IPCC working group III recommends nearly quadrupling nuclear energy

A few of my pronuclear friends have been disappointed by the treatment of nuclear energy in the recently released final draft of the IPCC working group III Summary for policy makers. For example, Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues thinks that the IPCC is prejudiced against nuclear energy.

While there may be some members of the body who don’t like nuclear energy very much, the rational, numerate members of IPCC working group III managed to slide some very important words past the dissenters in a way that makes me, as a lover of careful wording, want to praise their composition skills.

Policy makers should note that the word ‘nuclear’ appears 11 times in the summary. In four of those important passages, it is a key component of a short list of zero- and low-carbon energy sources.

  • At the global level scenarios reaching 450 ppm are also characterized by more rapid improvements in energy efficiency, a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero- and low-carbon supply from renewables, nuclear energy AND fossil energy with carbon capture and storage (CCS) OR bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050. (p. 15)
  • Zero- and low-carbon energy supply includes renewables, nuclear energy, AND fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), OR bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). (p. 16)
  • In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy (RE) nuclear AND CCS) increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050, AND fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100. (p. 23)
  • annual investment in low-carbon electricity supply (i.e., renewables nuclear AND electricity generation with CCS) is projected to rise by about USD 147 (31-360) billion (median: +100% compared to 2010) (p. 29)

(Emphasis and capitalization of operators added.)

Not only have I spent time smithing words for human consumption in intensely political environments, but I also have a fair understanding of Boolean logic. I admire what the IPCC authors have accomplished. In both human communications and computer programming, the operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ have important meanings. So do modifiers like ‘with’. (Fossil with CCS is a completely different animal than fossil without CCS.)

In my analysis, the recommendation for policy makers is quite clear. The only way to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration at acceptably low levels is to nearly quadruple the output of renewables, nuclear, AND electricity generation from fossil or bioenergy with CCS. The ‘and’ means that all of the items on the list are needed, the program cannot pick and choose the one or two that it likes the best.

However, since current electricity generation with CCS is virtually zero, nearly quadrupling it will mean it is still nearly zero in 2050. Renewables will gain a substantial market share, but the biggest current source of zero- or low-carbon energy in the developed world — nuclear energy — will have to grow the most in absolute terms to keep doing its share of the heavy lifting.

IPCC working group III also provides some explanation for the current state of nuclear energy and its perceived utility.

Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and and risks exist (robust evidence, high agreement)
Those include: operational risks, and the associated concerns, uranium mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear weapon proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion (robust evidence, high agreement. New fuel cycles and reactor technologies addressing some of these issues are being investigated and progress in research and development has been made concerning safety and waste disposal.

That explanation, in my opinion, is carefully worded to answer the logical questions that curious policy makers would be sure to ask – “If nuclear energy is a proven, mature, low- or zero-emission power source, why isn’t its use growing?” The IPCC working group has informed policy makers that the engineers and scientists are doing their part of addressing the reasons why nuclear energy has not been growing for the past 20 years, but the rest of the issues must be tackled by the policy makers themselves.

Most of the listed barriers to increasing clean energy output using atomic fission are political, not technical. That does not make them any more difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions are at hand, now all we need is a little more honesty and accurate risk assessment. The public’s opinion can be swayed by the people who have assumed the burden of leadership and spend most of their days working to influence the public to do the right thing.


If energy policy is important to you, please consider a donation to Atomic Insights LLC. Donations are not tax deductible; Atomic Insights is a for-profit, tax-paying organization with a mission. We are passionate about finding and sharing accurate information and analysis about atomic energy, fuels politics, and the difficult energy choices that we all need to make.






If you think, but I’ve already donated, ask yourself how many times you have tipped your favorite bartender, waitress, garbage man or valet. Is the service provided here any less valuable?

About Rod Adams

151 Responses to “IPCC working group III recommends nearly quadrupling nuclear energy”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Engineer-Poet says:

    Unfortunately the public reads the scribblers’ take on the report rather than the report itself, and their slant almost universally repeats the mantra of “nuclear isn’t feasible”.

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The public’s opinion can be swayed by the people who have assumed the burden of leadership and spend most of their days working to influence the public to do the right thing”

    You must mean those in “leadership” positions within the pronuke community? I would question whether they actually have the means to acquire the public’s ear.

    If you are speaking about those “who have assumed the burden of leadership” within the political arena, your premise that they “spend most of their days working to influence the public to do the right thing” is absurd, Rod.

    • Smiling Joe Fission says:

      Agreed.

      • Paul W Primavera says:

        Double agreed. There is no difference between the dishonesty of politicians and the dishonesty of corporate executives. The first lusts after power, the second after money. Neither give a darn about the people who themselves are given wholly over to the likes of Reality TV and smart phone Facebooking without any concern for the good of the Republic. We had a chance to go nuclear under Bush, then we elected Obama, the greatest boon to natural gas.

        • Jim Hopf says:

          Bush wasn’t pro-nuclear in any meaningful sense. He was pro fossil. It was under the Bush administration that fracking was granted blanket exemption from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water acts. That’s the main reason it’s so cheap.

          Imagine how similar regulatory relief (that nobody in our industry could even imagine ever getting) would affect nulcear’s economics. The few bones nuclear got (a couple loan guarantees and very limited PTCs) were much less significant. The net effect of the 2005 Energy Policy Act? A penny for nuclear, a dollar for gas. Was Bush better on the waste issue? Yeah, but so what. That issue has little impact on how much nuclear gets built. (And Romney was no better than Obama on waste.)

          Meaningful help for nuclear would be primarily in the form of global warming legislation (which only Democrats support); cap-and-trade, a CO2 tax, or even a Clean Energy Standard. Either that or (badly needed) tightening of pollution control regs on coal plants. Through his EPA, Obama has effectively banned the construction on new coal plants, and is working towards getting many of the oldest diriest plants phased out. Through those actions, he has done far more for nuclear (in the medium to longer term) than Bush ever did.

          The Democrats aren’t perfect, Yucca being the best example, but I don’t see any future for nuclear under the Republicans. The main justification for nuclear has always been environmental (we have plenty of coal).

          • Smiling Joe Fission says:

            How about instead of making energy more expensive by taxing and regulating it even more than we already do, we focus on more efficient regulations or just reducing regulations altogether?

            Nuclear power needs to be cheaper, not everything else more expensive.

          • Smiling Joe Fission says:

            That came off more hostile than I meant it to sound, Jim.

            Neither party really likes nuclear right now. It doesn’t really score any political points. I think nuclear plant designs that are cheaper and more competitive are the only way nuclear really makes a big comeback in the West. I don’t think people are going to accept artificially (taxes, regulations) higher energy prices for much longer. Our best bet is design lower cost per kwh plants and push for more efficient regulations to help incentivize nuclear investment.

          • Andy says:

            All the reasons you cited are a good summation for why the next century will be primarily coal powered. We have a temporary glut of natural gas due to fracking, but given our massive expansion of natural gas burning that won’t last long.

            People will put up with high energy prices for at most two election cycles, after that the pressure gets to great and even very idealistic nations like Germany bend over to economic reality. In the case of Germany that reality is a new generation of coal power plants. It likely won’t even get that far in the US, I doubt Americans would ever put with electricity at $.50 a kilowatt hour, especially when it doesn’t even result in shutting down natural gas fracking or coal power.

            So, we will run up a huge debt trying to build lots of wind turbines, and then when that doesn’t work out and we are in an economic hole just as Spain is we will turn to coal power given that voters will be more concerned with finding a job and lowering their power bill. My recommendation, buy coal stocks.

          • Patrick McGuinness says:

            “The Democrats aren’t perfect, Yucca being the best example”
            … in a long line of Democrat political decisions that hobbles nuclear.

            The shutdown of Yucca was your clue. But even before that, huge $$ into renewables in 2009 Democrat stimulus, but nuclear got zero.

            Prior to that, in Clinton administration, they derailed the IFR, shutting down the last nuclear R&D reactor demonstration project. They ended the era of real nuclear research, and slowing down the progress in nuclear technology. Why are we advancing in other areas but nuclear is little changed from 1970s era technology? Why havent costs come down more? Why are we still on ‘evolutionary’ AP1000 tweaks to PWR and not talking about building mor revolutionary, safer and better reactors?

            NRC remains in a mode that is managing to keep US nuclear reactor constructions costs 2X what can be done in Asia – inflexible and backwards.
            NRC morass + no $ for R&D = no progress in nuke technology.

            Prior to that, in Carter administration, shutting the door on reprocessing of fuel in the civilian sector and ending breeder reactor programs, so we are stuck with ‘one through and done’ and then they complain about the waste, really an over-stated issue, but Yucca was a fine well-over-engineered solution to it. And yet, Reid and Obama stop it for political reasons, overriding the technical conclusions that the site would be safe and sound.

            There is a certain strategy of the anti-nuclear forces to basically destroy nuclear via death of 1000 cuts. Just as we see with the folly of Obama’s keystone non-decision – death by delay to a viable and useful infrastructure project – the anti-nuclear forces populating democratic administrations and lobby groups have been harrying the industry for decades with FUD. It’s a testament to the underlying worthiness of the industry that it has survived the PR onslaught.

            Global warming legislation wont do a darn thing for nuclear. The same forces that want to ban coal plants and coddle renewables want to get rid of nuclear. Al Gore claims CO2 is big crisis, but then turns around and says we dont need nuclear to address it. Here’s a clue for ya: Germany. The “CO2 is evil” greens got nuclear totally banned.

            You need to stop making excuses for Democrats. They have harmed nuclear power immeasurably. It’s time to push back:
            Why arent we pushing to get nuclear to be made part of the Renewable Energy Portfolio requirements? that are in law in many states. Nuclear can last a million years with full resources out there (thorium etc.) Rod mentioned a group doesnt consider nuclear a renewable. Well, the *law* is defined by legislators.

          • SciTechSuperFreak says:

            Hey Patrick McGuinness

            […] Prior to that, in Clinton administration, they derailed the IFR, shutting down the last nuclear R&D reactor demonstration project. They ended the era of real nuclear research, and slowing down the progress in nuclear technology. Why are we advancing in other areas but nuclear is little changed from 1970s era technology? Why havent costs come down more? Why are we still on ‘evolutionary’ AP1000 tweaks to PWR and not talking about building mor revolutionary, safer and better reactors? [...]

            Whoa… Slow down a bit there. Clinton shut down IFR which is low-pressure BUT ALSO a low-temperature reactor. The MSRE & LFTR are both low-pressure AND HIGH-TEMPERATURE THORIUM feed options and those were killed by Nixon partly because the military wanted Plutonium byproducts and Nixon wanted the breeders in Southern California to enhance his chance for re-election as opposed to pushing the MSRE developed in Tennessee. Here: http://youtu.be/bbyr7jZOllI?t=11m40s

            I don’t think just hammering democrats really advance the pro-nuclear agenda, specially when you are not pushing molten-salt, which is the viable option we have that has not had the chance to be fully developed.

