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
Um... Thorium. Yes, that "Transitional Element" to the left of Uranium on the Periodic Table of Elements.
It keeps Plutonium from being formed when employed in a Breeder Reactor styled power generation;
It can not be Weaponized;
It creates 1/10th of 1% of the Nuclear Waste of Uranium fueled reactors;
It has 3 times the life of Uranium of the same mass in a Reactor Cycle;
We have lots of it.
even though i disagree with your stance on man made global warming, Mr Kirsch, you are a great man. i was just reading some of the things your foundation does, and THANK YOU for your anti-spam work.
hopefully people will open their eyes on nuclear power. because even though i dont believe man has made any measurable contribution to global warming, i think almost everyone can agree we need to find a way to get off our foriegn oil addiction. Nuclear Power does that, and also makes the green people happy.
I'm all for Nuclear Power; but it won't work within the capalist framework. Not that I'm advocating the end of capitalism, but let's face some facts. A business is, first and foremost, concerned with profit. It's only a matter of time (sometimes as early as construction of the plant) before corners are being cut for that profit. Cheaper parts, cheaper maintainance, cheaper work force doing the work.
There have been several nuclear accidents, evidence enough that nuclear facilities require the strictest of care... The best parts, the best maintainance, the best staff.
Show me a nuclear plan that ensures that safety will trump profit on all fronts, with those entrusted to ensure this is the case are fully accountable should they falter, and I'll sign on.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Dear Ruined,
It sounds like you've never been inside a nuclear power plant in the US. Am I right?
If you did, you'd find that people are more concerned about safety than power. If you generate power, it's a bonus. The main focus is safety.
I'm not knocking anybody; My concern is the companies running them.
Consider the events at the Kerr-McGee plutonium plant as an example of what I'm refering to.
So on that reasoning you want nukes? You are dreaming!
Obama should be pushing NG electric plants not clean coal.
Coal plants pollute with mercury and lead and NOX even when scrubbed.
Obama has done next to nothing for the US.
The STRIP MALL CRASH is next.
Not as much mercury as in the new light bulbs being pushed into all homes.
Mr. Kirsch: What is your position on the Waxman-Markey bill?
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
It is really weak and locks in bad results for decades. Cap and trade can be easily gamed.
If they just made the bill a simple carbon tax, it would have been simpler and better.
Just like sulfur dioxide markets were gamed into controlling sulfur oxide emissions. Steve you take the obvious and turn it into the teeth that defeats your arguements everytime. At some point you will have been fully exposed to the omissions and outright falsehoods you speak of hear.
Forget for a moment the typical "the sky is falling" shriek about "climate change", and I completely agree with this author on this piece about nuclear power. Nuclear has to be a HUGE part of this answer. New technology has allowed us to recycle and re-use most of the radioactive byproducts but it could be better. So, we could take the TRILLIONS we are going to waste on Cap and Tax and spend it on figuring out a better way to re-use and recycle.
Wind and Solar sound great and should be used on every home but in general they can't feed the larger grids with sustainable peak power especially in areas that see typical winters. No matter what you do with those sources you will need a very large backup.
We have a climate crisis? Really? And here I am worrying about the economy. Silly me.
See Steve Kirsch's Profile
Yes, you are silly.
See the abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full.pdf+html which points out that the rate of emissions is dramatically increasing.
The economy is stabilizing...S&P 500 is up about 50% from the 52 week low and is about even from January.
So you are right. You are silly to focus on the economy. You should be very worried about turning around the rate of CO2 emission growth.
Yes the rate of CO2 is increasing yet the temperatures have plateaued which is NOT following the IPCC models which predicted continuous temperature rises.
Not only that, if we do everything in the WM bill, we will only POSSIBLY see a 1/10th of a degree temperature savings and if all KYOTO countries did the same, they are talking about 0.25 degrees savings.
168 billion tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere every year. About 6.8 billion come from human activities. So what's your plan to stop the other 161 billion of natural CO2 coming from mainly the ocean? CO2 accounts for 1/30th of 1% of our air. And you call it a crisis. That's whats silly. Amazing CO2 emission levels have increased, yet there has been no warming in 11 years. Which just so happens to follow the solar flare model.
