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
No magic is required.
You merely make the offer to sell them power at a price less than coal.
Tell me why would they refuse?
Becasue the difference comes through taxpayer funded subsidies. So your myth of cheaper than coal is exactly that- a myth. Your plan of cheap only works if you can convince people that taxation is not a cost of nuclear power. Of course this myth has been exposed in France.
Something that hasn't been mentioned here. Water. It takes a lot of water to generate the steam that drives the motion for electricity. The trade off for cheap power comes at the expense of another finite resource. Although wind isn't the perfect answer, it is the least water intensive. It can generate about 2 megawatts per million dollar investment and cranks out 2 megawatts as long as there is wind (something we will always have in abundance) A turbine can go online as quick as it takes to install. So instead of a billion dollar plus investment that still isn't ready to generate electricity and doesn't count the cost of actual fuel and refinement, You can build, turbine by turbine, a billion dollar wind farm that cranks out 1000-2000 megawatts. When you add in all the costs, the fact that no insurance company will indemnify a nuclear plant, the possibility of some catastrophic accident, the amount of water that it takes to run the plant. The amount of energy it takes to refine fuel, Is it really the best alternative?
There is another fundamental issue that no one is addressing. The Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass dictate that energy and mass are stable quantities. One cannot make green energy from nongreen energy nor can you transform nongreen mass into green mass. Well, actually you can but it would consume nongreen energy and mass. There is no nongreen solution other than wind, solar and nuclear energy. With all of these, energy is created and with energy is heat. To control this heat and energy requires nongreen energy and mass because the Carnot cycle does not have aconscience. For the same reason, you cannot cool your house by leaving you freezer door open. One cannot refine any fuel source without it consuming more energy than it potentially produces.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
I'm not sure what the point of your post is?
With nuclear, if you use a fast reactor, you turn mass (U-235) into energy and fission products.
If we use fast reactors, we have enough natural uranium to power the planet for pretty much the end of time. We'll be burned to a crisp by the sun going super nova well before we run out of nuclear IF we use fast reactors and recycling of the spent fuel.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
The water used to generate steam is in a closed loop.
You can use water to cool the plant or you can use air cooling. You pay a penalty in the cost of the electricity for air cooling. But it's an option if water cooling isn't available.
Until neutron and gamma bombardment turns the piping or the containment vessel into brittle steel after years of exposure. Then we can only hope it is a closed loop system.
H2O
good point
Humanity can no longer solve the climate crises. We'll just have to live through it. Or not.
More industrial/power nuclear activity of ANY kind will create thousands more tech, scientists, and opportunities for proliferation.
Major parts of the nuclear tech you propose will required decades of testing, verification, redesign before being ready for the several year sales, sighting and construction phases, if it works.
"Too Cheap to meter" turned into a total cost for existing nuclear plants of 25 cents per KWH, not including the taxpayer funded insurance liability in the trillions.
Rooftop Solar is 3 cents per KWH, purchasable and installed in a week or two. Rooftop solar replaces our most costly electricity upwards of 30cents -2$ per KWH in summer peak air conditioning in CA and other places. 1 billion dollars can create solar factories capable of producing 100 power plants worth electricity every year, cheaply, safely, forever.
BioFuel from Waste:sewage, landfills, plastics, wood, brush, etc.. ; can provide all the fuels and additional electricity, while providing carbon negative fertilizer. Safe, clean cheap and forever.
I prove every thing I have said on my profile, please read it before responding.
http://www
Please don't repeat the tired arguments from our last conversation.
http://www
Humanity must not build any new reactors, lets wind down the nuclear power industry, burning up as much existing fuel as possible, then not creating any more.
Human beings, companies, countries, cannot be trusted with nuclear power.
Isn't that obvious?
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
It would be nice if there weren't any issues at all with nuclear.
But we have a bigger problem to solve. And when you look at nuclear vs. wind, or nuclear vs. solar, the comparison isn't even close.
Face reality. If it were so easy to solve the problem with renewables, Germany wouldn't still be building new coal plants.
We've already been through this. I agree, when you look at the comparison, it's not even close.
Rooftop solar and waste BioFUels, beat the daylights out of nukes.
You lost on all the facts, last times, so what will be the strategy this time?
Why do you push this so hard? You seems like a good guy from the internet searches I've done. Have you sold your good name to the Nuclear power industry? Do your new rich friends all ridicules hippie wimpy solar and BioFuels, and love that Macho deadly Nuclear?
Come over to the good side, leave the dark side alone.