            […] There is a certain strategy of the anti-nuclear forces to basically destroy nuclear via death of 1000 cuts. Just as we see with the folly of Obama’s keystone non-decision – death by delay to a viable and useful infrastructure project – the anti-nuclear forces populating democratic administrations and lobby groups have been harrying the industry for decades with FUD. It’s a testament to the underlying worthiness of the industry that it has survived the PR onslaught. […]

            Pardon my skepticism, but infrastructure my @$$. The Keystone pipeline is not nuclear and not infrastructure, it is corporate welfare for the Koch brothers. Not only that, Nuclear doesn’t make money building power plants. They make money processing and enriching fuel. That is why they wanted IFR. IFR would be make-work for GE & Westinghouse. LFTR fuel manufacturing costs are trivial. LFTR would compete BOTH with the nuclear & oil corporate establishment.

            […] Al Gore claims CO2 is big crisis, but then turns around and says we dont need nuclear to address it […]

            You are a climate change denier too? What is this? MySpace?

            [...] You need to stop making excuses for Democrats. They have harmed nuclear power immeasurably. [...]

            Not as much as this guy: http://youtu.be/bbyr7jZOllI?t=15m15s

            […] Rod mentioned a group doesn’t consider nuclear a renewable. Well, the *law* is defined by legislators. […]

            Not really. These days, the law is made by Supreme Court Judge John Roberts. During the last 6 years, all we got from congress was Obamacare & 50 attempts by RepubliCONs to repeal it… and from Roberts:
            Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
            McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

            The nuclear corporate agenda is doing just fine and dandy enriching uranium and maintaining the status quo. Do you think the GE & Westinghouse establishment are going to rock the boat? Their boards are probably interlocked with big oil & coal.

            You want a meritocracy, you need to get the corporations to stop gouging the people, instead of blaming the people for wanting cheap clean energy and breathable air too.

            Corporations are not People.
            Money is not Speech.
            MoveToAmend.org

  3. John Tucker says:

    From my readings and travels around the interwebs I feel the Nuclear aspect it is being downplayed or even totally ignored. I also think the IPCC failed to mention that a all nuclear path is viable for significantly reducing emissions whereas a all renewable one is a bit more difficult, if not impossible, not to mention land use/habitat loss/expense/food security issues.

    • John Tucker says:

      Also fossil fuel CCS is also not a proven technology and is pretty much dead in the water save a few small scale, planned and/or semi-operational examples.

      I think the indisputable correct answer here, current tech, risks and costs in perspective, bottom line, was that nuclear needed to be greatly expanded. Although I am pleased they released this, and realize the great effort it took, I think the IPCC dropped the ball when it came to facing the music and telling people what they really needed to hear.

    • Rod Adams says:

      It’s our job to change the narrative. We’ve been given the tools, let’s use them!

    • Rick Armknecht says:

      Practically speaking, isn’t nuclear energy a “renewable” form of energy? After all, what is geothermal energy? Isn’t it a form of nuclear energy? Given the multiple methods for employing breeder reactors AND the ability to obtain Uranium from seawater, nuclear energy IS a “renewable.”

      • Rod Adams says:

        According to definition of American Council on Renewable Energy, nuclear does not qualify for their “brand.” Fine with me, it’s a lousy brand anyway since they allow municipal solid waste and black liquor into their “club.” Besides, no energy is actually “renewable” if you understand the laws of thermodynamics.

        Nuclear is sustainable, concentrated, abundant, reliable, on-demand, and emission free. Those are terrific adjectives for a fuel source.

        • Rick Armknecht says:

          Yes, Rod, I agree wholeheartedly as regards terminology: to a fully-informed person, “nuclear” should sound a lot better than “renewable.”
          My comment was directed at the subsidies (in terms of grants, tax breaks, loan guarantees, and regulations) that governments (national, state and local) dole out to “renewable” energy sources.
          Specifically, I wonder if the exclusion of nuclear from those benefits (terminology aside) would satisfy the “rational basis” test. Not sure what entity would have standing to bring the case in any event — but it would be a fun case to brief.

        • Sean McKinnom says:

          I have heard the theory that all the energy that will ever be created already exists and that you can’t really create or use up energy that all we are really doing is changing it from one form to another? (From electrical, to mechanical, to thermal, and back etc…)

          So wouldn’t all forms of energy “production” be renewable in a way?

        • Bill Chaffee says:

          I regard “renewable energy” as a political term, not a scientific term because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

      • Patrick McGuinness says:

        Yes, let’s change the branding … SIGNIFICANTLY. Nuclear is *natural* energy. Nuclear reactions happen naturally on earth all the time. Nuclear is safe. 10,000 reactor years and only a few incidents under extreme conditions.

        “So wouldn’t all forms of energy “production” be renewable in a way?”

        Yes. Nuclear is ‘earth energy’, how our earth core is hot today, and the product of old stars that went supernova. Fossil fuels are bio-fuels, just 100 million years old organisms stuck in the ground. Ultimately it all comes back to solar / sun energy. Even fusion is ‘solar’ as its the nuclear reaction heating our sun. And even solar will run out, but it does have a 4 billion year lease on life.

        Step one in busting the paradigm that separates nuclear from the ‘cool’ renewables is to get all states to make nuclear a part of the Renewable Portfolio Standards(*). Here is why nuclear deserves to be in the RPS:
        1. It is emissions-free. Zero air pollution. Zero CO2 emissions.
        2. It can last longer than human civilization. We have millions of years of resources, effectively unlimited.
        3. It is domestic. Nuclear promote energy security and energy independence.
        4. It is safe. Nuclear has a record that is safer than not only fossil fuels but also safer than wind or solar.

  4. Ed Leaver says:

    As I read it, the WG-III summary does not say that each and every low-carbon generating technology must increase 4-fold — only that the net low-carbon capacity (on a GWh basis) must do so. Lots of flexibility. Looking at the huge a number of modern coal plants China has built this century, and commensurate increase in coal consumption and continued demand, its hard to see how coal is anything but the fuel of the future, unfortunately.

    Until recently I too hoped we (global we) could just decommission all our coal plant and slot nuclear in its stead. But the numbers are staggering. The U.S. alone would have to replace something like 250 — 300 GW coal over a thirty-five year period. That’s 7 – 8.5 GW/yr, or six 1400 MW reactors each year.. Can we do it? Take a deep breath and say “YES!!!” Can the rest of the world? Don’t know. China may be taking the nuclear lead, but I suspect they’ll want to keep their investment in coal. Lots of room for CCS, if retrofitting weren’t so expensive and if CCS were proven. But we won’t know until we try.

    Even at that fossil-fuel CCS is probably at best a stop-gap. Thermodynamics is not in its favor. The very best carbon sequestration scheme is just leave the damn stuff in the ground and don’t !@%&^$* burn it.

    That would have been good twenty, thirty years ago. We’ve got to face reality today.

    Back at Rod’s post: I wrote up a brief synopsis of what WG-III’s Summary was alluding to last fall — see Pathways for Stabilization of Radiative Forcing by 2100. At least glance at Figure 11. But note that Thomson et al.‘s “nuke early, nuke often” scenario, though least cost, is not the only route to a sustainable carbon budget, and even it recognizes our global coal plight and the necessity of CCS: in the linked RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2C Van Vuuren et al. defer nuclear build-out until the second part of the century, with even more reliance on CCS.

    • seth says:

      Keep in mind that France was able to go from 0 to 80% nuke in 10 years with only a small industrial effort. A nuke reactor these days is basically a large pile of concrete and rebar with far less complexity than a single automobile. Think of how much concrete and steel goes into bridges buildings and the auto trade. Compared to those, a massive nuke construction program would be a trivial burden to our industrial capacity.

      Most surveys have nuke power plants in areas that already have them to be more popular than new gas plants and fracked supply, yet lotsa of gas gets built and no nukes. The problem here is the always apolitical nuker has zero understanding of politics and thinks popularity in the general population is the issue – it is not.

      The real issue is Big Oil corruption of politics and media, allowing utilities to build filthy cheap gas plants killing large numbers of residents annually with the air pollution without any of the onerous regulatory process nukes are stuck with, while allowing these gas plants to pass on gas costs with an attached gratuity. If these plants were forced to guarantee the price of fuel for 60 years like nukes in effect do, not a single gas plant would be built.

      Even assuming nukes are evil, there is no logical reason why adding an NRC approved nuke plant type to an existing nuke site, should require any regulatory approval, once again showing the depth of Big Oil corruption of politicians.

      Keep in mind that even in China, the cost of coal imports now needed to fuel a part of their coal infrastructure is double the cost of their nukes, while the air pollution is pissing off the population in a major way. They are, I believe, waiting for the results of their potentially penny a kwh HTGR now under construction for 2017 and their just announced advancement of a prototype MSR for 2017, before rapidly replacing coal with nukes at the French record pace. Look how rapidly they went high speed rail.

      Note as well that these Chinese Gen IV nukes, are capable of producing zero net carbon synfuels at a far lower cost than petrol, given added incentive.

      Unfortunately the West’s 100% corrupt stable of politicians, will have have reduced us to an industrial backwater by the time the Chinese are done.

      • simple touriste says:

        “A nuke reactor these days is basically a large pile of concrete and rebar with far less complexity than a single automobile.”

        Which are the two European EPR such construction nightmares?

        • simple touriste says:

          I think meant:
          “for which reason

          • Matte says:

            Ol-3, STUK thinks they are better at it than they really are, TVO thought they had a better idea than the designers of the plant, AREVA…well they are French and the French have never managed to complete a project under 10 years.

            STUK didn’t buy the LBB-concept and demanded pipe restraints in the containment. I have heard stories of a poorly designed plant (physical layout) as valves can’t be operated as the maneuvering handles are hitting walls and/or doors. If TVO had not decided on slapping their own turbine on the plant I am sure that the thing would have been completed a looong time ago. Now it seems it will take a few more years as AREVA has no operating parameters for the I&C-systems of the plant. The Finns are a touch miffed to say the least, you don’t want to be around pissed off Finns, they bite!

            I’m uncertain as to what is going on at Fl-3, but I am guessing that AREVA wanted to boost power output of the plant (for political reasons, we must have a bigger willie than the Finns) and didn’t realise how much it affected the design, but this is pure speculation from my side.

  5. Rod Adams says:

    People – please read the words that the IPCC working group used. They are clear and inescapable, but were carefully chosen in recognition of CURRENT reality and the need to make a course and speed change as soon as possible

    • John Tucker says:

      Be specific. Ive read more and still feel the same.

      P 23 – ( http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf )

      Energy strategies the nuclear “issues” in their words, Particularity “waste”:

      Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low ‐ carbon energy
      supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist ( robust evidence, high agreement )
      .
      “uranium mining risks,” “Unresolved waste management issues,” “nuclear
      weapon proliferation concerns”

      Rod with respect to the reality of pollution and waste out there and the situation with outer energy sources. That’s cheap, amateurish, overly simplistic and in short, second rate of them.

