You are exactly right. CO2 is not any more of a “pollutant” than H2O. It would be hard to find a substance that is less harmful and more beneficial to life. In fact, I would like to have someone identify a molecule that is less harmful and more beneficial than CO2 at the concentrations being discussed.

I recall when the debate was over the proposed requirement to use scrubbers on smokestacks in coal-fired power plants, in the late 1960′s, IIRC. The stack scrubbers were made a requirement without too much controversy because as a regulatory requirement, it imposed the same financial burden on all coal plants, and the cost was then passed on to rate payers.

The result is that more than 99.99% of all particulates [soot] are removed from coal plant emissions, which are now composed of pure CO2 and some water vapor. Pictures of smokestacks emitting smoke are either old photos, or they are photoshopped; you cannot see CO2 emissions.

Politicians need to be asked what will be used to generate power, if coal and nuclear sources are not used; and what the cost comparison will be. People vote mostly with their pocketbooks in mind. Given a clear choice between using extremely cheap coal and nuclear power, or unreliable and very expensive alternative energy sources, most people will opt for the least expensive power.

The problem comes in framing the argument that way — which is why every critic of CO2 runs away from any public, moderated debate on the issue.

Jim Hopf (19:12:13) :

The 25,000 deaths figure is the EPA’s offical position. The article below provides several links (at the right):

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm

The Earth Policy Institute is one of Lester Brown’s organizations; Brown is a charter member of the global everything-is-running-out-and-mankind-is-despoiling-the-Earth Alarmist cabal, so one should take anything he publishes with many grains of (abundant) salt.

. . . Coal should have to pay for its external costs and/or meet stricter pollution standards. If it ends up more expensive than alternatives, it simply should not be used. It’s not written in stone anywhere that we must continue to use coal, or any other energy source . . . All non-emitting sources should be able to compete fairly, on price, on a level playing field.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with this. My complaint was that you equated “a level playing field” with requiring zero emissions from burning coal, i.e. not even CO2. This may be the aim of the neo-Luddites who would take us back to the Stone Age, but it is patently absurd: not only would it price coal completely out of the market, but CO2 is not a pollutant, and riding the anti-CO2 train in order to get real pollutants out of smokestacks is irresponsible in the extreme.

In point of fact, we need coal and nuclear power, and lots of both. Cheap, abundant energy is the key to economic growth, economic development, and human progress. If you want to stop the progress of civilization in its tracks, make energy expensive and scarce. Unfortunately, that is the avowed aim of many in positions of power in the Western world.

/Mr Lynn

There is nothing wrong with coal power. Stack scrubbers assure that only CO2 is emitted, and as the technically aware folks who read this blog know, CO2 is beneficial, not harmful. And of course, events show that CO2 does not cause global warming.

It’s interesting to see proof that Obama is is only interested in aggrandizing his power, and that he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5908-Boston-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Obama-and-EPA-allow-mountaintop-coal-removal

Where is it written that if you have a level, or fair, playing field, no contestant can (completely) lose? I thought that’s what the term “playing field” means (it’s possible to lose). I did say that, in my opinion, if coal had to meet the same standards as nuclear, it would cease to exist. It would certainly be more expensive. There is nothing contradictory in that.

The 25,000 deaths figure is the EPA’s offical position. The article below provides several links (at the right):

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm

I believe that if nuclear’s regulations were lowered to match the allowable risk/impact levels given to coal (something I doubt is even possible), it would be cheaper than coal. However, I know that this is not politically possible. The only thing possible is to raise the bar for coal. I do support that purely out of spite, however. Coal IS under-regulated right now, to an enormous degree.

Most scientific studies that put the external (public health and environmental) costs of various energy sources in economic terms (such as http://www.externe.info/) conclude that whereas the external costs of nuclear and renewables are very small, the external costs of coal are enough to more than double its price (4-8 cents/kW-hr). This is real damage, as opposed to costs associated with complying with pointless over-regulation. Thus, the fact is that right now, if all costs are accounted for, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear. The good news is that the 4-8 cents worth of damage can be removed by spending less than 4-8 cents on pollution controls (this is a result of the fact that coal is not optimally regulated).

Coal should have to pay for its external costs and/or meet stricter pollution standards. If it ends up more expensive than alternatives, it simply should not be used. It’s not written in stone anywhere that we must continue to use coal, or any other energy source.