To hell with Germany. We are talking about America which we barely have any control over the political process. There is no bigger problem than nuclear waste because Steve, no matter how you try to package it, you wont be around for the time frame needed to control the waste products porduced throughout the nuclear fuel cycle. You cannot guarantee 100% containment. France, Russia, Japan, India, England, America and Germany have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't guarantee 100 percent containment.
People keep laying out viable alternatives including the cheapest and quickest which is energy effciency and it goes in one ear out the other. Respond to the March 23, 2009 Alernet article regarding the pending French Nuclear disaster. Give us a detailed assesment of the West Valley, N.Y. and the Barnsville, S.C. failed reprocessing plant experiments and relate it to the disaster brewing at the French reprocessing plant on the Normandy Coast. This ought to be good. I am sure you will completely dance around the issue of worker exposure and containment of the nuclear material escaping into the environment at all three locations.
Yawn... nuclear is expensive, uncreative, politically a third rail. Nothing will come of it.
How you want to convince countries that have come to that conclusion years or decades ago to change their minds is a mystery to me.
How about threatening them with nuclear war if they don't comply and buy American nuclear power plants?
This is laughable.
Ktm, you must have noticed this Green section of Huffpo is fertile hunting grounds for curmudgeons.
hahahaaha :0
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Actually, nuclear is about the cheapest power available.
The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. The Chinese Nuclear Power Industry has won contracts to build new plants of their own design at capital costs reported to be $1500 per KW and $1300 per KW at sites in South-East and North-East China
Steve,
Tell the truth. How much did the japanese government contribute to the power plants and to the entire nuclear fuel cycle. These are real costs you have obviously omitted.
Nuclear is the answer...F
Curdelberg,
I am sure you read the March 23, 2009 Alternet article on the pending nuclear disaster in France.
Nuclear power has consistently shown itself to be unsafe in human hands.
Add greed in and you get falsified x-rays, inferior stainless steel, and bad workmanship in the construction of nukes.
Not to mention the waste disposal problem everyone just wants to forget about.
Last but not least nuclear has never shown a profit when not subsidized by taxpayers.
Go re-read the "Perils of the Peaceful Atom."
Come visit Gallup and a few other sites contaminated by nuclear mining, refining, and operation.
BTW, I"m an engineer, I've been inside nukes, I received the whole AEC brainwashing at Oak Ridge while I was a kid.
Now I'm an adult, and I think like one.
Perhaps the biggest single problem I have with nukes is pro-nuclear people like yourself who DENY all of the problems and safety issues instead of at least acknowledging them and offering new proposed solutions to them.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Nuclear is the only practical alternative.
Nuclear isn't perfect, but is far safer than coal which it replaces. It's safer than hydro, and safer than natural gas.
So instead of speculating about what might happen, we should look at the real statistics.
From wikipedia:
To compare the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with the historical record of other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institut found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 - 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[3]
"From wikipedia", are you serious? Sure read it, but go to a couple other confirmed sources and reference them.
Did your study include Chernobyl?
Steve,
You show a total lack of understanding of energy efficiency and therefore refuse to even discuss it as an alternative to be used in conjunction with solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, wave, biomass and natural gas. All of which can completely eliminate the need for coal or nuclear.
The cold Corpse Theory reins again with Steve Kirsch. The tracking of nuclear workers has been about as good as the number of troops exposed to weapons tests- pathetic is the first word that comes to mind. The increased reliance on inexperienced contract workers fills your statistics full of holes. The tracking of Hanford, Washington workers is sparse to say the least. How extensive is the tracking of uranium miners? I am sure it is about as good as the tracking of the uranium tailings used as backfill for 3,300 homes and businesses in Grand Junction, Colorado- all of which had to be rebuilt or remediated.
I would urge you to read the section of Dr. John Gofman's book, " Poisoned Power, dealing with the cold corpse theory so that you have a rudimentry understanding of the theory. To make it easy for you, it is chapter 11 called: "Must We Hold Out For The Cold Corpses". His credentials, I might add, are impeccable.
I haven't got a problem with nuclear as part of an interim solution, but the ultimate source of energy is the sun, solar, and we ought to be investing heavily to develop it.
And we ought to be pushing hard for electric vehicles, and getting the trucks off the road and onto the rails where they belong.
Have you ever looked into how a battery (and how many you need for a car) is made and what destruction to our environment and to the earth that it takes, not including the energy it takes? You need to do that because even though it "sounds" nice, it's not.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