      Then including hydro with RE and then no mention of environmental cost (particularly mining) or risk. That there should be a huge red flag.

    • Ed Leaver says:

      “…please read the words that the IPCC working group used. They are clear and inescapable, but were carefully chosen in recognition of CURRENT reality and the need to make a course and speed change as soon as possible.”

      My sincerest apologies if I ever insinuated otherwise. After submitting the above comment I thought the final sentence should have better read “…Van Vuuren et al. defer nuclear build-out until the second part of the century, with even more reliance on CCS. Sigh>.

      Oh well. For the record, I have little confidence CCS can solve the coal problem on a global scale. The thermodynamics just isn’t there. I doubt the cost ever will be, either. It may be that sometime, somewhere, it may be possible to retrofit some coal plants with CCS. And if no more coal is consumed than that necessary to co-fire biomass, that will be great. (Really great). Otherwise, it doesn’t look at present like CCS of straight coal can be done effectively enough to get to the near-zero carbon levels the electric sector will require. The money is far better spent on nuclear fission. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try CCS, just that it’d be a huge mistake to pin the planet on it.

      Thanks.

      • Eino says:

        You don’t have to think very hard about Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) to laugh and say,……yah right. Sulfer Dioxide can be handled with scrubbers. It increases the ash waste to be handled due to the lime being used. Mercury can be handled with Activated Carbon Injection(ACI). It increases the ash waste to be handled.

        Coal is mostly Carbon. The ole Periodic table says he’s number 12. You are combining him twice with Ms Oxygen. She’s number 16. So you start with an atomic weight unit of 12 and turn it into Carbon Dioxide with 12 + 16 + 16 = 44 mass units. Right now the combination flies happily into the air. If you could turn Carbon Dioxide into a solid, would it even fit into the same hole the coal same out of?

        The coal plant near my home gets about 3 train loads of Wyoming coal shipped a long ways every day. How many train loads of Carbon Dioxide would be shipped back to Wyoming if Carbon Dioxide was solid? How long would it take to fill Yucca Mountain with the stuff? Maybe a day.

        Don’t get me wrong, I like fairy tales. However, I like the ones with the happy endings. CCS isn’t one of them.

        • Rick Armknecht says:

          Eino, This may interest you (From MIT, November 4, 2008):
          Chemical reactions that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it in the form of solid rock inside geological formations could offset billions of tons of carbon-dioxide emissions each year, according to researchers at Columbia University, in New York. The scientists say that research done on large rock formations in Oman suggests new ways to sequester carbon-dioxide emissions to help lessen global warming.

          The researchers have shown that rock formations called peridotite, which are found in Oman and several other places worldwide, including California and New Guinea, produce calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate rock when they come into contact with carbon dioxide. The scientists found that such formations in Oman naturally sequester hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide a year. Based on those findings, the researchers, writing in the current early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calculate that the carbon-sequestration rate in rock formations in Oman could be increased to billions of tons a year–more than the carbon emissions in the United States from coal-burning power plants, which come to 1.5 billion tons per year.

  6. Eino says:

    “At the global level scenarios reaching 450 ppm are also characterized by more rapid improvements in energy efficiency, a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero- and low-carbon supply from renewables, nuclear energy AND fossil energy with carbon capture and storage (CCS) OR bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050. (p. 15)”

    I don’t know how to tell you guys this, but there are a lot of intelligent people out there that do not believe in global warming. They look back at the cold Winter we’ve had (& are still having) and consider the whole global warming thing a farce. They are backed up in their beliefs by right wing media and statements from some highly positioned elected officials. These people are part of the public. If you are want to convince the public to build nukes to solve global warming, you might first want to work a little harder to prove that global warming is indeed a reality. Then second, you will need to convince these folks that it will matter in their lives.

    Third – You can go on to the Nuke thing. Sometime after that maybe you can bring up Thorium. LFTRs and HTGCRs if they haven’t glazed over by then.

    • simple touriste says:

      “They are backed up in their beliefs by”

      by Jean Jouzel saying on TV that after discovering the error about Himalaya error, the IPCC simply did not wanted to waste paper to correct the mistake.

      Does Jean Jouzel think we are so stupid?

      There are so many things which do not fit in the catastrophic warming narrative. The more I learn about, the more I think it might be the biggest fraud, ever.

      • John T Tucker says:

        That was a non issue.

        There are also still legitimate pollution and acidification concerns. Not to mention a finite amount of easily recoverable fossil fuel.

        • simple touriste says:

          Jean Jouzel words were inane. You don’t reprint 2000 pages when an error is discovered, you print one page where you write “p. 1234 after “blah” read …”.

          Jean Jouzel think we are sheeps?

          Also, many “non issues”, many error of IPCC tend to go in the very same direction. Many “tricks”, many manipulations, lack of transparency, refusal to publish data and code, saying that Freedom of Information doesn’t apply to universities…

          I cannot accept that. Freedom and quality of living are being decreased based on data that cannot be published… is that some joke?

          Then, there is the strange terminology of “climatology” (what is “climate”, BTW? It is weather when it’s hot, and something else when it’s cold outside?); in which other science field do we call a variation an “anomaly”? The whole terminology seems based on the silly idea that climate change is the exception, rather than the rule.

          Then, there is the “pause”… which the IPCC is trying to hide.

          And don’t get me started on the recursive “science” politics “fury”…

          If the concern is access to carbon source and not CO2, we need to stop wasting time, money and energy on experimental technologies like carbon capture.

          About the acidification, how much more CO2 are needed before oceans become acid?

          • John T Tucker says:

            You know what? thats all wonderful but honestly I don’t care. There is no other game in own. There has been no such comprehensive attempt at climate science. Yea they made a mistake there. But, just that you think a Himalaya prediction, that has nothing to do with the other studies, undermines the whole argument, science and observation, well thats basically moronic.

          • simple touriste says:

            It isn’t just the Himalaya study. The Himalaya error is not so important (but Jouzel pathetic “don’t waste paper” excuse was really pathetic, and opened my eyes: he isn’t a scientist anymore; he is an IPCC cheerleader).

            It’s the use of non peer reviewed research. It’s the hiding of the data. It’s trying to hide the “pause”. It’s the fact the model don’t even predict the past. Etc.

            Many, many things are not as we are told by the IPCC and liberal and “science” medias.

            It’s just like with vaccines: when you begin to check the official narrative, it isn’t really pretty. And the “science” media are only telling us the official gospel.

            When you question vaccine, they tell you you are an anti-vaxxer.

            When you question the IPCC, they tell you “paid by Big Oil” or something like that.

            And now it’s “conspiracy ideation” (the word ideation is funny; I like it).

            It’s the same “official science” “consensus” story. But there is no consensus yet on global warming. At least, not in the French Academy of sciences. (The “science” medias don’t want you to know that.)

            Suppressing dissent, as it’s usually done in the “science” medias, doesn’t create a consensus, it just lowers the confidence of citizens.

            More and more people doubt the findings of “climate science”. For good reasons.

          • John T Tucker says:

            The IPCC reports are a aggregation of studies. They are not a research institution.

            Why dont you take up your query with the USGS.

            Unprecedented Rate and Scale of Ocean Acidification Found in the Arctic

            “A remarkable 20 percent of the Canadian Basin has become more corrosive to carbonate minerals in an unprecedented short period of time. Nowhere on Earth have we documented such large scale, rapid ocean acidification” according to lead researcher and ocean acidification project chief, U.S. Geological Survey oceanographer Lisa Robbins.

            …the scientists were able to make 34,000 water-chemistry measurements from the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker. “This
            unusually large data set, in combination with earlier studies,

            not only documents remarkable changes in Arctic seawater chemistry but also provides a much-needed baseline against which future measurements can be compared.”
            ( http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3686&from=rss#.U1Ui1Jj08ak )

          • John T Tucker says:

            Since you have showed such interest here is the latest paper I know of on the hot and heated great Himalayan glacier massive error, cover up conspiracy and controversy.

            Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover ( http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~bodo/pdf/scherler11_glaciers_himalaya.pdf )

            It seems the reality of the situation is all about the debris slowing the effects of climate change in some areas and no one really has any other input to add to it. That is since November 2010.

            So there we are. The lesson being don’t copy and paste your science from Maxim or equivalent sources even if there is not much else on the matter available at the time.

          • simple touriste says:

            http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3686

            “Lower pH levels make water more acidic and lab studies have shown that more acidic water decrease calcification rates in many calcifying organisms, reducing their ability to build shells or skeletons.”

            “lower” “reduce”

            Higher radiation level can cause cancer.

            How much radiation cause how much increase of cancer?

            I mean:
            How much more CO2 cause how muchdecreased calcification rates?

            http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impacts/ocean-acidification/

            “Prior to industrialization, the pH of the oceans was on average about 8.2; however, since then, the average pH has dropped about 0.1 units.”

            You impress people with “acidification”. But acidification for people implies acidic. If say from 8.2 to 8.1, people will ignore you.

            The same is true for many vaccines and preventive medicine. You can impress people with RR, but when you speak honestly (absolute values), it is much less impressive. And when you use the good endpoint (deaths vs. cases of disease), it is even less impressive.

            It is easy to impress naive people with vaccine effectiveness, when you check the details, facts are not so impressive (it is not clear vaccine are the root cause for eradication of many diseases, for example; vaccines decreases infections of some diseases, but made these much worse, etc.).

            Now, I have only a limited time for every subject. When I see that activists (AGW catastrophists, vaxxers, anti-nuclear people, etc.) try to impress me RR or bad endpoints, I go away.

          • John T Tucker says:

            “lower” “reduce”
            Higher radiation level can cause cancer.
            How much radiation cause how much increase of cancer?

            This absurd argument is why I think environmentalists that select nuclear probably will be better at arguing for it than many in the nuclear industry that seem to carry so much anti-environmental baggage.

            Its clearly NOT the same. Acidification in the lab and in the wild is already observed and explained and proven affecting indigenous species.

            Low dose radiation does and has not.

            It is not even close to the same thing. Lets have a throw down now on this because it is becoming unbearable stupidity and no, I am not going to let it go this time.

            Searching for the Ocean Acidification Signal

            Over that past century, the pH of the ocean has decreased from 8.2 to 8.1. This doesn’t seem like a lot, but it represents a faster rate than at any time in the last 300 million years. ( http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/searching-ocean-acidification-signal )

          • John T Tucker says:

            full study cited in that press piece – free link (pre release). And a few other narratives science and scientifically linked anecdotal points:

            Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean ( http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/20728/1/Bednarsek%20et%20al%20NGEO.pdf )

            A Washington family opens a hatchery in Hawaii to escape lethal waters. ( http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/oysters-hit-hard/ )

            Acidic ocean deadly for Vancouver Island scallop industry ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/acidic-ocean-deadly-for-vancouver-island-scallop-industry-1.2551662 )

            So yes even though in the bumpkin scientific narrative ,1 doesn’t seem like so much an issue. Unfortunately it is. And no, amazingly it still doesn’t mean extremely low dose radiation FUD is valid.

