Why I support some types of nuclear power.

[joshcryer]

This communique by Jim Hansen is what defined my support for nuclear power. All emphasis, below, is mine (in bold). At the request of a mod, to shorten the length of this post, I cut out some parts about Obama's election, Coal-CCS, fossil fuel resources, and fee and dividend. While I believe Coal-CCS is usable to some small extent, I do prioritize it at the same rank as Hansen and the Nov. 3rd Workshop, lowest of all. Ideally coal should not be burned. I also removed some parts about the environmental impacts of CO2, as many of us in E&E should be astutely aware. My unwaivering support for fee and dividend is also well known here on E&E, so I don't feel too bad cutting that out. I fully recommend reading the entire article, which is linked below. All text posted with permission of the author.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf">Tell Barack Obama the Truth - The Whole Truth (PDF)

(...)

Although global warming to date is smaller than day-to-day weather fluctuations, it has brought global temperature back to approximately the highest level of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, the period during which civilization developed. Effects already evident include:

1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.

2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean acidification due to increasing CO2.

3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.

4. Arctic sea ice will disappear entirely in the summer, if CO2 continues to increase, with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people.

5. Intensity of hydrologic extremes, including heavy rains, storms and floods on the one hand, and droughts and fires on the other, are increasing.

Some people say we must learn to live with these effects, because it is an almost godgiven fact that we must burn all fossil fuels. But now we understand, from the history of the Earth, that there would be two monstrous consequences of releasing the CO2 from all of the oil, gas and coal, consequences of an enormity that cannot be accepted.

(...)

Urgency. Recent evidence reveals a situation more urgent than had been expected, even by those who were most attuned. The evidence is based on improving knowledge of Earth’s history – how the climate responded to past changes of atmospheric composition – and on observations of how the Earth is responding now to human-made atmospheric changes.

The conclusion – at first startling, but in retrospect obvious – is that the human-made increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), from the pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to today’s 385 ppm, has already raised the CO2 amount into the dangerous range. It will be necessary to take actions that return CO2 to a level of at most 350 ppm, but probably less, if we are to avert disastrous pressures on fellow species and large sea level rise.

The good news is that such a result is still possible, if actions are prompt. Prompt action will do more than prevent irreversible extinctions and ice sheet disintegration: it can avert or reverse consequences that had begun to seem inevitable, including loss of Arctic ice, ocean acidification, expansion of the subtropics, increased intensity of droughts, floods, and storms.

(...)

Outline of policy options. The imperative of near-term termination of coal emissions (but not necessarily coal use) requires fundamental advances in energy technologies. Such advances would be needed anyhow, as fossil fuel reserves dwindle, but the climate crisis demands that they be achieved rapidly. Fortunately, actions that solve the climate problem can be designed so as to also improve energy security and restore economic well-being.

A workshop held in Washington, DC on 3 November 2008 outlined options (presentations are at http://www.mediafire.com/nov3workshop). The workshop focused on electrical energy, because that is the principal use of coal. Also electricity is more and more the energy carrier of choice, because it is clean, much desired in developing countries, and a likely replacement or partial replacement for oil in transportation.

Workshop topics, in priority order, were: (1) energy efficiency, (2) renewable energies, (3) electric grid improvements, (4) nuclear power, (5) carbon capture and sequestration.

Energy efficiency improvements have the potential to obviate the need for additional electric power in all parts of the country during the next few decades and allow retirement of some existing coal plants. Achievement of the efficiency potential requires both regulations and a carbon tax. National building codes are needed, and higher standards for appliances, especially electronics, where standby power has become a large unnecessary drain of energy.

Economic incentives for utilities must be changed so that profits increase with increased energy conservation, not in proportion to amount of energy sold.

Renewable energies are gaining in economic competition with fossil fuels, but in the absence of wise policies there is the danger that declining prices for fossil fuels, and continuation of fossil fuel subsidies, could cause a major setback. The most effective and efficient way to support renewable energy is via a carbon tax (see below).

The national electric grid can be made more reliable and "smarter" in a number of ways. Priority will be needed for constructing a low-loss grid from regions with plentiful renewable energy to other parts of the nation, if renewable energies are to be a replacement for coal.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved grid deserve priority and there is a hope that they could provide all of our electric power requirements. However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% "soft" energy) and reality, with the gap being filled by continued use of coal-fired power.

