Climate Change

[WetEV]

Wet, I appreciate that ...

Not what I'm doing, Andy.

I'm well aware that nuclear expansion is politically dead, just as I'm well aware that 2C isn't achievable, and a carbon tax in the USA is a hard slog at best. About the most I think likely on nuclear power is that existing nuclear plants will continue to operate, with new construction balancing out retiring plants. Sure, it is only 6%, but we need that 6%.

Going through your points, on line now is the fastest possible, most of the cost of nuclear power both in dollars and carbon is in the construction cost of the plants, aready spent, and there is enough uranium above ground in stockpiles for about 60 years. Sure, this would not fuel a vast expansion of nuclear power, that would likely take thorium.

 

[ksnogas2112]

I'm investing in sea front property....in KS

 

[Nekota]

This is the last resort thing to do ...

For now we should just re-start nuke production to get ready.

As far as I'm concerned, Herm, this is hate speech. I've reported your post and requested that you be banned. I've also put you on my ignore list. Congratulations - this is a damn sad turn of events. So long.

I consider it a form of Juvenalian satire. No need to be in a huff unless you are looking for an excuse.

 

[Nekota]

Wet, I appreciate that ...

Not what I'm doing, Andy.

I'm well aware that nuclear expansion is politically dead, just as I'm well aware that 2C isn't achievable, and a carbon tax in the USA is a hard slog at best. About the most I think likely on nuclear power is that existing nuclear plants will continue to operate, with new construction balancing out retiring plants. Sure, it is only 6%, but we need that 6%.

Going through your points, on line now is the fastest possible, most of the cost of nuclear power both in dollars and carbon is in the construction cost of the plants, aready spent, and there is enough uranium above ground in stockpiles for about 60 years. Sure, this would not fuel a vast expansion of nuclear power, that would likely take thorium.

In the 70's I debated anti-nukes about climate change (global warming) and the necessity to make risk assessment choices vetted with knowledge and information. The question posed is which is worse, radiation risk or global warming climate risk? I'm not at all pleased with the path we have chosen nor the direction we are headed. I do want to be clear that nuclear could have made a big difference in reducing CO2 and those that opposed it and continue to oppose it have to shoulder the responsibility of this choice. Just as it is popular to vilify coal for CO2, anti nukes should be taken to task for their contribution to CO2.

 

[AndyH]

Wet, I appreciate that ...

Not what I'm doing, Andy.

I'm well aware that nuclear expansion is politically dead, just as I'm well aware that 2C isn't achievable, and a carbon tax in the USA is a hard slog at best. About the most I think likely on nuclear power is that existing nuclear plants will continue to operate, with new construction balancing out retiring plants. Sure, it is only 6%, but we need that 6%.

Going through your points, on line now is the fastest possible, most of the cost of nuclear power both in dollars and carbon is in the construction cost of the plants, aready spent, and there is enough uranium above ground in stockpiles for about 60 years. Sure, this would not fuel a vast expansion of nuclear power, that would likely take thorium.

I'm sorry - I realized while I was 'out and about' that my comment might be a bit sharp. No, I don't think that your point was simple debate.

I did some thinking about your plan while out and I agree completely about using all the nuclear power that's currently on line. I wish we could do a power plant swap as ...easily? ( :shock: ) as a computer server swap - take the coal plant off-line Friday evening, have the helicopter lift it out to a junk yard, fly the nuclear plant in, connect it. test/commission it, and have it on-line by Monday morning. If we could do that, I'd say replace every single coal plant in the country with either nuclear or gas or solar or wind. Sigh.

Thanks very much - I'm learning. I appreciate everyone's patience while I catch up.

 

[AndyH]

As far as I'm concerned, Herm, this is hate speech. I've reported your post and requested that you be banned. I've also put you on my ignore list. Congratulations - this is a damn sad turn of events. So long.

I consider it a form of Juvenalian satire. No need to be in a huff unless you are looking for an excuse.

It's all about perception and you're free to perceive as you wish. (No, I'm not suggesting I'm in a position to give anyone permission to do anything.)

 

[AndyH]

In the 70's I debated anti-nukes about climate change (global warming) and the necessity to make risk assessment choices vetted with knowledge and information. The question posed is which is worse, radiation risk or global warming climate risk? I'm not at all pleased with the path we have chosen nor the direction we are headed. I do want to be clear that nuclear could have made a big difference in reducing CO2 and those that opposed it and continue to oppose it have to shoulder the responsibility of this choice. Just as it is popular to vilify coal for CO2, anti nukes should be taken to task for their contribution to CO2.