    • Rod Adams says:

      @Eino

      I’m not sure how “intelligent people” can be backup up in their beliefs by “right wing media and statements from some highly positioned elected officials.”

      If they were actually intelligent, they would not be getting their information from those sources.

      Again, I ask – if someone favors nuclear energy now, will they stop favoring it if nuclear energy advocates truthfully point out that it is a reliable, near zero emission source of electricity and heat that can displace a large portion of our current fossil fuel use?

      On the other hand, if someone is very worried about CO2 emissions but has a vague discomfort about nuclear energy because of all of the FUD that they have heard about it for the past 40 years, are they likely to change their mind if they realize that it holds the key to replacing fossil fuels without sacrificing all of the good things that human inventiveness has provided since the beginning of the Industrial Age?

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If you are want to convince the public to build nukes to solve global warming, you might first want to work a little harder to prove that global warming is indeed a reality. Then second, you will need to convince these folks that it will matter in their lives”

    Bingo.

    All you have to do is look at the ratings, and success, of Fox News, to realize that a huge segment of our population is being successfully bullshitted into believing that “global warming” is just a sinister fiction concocted by the evil left.

  8. Rod Adams says:

    The US Midwest and East Coast may have had a cold winter, but are thinking Americans so myopic that they think that those areas are the boundaries of a global problem?

    • PissedOffAmerican says:

      “…..but are thinking Americans so myopic that they think that those areas are the boundaries of a global problem?”

      Yes. Fox news would not be so popular if great amounts of people weren’t swallowing the swill. You may be right that many Americans are capable of thinking, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that the majority of us are utilizing that capability.

      Why should we think when we have the media to do our thinking for us? Its so much easier if our politicians simply design our collective thoughts, and task those such as Maddow or Hannity to correctly direct our thinking towards an acceptable design. That way it frees up our time to think about the important stuff, like how amazing it is that cable TV is finally advertizing dildoes.

      • Wayne SW says:

        “You may be right that many Americans are capable of thinking, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that the majority of us are utilizing that capability.”

        I think you’re probably right. It is my impression that the majority of the public (and electorate) is incredibly intellectually lazy. If it were otherwise a man like Barack Obama could not have been elected the town dogcatcher, much less a Senator or President. All you need do is look at some of the clips on YouTube and elsewhere that have snippets of interviews with people being asked simple current events questions, like who is the Vice President, who is Harry Reid, who is John Boehner, who is Vladimir Putin. Most respondents don’t have a clue.

        The American Nuclear Society did a poll a few years back where they asked people about their energy choices. They limited the poll to college-educated people. The results pretty much mirrored what one guy said about his energy choices. Question: Should we get more of our energy from petroleum? Answer: No, I don’t think that’s a good idea. We’re too dependent on the Arabs. Question: Okay, so how about coal? We have lots of that. Answer: No, I don’t like coal, it’s too polluting. Question: Would you favor increased use of nuclear energy? Answer: Oh, no way. They don’t know what to do with the waste and its too dangerous. Question: Well, what energy source do you favor? Answer: I think electricity is a good choice. We should have more of that.

        So much for thinking through the problem.

        • PissedOffAmerican says:

          ” If it were otherwise a man like Barack Obama could not have been elected the town dogcatcher, much less a Senator or President”

          However, his ascendency to the throne does serve to remind us of the importance of competent marketing. Whoever ran his campaign could sell gophers to a gardener. You pronukers oughta take up a pool and hire the guy.

        • PissedOffAmerican says:

          “Answer: I think electricity is a good choice. We should have more of that”

          Idiots.

          After all, any reasonably intelligent person should realize our country runs on bullshit.

    • simple touriste says:

      Is climate not the same thing as weather, unless it’s hot outside?

      • turnages says:

        I’ll assume you’re asking a serious question, rather than just being flippant.

        No, climate is not the same thing as weather.

        The wikipedia page on climate has a good introduction. Look it up and educate yourself.

        The dangerous thing about global warming is that, for the first time in millions of years, it is forcing climate change on a timescale of 100 years or less, instead of a timescale of millennia or more. Species can adapt much more easily if the climate changes slowly, than if it changes fast.

        And, of course, deforestation, overfishing and other human depredations are taking their toll too.

        • simple touriste says:

          It isn’t even clear CO2 is “forcing” and it isn’t the sun doing. And there is no consensus on catastrophic climate change.

          Also, weather models are used for climate simulation, according to Jouzel (actually, he says that the models are richer – thus much complex, less validated). But these computer simulations cannot even predict the next season average.

          I don’t buy it. I simply don’t.

          Other people do, and I believe for the same reason they buy other stuff: they cannot believe other scientists are not honest.

          Many scientists are just not able to challenge “science”. Thus they believe the vaxxers and their crazy claims.

          • turnages says:

            As I said in my other post further down, warming due to increasing CO2 has a different “fingerprint” than warming due to increased solar insolation. Warming increases are greater at night, in winter, and near the poles than in the daytime, summer, and towards the equator, but the reverse would hold if it were the sun getting hotter. But it isn’t.

            You have been bamboozled into believing that all the models are excessively complicated, and therefore unreliable. Well, it depends on what you’re trying to predict. If you want to predict the next season average, then yes, you need a rich, complex, more long-term-unstable model.

            But if you’re working to predict the global average temperature in 30 years, it’s actually easier. All you really need is what the approximate global nett radiation imbalance is, or will be, over the period. If the earth is receiving 0.6 W per sq m more than it is giving off, it’s a dead cert that it will slowly increase in temperature, on average. You can calculate the radiation falling on the Earth, you can measure the radiation coming back off by satellites, and knowing the heat capacities of land and sea water, you can calculate how much the nett radiation will warm them up, on average.

            It’s hard to predict how far the tenth wave from now will come up the beach. It’s much easier to predict the average tide level ten hours from now.

            And of course there’s no consensus on how exactly how catastrophic the climate change is going to be. That depends on various “tipping points” like methane clathrates starting to gas off as the tundra warms up and putting a big burst of extra GHGs in the air on top of the CO2 already there, etc. And who knows, we may be able to slow down the increase a lot. But it’s going to be bad enough, if the geological record is anything to go by. Last time CO2 was 450ppm, the seas rose 20m from what they are at the moment.

            And what’s this you’re saying about “crazy vaxxers”? Did you actually mean “crazy anti-vaxxers”? If so, I know of no mainstram scientific view that supports non-vaccination for MMR etc.

            There’s no “consensus” that your house will burn down, or be broken into, over the next year. But I’ll bet you’ve got insurance…

          • Engineer-Poet says:

            It isn’t even clear CO2 is “forcing” and it isn’t the sun doing.

            Where did you get THAT nonsense?  We know the solar constant has hardly changed since the beginning of satellite measurements.  We know that greenhouse gases have a LARGE forcing effect on climate because Earth’s radiative balance would yield a temperature of about 255 K if it was a perfectly-conducting blackbody.  Instead, Earth’s average temperature is about 30 K warmer.  To get a 285 K average temperature with a 0.3 albedo absorber and blackbody radiator, the solar constant would need to be more than 2100 W/m^2.

            there is no consensus on catastrophic climate change.

            Among the public there isn’t consensus that the Earth isn’t 4.3 billion years old, or even round.  Most people are ignorant, and even fewer are all that bright.

            Climate scientists are agreed that anthropogenic GHGs are having a massive and growing effect, even if they can’t exactly quantify it.  They are the only ones worth listening to.

          • simple touriste says:

            The WHO advocates the untested, dangerous flu vaccine for example. People say the Hep B vaccine doesn’t cause MS, and that these fears are crazy.

            I understand that the “science” consensus is that people who oppose vaccines are stupid. But a 10 years old could debunk much of the vaccine propaganda.

            Thus “consensus” is code word for “you are not allowed to disagree”. Some doctors even want to remove vaccine dissent through courts.

            Arguments against vaccines cannot be published in the official good journals. The Academia are vaccine believers, even in France (in France, the Academia of science is not a climate change believer).

            The arguments made by critics of vaccines are usually sound, and the arguments made advocates of vaccines are usually bordering on crazy. Some advocates of Hep B vaccines in France even say that the vaccines caused an increase of Hep B contamination (ie. they have no idea what they say; they are cra-zy).

            I feel like the whole world is crazy.

            That most scientists have failed to notice this state of things proves that most scientist are not capable of not believing what they are told, even when it’s crazy.

          • Rod Adams says:

            Like “renewables”, “vaccine” is a favorable brand name that is sometimes misused by marketers of a product that is not actually close to what the customer thinks they are buying.

            I have always been supportive of the vaccines that prevent horrible illnesses with a high level of certainty – polio, tetanus, diphtheria, MMR etc.

            I have often politely declined to take profitable, heavily-promoted shots that are marketed as “vaccines” but have a statistically marginal efficacy against routine somewhat ill-defined illnesses like the seasonal flu.

            The analogy is that seriously challenged energy sources like black liquor and municipal solid waste are officially classified as “renewable” energy sources by both the American Council on Renewable Energy and the Energy Information Agency.

          • simple touriste says:

            It’s hard to predict how far the tenth wave from now will come up the beach. It’s much easier to predict the average tide level ten hours from now

            But the climate scientists are saying that they use wave (weather) models; that isn’t my personal opinion, that’s their words.

            They are also telling us that their models can predict tides (winter and summer). IOW, it’s the Moon (it’s the Sun) (that’s what climate scientists are claiming).

            If it’s that simple, why bother with the wave (weather) models? Why not tide (?) models?

            There is a mismatch here.

            Also, how do you account for clouds? How do you know for how long the radiation imbalance will stay? How do you know what causes the imbalance?

            The science is NOT settled!

          • turnages says:

            What Engineer-Poet said above. Read, ponder, and inwardly digest.

            Why don’t they use simple models? Well, they do. They use the appropriate model that will give answers in the area they’re interested in.

            If you want to know what the average nett heating over the whole globe is, that’s quite a simple model. If you want to know how the climate will change in a particular area and season, that’s rather more complicated. Horses for courses.

            You need to start acknowledging that most climate amateurs, such as you and me, know a good deal less than most professionals, whether it be in climate science, medicine, biology, geology, microchip design, the behaviour of sloths or whatever field it might be.

            Why don’t you go and educate yourself a bit more on the subject. Go and read, for instance, The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. It’s available for free on the net. Then you can discuss in a more intelligent fashion.

  9. Pete51 says:

    France’s grid operator now has a website that shows the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour generated.
    http://www.rte-france.com/en/sustainable-development/eco2mix/national-data/co2-emissions-per-kwh-of-electricity-generated-in-france

    France emits around 40 grams of CO2 per kwh. Germany, the US, Japan, and most other industrialized nations emit between 400 and 500 grams/kwh.