Therefore we should undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. These programs could be carried out most rapidly and effectively in full cooperation with China and/or India, and other countries.

Given appropriate priority and resources, the option of secure, low-waste 4th generation nuclear power (see below) could be available within about a decade. If, by then, wind, solar, other renewables, and an improved grid prove to be capable of handling all of our electrical energy needs, there would be no imperative to construct nuclear plants in the United States. Many energy experts consider an all-renewable scenario to be implausible in the time-frame when coal emissions must be phased out, but it is not necessary to debate that matter.

However, it would be dangerous to proceed under the presumption that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. Both countries project large increases in their energy needs, both countries have highly polluted atmospheres primarily due to excessive coal use, and both countries stand to suffer inordinately if global climate change continues.

The entire world stands to gain if China and India have options to reduce their CO2 emissions and air pollution. Mercury emissions from their coal plants, for example, are polluting the global atmosphere and ocean and affecting the safety of foods, especially fish, on a near-global scale. And there is little hope of stabilizing climate unless China and India have low- and no-CO2 energy options.

(...)

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available.

(...)

Nuclear Power. Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.

(...)

Nuclear power plants being built today, or in advanced stages of planning, in the United States, Europe, China and other places, are just improved LWRs. They have simplified operations and added safety features, but they are still fundamentally the same type, produce copious nuclear waste, and continue to be costly. It seems likely that they will only permit nuclear power to continue to play a role comparable to that which it plays now.

Both fast and thorium reactors were discussed at our 3 November workshop. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at Argonne National Laboratory and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFRs keep neutrons "fast" by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. They also make fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFRs can burn existing nuclear waste and surplus weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name "integral") and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shut down safely under even severe accident scenarios.

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements.

This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solidfueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWR’s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

It is commonly assumed that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030. That is a safe assumption under "business-as-usual." However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner. It is specious to argue that R&D on 4th generation nuclear power does not deserve support because energy efficiency and renewable energies may be able to satisfy all United States electrical energy needs. Who stands ready to ensure that energy needs of China and India will be entirely met by efficiency and renewables?

China and India have strong incentives to achieve pollution-free skies as well as avert dangerous climate change. The United States, even if efficiency and renewables can satisfy its energy needs (considered unlikely be many energy experts), needs to deal with its large piles of nuclear waste, which have lifetime exceeding 10,000 years.

Development of the first large 4th generation nuclear plants may proceed most rapidly if carried out in China or India (or South Korea, which has a significant R&D program), with the full technical cooperation of the United States and/or Europe. Such cooperation would make it much easier to achieve agreements for reducing greenhouse gases.

(...)

Prompt development of safe 4th generation nuclear power is needed to allow energy options for countries such as China and India, and for countries in the West in the event that energy efficiency and renewable energies cannot satisfy all energy requirements.

Deployment of 4th generation nuclear power can be hastened via cooperation with China, India and other countries. It is essential that dogmatic ‘environmentalists’, opposed to all nuclear power, not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power. Thus it is desirable to avoid appointing to key energy positions persons with a history of opposition to nuclear power development. Of course, deployment of nuclear power is an option, and some countries or regions may prefer to rely entirely on other energy sources, but opponents of nuclear power should not be allowed to deny that option to everyone.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal emissions be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground.

(...)

No time remains for a transition via ineffectual half measures. Frank communication with the public is essential. At present, all around the world, many governments are guilty of greenwash, an implausible approach of goals and halfmeasures that will barely slow the growth of CO2. The world, not just the United States, needs an open honest discussion of what is needed. It is a tremendous burden to place on the President-elect. The only chance seems to be if he understands the truth – the whole truth. Young people realize that they, their children, and the unborn will bear the consequences of our actions or inactions. They do not blame their parents, who legitimately ‘did not know’ what they were starting. Young people worked hard to influence the democratic process. Now they expect appropriate actions.