There is nothing unfair in all of this. The fact that coal was under-regulated all these years, and did not have to account for its external costs, IS unfair. Another thing that is unfair is what coal-state politicians are doing right now to evicerate the climate bill. They’ve added offset loopholes to prevent coal utilities from actually having to reduce emissions. On top of that, they put in language which states that if emissions do have to be reduced, subsidies will be put in place to ensure that coal with sequestration is used, as opposed to alternatives like nuclear, no matter how much more expensive it is. Renewables, of course, get the requirement that we use it for 15% of our power, no matter how expensive it is (along with enormous subsidies). Nuclear, meanwhile, gets nothing. THAT is unfair. All non-emitting sources should be able to compete fairly, on price, on a level playing field.

Jim Hopf (18:45:56) :

. . . What would a level playing field be if we ignore global warming? Well, nukes are not allowed to emit any pollution at all. But it goes way beyond that. They have to ensure that even the chance of emitting pollution is negligibly small. They also have to ensure that their wastes do not ever have any impact, for as long as they remain hazardous. What would the equivalent be for coal? Simple. Zero allowable emissions of SOx, NOx, mercury, particulates, radioactive isotopes (uranium), etc.., etc.. Basically, all of their wastes/toxins would have to be fully contained, and they would have to guarantee their containment for as long as they remain hazardous (much longer than nuclear waste, actually). You can vent the CO2, though….. This, of course, is a standard that coal could never meet, at almost any cost.

One beneficial side effect of CO2 limits, even if you don’t believe in AGW, is that it will end up making coal contain all those other toxins, while they are containing the CO2.

When I talk about a level playing field, one of the main things I’m referring to is that external (i.e., public health and environmental) costs be fully counted. Fossil fuels have been getting away scott free on this for decades, and it’s time it stopped. [my emphasis]

The two highlighted sentences are contradictory. If coal could never meet a CO2-exempt zero-emission standard, how could it meet a zero-emission standard if CO2 (the chief product of carbon combustion) were included? Basically you are saying that we should adopt regulations that prevent us from burning coal at all.

That would do more than “level the playing field” for nuclear; it would remove the only significant competition. While it is certainly arguable that nuclear power has been severely over-regulated, to the point of strangulation, and that those regulations ought to be rationalized in light of both experience and advances in technology, it is not true that coal-fired power operates free and clear, at least in the USA. I’m sure there are experts here who can testify to many mandated improvements in emissions and residue management over the last few decades. One has to wonder, too, at the basis for the oft-cited figure of “25,000 deaths” caused by fossil-fuel burning. My guess is that it includes a very large measure of speculation and hyperbole.

It is certainly reasonable to “level the playing field” by drafting sensible regulations for both nuclear and coal. But having practically killed nuclear power by over-regulation, it is not reasonable to kill coal in the same way. That’s what giving in to anti-CO2 alarmism would do.

/Mr Lynn

Note to WUWT: please consider asking Rod and/or John to write a guest post on nuclear power. It is an essential and central issue in the AGW debate.

Thanks for a great site!

“The current buzz-phrase is cradle-to-grave, and on that basis nuclear power produces prodigious amounts of CO2 for fuel production and plant construction, and decommissioning plus waste fuel disposal.”

The issue of net CO2 emissions from various energy sources, including nuclear, has been studied to death, and all the studies show that the net emissions from nuclear, as well as renewables, are negligible compared to those of fossil fuels. In fact, nuclear’s net emissions are smaller than those of any renewable source except wind; not that it matters, since it’s all negligible compared to fossil fuels. As shown in the link below, nuclear’s net emissions (including all parts of the process such as uranium mining, enrichment, plant construction, etc…), are 2% those of coal and 5% those of gas. Renewables are similar, or more.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

Roger also wrote:

“Can you please explain how the natural-gas-fired power plants managed to withstand the earthquake, and were ready for service upon demand?”

This was purely a political decision, based on the deeply ingrained notion that zero risks from nuclear are acceptable, while thousands of routine deaths from other sources, like oil/gas-fired power plants, are perfectly OK.