    We already know how to make a low carbon electricity system, but the Powers That Be still want to reinvent the wheel. With all of Germany’s investment into green energy, they are still expanding their coal/lignite generation capacity. What’s the real goal?

    • Ed Leaver says:

      Its a useful graphic, Pete, but all should keep in mind that it measures only marginal emissions that RTE is careful to qualify:

      The indicator displayed illustrates only CO2 emissions generated by consumption of the primary combustible of production power stations in France. CO2 emissions calculated by RTE do not take into account carbon emissions generated during construction of production means, or carbon emissions generated during the extraction / transformation / or transport cycle of combustibles employed. Lastly, CO2 emissions per kWh in France do not take into account energy exchanges with imports or exports of electricity.

      Long term averages including cross-border flows and life-cycle footprints will be higher. CO2 Benchmarks estimates 100 g/kWh for France, which seems a bit high for a country that obtains but 9% of its electric from fossils. (They’re what, burning 100% lignite?). I’ve seen other figures around 77 g/kWh, but I’m no expert.

      Of course, cross-border flows work both ways: France imports fossil generation during load peaks and exports nuclear generation other times. France its the world’s third largest net power exporter, behind Canada and Germany.

      A more complete story is told at http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/france/co2-emissions. Some of it is quite impressive.

      FWIW the CO2 Benchmarks site estimates Norway and Switzerland each at 10 g/kWh, Norway being 97% hydro and No Nukes!, Switzerland 57% hydro and 40% nukes, both countries 1% fossils.

    • NP says:

      I wonder if they could do a chart with tritium emissions from nuke compared to PV solar?

      • Rod Adams says:

        Why worry about trivial emissions of an isotope that has little chance of hurting anyone?

      • John T Tucker says:

        Or something really toxic in concentrations that matter? like arsenic?

        But they cant even make one realistic relative to output related to land use or intermittentcy that isn’t totally absurd.

      • Patrick McGuinness says:

        The most recent chart I’ve seen comparing nuclear and solar showed that nuclear was 10x safer than rooftop solar.

        http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

        “Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths.”

  10. Pete51 says:

    Ed- Lifecycle CO2 emissions studies have shown nuclear and wind power to have about the same carbon footprints per unit of energy produced. This includes the fossil fuels that are consumed in the mining and processing of uranium, as well as constructing the plants. One of the biggest sources of CO2 for nuclear is in the enrichment stage of fuel manufacture. However, switching over to centrifuge enrichment, as is being done in New Mexico and elsewhere, greatly lowers the amount of energy consumed in the fuel cycle.
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Energy-Balances-and-CO2-Implications/

    • PissedOffAmerican says:

      I wonder, if you factor in the manufacture of wind turbines. There must be quite a few different suppliers and component manufacturers involved in the manufacture of the turbines, the towers, and the energy distribution infrastructure. Also the transportation to site, and the internal combustion engines required to maintain the wind farm grounds and the turbines. I see alot of machinery involved in the erection and maintainance of these wind farms near Tehachapi. Water trucks constantly wetting the access roads, maintainance trucks hauling work crews, semis bringing in components, etc..

      • Wayne SW says:

        All of those things factor into the carbon footprint. The one study done by the University of Wisconsin estimated that nuclear energy had 17 tons of CO2 emissions per Gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity compared with 14 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh for wind. For comparison, coal had 1,041 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh. natural gas about 622 for single-cycle. I believe the figure for wind is for onshore wind, and that offshore wind comes in at around 22 tons per GWh, a bit more because of the need for more infrastructure. The number for nuclear is a bit on the high side because some of the older gaseous diffusion process was still being used back when the study was done. This is being phased out and replaced by GCEP and AVLIS, which use a lot less electricity to enrich the uranium. Since the Portsmouth GDP went offline there is a lot less electricity used that was generated by fossil fuels. That hurts the nuclear carbon footprint, so 17 is probably a little high compared to today.

    • mike says:

      Pete,
      If enrichment is the largest source of CO2 for nuclear power one is assuming that the enrichment plants are powered by fossil fuels when they could easily be powered by nuclear plants. Alternatively, reactors that do not need enrichment like the CANDU can be used.

      • mike says:

        Also the link does not show the CO2 emitted by the requirement for wind power to have fossil back up generation.

        • simple touriste says:

          “fossil back up”

          with “smart” grid and “smart” meters, there will be no backups!

          Of course, you will have affordable energy only when it’s windy or sunny. At other times, only Al Gore and Big Carbon Tax will be able to pay the bills.

      • Pete51 says:

        Mike- Very true. The Tricastin enrichment plant in France is located adjacent to four nuclear power plants. The power plants supply the enrichment and fuel fabrication plants with their required energy.

        I wonder if there are any solar panel or wind turbine manufacturing plants that only get their power from their respective green energy sources?

        • Rod Adams says:

          When Georges Besse I — which was a gaseous diffusion plant — was running, it required 2700 MW of electricity, the output of 3 900 MWe nuclear plants located just outside the enrichment facility fence. The replacement Georges Besse II is a gas centrifuge plant that produces the same number of SWUs each year, yet uses 55 MWe, thus freeing up the output of those three plants for other customers. The modernization project was like building three moderately large nuclear plants for €4 billion.

          • Ed Leaver says:

            Thanks Rod, that helps. Do you know how much electric output GB-I’s customers obtained from GB-I’s 2700 (or 55) MWe input?

            The reason I ask is there’s a meme circulating in environmental circles that nuclear has about the same C02 emissions as natural gas, and I wonder as to its source. “It would be nice” to make some connection with reality, no matter how tenuous.

            The subject came up at a local gathering three weeks ago, where an EPA representative explained her agency’s proposed power plant emission rules. (1,100 lb/MWh for coal, 1,000lb/MWh for gas) During Q&A a gentleman (and he was a gentleman) asked Ms. Farris why EPA couldn’t just shutdown all coal and nuclear plants? Ms Farris didn’t think such was within EPA’s remit. I added that nuclear’s emission was about 25lb/MWh, the gentleman responded with “I thought nuclear was about the same as gas.”

            I’d neglected to add the 25lb nuclear number was NREL’s (10.6 kg/MWh in Renewable Electricity Futures 2012), and we didn’t get a chance to connect afterward. I’d have been at a loss to explain the origin of “about the same as gas” if we had. Perhaps another time.

            Thanks.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @Ed Leaver

            The source of absurd assertions about nuclear energy’s CO2 emission levels being even remotely close to gas was an often quoted – by antinuclear activists – study by Storm – Smith.

          • Ed Leaver says:

            Thanks Rod. Mr. Google quickly lead to Wikipedia’s Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. Its a place to start. You might appreciate the entry’s dry style…

          • Ed Leaver says:

            So fate leads me to StormSmith, an up-to-date compendium of the (allegedly) classic Storm-Smith series. All naive and innocent, I start at the top with Nuclear power in its global context, and as the sun sets on the local solar PV array, find myself inexorably drawn into… The Twilight Zone!!!

            :boggle:

      • Ed Leaver says:

        Pete – by definition they can’t. The
        Energy Balances and CO2 Implications
        link you provided cites Vattenfall’s Forsmark plant — which does power its own enrichment — at 3.1 tonne CO2 / MWh. NREL’s Renewable Electricity Futures Study 2012 estimates nuclear at 10.6 tonne/MWh and wind at 4.6 (lifecycle). Both are in the noise compared to fossils.

        Mike — to estimate the total grid emissions (tonne CO2/MWh) for renewables one really needs must refer to integrated deep-penetration studies like the aforementioned Renewable Electricity Futures, tally up the economic costs, and compare with the alternatives. Although REF 2012 somehow overlooked the last, I’ve attempted to remedy the oversite — at least as a rough approximation — here. Short answer is (drumroll): it doesn’t look too promising for renewables, not compared with nuclear. As a first approximation, just replacing coal in REF’s bau baseline with nuclear and leaving all else the same yields greater emissions reduction (85% vs 80%) at about 73% the capital cost, assuming a fixed $5.5/Watt capex for nuclear throughout the 35 year build-out.

        The long answer requires more study. 80% or 85% or 90% emissions reduction from the electric sector by 2050 might be a promising start, but will have to reduce to near zero thereafter. Nuclear alone can do it of course, but that last 20% involves fulfilling variable load, for which nuclear, while capable, becomes very pricey unless one can supply it with a flexible load during periods of slack — water desalinization, hydrogen generation, storage regeneration (batteries, pumped hydro, CAES), etc.

        • Patrick McGuinness says:

          “all else the same yields greater emissions reduction (85% vs 80%) at about 73% the capital cost, assuming a fixed $5.5/Watt capex for nuclear throughout the 35 year build-out. ”

          We can do a lot better than $5500/KW for nuclear …

          Current build outs:
          2 1700MW EPR reactors Taishan: $7.3 billion. $2,147 per KW.
          PR1400 Shin Kori, South Korea: $7.1 billion. $2,530 per KW
          2 AP1000 Vogtl, GA, USA $9 billion, $4,500 per KW

          Why the US is higher than Asia by 2X? NRC regulatory regime? Either way, the idea that it would not be doable or would be prohibitive to shift to say 50-60% nuclear … it’s more than possible.

      • Ed Leaver says:

        Pete – by definition they can’t. The
        Energy Balances and CO2 Implications
        link you provided cites Vattenfall’s Forsmark plant — which does power its own enrichment — at 3.1 tonne CO2 / MWh. NREL’s Renewable Electricity Futures Study 2012 estimates nuclear at 10.6 tonne/MWh and wind at 4.6 (lifecycle). Both are in the noise compared to fossils.

        Mike — to estimate the total grid emissions (tonne CO2/MWh) for renewables one really needs must refer to integrated deep-penetration studies like the aforementioned Renewable Electricity Futures, tally up the economic costs, and compare with the alternatives. Although REF 2012 somehow overlooked the last, I’ve attempted to remedy the oversight — at least as a rough approximation — here. Short answer is (drumroll): it doesn’t look too promising for renewables, not compared with nuclear. As a first approximation, just replacing coal in REF’s bau baseline with nuclear and leaving all else the same yields greater emissions reduction (85% vs 80%) at about 73% the capital cost, assuming a fixed $5.5/Watt capex for nuclear throughout the 35 year build-out.

        The long answer requires more study. 80% or 85% or 90% emissions reduction from the electric sector by 2050 might be a promising start, but will have to reduce to near zero thereafter. Nuclear alone can do it of course, but that last 20% involves fulfilling variable load, for which nuclear, while capable, becomes very pricey unless one can supply it with a flexible load during periods of slack — water desalinization, hydrogen generation, storage regeneration (batteries, pumped hydro, CAES), etc.

    • simple touriste says:

      “One of the biggest sources of CO2 for nuclear is in the enrichment stage of fuel manufacture.”

      I don’t get it: isn’t enrichment usually with … electrical energy?

