Only a carbon tax and nuclear power can save us

[wtmusic]

(James Hansen in Australia, laying cards on the table):

"Science has shown that preservation of stable climate and the remarkable life that our planet harbours require a rapid slowdown of fossil fuel emissions. Atmospheric carbon dioxide, now almost 390 parts per million, must be brought back to 350ppm or less. That is possible, with actions that make sense for other reasons.

But the actions require a change to business-as-usual. Change is opposed by those profiting from our fossil-fuel addiction. Change will happen only with courageous political leadership.

Leaders must draw attention to the moral imperative. We cannot pretend that we do not understand the consequences for our children and grandchildren. We cannot leave them with a situation spiralling out of their control. We must set a new course.

Yet what course is proposed? Hokey cap-and-trade with offsets, aka an emissions trading scheme. Scheme is the right word, a scheme to continue business-as-usual behind a fig leaf.

The Kyoto Protocol was a cap-and-trade approach. Global emissions shot up faster than ever after its adoption. It is impossible to cap all emissions as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/03/11/hansen-climate-energy-leadership/

[Statistical]

1. "It is impossible to cap all emissions as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy."

This is the hard reality.

Coal is cheap.
Oil (even at $100 a barrel) is cheap.

They are cheap because their true cost (in terms of CO2 release and environmental damage) are not included.

Unless that changes:
Coal will dominate electrical production.
Oil will dominate transportation.

A carbon tax is needed to break that economic advantage.

[NNadir]

3. It depends on what you mean by "cheap." Coal is only "cheap" if its users are allowed to dump

waste for free.

If they had to pay to contain their wastes for eternity, every coal company on the planet would collapse - for economic reasons - next week.

[Statistical]

6. Of course.

That is why I said:

"They are cheap because their true cost (in terms of CO2 release and environmental damage) are not included."

This is why a carbon tax is needed. A carbon tax would reflect the true cost of containing carbon.

Even coal plants with CCS should be subject to carbon tax and they would be taxed on the carbon that isn't sequestered (no system is 100%) plus they would be monitored 24/7/365 (just like nuclear industry) and taxes on every gram of carbon that escapes sequestering (estimates are on 3%-5% annually).

[joshcryer]

2. James Hansen is a prophet.

The guy predicted shit that got him laughed out of the room 2 decades ago. He made predictions that no one took seriously for a decade or more. And now, the denialosphere is diluting his predictions, and certain special interests are doing the same, because their pet energy views are seen by them as the best way forward.

It is a disgrace.

James Hansen is a hero of mine, and I have few heroes.

[kristopher]

4. Typical spin by nuclear proponents - that isn't what Hansen wrote

"The rising price on carbon will spur energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power, all sources that produce little or no carbon dioxide. Bellyaching howls from coal moguls must be ignored. Let them invest their money in renewable energies and nuclear power.

Australia is blessed with abundant nuclear fuel as well as coal. Nuclear power plants are the ideal base-load power for Australia; their excess power in off-peak hours can be used to desalinate water. Power stations can be sited near coastlines, where cooling water is plentiful.

But all potential energy sources must compete, with each other and with energy efficiency. If renewable energies can do the whole job economically, as some people argue, that would be great. Put a price on carbon and let all parts of the private sector compete."





I couldn't agree more.

[Statistical]

5. For once so do I.

End all subsidies, put tax on carbon.

I got no problem with that. We will have 200-300 nuclear reactors before I die.

[joshcryer]

7. Do you really think wind would be as competitive with its NG backup?

If NG has to be taxed then its costs will skyrocket, this is one reason a carbon tax is not happening for at least a decade or two.

[Statistical]

8. Well consumers will suffer but not the wind shills.

In most localities with deregulated wholesale power wind providers are not penalized for failing to provide power.
They simply provide what they generate, when they generated, and get paid (plus collect $24.36 in subsidies per MW).

So a $10, $20, $50, $100 carbon tax won't change that at all. Now when wind doesn't deliver (due to variable nature) and peaking plants kick in that power will be more expensive however it won't be wind provides paying that. Natural gas generation and wind generation are separate in deregulated market.

The higher cost of NG provider will be passed on to the utility who will mark it up, add distribution fee and the consumer will pay.

So tomorrow if we had a $20 per ton carbon tax your electric bill would go up however the wind lobby wouldn't be including that cost in their metrics.

For wind to pay its fair share would require wind providers to provide a consistent amount of power. They could meet that by either
a) over building capacity so excess power is wasted and the larger capacity allows constant power generation even when output declines
b) over build + storage mechanism
c) current build + own natural gas turbines and sell power as unified contract (i.e when wind is 70% of peak, NG is 30% of peak).
d) contract with a NG provider to do the same thing as c

however expect any legislation like that to be met with fierce oposistion by the wind lobby.

[Nihil]

9. And just to disprove comments stated elsewhere ...

... I totally agree with you on that quote:

> But all potential energy sources must compete, with each other
> and with energy efficiency. If renewable energies can do the
> whole job economically, as some people argue, that would be great.
> Put a price on carbon and let all parts of the private sector compete.

The important thing is to act NOW - not to constantly put things off for another
round of meetings in X years time (by which point the situation will be much worse).