The nuclear plant in question survived the earthquake without releasing any radioactivity, and without suffering any detectable significant damage. Despite this, they decided to close the plant for an extended period, in order to do intense inspections (to further prove that there was no damage), and to install earthquake upgrades (despite the fact that the plant wasn’t damaged by the earthquake).

Roger suggests that the gas plants were less damaged, or were somehow technically capable of resuming operation whereas the nuclear plant was not. There is no truth to either of these assertions. The only difference is in how nuclear is (politically) treated. It was all pure BS. Japan made a concious decision to run a raft of very old, dirty fossil-fired power plants, in place of a perfectly fine, non-polluting nuclear plant, for over a year, thereby emitting an enormous amount of CO2, and consigning hundreds, if not thousands, of Japanese to their deaths (from the pollution). They also sent huge amounts of money to Middle Eastern regimes; always helpful in terms of geopolitics and security. I consider it to be a shameful decision.

Well, I would argue that nuclear has already been burdened with “insane costs”, in order to avoid negligible risks. I also don’t share your optimism that nuclear could be competive as things are currently regulated (i.e., a hopelessly unlevel playing field).

This is one weakness of any “leave it to the market” argument. The very concept of which source is cheaper is actually not meaningful. The correct description is which source is cheaper, as currently regulated. The level of regulation that each source is held to has such a strong effect on price that one cannot talk of “fundamental” cost differences between sources, without given regulations full and careful consideration.

To me it is incredibly clear that nuclear is held to infinitely higher standards, and is required to spend thousands of times as much money per unit of risk/damage avoided. In response to an event which emitted no pollution and killed nobody (TMI), the govt. (NRC) put into place regulations that literally doubled the cost of nuclear power, without so much as a congressional debate. Compare this to the wailing and hand-wringing over CO2 limits, that would have a similar impact on coal. All this spending is to prevent even a miniscule chance of a reactor emitting any pollution.

By contrast, coal plants cause 25,000 American deaths every single year (whereas nuclear plants have had no measurable health impact, ever). Most believe that even a worst case meltdown even (the thing that all that money is going to prevent) would inflict less than a tenth of the damage caused ANNUALLY by coal plants. Most of this pollution is caused by some very old coal plants that were allowed to operate, even to this day, even though they don’t meet the requirements of the (1970!!) Clean Air Act. Can you imagine if a reactor ever emitted pollution that would have that kind of effect? The pollution at these plants could be mostly eliminated at a cost of only a fraction of a cent per kW-hr, but they still won’t require it! Oh, and their toxic waste stream (i.e., fly ash that contains mercury, arsenic, uranium, etc…)?? They got it classified as non-hazardous!! (In a disturbing way, you almost have to be impressed by these guys.) Meanwhile, nuclear costs several cents more, just to avoid risks that are several orders of magnitude smaller.

What would a level playing field be if we ignore global warming? Well, nukes are not allowed to emit any pollution at all. But it goes way beyond that. They have to ensure that even the chance of emitting pollution is negligibly small. They also have to ensure that their wastes do not ever have any impact, for as long as they remain hazardous. What would the equivalent be for coal? Simple. Zero allowable emissions of SOx, NOx, mercury, particulates, radioactive isotopes (uranium), etc.., etc.. Basically, all of their wastes/toxins would have to be fully contained, and they would have to guarantee their containment for as long as they remain hazardous (much longer than nuclear waste, actually). You can vent the CO2, though….. This, of course, is a standard that coal could never meet, at almost any cost.

One beneficial side effect of CO2 limits, even if you don’t believe in AGW, is that it will end up making coal contain all those other toxins, while they are containing the CO2.

When I talk about a level playing field, one of the main things I’m referring to is that external (i.e., public health and environmental) costs be fully counted. Fossil fuels have been getting away scott free on this for decades, and it’s time it stopped.

Another article on the Thin Film PV market.

http://globalsolartechnology.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2162&Itemid=9

Arthur

” Where do you get the idea that the production of PEV solar power is a manufacturing problem ?”

From one of many articles like this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-power-lightens-up-with-thin-film-cells

But I’m also a realist, so that’s why I said its possible, not that its probable.

I’ve read a steady stream of PV “breakthroughs” for the last decade or longer and none have really generated the promised reductions in cost per watt.

Where PV is concerned, it appears a real challenge to bring lab results to the end market.

