Replace price of carbon with price on carbon

· · 39 Comments

While browsing AdWeek, I came across a video titled The Price of Carbon and thought it would be worth sharing as a conversation starter. It’s a pretty concise way to encourage the continuation of a complex discussion about a topic with immediate and long term impact on human existence on Earth.

Instead of charging polluters a fee for dumping their carbon dioxide into our shared atmosphere, we are all paying the cost of the consequences of putting attempting to store about 30 tons per year in our air. I’m willing to pay my share and work to reduce our collective contribution to the pollution. Are you?

Update: (Posted at 3:44 on May 23, 2013) After receiving several comments, I realized that I did not clearly state my recommended means of both paying my share and working to reduce our collective contribution to the pollution. I believe that Jim Hansen’s fee and dividend approach makes a world of sense and can be packaged into a politically palatable product.

I also was hoping that Atomic Insights readers would “get” that I am certain that rapidly expanding nuclear energy will increase human access to affordable, reliable energy — and energy use is what gives us the ability to do valuable work and live abundant, fulfilling lives — while at the same time dramatically slow human greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, nuclear fission does not just reduce CO2 when it replaces hydrocarbon combustion, it also eliminates NOx, SOx, fine particulates, trace toxins, and mercury. End Update.

BTW, for those who want to argue by claiming that CO2 is a plant fertilizer and a natural product, consider the fact that feces can make exactly the same claim.

Green Nuclear Junk – reposted from DecarboniseSA

· · 6 Comments

Ben Heard and Geoff Russell collaborated on a post for DecarboniseSA titled Green Nuclear Junk that takes careful aim at an antinuclear meme that is mostly based on a series of false assumptions that include a table of mortality figures made incorrect by dividing by 8.76 instead of multiplying by that same number.

With Ben’s permission, I have decided to publish another copy of his important article in hopes of increasing its exposure and generating a new series of comments. My goal is to add just a little more pressure on Jim Green — the national antinuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth, Australia — to come clean and admit his mistakes. It would be even better if Green began to make amends for the environmental and economic damage caused by his antinuclear activism, but that is probably a futile hope.

Green Nuclear Junk

By Ben Heard and Geoff Russell

In their determination to attack nuclear power and those who support it, anti-nuclear activism has walked away from the scientific process. As a result, nearly the entire community of environmental organisations in Australia is currently standing behind figures that are completely mathematically incorrect. Will they correct these blatant errors and open their publications to expert external review? Or is correct maths and good science optional when you wear the colour green?

The great scientist Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So how is it that Jim Green, an anti-nuclear campaigner with no scientific journal publications, can accuse James Hansen, one of the most extraordinary scientists of the last 50 years, of junk science?

In Green’s recent article “James Hansen’s nuclear junk science” he does precisely what good scientists don’t do. He cherry picks data.

For those who came in late, Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen recently calculated, in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, that the historic deployment of nuclear power had likely prevented 1.84 million air-pollution related deaths, and by mid-century would prevent a further 420,000 – 7.04 million such deaths.
Read more »

Risks to American nuclear workers from “nonproliferation” excesses

· · 21 Comments

Elaine Grossman has published a piece on Nextgov.com titled Former Defense Brass Object to ‘More Restrictive’ Nuclear Trade Policies that is critical of an effort led by John Hamre to question recent deliberations by the Obama Administration. The end result of the talks has the potential to complicate rules for US based organizations that want [...]

Read more »

Atomic Show #204 – Nuclear vendor CEOs discuss global market outlook

· · 1 Comment

On May 15, 2013, I had the opportunity to attend a session at the Nuclear Energy Assembly titled Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Supplying the Nuclear Energy Industry in the 21st Century. The panel discussion was moderated by John Hamre, President and CEO of Center for Strategic and International Studies. Participants included E. James Ferland, President [...]

Read more »

Pitching nuclear energy and explaining value of new plant construction

· · 9 Comments

I returned last night from a short vacation to Washington, DC. I am such an atomic geek that my idea of a vacation is to spend a couple of days at the Nuclear Energy Assembly (NEA) in a dim hotel conference room surrounded by a crowd of business leaders, many in dark suits who qualify [...]

Read more »

Is Levy County nuclear plant too expensive to compete with natural gas?

· · 149 Comments

On Saturday, May 11, 2013, the Tampa Bay Times published a lengthy piece by Ivan Penn titled Levy nuclear plant more costly than a natural gas facility that uses a detailed analysis with substantial “error bars” around cost estimates to show that under nearly all scenarios considered, the two reactor installation that has been proposed [...]

Read more »

Atomic Show #203 – Globally distributed atomic conversation

· · 11 Comments

Attempting to transition away from fossil fuels to an “all renewable” energy system is fraught with cost and reliability challenges. Germany is running into substantial challenges and is burned 5% more lignite – brown coal – in 2012 than it did in 2011. Recently completed studies that including a range of scenarios in Australia and [...]

Read more »

Spectra Pipeline campaign is a teachable energy moment

· · 10 Comments

If I lived in New York City, I would be campaigning against the installation of large, high pressure gas pipelines and for the continued operation of the well-built and well-maintained Indian Point Nuclear Power Station. I would also campaign for the construction of additional nuclear plants. In my opinion, nuclear generated electricity is more compatible [...]

Read more »

Mark Lynas describes anti GMO conspiracy to Cornell University

· · 23 Comments

One of the primary reasons I am sharing the above video is that it has an analog in the multi-decade effort to restrict the growth of nuclear technology. Though not the topic of this talk, Mark pointed out the similarity between the anti GMO and antinuclear movements. At minute 15:30 he said: Indeed, in many [...]

Read more »