My thoughts. This paper convinced me that if we cannot get renewables to make a big dent in to things, then we need to look at alternatives that can work. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-23-building-energy-codes-are-best-part-of-waxman-markey">Energy efficiency is the single most important thing we need to work on. Waxman-Markey, which passed the house, likely won't get a vote for 2 years or more, but it would've reduced the United States' electrical consumption by a factor of 100 nuclear power plants. That is, we could drop 100 or more coal plants in the United States simply by using those efficiency standards. In the intrim we should be building out renewables, but renewable plants have been highly dependent on subsidies and investors. Without http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/business/energy-environment/29solar.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">further investment they could stall for quite a few years. No http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6846">industry is exempt. So from my point of view, if we're going to be serious about climate change, we need to focus on Gen IV nuclear power, for the reasons that Jim outlined above. It will help us burn up our waste, it won't require mining new fuel for quite some time, and overall, will allow us to make up a significant portion of our electrical portfolio with a low carbon emitting energy source. As Kirk Sorenson points out, the three biggest polluting countries in the world (US, India, China) already have the nuclear bomb, thus "proliferation risk" as it stands with those countries is a joke that only greenwashing non-environmentalists would use. What is important now, as ever, is that we remove ourselves from CO2 emissions as soon and as readily as possible.

I don't support, however, the building of any more Gen III+ reactors, past the end of the decade, because that money could be better spent on Gen IV reactors which could be developed in the coming decade. If renewable energy cannot meet our demands we will be in big trouble environmentally speaking. We need more options. Dogmatically sticking to one type of energy source is not a "solution."

[yourout]

1. Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would be my first choice...

Seems like a smart move to me.

[joshcryer]

2. Little known that Jim supports this technology.

I think he makes a very reasonable and effective argument about Gen IV. Basically "If renewables aren't cutting it we need a backup plan."

[txlibdem]

11. We need to field our entire team, not just the third baseman

That is why we need Generation IV nuclear reactors to be mass produced and ramped up to complete 1 reactor each week. We are not only fighting for our way of life, we are fighting for millions of lives, maybe even our own so we cannot afford to hold back in this fight.

I believe that 40% nuclear power and 60% wind/solar/geothermal power plants/and tidal energy plants, each with their own respective energy storage to enable each plant to output its energy 24/7 is the right energy mix for the US. That will mean a significant percentage of excess renewable energy generating capacity to fill the energy stores for when they are not able to perform (at night or when the wind isn't blowing, etc).

Another vote for LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor - power plants also. And we need to transition our vehicles to electric vehicles long before 2050 as well in order to avoid catastrophe.

It sounds like a daunting task. And it is for a wimp or a "compromiser in chief." Our energy salvation will require true leadership and an end to special interest control of our government. That means we need a real firebrand of a leader. I just wish we had one of those...

[dkf]

3. Yet does it make sense to spend all that money on a decade long nuclear plant project

If we can go straight to renewables?

How much are we considering spending on nuclear and how far would that get us if we used the funds for renewables?

[joshcryer]

4. We're not spending enough on anything, to be frank.

Currently we spend about .2% of global GDP on renewables (and this number comes from before the recession hit, I can get the source if you wish). Jacobson says that we need to spend roughly 10% global GDP on renewables.

If you have a Gen III+ reactor being built now, why delay or stop it? I certainly am not going to protest it. But maybe I can wish that we'd actually research the development of LFTR and IFR, and maybe support it on some other level. We can't just sit around waiting for renewables to save the day, we need more options, as Hansen points out.

What if India and China cannot build out renewables to the extent that we are? We already know that they're going to build hundreds of nuclear plants in the ensuing decades. Shouldn't we lead with the research of LFTR/IFR in that event?

[NNadir]

5. Bull. Twenty eight years of construction of Danish wind farms in that offshore drilling hellhole

cannot produce as much energy as the 40 year old nuclear reactor at Oyster Creek.

The Chinese, Japanese, and Indians all have experience constructing new nuclear reactors in under five years, in many cases, under five years.

Fifty years of bullshit wishful thinking, accompanied by huge subsidies and pay offs to the rich at the expense of the poor in California has not made solar energy produce as much energy a 1/10 of the Chinese reactor that went commercial last month.

So called "renewables" - which are not, by the way renewable - have had endless mindless cheering for decades, without ever producing significant energy on this planet.

Neither solar nor wind will ever be as clean as nuclear, because both of the former poorly functioning industries are designed to entrench and enrich the gas industry.

If the experiment does not agree with the hypothesis, the problem is not with the experiment, usually, but with the hypothesis.

[joshcryer]

6. What I like is that Hansen says no debating it is necessary.

The implication is that, frankly, we'll know very quickly if renewable energy is going to magically change things. That's why, from what I can tell, he supports LFTR/IFR research.