  11. NP says:

    With solar at an unsubsidized cost of 9 cents per kWH, and that stays constant for 30 years, what part of “Phase out nuclear” needs to be explained at all.

    1 big accident negates the value added of 150 years of perfect running on nuclear.

    Phase them out now….plenty of work for everyone in the nuke industry.

  12. FermiAged says:

    I guess I am the odd man out here. It is my opinion that nuclear advocates are making a big mistake by allying with the climate change people. Contemporary climate science differs from particle physics, astrophysics, solid state physics etc. because it implies political action yet it is based substantially on climate models which have to be tuned to a single, imperfectly understood climate record. Once that record is used for tuning, there is no independent way of validating the models unless we find some other earth-like planet with a known climate history. The models have failed to predict the pause in warming that has been apparent over the past decade. And of course once the models are tuned to account for this, that period no longer serves as an independent test of the models.

    It is amazing to me that there is seeming universal concensus among climate scientists, particularly for a relatively young discipline based upon empirical models. Particle physics has some that say the Standard Model needs just a little tuning while others say it will be replaced. I see none of that in the climate change community. What does “peer review” mean in such an environment?

    To shut off any questions by saying “the science is settled”, calling skeptics deniers or saying that “worst case scenarios have to be emphasized in order to get public action” does not sound like the words of a community in pursuit of the truth.

    By all means, we should defend nuclear power as a safe, environmentally benign source of electricity. And some of the climate change people that have one foot in reality may hear our message. But the way it is practiced now, climate change has taken on the characteristics of a cult.

    • Wayne SW says:

      There are other effects besides climate change that are of importance. Ocean acidification is one that often is overlooked in these discussions. I mention it to students and while most of them have heard about climate change, very few have heard of OA. Which is strange because the majority of CO2 released by human activity ends up there. I am not a cultist. I look at the numbers and use logic and reasoning. Practical, economical things we can do to reduce overall deleterious environmental impacts are things we should probably do where feasible. Nuclear energy certainly has a place in that paradigm. Its not a panacea, but it does a lot of things that are beneficial to reducing harmful environmental impacts of electricity production.

    • Rod Adams says:

      Thought question – will people who favor nuclear energy for reasons OTHER than climate change suddenly become nuclear energy opponents if advocates truthfully point out that it is a capable, near zero emission power source?

      Will people who currently question the rewards of using nuclear and say it is not worth the risk reevaluate their position if they are among the large portion of educated, thinking people who are deeply worried about CO2 emissions and long term effects?

      In other words – what good is an evangelist who only talks to people who are already members of her faith?

      • Jim L. says:

        I would say that pro-nuclear advocates should unite under the umbrella that burning coal and gas is undesirable (i.e. bad!). From an advocacy position, that should be enough, we do not need to argue amongst ourselves about the reasons why it is bad to burn coal and natural gas – in the end we agree that it is best to not burn these materials if we can help it. And, good news is that we can help it!

        We have the technical knowledge and resources to provide both electrical base load and peak power using nuclear reactors. We only lack the will.

        • Wayne SW says:

          Your comment provoked a thought. I am not an SMR expert, but I am wondering to what extent SMR technology can be adapted to meeting peak demand? We have demonstrated the capability of LWR technology to meet baseload requirements in an efficient and reliable manner. Some larger LWRs can load-follow, I know, but would SMRs be a better fit for that? Just asking.

          • Engineer-Poet says:

            The current crop of SMRs are all LWRs.

            Rod and others can tell you much more than I can about what it takes to load-follow with a LWR, but I can tell you that molten-salt reactors don’t have the xenon-poisoning issue that bothers solid-fuel thermal-spectrum reactors and also have a strongly negative temperature coefficient.  They should be able to load-follow just fine.

            I think it’s silly to load-follow when we could get useful work done with dump loads, but that’s me.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @E-P

            It is a straightforward technical choice to build LWRs that are responsive enough to power maneuvering submarines and aircraft carriers. We’ve known how to do that since 1953.

            Xenon is a non-issue for solid fueled reactors that have just a little extra reactivity and control rods that shim. The thermal inertia of large steam plants is more limiting than the responsiveness of fission.

            I still have no real idea what molten salt designers are going to do to handle gaseous fission products. It seems far more difficult to me than they make it out to be. I prefer to lock my radioactive material inside carefully designed and manufactured containers like zircalloy fuel pins or TRISO fuel particles.

            The “dump loads” that I have heard described as ways to keep reactor power constant with a varying electricity demand are generally chemical processes (desalination, H2 production, etc.) that are more efficient and effective when they can operate with a steady throughput.

          • Wayne SW says:

            The thermal inertia issue was what I was wondering about. I know they are LWRs and have similar BoP systems as the current generation of plants, but being smaller I was wondering if they could handle the thermal inertia problem a little better than the big boys. The only load-following experience I have with larger plants is with BWRs. There, you can achieve some measure of load following using things like recirc flow rate. Dump loads may be an alternative if the demand for those products is there and can be met with a somewhat variable supply.

          • Engineer-Poet says:

            Xenon is a non-issue for solid fueled reactors that have just a little extra reactivity and control rods that shim.

            Then why do commercial LWRs put up with the iodine pit at all?  Wouldn’t you still have power variations across the core even if you had sufficient overall reactivity to overcome Xe poisoning?

            I still have no real idea what molten salt designers are going to do to handle gaseous fission products. It seems far more difficult to me than they make it out to be.

            I found a paper on Xe behavior in the reactor itself, but the actual off-gas treatment in the MSRE isn’t described.  Some sources mention Xe capture on activated carbon.  Once it decayed to Cs it wouldn’t be very mobile, would it?

            I prefer to lock my radioactive material inside carefully designed and manufactured containers like zircalloy fuel pins or TRISO fuel particles.

            TRISO is probably just what you want if you’re running a freighter on it, especially if you can tune the reactivity such that light water in the system brings it sub-critical.  A stationary powerplant which is running on low concentrations of fissiles and trying to maintain good neutron economy (e.g. Transatomic) can use engineered barriers outside the reactor itself.  Fission products that are pulled out of the fuel cannot escape if the fuel leaks.

            The “dump loads” that I have heard described as ways to keep reactor power constant with a varying electricity demand are generally chemical processes (desalination, H2 production, etc.) that are more efficient and effective when they can operate with a steady throughput.

            I’m thinking of things like thermal loads.  Direct heating in lieu of combustion sources, heat batteries, ice storage A/C, drying processes which can tolerate long periods of feedstock and product storage, thermochemical processes which aren’t fussy about rates.

            You can buy a 5 kW electric dryer heating element for $20-$25.  That’s about 17,000 BTU/hr when it’s on.  One or two of them in the exhaust air of a conventional forced-air furnace would make a nice dump load during the heating season, directly displacing fossil fuel.  If you had them set to cut out on sudden frequency drops or remote command, they’d provide spinning reserve too.  200 GW of dump load is as much as 16 trillion BTU per day, about 6 quads per year.  Having the ability to dump 200 GW means you can over-build the nuclear fleet by 200 GW beyond the base load, chewing a healthy bite out of the variable generation and its fuel consumption and carbon emissions.  Auctioning the dumped electricity lets the customer bid just below the competition (NG, propane, whatever) so the customer is always getting a decent deal.

          • simple touriste says:

            Xenon is a non-issue for solid fueled reactors that have just a little extra reactivity and control rods that shim.

            Xenon destruction doesn’t introduce make reactivity unstable?

        • Rod Adams says:

          @Jim L.

          We only lack the will.

          Not exactly. WE have the will, but not enough people — so far — have sufficient will to apply sufficient resources. That is why I believe we need to use every reasonable and truthful argument and approach we can find to obtain converts.

      • Reese says:

        Those questions deserve their own post. Maybe you already have one. I’m in the first category and will certainly NOT become an opponent. This is because there are OTHER emissions and environmental impacts from, say, burning coal for ‘trons beside CO2. Just a few are SOx, NOx, myriad harmful chemicals, ash piles/slurries, and mines orders of magnitude larger than equivalent nuclear fuel. (Hi, Ben Heard!)

        Not to mention political consequences on which we agree, about the need to either cozy up to some Middle Eastern countries and hold as enemies other Middle Eastern countries. I’d rather be able to ignore them if we want to. (CGN engine rooms are not very comfortable when seawater injection temperature is 90F.) Plus, those darn Canadians!

        Another reason: Any burning of hydrocarbons for ‘trons that is avoided lowers hydrocarbons’ prices for other uses, such as transportation, at least in the medium term. That’s why I’m elated that countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia– well any country– are seeking nuclear power. Fungible. I also like Cal Abel’s idea of inverting the coal infrastructure: Coal in, liquid fuels out via SMR process heat.

        Will you put “educated, thinking” in front of “people” in the first question like you did in the second? Or is that self-evident?

        • Rod Adams says:

          How about if I add the word “liberally” in front of educated?

          I was actually trying to appeal to those people who consider themselves highly educated intellectuals, but have little in the way of practical technical experience.

          • Reese says:

            Oh! It sure would, as in “liberal arts.” (No offense, CHENG– some of my favorite people are highly educated in liberal arts.)

            I figured you, a self-described wordsmith, were carefully choosing said words in your question to either denigrate one group or elevate another (or both). Then there’s “consider themselves” just above. Thanks for THAT morsel!

      • simple touriste says:

        Thought question – will people who favor nuclear energy for reasons OTHER than climate change suddenly become nuclear energy opponents if advocates truthfully point out that it is a capable, near zero emission power source?

        When you cite WHO or IPCC reports, you seem to be a believer in IPCC or WHO work, which reflects very badly on you. IPCC and WHO are toxic institutions and do not seem capable of changing them-self, many people would like to destroy these institutions.

        It is clear that you have an independent mind: you don’t take things for granted, even when the US Academy of Sciences does. You mentioned the French academies, which also have (often criticized) opinions on radiation, and climate science.

    • John T Tucker says:

      Besides climate change and acidification already mentioned there are pollution related environmental issues. There is little possibility of the bottom falling out of all climate science that some warming is not man made. That part is basically over a century old. If you listen closely even the few high value skeptics always acknowledge some contribution.

      Beyond all the environmental issues there are fuel resource issues and technological advancement issues. NP is a more technologically advanced, dense, higher capacity energy source. Sometime in the future that bottom line will eventually become the dominant argument. It is inevitable.

      Many of these arguments have considerable overlap. If anything there is probably more of a danger of people that open up too nuclear power wanting to go to fast, experimental, and very big without creating the necessary infrastructure for such an endeavor than the danger of it being “dropped” for something else.

    • turnages says:

      Indeed, many people have a negative impression of climate science. The political storms created by “interested parties” have muddied the waters to such an extent that people, from the word go, are put off from simply looking at the science itself, and so don’t really appreciate the strength of the case for man-made global warming.

      To that end, can I heartily recommend Spencer Weart’s web-book “The Discovery of Global Warming” and related topics at the American Institute of Physics. It’s written in a very accessible manner, by a someone who is a good physicist, a good teacher, and a good writer.