Arthur

Roger wrote:

“There was a time in the U.S. when power was provided by animals, and coal-burning to produce steam, and water-wheels on small dams. If any statistics were kept (and I doubt that), one could look it up. ”

The one exception is possibly solar PV which could one day have a significant drop in cost per Watt since its essentially a manufacturing problem, and that would be great if it occurs as it could significantly change the energy generation landscape if home roofs could be economically shingled with them. “”"

Where do you get the idea that the production of PEV solar power is a manufacturing problem ?

It’s a technology problem; mass available solar cells are just not very efficient. One of the largest module suppliers claims their panels are 18% efficient. They don’t quote any operating conditions or output power levels to support that; and they don’t say anything about the efficiency of the required AC inverter systems.

(In)Efficiency translates into surface area, and the cost of covering surface area with any inanimate structure isn’t going down any time soon; and it won’t be going down just because some of the construction material is silicon.

I know there are people who claim they can just paint on the solar cell material onto steel plate of somesuch. Well that may be true, but it also isn’t any 18% efficiency either. Did I mention that solar energy comes to us at an average rate of 168 Watts/m^2; and that is under ideal conditions.

Yes it is good on your roof; so long as your friends and neighbors don’t mind helping you pay the cost through their tax dollars; which incidently are earned mostly by the consumption of fossil fuels.

I’d like a dollar for everytime somebody says that the cost is just a manufacturing problem and we will solve that when we get into full production. Not exactly, you will get into full production when you get the energy cost of the process down so that there is actually an energy process. Lower costs bring higher production; not the other way round.

George

“There was a time in the U.S. when power was provided by animals, and coal-burning to produce steam, and water-wheels on small dams. If any statistics were kept (and I doubt that), one could look it up. ”

Actually its fairly well documented.

In the US Fuel/hydro energy first exceeded animal energy in ~1870.

In that year animals produced ~ 8.4 Billion Horse Power Hours and inanimate sources produced ~ 8.5 Billion.

By 1920 animal sources had almost doubled to 15.2 Billion HPHs but inanimate sources were ~ 268 Billion HPHs.

Still, I don’t find that this is very instructional. I prefer to look at trends over the last several decades, not centuries.

In that context none of the renewable technologies are new and each has gone through several itterations of major improvements such that the technology is now quite mature, meaning advances in the price/performance of all of them tend to be in small increments.

The one exception is possibly solar PV which could one day have a significant drop in cost per Watt since its essentially a manufacturing problem, and that would be great if it occurs as it could significantly change the energy generation landscape if home roofs could be economically shingled with them.

“Then coal-fired electric power plants were begun. Then hydroelectric dams were begun. The small statistics grew over time.

You do not have to agree with me, and I suspect you never will. I do invite you to keep monitoring the energy situation, though. Keep track of the solar generation in California, Arizona, and other sunny states. Keep track of the wind generation in the Great Plains and off-shore. You say electric power growth in the U.S. is around 1.5 percent per year. Wind growth has been doubling (or better) every year for the past few years and will continue at an even greater pace. When wind is at 1 percent of U.S. generation, and doubles the year after that, what will you have to say?”

Well talk about setting the bar really low.

Wind produced ~0.8% in 2007 and the percent grew in 08.

But wind did not double the amount of electricity it generated. (you are confusing yearly installed capacity with generation)

For the last five years (03-07) the average annual increase in generation was 26%.

So let’s consider.

The average growth in electrical generation for the last 10 years was 1.8%.

Let’s assume that, because of the economy, that the growth over the next 10 years will be somewhat less, so lets use a conservative growth rate of 1% per year.

Lets also assume optimistially that wind continues to grow in generation by 26% per year and capacity figures remain the same.

Now year to year growth at this high of a percent becomes very difficult very quickly, and as we increase the number of turbines the wind fields will begin to decline in quality, so expecting capacity to remain the same is also optimistic.

Still, using those assumptions:

By the end of 2014

We will have installed four times as many new Wind Turbines (capacity) as we have installed in 2007.

To keep up with the 26% growth we will need to install in 2014 alone, the same number of wind turbines that we have installed today.

And with all that we will be producing only 3.6% of our electricity from wind.

I’d continue but at this level of compounding the installation rates just become silly.

Arthur