I appreciate your position, Nekota, and would certainly have helped you in the 70s and the 80s. I wish you and your peers had been more successful in the past, and I wish that civilian nuclear operators used what I perceive to be safer designs used by the US Navy. (Maybe this is based on old info - my first career desire was to go to Annapolis and get into the Navy nuclear power program. Joined the AF instead.) But it appears to me, based on reading reports from the folks paid to know this stuff, that it's simply too late to be organizing a nuclear renaissance here in the 11th hour, and also too late to point nuclear fingers since we have other options now and aren't limited to the lesser of two evils.

I think wind and PV should be the primary focus and am happy to see that industry around the world is significantly expanding polysilicon and carbon fiber. But I'd like to see a national mandate to retrofit efficiency for every single building in this country. That'll eliminate 40% of our energy requirement. I wish Solyndra was still in play because I'd like to see 1MW of their tubes on every flat roof in the country.

I don't know, gents. The feeling in the pit of my stomach continues to grow, the political state seems to be getting more extreme, and it feels to me that we're watching a slow motion climate train wreck. I simply don't have any answers and don't know how to get them - and I really do not like not knowing.

 

[Herm]

I'm well aware that nuclear expansion is politically dead..

Not really, you just need to widen your horizons a bit.. China is going crazy building nukes right now (40?) and since they are responsible for most of the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere then it makes a big impact. Dont despair yet.

a good source:

http://www.nucleartownhall.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andy, lighten up and try to work on your sense of humor, you will be happier in the long run.. gloom and doom is not good for your health.

 

[GRA]

For those who are interested in the views of a Green iconoclast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

by Stewart Brand.

Most of the book is online here:

http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Contents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd combine that with "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by David Mackay, available online here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and Vaclav Smil's "Energy Myths and Realities:Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate", for just what renewables can reasonably achieve. I've been knee-jerk anti-nuke all my life, but over the past decade or so I've come around to the view that we can't make it without nukes for baseload power, because the power density of renewables just ain't going to cut it, especially lacking affordable storage. So, in Stewart Brand's phrase, I've become a 'reluctant tolerator' like Al Gore; I'll take nukes in preference to coal. I am curious to see if Fukushima changed Brand's pro-nuclear opinion; it hasn't altered mine. And James Lovelock ('Gaia' Theory) has always been pro-nuke.

For those who wish to delve more deeply into nukes, there's a book listed by Brand by a former Shoreham protester who went on a tour of the U.S. nuclear establishment, and found herself coming around to a pro-nuclear opinion. I can't find the info off-hand, but will post it once I do. Edit - here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Vintage/dp/0307385876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247534033&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've read it, and it confirmed me in my tolerance for nukes as the only reasonable, expandable low-carbon baseload option in the near and mid-term.

 

[smkettner]

I'd like to see 1MW of their tubes on every flat roof in the country.

I would like to see a national home building requirement to have 1 watt solar per square foot on new home construction or major remodel.

 

[AndyH]

I'm investing in sea front property....in KS

It should be good for future droughts, anyway! It doesn't bode well for my Texas land choice, though... :lol:

 

[AndyH]

For those who are interested in the views of a Green iconoclast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

by Stewart Brand.

Most of the book is online here:

http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Contents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd combine that with "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by David Mackay, available online here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and Vaclav Smil's "Energy Myths and Realities:Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate", for just what renewables can reasonably achieve. I've been knee-jerk anti-nuke all my life, but over the past decade or so I've come around to the view that we can't make it without nukes for baseload power, because the power density of renewables just ain't going to cut it, especially lacking affordable storage. So, in Stewart Brand's phrase, I've become a 'reluctant tolerator' like Al Gore; I'll take nukes in preference to coal. I am curious to see if Fukushima changed Brand's pro-nuclear opinion; it hasn't altered mine. And James Lovelock ('Gaia' Theory) has always been pro-nuke.

For those who wish to delve more deeply into nukes, there's a book listed by Brand by a former Shoreham protester who went on a tour of the U.S. nuclear establishment, and found herself coming around to a pro-nuclear opinion. I can't find the info off-hand, but will post it once I do. Edit - here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Vintage/dp/0307385876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247534033&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've read it, and it confirmed me in my tolerance for nukes as the only reasonable, expandable low-carbon baseload option in the near and mid-term.