Unemployment is approaching double digits, california is broke. There has been no growth in the S&P this year period. Meanwhile, every jobs report shows job loss.
Let's worry about what could be at best described as a poor scientific correlation, instead of putting food on the table for families.
The economy is not stablizing. Even Obama says the unemployment rate is going to keep going up. And if I'm silly for focusing on the economy then so are millions of others with their jobs on the line.
And what is up with these colder temperatures lately?
You are correct, nuclear has to be a big part of our energy future, but so does coal. Let's find ways to use coal, which is plentiful, in ways that are more environmentally sound.
The sky is falling BS is starting to rub the public the wrong way. If we find sensible solutions to our energy needs, the public will support them. Wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels will all be part of our energy mix, but a small part.
Dnyer-
Couldnt agree more. Global warming is baloney. The wool is being pull over everyone's eyes. CO2 currently accounts for 1/30th of 1% of the air. 168 billion tons of CO2 gets released into the atmosphere ever year, less than 7 billion can be attributed to man. So unless we put a cap and trade on the plankton in the sea, it will never stop.
To all the chicken little's who believe the sky is falling because a NATURAL GAS(not pollutant, but natural) is in the air, why not back Nuclear Energy? No CO2 emissions, gets us off foreign oil. creates jobs for homer simpson...it's a win win win...
"Couldnt agree more. Global warming is baloney. The wool is being pull over everyone's eyes."
I hear that all the time... Usually, though, it's being said about Evolution.
Oxygen is a natural gas; do you know what happens if you spend any amount of time breathing a higher amount than is *naturally* in the air?
Oil is a natural substance, too, but I wouldn't want my house covered in it.
"creates jobs for homer simpson..."
That's actually my primary concern; businesses running nuclear plants that are more concerned with profit than safety. A nuclear plant that isn't recieving the best parts and maintainance and staffed with the best people, regardless of profitability, is more hazardous than the problems it is intended to solve.
Riiight. We need more Irans weaponizing nuclear waste. That'll solve the climate problem. . .fast.
First: Look into the use of Thorium as a fissionable material. The benefits are plainly obvious: 1/10th of 1% the nuclear waste; cannot ever be turned into a "weaponized" form of Plutonium. Indeed, it consumes Plutonium in a Breeder Reactor system.
Second: Thorium powered plants are already being built. With 15% of the known reserves in the U.S. (Idaho; Montana) - the ancillary economic benefits are obvious.
Third: Don't overlook the fact that it all of our responsibilities to Not Ruin the Planet and undo the harm of previous generations.
Nuclear fuel is used in a nuclear power. Producing the fuel is hardly "carbon free". Fossil fuel consumptive stages include
extracting and reducing uranium from pitchblende, and processing the raw uranium to extract the fuel U235, which is less than 1% of the extracted mix of uranium isotopes.
Then there is the still unresolved issue of nuclear waste disposal.
Before declaring nuclear power to be ecological, calculations need to be done over the life cycle, not only the immediate task of converting the processed fuel into electrical energy.
I glanced at this headline, and read it as, "How Does Obama Expect to Solve the Climate Crisis Without PALIN?" and grinned, anticipating a delicious piece of satire...
I personally won't start acting like it's a "crisis" until Al Gore starts acting like it's a "crisis" and sells a few homes.
While "silver bullets" aren't the answer, there's a lot of truth here. It's not apparent there's a plan to sunset coal use and replace it with renewables, nuclear or whatever. My suspicion is that we'd need 20-30 years to turn off coal (it's 70% of the US energy portfolio).
Carnegie-Mellon U gave a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations awhile back which observed that we're going to have to go all out to achieve the needed GHG reductions in time - nuclear, solar, energy-efficient buildings, CCS, high-speed rail - all of it and more. Simply enormous opportunities to create wealth and put millions to work. And it seems so hard for us to get started.
NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934.
Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 " and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades.
This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland"s ice sheet indicate that,
just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.
Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus"
it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 BILLION that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990
from governments, foundations and corporations (including Exxon,Big Banks,GE)
1934 was hot in the U.S., not globally. Last year - 2008 - was "the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880" according to NASA. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
This post is utter bilge developed by climate deniers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