[XemaSab]

20. I'll debate! I'll debate!

Hansen said he'd give renewables about a decade.

That was two years ago, right after the election.

It's clear that Obama's not too worried about teh climate change, so that knocks off another two years.

If Obama gets re-elected, he's probably not going to make it a priority in his second term, especially with looming global economic chaos. If he doesn't get elected, we'll be lucky if there isn't a teepee burner on the White House lawn. x(

So that's 8 years of Hansen's decade right there.

And somehow I suspect that 2016-2018 aren't going to look too great either. x(

I got up on the doomer side of the bed this morning, and I think we're going to drill every last drop of oil and mine every last speck of coal before anything changes. And by then it will be way, way, way too late. As if it isn't already way, way, way too late.

[joshcryer]

24. I disagree, climate change is defintely off the table until 2012, but if the electorate can...

...get it's damn act together and reelect Obama and a Democratic House and Senate, then we'll be able to pass something like Waxman-Markey. But, that's the disappointing thing here, because a robust climate change policy will be able to bring about hundreds of thousands of jobs. And it would reduce our dependence on energy because of strong efficiency mandates.

I turn my computer off. At the friggin switch. Because it doesn't meet the EUs standards for "off mode" electrical consumption. Even those standards are too high, imo. 5 watts continuous is really not necessary to keep a computer alive. With a memristor memory store you could shut off all electricity entirely and have the thing boot up instantly. Just sayin'.

BTW ever since I started turning it off? At the switch (the back of the computer and the power supply for my external DVD burner and monitor)? I started saving $25 a month. Doesn't sound like very much but over time it adds up!

[Nederland]

9. The key is not to choose

It has been shown that "experts" in the media are no more accurate than dart-throwing monkeys at predicting the future (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1). In the field of energy, you basically have multiple groups of self promoting experts saying they have a workable solution, and you have a history of those same seemingly smart people making horribly wrong predictions that didn't come true. Lewis Strauss said nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. Amory Lovins claimed that renewables would supply 30% of America's energy by 2000. They were both wrong, and they both have their set of lame excuses as to why their predictions failed. It doesn't matter.

The lesson here is not that we need to do a better job analyzing data to come up with more accurate predictions, the lesson here is to realize that we suck at predicting the future. We always have and we always will (yeah, I'm predicting that... :)). No, the sensible solution is to not believe any of them. The sensible solution is to let anyone who wants to build a non-fossil fuel source of energy to try and do it, and to subsidize those efforts based up the amount of actual power created. Let their success at actually building things prove the "experts" right or wrong, not some lame "study" that merely serves to confirm the biases of the author.

[dkf]

10. As long as taxpayers aren't on the line for funding nuclear energy

I have no problem with some private investors taking all the risk and running with nuclear. But the Federal Government should be encouraging private citizens to go renewable as much as possible.

[XemaSab]

12. I'm hoping to post a long spiel about this at some point

but the era of big energy development, such as dams and nuclear plants, was all federally funded.

If federal funds brought electricity to the entire United States, why should we expect private money to fund the next wave in energy development?

[dkf]

13. I agree completely.

And these are the types of projects that create jobs and move us forward. I guess the downside for some congresscritters is there is no windfall profits to be made by some gouger.

[joshcryer]

14. This is what bothers me the most. Monetary profit > environment.

Everyone else be damned. I don't understand it, myself. It makes me want to run for office or something. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=266390&mesg_id=266555">I wrote about what I think about it here.

Anyone who uses the canned "but it's not monetarily profitable" argument, to me, is not an environmentalist.

In the end helping the environment is the most profitable thing you can do.

[dkf]

15. I'm more worried about running out of oil and the ensuing hardship that follows.

We have got to get our act together and fast. This lack of urgency is making me nervous.

[joshcryer]

16. The timeframes are similar.

Catastrophic climate change genuinely doesn't require much more effort to hit a tipping point.

[Nederland]

18. The profitablility argument

I think the "but it's not monetarily profitable" argument is merely pointing out a issue that needs to be solved, not suggesting an intractable problem. After all, energy demand is strong enough that any power source can be made profitable simply be making all the alternatives more expensive via taxation. If a stumbling block for LFTR is the entrenched system of nuclear companies making a significant portion of their money off selling fuel, there are numerous options that can correct that.