      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

      Particularly note what he has to say about the “fingerprints” of the increased warming due to CO2. Among other things, increased CO2 results in
      - nights warming more than days,
      - winters warming more than summers,
      - higher latitudes warming more than lower latitudes.

      This is just the sort of warming that has been occurring over recent decades. If it was the sun shining more brightly, this fingerprint would not be seen.

      Weart’s more recent book “The Rise of Nuclear Fear” looks also (even more) relevant to the topic at hand, although I have not read it yet.

      Regarding your aspersions on climate models being based on a “single imperfect climate record”, you have to remember that the historic temperature record is not just based on historical thermometer readings, there are a dozen independent proxies of temperature producing tens of thousands of measurements: ice sheet cores, coral reefs, land boreholes, tree rings, alluvial deposits, ocean sediment compositions etc etc.
      Results from all these buttress one another to demonstrate that the rate of recent warming is unprecedented for tens of thousands of years.

      And, to my mind, the simplest “climate model” that demonstrates global warming is this:

      The Earth receives heat at an average rate of about 340 W per sq metre of its surface, averaged over all latitudes, day and night, summer and winter. This can be readily calculated from the solar constant, and the geometry of the Earth and its orbit.

      The Earth reflects and re-radiates heat, on average, at about 339.4 W per sq. m. This has been measured over recent decades, (including the so-called “global warming stopped!” decade) by the ERBS, CERES and NOAA satellites, and the nett heat inflow of 0.6 W per sq m by extensive ocean temperature measurements at various depths.

      So, if you have a large body that is receiving heat at a rate 0.6W higher than it is losing it, would you expect it to

      a) slowly decrease in average temperature?
      b) remain about the same?
      c) slowly increase in average temperature?

      Answering anything but c) would be a rejection of the 1st law of thermodynamics. And then you’d *definitely* be on another planet…

      • Eino says:

        There’s a lot of people who would politely smile at your test question and get back to the business of their lives. It’s got to hit home before they will be concerned. I don’t blame them. Bills to be paid, cars that don’t or barely run, hearts being broken and bodies wearing out Besides that it’s baseball season. Global warming isn’t going to make the top 5 with most of us.

        Survey says about a 2/3 don’t think it matters much to their lives at all.

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/gallup-poll-global-warming/6388689/

        It’s Spring. It’s been a cold Winter. Let’s have some global warming. I’m ready to see some flowers bloom.

        • turnages says:

          Well, you’re right it won’t usually make it into the top 5.

          In the same way, things like sorting out one’s will won’t usually make it into the top 5 either.

          Still really important though, if one cares about one’s children.

      • Bill Chaffee says:

        I would add that the earth has to radiate slightly more energy that it receives in order for the surface to remain cooler the core.

    • NP says:

      Agreed that joining forces with climate change is risky at best.

      But with nuke accidents being country killers, and ocean killers, how can you even begin to promote a safe and clean?

      • Sean McKinnom says:

        Please point us to which countries and oceans commercial nuclear power has “killed” and what your definition of “killed” in this case is.

    • Joris van Dorp says:

      FWIW, I believe that the anthropogenic climate change issue is *THE* most important opportunity for the promotion of nuclear power technology today. Pro-nukes should be all over this.

    • Patrick McGuinness says:

      I guess I am the odd man out here. It is my opinion that nuclear advocates are making a big mistake by allying with the climate change people. ”

      Not a mistake. Wisdom.
      ‘Climate change is a crisis’ is FUD-based just like distrust of nuclear energy is FUD-based. Same mentality that thinks industrialism is sinful and we have to pay for our sins (puritan strain). Same use of hype and fears (‘we are all gonna die!’). Same abuse of statistics and risks to turn facts into half-truths (yes, CO2 causes warming and yes nuclear radiation has risks but in both cases reality less dire less than claimed/feared). Same lack of REAL data to back it up (no real warming for 15 years, few accidents and low risks for nuclear, etc.) Polls show support for nuclear and belief in global warming anti-correlated.

      Oh, and the ‘ocean acidification’ is the ‘nuclear waste is the real problem’ of Global Warming. 0.1 change so far 8.2 to 8.1, Coral reefs and productive ocean bio-systems can do fine with ph far below current levels, and ocean chemistry and plankton absorbtion and the deep oceans’ uptake, measured in centuries will mitigate these effects. It’s a non-issue on many levels.

      Definitely fix the image issue with nuclear by reminding people it is safe, clean, emissions-free, etc. But that’s not the big problem. Nuclear energy in the US has to fix its cost issues. The dumb people and states and groups wont be able to stop nuclear energy if it was the cheapest, best and cleanest combo of electric generation.

  13. William Vaughn says:

    ” … Let’s have some global warming. I’m ready to see some flowers bloom.”

    … and some ice melt.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt

    Once the summer arctic ice is gone, the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere and ocean will resume their pace of heat absorption and we’ll see an end to the so-called “pause” in global warming. According to Hansen, humans have successfully prevented the next Ice Age. Why don’t we try for the next two?

    I would also like to mention that Hansen is one of those climate scientists that doesn’t really depend upon computer climate models to find out how the Earth’s climate works. He relies mainly upon themodynamics and measurements of the Earth’s climate past. Understanding “climate forcings” and “climate feedbacks” is the main thrust of his method.

  14. Mitch says:

    >>>> NP
    April 22, 2014 at 12:05 AM
    Agreed that joining forces with climate change is risky at best.
    But with nuke accidents being country killers, and ocean killers, how can you even begin to promote a safe and clean? <<<<

    It's loose off-the-cuff talk like that which anti-nukers in the media love because no one ever verifies the facts about it, like NP won't ever be able to do. Too bad people in nuclear PR let BS FUD rants like this slide like a greased pig. Time for some pink slips!

    • John T Tucker says:

      Its strange isn’t it. Scratch the surface of a anti nuker and surprise a climate denialist is sometimes hiding underneath. Its no secret the fossil industry funds many of the pro renewables sites. All that gas “bridge fuel” total crap. They also have deep roots with the WUWT imbecilic, weather presenter groupie crowd. They work both sides of the equation to their benefit.

      I wouldn’t let them ride on my back for anything.

      • simple touriste says:

        So Greenpeace and co. are “climate denialists”?

        • Jeff Walther says:

          They might as well be, given that they refuse to embrace any effective solution for CO2 emissions.

          • John T Tucker says:

            Exactly. they are probably worse than many fossil fuel advocacy groups because of their size.

            We all and especially I complain about NPs lack of a strong advocacy PR push but the NEI probably has a expense budget of around 2 – 3 million a year Id guess – most of which they spend (1.7 mill perhaps unfortunately) it seems on lobbying. They also advocate for many diverse and large “radiation industries” – lol – including radiology and nuclear medicine interests.

            Just Greenpeace international (there are also many smaller Greenpeace factions) has about 280 million a year to spend.

            Its David and Goliath on steroids.

          • simple touriste says:

            Are you sure all fossil groups really dislike the GIEC findings?

            What about carbon capture? Carbon capture is the only way to make profit with some pits the fossil industry created and owns.

            Carbon capture means that we need to burn more coal for the same output.

            Don’t you think that fossil groups just want you to think they dislike the GIEC reports?

            I think many fossil groups love “climate science”:
            - we need liquid energy for transportation, no matter what;
            - fuel for cars is already highly taxed (ie. the CO2 tax is already there, except it isn’t called CO2 tax);
            - environmental groups, green parties, … “negawatt” do anything possible to make sure nuclear plants are closed and windmills get subsidies;
            - you can tax CO2 as much as you want, as long as there is no alternative the price will be paid by the end user.

          • Rod Adams says:

            What does GIEC stand for?

          • simple touriste says:

            GIEC = IPCC, sorry!

          • jmdesp says:

            GIEC = *G*roupe d’experts *I*ntergouvernemental sur l’*E*volution du *C*limat
            IPCC = *I*ntergovernmental *P*anel on *C*limate *C*hange

            So the same thing, but not in the same language :-)

          • John T Tucker says:

            Well that was a stupid estimate on the NEI budget was way off. I wrote another post on it but it got deleted or more likely just lost. Thats not such a bad thing as it was probably a bit too critical. Id still like to see some basic accounting on the NEI. Pro nuclear advocacy is way way outspent.

  15. John T Tucker says:

    Lol have you ever seen the infamous Greenpeace press release blunder?:

    “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE],” the sheet said. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060101884.html )

  16. Joris van Dorp says:

    I think you mean the following statements by Shunichi Yamashita:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOgaBUDFeb4&noredirect=1

    Crazy as it sounds, mr. Yamashita is actually 100% correct.

    Given the very low doses of radiation absorbed by the Fukushima inhabitants as a result of the Fukushima meltdowns, they are *in fact* more likely to contract cancer due to the stress of extraordinary fear than they are likely to contract it from the fall-out.

    So the statement by Mr Yamashita (an authority on radiation health effects) about how ‘smiling people’ will not get negative effects from the radiation, while people who ‘don’t smile’ will get effects, is actually a true statement.

    Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction.

    I can recommend googling for mor on Shunichi Yamashita. He has said some very important things about the risks of Fukushima, and history will show how everything he says is correct, although it is clear that his messages were very difficult to accept by the radiophobic Japanese population. The Japanese even tried to get him removed as the head of radiation monitoring, that is how angry they were about his seemingly ‘careless’ statements about the health effects of Fukushima. Nevertheless, he has done nothing wrong and always spoke the truth.

  17. Joris van Dorp says:

    lol

    I guess that says a lot about what you consider ‘doing quite well’.

    In contrast, Germany’s energy and economy minister concludes that things are not going all that well at all. That is an understatement. Germany’s energy policy is solidifying the burning of coal – the deadliest energy source on the planet. Furthermore, Germany’s trillion dollar ‘energiewende’ is a financial and environmental disaster which only anti-nuclear extremists could love.

    Gabriel told the weekly “Bild am Sonntag” newspaper that there were currently many problems with Germany’s move from fossil fuels and nuclear energy to renewables – the “Energiewende” – and that achieving a successful transition was the biggest problem facing the new government.
    “I think we need to start over,” Gabriel told the paper.
    “Anarchy prevails in some areas. Everyone is joining in, but no one knows what direction to go in,” he said.
    Gabriel, who belongs to the Social Democrats, the junior coalition partner to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU bloc, also rejected as “nonsense” accusations by the opposition environmentalist Greens that he was preparing a move back to coal and not to renewable energy sources at all.
    “You can’t abandon nuclear power and coal at the same time. The Greens would probably like to dispense with gas as well,” he said.

    http://www.dw.de/germanys-economics-minister-gabriel-seeks-reform-for-renewable-energy-transition/a-17329275

    Anti-nuke activists like yourself have blood on their hands, in my book. According to my calculations, the anti-nuclear movement is wholly responsible for up to 20 million deaths world-wide due to unnecessary pollution and accidents by fighting nuclear power for 30 years. That puts the anti-nuclear movement in the same league as the well-known mass-murdering despots of the 20th century.