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power so I can no longer make the jump that nukes are required - they were but no longer. I see the push for nukes the same as the sales pitch that natural gas is cleaner to burn. Sure - but when we bring the externalities on-line it's got a similar CO2 footprint to coal yet carries additional risk. But - I certainly could be wrong.

I've read Mackay's book a couple of times and use it as a reference. While I like the work he's done, I don't agree with his conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong here too.

I truly believe at this point that the Rocky Mountain Institute's Reinventing Fire lays out the best plan currently on the table - because they don't pen themselves in with assumptions - they start with our current situation and the destination on a clean sheet of paper, and then draw a line between the two. And they make it clear that efficiency is a critical component - and show that when we rework efficiency it completely changes the nature of the power supply problem.

And because we can do this today:
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/NetZero.pdf

 

[AndyH]

A plan! These sessions are highly recommended, folks - but if you only watch one session, watch the last.

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1206539/events/1034074

President Clinton talking about Costa Rica:

When I was in to Costa Rica recently I went to see the new president whom I had not know before that. Her name is Laura Chinchilla and she's a member of the center-right party (she has a coalition government). If she were an American politician, she'd be thought of as a moderate Republican - if that's not an oxymoron. And so, my point is, she was not sort of in my political worldview I didn't think, but here's what she said to me - I never thought I'd ever hear the leader of any country say this. She said: "You know, they tell me that we have oil under the ground and probably off shore - and we have no intention of finding out whether we do or not." I almost fell out of my chair. She said, "We want to be a sustainable country - that's our brand - that's our identity. We don't want that. We're going to be 100% clean energy from electricity as soon as possible and our only real blight is that we import a billion dollars a year in oil for gasoline to run our cars." And she looked at me and she said, "What can you do to help me get out of that?" I said, "Well, what if you made electric cars here that your people could afford to buy?" She said, "If you can get me a car manufacturing company I will guarantee that we will buy the entire output for as long as it takes to put every single Costa Rican in an electric car." I said, "What about the charging?" She said, "No problem. One of the reasons that we're doing as well as we are is that we have a good school and a good health clinic in every community no matter how small - and we're a small country - we'll have more charging stations than we need." ...The point is, that here was a woman who's life and perspective was forged by experience in a stakeholder process that favored cooperation.

 

[Nekota]

For those who are interested in the views of a Green iconoclast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

by Stewart Brand.

Most of the book is online here:

http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Contents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd combine that with "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by David Mackay, available online here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and Vaclav Smil's "Energy Myths and Realities:Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate", for just what renewables can reasonably achieve. I've been knee-jerk anti-nuke all my life, but over the past decade or so I've come around to the view that we can't make it without nukes for baseload power, because the power density of renewables just ain't going to cut it, especially lacking affordable storage. So, in Stewart Brand's phrase, I've become a 'reluctant tolerator' like Al Gore; I'll take nukes in preference to coal. I am curious to see if Fukushima changed Brand's pro-nuclear opinion; it hasn't altered mine. And James Lovelock ('Gaia' Theory) has always been pro-nuke.

For those who wish to delve more deeply into nukes, there's a book listed by Brand by a former Shoreham protester who went on a tour of the U.S. nuclear establishment, and found herself coming around to a pro-nuclear opinion. I can't find the info off-hand, but will post it once I do. Edit - here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Vintage/dp/0307385876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247534033&sr=1-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've read it, and it confirmed me in my tolerance for nukes as the only reasonable, expandable low-carbon baseload option in the near and mid-term.

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power so I can no longer make the jump that nukes are required - they were but no longer. I see the push for nukes the same as the sales pitch that natural gas is cleaner to burn. Sure - but when we bring the externalities on-line it's got a similar CO2 footprint to coal yet carries additional risk. But - I certainly could be wrong.

I've read Mackay's book a couple of times and use it as a reference. While I like the work he's done, I don't agree with his conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong here too.

I truly believe at this point that the Rocky Mountain Institute's Reinventing Fire lays out the best plan currently on the table - because they don't pen themselves in with assumptions - they start with our current situation and the destination on a clean sheet of paper, and then draw a line between the two. And they make it clear that efficiency is a critical component - and show that when we rework efficiency it completely changes the nature of the power supply problem.

