On December 5, 2009, Scott Simon of National Public Radio interviewed Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero. He asked her about the politics surrounding the US government’s negotiating position at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which starts tomorrow, December 7 and runs through December 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
President Obama’s administration has already negotiated an agreement with China for both nations to engage in significant efforts and challenging targets. There has also been talk of a goal of reducing emissions by 83% by the year 2050.
Mr. Simon based his questions for Ms. Otero on a December 4, 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Richard K. Lester, head of the department of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, titled The High Costs of Copenhagen. In that piece, Mr. Lester implied that anyone who believes that an aggressive goal of an 83% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can be met without nuclear energy is being intellectually dishonest. At the same time, Mr. Lester also pointed out that a number of powerful environmental organizations who are pushing hard on climate change actions are also adamantly opposed to efforts to expand nuclear energy. Many of those confused groups are key political supporters of the Obama Administration’s legislative plans.
No matter how hard Mr. Simon tried, he could not elicit a clear response from Ms. Otero about whether or not the State Department believes that nuclear power will play an important role, even though Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department of Energy and a Nobel Prize winning physicist has stated his agreement that nuclear energy is an important part of our future energy system.
After listening to the interview, I described my frustration with the responses to my wife. She told me it sounded just like the Governor in the movie “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” when he sang “Dance a Little Sidestep”. Using the magic of Google search and YouTube embed codes, I thought I would lighten your day by sharing that number with you.
via videosift.com
harlz says
December 6, 2009 at 8:35 PMIt seems for Undersecretary Otero, and others in this administration, nuclear is their Lord Voldemort ? the name that cannot be spoken.
katana0182 (Dave) says
December 7, 2009 at 12:01 AMThat’s classical. Just classical.
Everyone who’s in the know understands that the only possible way we’re ever going to get carbon under control by 2050 is by going nuclear in a gigantic way never before seen.
It is, still, very funny how they all refuse to come out and admit that this is exactly what’s going to have to happen. Teller admitted it 50 years ago. Hansen admitted it about 10 years ago. When’s Obama going to admit it…?
DocForesight says
December 8, 2009 at 1:19 PMObama is not going to admit it, publicly, because doing so would place him in an inconvenient position with the radical Greens who supported his election – predicated on “green” jobs.
As has been very adequately outlined here and on other blogs (e.g. BNC and Nuclear Green), “green” jobs don’t stack up to scrutiny when compared to “non-green” jobs for durability, efficiency, productivity and non-exportability. Strike four!
What we need is leadership willing to clearly state the situation, outline a plan of action that makes numerical sense, and give a timeline that provides an Apollo-program-like target for verifiable accomplishment.
Have we become a nation of pansies who are afraid to decide, to take action, to take the lead (or regain the lead)? Cripes sakes!
Nuclear power provides the answer to the environmental challenges – be they air, water, land-use, mining, nuclear proliferation, etc. Do we really need to hamstring our economy while we gear up for the energy needs of future generations?
katana0182 (Dave) says
December 9, 2009 at 4:32 AMHonestly, I feel that there really needs to be executive leadership on the issue of nuclear power in order for the whole climate change issue to be solved in an adequate fashion without hamstringing our economy.
Mr. Obama could easily make a proposal that would meet the Copenhagen criteria and not piss off too many people, except for the folks in the area of renewables. Carbon would be dealt with, pollution would be dealt with, along with a host of other issues.
We could start here:
1. 80% nuclear electricity by 2050 and 60% nuclear primary energy use by 2050. Deployment of modular high-temperature gas reactors or liquid metal reactors to replace coal burning boilers.
2. 100% onshore energy use by 2050, excluding nuclear fuel imports from safe fuel suppliers, such as Canada, Mexico, and Australia. Synthetic liquid fuels and synthetic methane generated by high-temperature reactor assisted synthesis from American coals, shales, and biomass. Carbon of production to be captured and sequestered.
3. Development of a grade separated extremely high-speed, fully electrified inter-urban rail corridor on the Eastern Seaboard with options to connect to Gulf Coast cities, Texas, the Old Northwest (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, St. Paul)
4. Development and deployment of electric cars which primarily rely on batteries for like a 200 mile range; an auxiliary engine-generator fueled by compressed natural gas could provide a limp-home capability or extended range. Cars shall have a 10 minute recharge at a properly equipped service station.
5. Development of universal district heating and cooling infrastructure and systems for smaller cities, fueled with modular, inherently safe nuclear heating reactors. Extension of district heating to higher-density suburbs.
6. Imposition of a phased in over 20 years practically confiscatory “unreliable energy tariff” on imported fuels from politically unreliable countries. Further, this policy should be adopted by all the OECD nations.
7. Imposition, immediately, of air pollution dumping fees for all air polluting power plants.
8. Imposition of a carbon fee, with an implementation period from 2010 to 2030, with rate increases to the full cost of carbon externality. Distribution of revenue from carbon externality fees to every citizen. If say, a coal power plant wants to convert to nuclear, for the years the conversion is being done, 50% of the tax paid could be directed towards the improvements.