    Someday, I’d like to see anti-nukes atone for the massive human suffering and environmental destruction which they have caused. I expect to see that day sooner or later, because you can fool some people some of the time, but not all the people all the time, as the saying goes.

    • Jeff Walther says:

      “Someday, I’d like to see anti-nukes atone for the massive human suffering and environmental destruction which they have caused. I expect to see that day sooner or later, because you can fool some people some of the time, but not all the people all the time, as the saying goes.”

      I too look forward to that day, although I have my doubts it will ever come, given the ability of propagandists to wriggle and obfuscate. Several years ago I started posting in various discussion groups that the greens caused global warming. I’m happy to see that the historical fact is occurring to and gaining traction with others.

      • Joris van Dorp says:

        I’d suggest that anti-nuke atonement consists of become pro-nuke and using whatever influence one has toward addressing anti-nuke propaganda and anti-nuke policies.

        Greens should not be fighting nuclear, they should be focusing on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, energy poverty and pollution before even thinking of fighting nuclear. Fighting nuclear should be regarded as an own goal, IMO.

        • John T Tucker says:

          Some of the more moderate elements might convert. I dont think the hardcore anti nukes will ever see reason. And its a racket for them now.

          Looking at the way advocacy has been set up. Its no wonder things happened the way they did. Pro nuke advocacy and hard work has been in areas at the academic and legislative level – reasoned and thought out. Anti nuclear advocacy has been more of a mass PR / farmed “grassroots” kinda thing employing fear. You would expect in such a situation plants to get grants, permitted and started then wastefully abandoned because of public protest. Indeed thats the way its gone.

          On the pro nuke side I think the plan is somehow reasoned argument will come to some kind of agreement. On the anti nuke side all nuclear power must end.

          There is no middle ground between those views and I dont think there ever will be. There is no possibility of the pro movement receiving similar funding, organized corporate backing or ability to organize such a mass PR / AstroTurffed “grassroots” appearing endeavor.

          That leaves one option for moving forward IMHO. Public opinion needs tied more to scientific reality on this matter. Anything else needs to be made unbelievably uncomfortable. The anti nukes at every turn and instance of unreasonable argument need to be totally discredited, if necessary publicly humiliated and everyone shown the complete error of their ways.

          If you think handing over the olive branch on any stage to a unreasonable person makes you a better person, remember that as they are beating you to death in front of everybody with it.

          • Rod Adams says:

            @John T Tucker

            I don’t think the hardcore anti nukes will ever see reason.

            I tend to agree, but do you realize that you could probably put all of the hardcore antinuclear activists into a single lecture hall and still have room to spare?

            By the way, that is one of the reasons I have decided that it is dumb to play nice and be scared off by accusations of ad hominem attacks. If there is an archer wildly forming arrows (arguments) out of thin air and firing them without limit, the effective response is to aim truthful barbs at the archer.

          • Jeff Walther says:

            We have already debated them with facts and arguments and truth. We have given them every chance. They choose to ignore the facts at every turn, no matter how they are confronted with the falsehoods of their position.

            At some point, it’s time to stop wasting time on the dishonest and willfully ignorant and just call them what they are, stupid and/or dishonest. Selfish barbarians who care more for their shill pay than they do for the good of their fellow man. People who would lie and cheat in order to leave the poor, the exhausted, the starving, abandoned in destitution just to keep their pay check coming in the door.

            There really aren’t words forceful enough and harsh enough to describe these people and NP, you strongly resemble them.

          • EL says:

            @John T. Tucker

            I’m not sure the world is so easily carved out into two mutually exclusive groups (on any particular issue). Yes, interests usually pit one group against another, and there is the appearance of dogmatism and rigid thinking. But you scratch the surface of anybody, and you find a mutable soul (one who is deeply influenced by culture, history, family, region, profession, generation, social and civic life and institutions of all shapes and sizes). And, it might be worth adding, a few deep seated psychological drives too (fear, love, hope, desire, etc.). The trick is not to paint someone into a corner and keep chopping away at false illusions and projections, but to try and see and relate to one another on human terms (and make common connections around mutually shared experiences of community, culture, history, family, region, profession, generation, etc.). Earn trust, and start repairing relationships from the bottom up (break down barriers instead of build them up again, so the two sides start talking to each other and stop shouting from behind the barricades).

            I share these thoughts because I finally had a chance to watch Pandora’s Promise. One of my rather odd first impressions, it seems like a rather strongly anti-nuclear film. There is little in it to support the current fleet of nuclear technologies. Gen III reactors have run their course. We don’t need the additional waste, and we don’t need reactors that are not inherently safe. LWRs were a first step, and have nowhere else to go. So where does that leave us? The ideologically driven environmentalists turned pro-nuclear advocate are really the same kinds of person: those or are driven and motivated to imagine a world that doesn’t yet exist. A world full of possibilities and new opportunities, a utopian soup of environmental peacefulness and harmony, all of it powered by a future that hasn’t yet been engineered (and doesn’t yet have a stable blue print or engineering basis). Yes, the movie is myth busting, the opponents to nuclear are all caricatures, but in the place of irrationalism, error, and generational fear it doesn’t necessarily provide a set of current or workable solutions (current solutions are actually unworkable) but a new kind of romantic hope and illusion (a future of abundance, safety, equal opportunity, environmental well being, and peace). It’s a movie about attachments (emotional, psychological, historical) … and believing we can bring about a change in the world. And the idealism of the baby boom (and transforming the world in moon shots, projecting your own self-image, and with deep humanistic motives) is one writ large by Brand, Shellenberger, Rhodes, Cravens, and Lynas.

            John T … maybe there is a bit of truth in what you say. You can turn an anti-nuclear activist into a pro-nuclear advocate, but once an environmentalist you are always an environmentalist. This much, it appears, can’t ever be changed (no matter what tool you pick up in your hands, and recommend to others as the next big idea to save us from our corrupt selves and deliver us to a future of hope, fulfillment, contentment, and earthly consumption and bliss). I’m not sure the issue is really about conversion. Perhaps it’s more about growing up, and passing on the world to another generation (and hoping they’re going to do something better with it).

    • John T Tucker says:

      It was disheartening to see such disregard and outright dishonesty for what have been reasonably the most important assets in the fights against pollution, acidification and climate change, all over the place, on “Earth Day.”

      They ruined it. They are the Grinch that stole earth day.

      I also irritated by some media organizations, like climate progress, taking advantage of issues like the SONGS shutdown to hard sell solar and wind renewables, when obviously looking at the numbers, its not going to work environmentally.

      Most of the “environmental movement” seems totally vested and more interested in selling their selected goldilocks philosophy and products than taking time to thoughtfully consider and update their positions.

    • John T Tucker says:

      At least they should admit they were wrong. Sooner rather than later.

  18. John T Tucker says:

    RE : Mitch’s comment, the NEI and pink slips

    Well I was looking up charities (to make a list of anti nuke assets) and found this :

    Name in IRS Master File NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

    Income Amount $103,686,723 ( http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=521209124#.U1oTdqEjulM )

    Obviously my projection above was stupid when considering employee pay and expenses but if thats really their yearly income, considering the amount of advocacy we see – this is ridiculous. As in criminal.

    According to their wiki ” The NEI spent $1.3 million to lobby the federal government in 2007.”

    Indeed if that is real you guys have been screwed over royally from the inside. Demand transparency and a audit. To me its nauseating knowing how hard many of you advocate for NP.

    Please dont ignore it. And PLEASE correct me if im wrong. Too much is at stake.

    • John T Tucker says:

      Oh there it is. Is this too harsh/off base?? You guys are vastly outnumbered and out spent still of course. It just seems that groups with seemingly similar budgets like UCS get far more mileage for their money, and their reasoning is so sketchy and disputable yet gets plastered everywhere.

      • John T Tucker says:

        I am still looking here for an answer. It seems obvious NP should be taking a leading role in climate change/acidification/pollution reduction advocacy. I see almost the opposite in the make up of their lobbying organization.

  19. John T Tucker says:

    Lies, Half Lies and Nuclear Distortions: There Ought to Be a Law ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-s-becker/lies-half-lies-and-nuclea_b_5227183.html )

    People will usually first accuse others and you of the things they are most guilty of. I think that opinion illustrated it beautifully. They should not be allowed to call themselves the “Presidential Climate Action Project.”

  20. John Tucker says:

    In the NY Times:

    Nuclear Industry Gains Carbon-Focused Allies in Push to Save Reactors

    The nuclear industry has started a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat; Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Michigan Republican and a former energy secretary — and William M. Daley, a former chief of staff to Mr. Obama. The group, called Nuclear Matters, has begun an advertising campaign in major newspapers. So far, the group does not appear to have a strategy beyond raising awareness, or, as Mr. Bayh said in an interview, “starting a national conversation.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/energy-environment/nuclear-industry-gains-carbon-focused-allies-in-push-to-save-reactors.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=0 )

    So far it seems they are only running ads in DC according to the correction at the end of the story.

    • Rod Adams says:

      @John Tucker

      So far it seems they are only running ads in DC according to the correction at the end of the story.

      That’s right. I continue to try to help my friends in nuclear energy advocacy recognize that the best way to get the attention of politicians is to get the attention of their constituents, not to aim at their staffs.

      I’ve lived near DC and worked inside the Beltway. Nuclear Matters is targeting a rather cynical audience that is not going to be swayed unless congressmen and senators start getting phone calls and letters from the people back home saying something like “I’ve been hearing about clean, low cost, nuclear energy. We need more of that.”

      The nuclear industry will never get those kinds of phone calls started by spending their meager advertising budget in Washington focused media outlets.

  21. John Tucker says:

    Another illustration of land use issues with wind :

    Public Counsel: Hearings On Widening Road To Wind Turbines Should Be Held In Coos

    The current width of the road was approved by the S.E.C. in 2009 after extensive negotiations over how to protect the special, high-elevation habitat. Since a bearing on one of the huge turbines failed last year, Granite Reliable said it now knows more maintenance than expected will be needed. ( http://nhpr.org/post/public-counsel-hearings-widening-road-wind-turbines-should-be-held-coos )

  22. EL says:

    New report from Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (formerly Pew Center on Global Climate Change) on aging fleet of reactors and recent slate of plant retirements on US carbon emission goals.

    http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclear-power

    I don’t think it has been mentioned on site yet. Worth a look. Summary of study covered by MIT Tech Review here:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/527116/reactor-retirements-will-hurt-us-emissions-cuts

    • Rod Adams says:

      @EL

      While I have not yet written about those two specific studies, we have been talking about the importance in the battle against climate change of preserving existing nuclear plants and building new ones for several years.

      It may be terribly unscientific of me, but “by inspection” I can recognize that shutting down existing nuclear power plants will inevitably increase CO2 emissions. The vast majority of the output will be replaced by burning more hydrocarbons.