And because we can do this today:
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/NetZero.pdf

RMI has been playing the conservation and now "re-branded conservation" as efficiency for 30 or 40 years. Conservation or efficiency does not make energy, it is the wise use of energy. An example of wise energy use is getting cars to slow down from an average of 70 to 55 (60% energy savings) but good luck on getting drivers to slow down! A. Lovins is pretty amazing - look what he did to S. Brand with his boring 4 facts deluge.

Thanks to A. Lovins and his ilk we have a very warm planet arriving sooner than later.

 

[WetEV]

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power

Baseline power has a technical defination, and wind or solar power isn't baseline power. Rather that arguing definations, consider this:

What provides power on nights when the wind isn't blowing?

 

[Alric]

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power

Baseline power has a technical defination, and wind or solar power isn't baseline power. Rather that arguing definations, consider this:

What provides power on nights when the wind isn't blowing?

Anything else. These arguments need to stop being zero-sum. We should use whatever amount we can use of solar, wind and wave energy we can. Then complement with nuclear and finally GHG emitting sources.

 

[ztanos]

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power

Baseline power has a technical defination, and wind or solar power isn't baseline power. Rather that arguing definations, consider this:

What provides power on nights when the wind isn't blowing?

In parts of Alabama it's Nuclear!!!! Makes my walls glow in the dark!!! :lol:

 

[WetEV]

There is a month of melting left to go, and sea ice area is already the #5 on the low list.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[ksnogas2112]

I'd like to see 1MW of their tubes on every flat roof in the country.

I would like to see a national home building requirement to have 1 watt solar per square foot on new home construction or major remodel.

+1

 

[AndyH]

There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power so I can no longer make the jump that nukes are required - they were but no longer. I see the push for nukes the same as the sales pitch that natural gas is cleaner to burn. Sure - but when we bring the externalities on-line it's got a similar CO2 footprint to coal yet carries additional risk. But - I certainly could be wrong.

I've read Mackay's book a couple of times and use it as a reference. While I like the work he's done, I don't agree with his conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong here too.

I truly believe at this point that the Rocky Mountain Institute's Reinventing Fire lays out the best plan currently on the table - because they don't pen themselves in with assumptions - they start with our current situation and the destination on a clean sheet of paper, and then draw a line between the two. And they make it clear that efficiency is a critical component - and show that when we rework efficiency it completely changes the nature of the power supply problem.

And because we can do this today:
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/NetZero.pdf

RMI has been playing the conservation and now "re-branded conservation" as efficiency for 30 or 40 years. Conservation or efficiency does not make energy, it is the wise use of energy. An example of wise energy use is getting cars to slow down from an average of 70 to 55 (60% energy savings) but good luck on getting drivers to slow down! A. Lovins is pretty amazing - look what he did to S. Brand with his boring 4 facts deluge.

Thanks to A. Lovins and his ilk we have a very warm planet arriving sooner than later.

Right...Shoot any solution that doesn't call for a massive expansion of nuclear power. Bzzzt - thanks for playing.

Did you look at the article I linked, by the way? Efficiency works - RMI recently participated in an energy retrofit for the Empire State building - and it resulted in a payback in 'negative years' - it was less expensive to do an energy saving retrofit compared with the traditional required refurb that would not provide future energy savings.

Here's a look at conservation and redesign in the real world. I'm intimately familiar with the data because they are for my house.

1600 sq ft all electric house. Three bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, two story, built in 2000 or 2001. San Antonio, TX.

Average monthly electricity bill over four year period from July 2008 through July 2012: $157.94
Average monthly water bill over same period as above: $29.00
In the event of a power outage, the house is habitable in the spring and fall. Temperature drops to freezing on winter nights and over 100 on summer days. House is not habitable without water and sewer connection.

1600 sq ft passive solar house. Three bedroom, 2 bath, one story, also in San Antonio (estimated from exact building located in Nrn New Mexico and a 2nd in East Texas).

Average monthly electricity bill: 0
Average monthly water bill: 0
Average monthly propane bill: $8.33

All electricity is provided by PV panels. >90% of hot water supplied by solar thermal collector; remaining propane-fired on-demand water heater. Cook stove is propane. Water is harvested rain. All systems are included in price of building, and build costs are the same for the conventional and passive solar building.

Temperature in this building does not depend on electricity or water. Water is still available without electricity. Greywater is cleaned in manufactured wetland in attached tropical greenhouse and provides some % of annual food requirement.

This comparison suggests to me that designing from an efficient standpoint first will provide a superior product for the same amount of money, and a product that does not require any ongoing connection to any energy supply system.

If you don't mind, I'll agree to disagree with your assessment.