[txlibdem]

23. Subsidies are the other side of the coin from taxes

You decry taxing some energy sources more than others yet you don't mention the Billions of Dollars in tax breaks, special perks, low cost access to your property (our nation's natural resources), and other subsidies that now flood in to the oil, coal and natural gas industries, and let's not forget laws limiting those companies' liability for their crimes against humanity.

So, while you (apparently) cry big, huge alligator tears for those poor energy companies facing taxes I'll be here, in the real world, wondering why the fuels we DON'T want (fossil fuels) get all the breaks and the ones we DO want can't seem to catch a break. Or at least they have to claw tooth and nail for every dollar. Something is wrong with that picture.

[joshcryer]

26. The Heritage Foundation doesn't like nuclear for its "subsidies" but at the same time thinks coal...

...and oil aren't subsidized. :rofl:

I don't think Nederland would go quite that far, as I think he's open to appreciating just how much tax breaks and tax loopholes are a subsidy on a pollutant.

[Nederland]

33. I'm not forgetting anything

Like I said, if a stumbling block for LFTR is the entrenched system of nuclear companies making a significant portion of their money off selling fuel, there are numerous options that can correct that. One of those options is obviously to get rid of the existing subsidies that benefit oil, coal and natural gas. While this would not directly address the reasons that existing nuclear companies have for avoiding LFTR solutions, it would make ALL nuclear fuel cycles more competitive, increasing the profitability of LFTR. I would think that would help attract capital investment for alternative fuel cycles.

[joshcryer]

34. This is one reason the primary IFR supporters want *public utilities.* (Tom Blees)

They want the government to run the things (through private contractors as is always done in capitalism). The bottom line being that the government would back the technology. Progressives should be behind these ideas, but some of them will claim that the markets are more than enough, while laughably trying to pawn off pitiful growth numbers as something worthy of consideration.

[joshcryer]

35. To add: the "almighty market" shouldn't be a reason not to research and develop a technology.

You build one or two Gen III reactors every decade or so. Your profits on fuel processing are not growing at any rate that would make the building of Gen III reactors a growth industry. Indeed, many reactors will be going offline anyway. For long term investment potential you would want something that was going to grow every week for 20-30 years.

So you don't get fuel reprocessing profits, you get plant building profits.

Let the local communities run the things (especially LFTR).

[txlibdem]

37. Did I misunderstand your position in post #18?

If so, I offer the humblest of apologies. It seemed like you were cheerleading for the subsidies (largess) currently enjoyed by the fossil fuels and poo-pooing LFTR. I believe that we are killing ourselves and paying an extra fee to do so by subsidizing and NOT taxing to death the deadly fossil fuels that we should move immediately away from.

Why doesn't the world just elect me Emperor so I can solve all these problems, already!!! Sheesh!

[joshcryer]

25. It's not an issue that needs to be solved, because in the end the profits are still seen.

A large scale buildout of LFTRs for example would move profit from the fuel-reprocessing side to the LFTR production side. Basically you go from saying "we're going to go from profiting by running to profiting by building." In the end these LFTRs can be just as profitable if not more so than your conventional reactor.

It's just that the investment comes from another angle entirely and the returns are different, but it's still there, no doubt.

[XemaSab]

19. Anyone who expects private industry to create from scratch

what the feds created with both the might of the federal government, the FULL BACKING of the people, and thousands and thousands of laborers 80 years ago is deluding themselves.

Since I'm feeling tangential tonight, I took a tour of Shasta Dam last year (since my mom is working on it. LULZ). There's a bigass elevator that goes down into the dam, and a corridor that goes through the thick part of the dam near the base. This corridor is TILED. I don't remember the figure that the tour guide threw out, but it's a 200-foot corridor with 4 inch tiles, so you can get a sense of how many tiles there are and the labor involved.

We need renewable energy programs (or nuclear programs) on that scale, both as far as money and manpower go. It would be good for the environment and good for the economy.

But as things are going, for-profit renewable energy will not save us.

[joshcryer]

27. Exactly, the government needs to come off of it. That's one reason Hansen is for fee and dividend.

It forces the markets to actually behave appropriately, while rewarding the best consumers.

[Nederland]

17. Why should renewables get subsidies but not nuclear?

The whole point of my post was to demonstrate that history shows government can't successfully predict what will work and what won't work on a consistent basis--especially when it comes to new technology. When you say government should fund renewables but not nuclear, you are basically saying you are certain that renewables can get us off coal. While I believe that may be true, I am not close to being certain. Simply put, I fail to see the wisdom in putting all your eggs in the renewable basket. We need to fund what works, not what we think will work.

[XemaSab]

7. Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects.

K&R for that alone.

[joshcryer]

8. I think renewables should be given all the chance in the world.

But if they cannot do the job, we need to move on to technologies that can. We got around 10 years left to see what happens. In the intrim we should research LFTR/IFR strongly.

[GliderGuider]

21. K&R. Jim Hansen speaks for me too.

It's way too late in the game to force any good players to sit on the bench.

I do worry that Hansen is a voice of reason in an ideological debate, and will suffer the fate of all such voices. However, he has the profile to make a difference, and it's obvious that he understands what's at stake.

Thanks for posting this, josh. It was overdue.

[GliderGuider]

22. I diverge from Jim on one minor point.

I don't think we should wait to see if renewables can cut it before proceeding with a full-bore nuclear build-out. We already know the implementation of renewables alone is too slow to avert disaster. We should proceed with an urgent Gen III build-out while installing renewables and completing the Gen IV R&D program. There is plenty of money to do all three, and frankly the stakes are now far too high to do otherwise. My position is that the materializing threat of GW far outweighs any potential risks of a large-scale program of building modern nuclear plants.

When Gen IV is available, the economics of the situation should drive a wholesale shift to the new technologies, but until then let's use what we have, and use it all.

We need to stop burning shit to make things go.

[joshcryer]

28. That's one thing that may be unclear from my cut and paste. He does think Gen IV R&D should be...

...done now. Not tomorrow, not a decade from now. Actually, he thinks it should be done yesterday, or rather, should've been done two years ago. Unfortunately that didn't happen (though Obama did appoint a moderately nuclearly friendly energy guy). It's not a wait and see attitude so much, because he points out that it needn't be debated, basically you research Gen IV and if renewables aren't cutting it in a certain period of time, you move on to something that will cut it.

Gen III+ is a dud, though. Sorry, I hate to say it, but 5 years to build the things is too much, and the cost is still enormous. Materials-wise these things shouldn't be costing this much, but when you have a pressurized system you introduce a lot of safety complications. That's why Hansen makes such a convincing argument, and guys like Kirk Sorenson need to be listened to. We're talking about reducing the complexity of the safety systems to such an extent as to render the safety of the system moot. One of the thorium guys even says, bury 'em in the ground. Good luck crashing a plane into that shit!

You wouldn't even know it was there except for some fins sticking out of the ground being air cooled.

[upi402]

29. Bill Gates' TED Talk is convincing

Well worth a view if you're a skeptical as me;

http://blog.ted.com/2010/02/18/innovating_to_z/

EDIT TO ADD: It's utter propaganda that sustainability and renewables aren't cutting it. They have been ignored and quashed by hugely powerful interests. If sustainability is given more R&D funding and development seed funding, then we would at least be acting rationally. But my fear is that we will jump to the big money solution that only elites can control and profit from.

It's what's for dinner ATM unfortunately.

[joshcryer]

32. The thing is, some people on this forum argue for renewables as if they don't need that funding.

I'm all for funding renewable R&D like the next person, but the reality is that it's not going to just happen without efforts to make it happen. The markets aren't going to magically make wind and solar able to sustain our civilization.

[joshcryer]

36. Kick.

[XemaSab]

30. I guess the antinukes got pwned

Or maybe they're still struggling with reading teh technical language. :P

[joshcryer]

31. Well, Hansen does rank it 4th on a scale of 1-5 priorities.

So that may be definitely why they are OK with it.

However, what they seem to be missing is that renewables aren't getting the job done and in another 8 years we'll really be wishing we did that LFTR/IFR research...

[upi402]

38. "Young people worked hard to influence the democratic process. Now they expect appropriate actions."

His words are nice to the ear at least.

"Greenwash" is appropriate in our case. But we'll continue to subsidize big Agra, the oil companies, and off-shoring firms - as sustainable energy gets pocket lint and green mouthwash.

[joshcryer]

39. Kick.