Browner out at the White House – Hansen bites back

Gettin’ out while the gettin’s good.

I’m kinda sad to say that I actually agree with Mr Hansen on this one. We should have more nuclear plants. The only problem most of the population has very little understanding of how the plants are built, or the basic concepts of what makes a reactor work.

Rats fleeing a sinking ship.
And now for something completely different.
Ocean acidification surely caused by me.
The Birth Of An Island (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/birth-of-an-island_n_811134.html#comments

Never thought I’d say this, but, I have to agree with Hansen on this one issue at least. The US must aggressively promote nuclear power.

didn’t obama announce loan guarantees for the nuclear industry about 6 months ago? must have been a fraud or a p.r. stunt….only the leftist stuff actually gets implemented…

On this issue – this could really do with some coverage on WUWT as the “quality” media over here in Old Blighty appears to have missed it:
The UK government’s current plans, and justifications for, imposing energy rationing on the UK in the form of “tradeable energy quotas”.

The first step is always the hardest. Browner should have gone years ago, it was only PC that kept her there.
I hate to agree with Hansen but nuclear is good, but so is coal and oil, and both are cheaper than nuclear.
I expect America has the same problem as UK with burying rubbish. The EU has stopped landfill now despite the UK having lots of holes to fill. But burying rubbish produces its own problems- it rots and produces methane which is wasted. It would be a good ides to convert rubbish into methane to burn in a power plant producing electricity. This could be done on a local level to save trucking rubbish long distances. Power would be slightly more expensive than that produced in the larger generators but the up side is that the fuel, rubbish forming methane, cheaper than fossil fuels. Many farms in the UK have this system and find it profitable for farming under glass.

If he doesn’t mention government climate initiatives, someone will be very dismayed.
Kerry: Obama to embrace ‘major initiatives’ on climate in SOTU – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/139753-kerry-obama-to-embrace-major-initiatives-on-climate-in-sotu

Agreeing with Hansen on anything leaves me feeling dirty all over. Of course being dirty all over is way better than freezing, in the dark, with no food or running water.
So I say HOORAY for Hansen, let’s give him a ton of support on the issue, build nuclear power plants until we don’t know what to do with the extra watts and we can sell them to someone else. With all that cheap power running around I won’t care so much if Hansen talks fools into giant emissions cuts. Just as long as my house is warm, I have lights to see by, food in the fridge, and running water. Lots of running water. Lots of HOT running water. gotta wash this dirty feeling off me somehow.

What bothers me is when they say “We need clean renewable energy to reduce the need for foreign oil “.
They all only make electricity. Petroleum creates only 1 to 2 percent of America’s electricity.

I strongly agree with Hansen in his promotion of commercial nuclear power. Commercial nuclear power is not competitive with coal-sourced power if thermal coal landed at the power station costs less than approximately $75 per tonne; at these landed coal prices and above, nuclear power competes successfully (C1, C2, and C3 costs all considered). However, we should ALL go the nuclear power route as this is far SAFER than coal-sourced power through the whole fuel cycle for the respective technologies. For example, accident frequency and fatalities are FAR higher per kwh of power produced in the MINING and transport of coal, burning of coal, and coal WASTE disposal, namely fly ash, SO2 and CO2. Fly ash contains above background concentrations of poisonous elements such as As, Mo, Pb, Bi, Se, heavy hydrocarbons, and other nasties with permanent half lives (!), and contains above background concentrations of U and Po, which means that coal fly ash is also characterised by above background radiation levels. There are also emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, an average houshold of four people, with power sourced from nuclear, generates one aspirin-tablet sized package of radwaste per year; an identical household with power sourced from coal generates approximately 12 tonnes of CO2 per year, and approximately 1 tonne of fly ash per year, not considering SO2 emissions. Methods for disposal of radwaste are now well engineered, within rocks known to be stable beyond the half-life of the radwaste: it is a non problem compared to the disposal of the far more voluminous coal fly ash and the products of scrubbing sulfur dioxide and soot from the coal-sourced power station flue emissions.
Generation III and IV power reactors, and the proposed Th-fuelled reactors, can be run to produce fission products that cannot be diverted to nuclear weapons production. World resources of U and Th are easily sufficient for 1000 years or more of nuclear fuel production, the whingeing of greenies notwithstanding.
So I heartily agree with James Hansen on the power issue. However, I reserve judgement on his other crusade to “halt” AGW, as evidence that there is an anthropogenic contribution to the post 1970 global warming is equivocal at best.

the motto of the Royal Society:
“nullius in verba” – “Take nobody’s word for it”
—————————————————————-
Indeed. I am a fan of Agatha Christie, especially her Miss Marple stories. Miss Marple is an elderly lady who has extraordinary skill in solving mysteries. Her first principle, stated in various forms throughout the books, is to believe nothing that anyone says. She says over and over – until I have proved a thing for myself, I don’t believe anything that I am told. And, it is this principle that gives her the edge over the police and public. Christie’s other novels operate on a similar principle.
The point is, one of the biggest selling authors in history understood – as did her readers – the importance of the Royal Society’s motto – or its US equivalent – ‘it ain’t necessarily so’. 🙂
As a pragmatic politician, Obama will probably jettison a few more liabilities including the EPA boss in coming months. All successful politicians know that it ain’t necessarily so, but sometimes they temporarily forget it when they are the ones doing the saying.

I’m not a fan of Hansen and believe he’s a bit of a kook about CO2 and politics.
But.
Anyone who’s read his views in the totality (not just the CO2 rants) knows that he’s ALSO a very strong advocate of nuclear power, and has been for a long time.
A more accurate PR stance for Hansen would be for him to protest in front of coal-fired power plants with a banner reading “Dump coal, build nukes!” I think that’s the accurate reflection of his true beliefs.

Do not expect a rational discussion on energy from the left. Their public policy positions over the last decades have led this country into the corner of the checkerboard. Their enlightened position du jour is now wind and solar, which lacks the pre-requisites of energy density and scheduling/dispatch.
I’m looking for windmills on automobiles any day now. (And the press will have the photos on page one to prove it.)

Still has Holdren, Chu, and Jackson, plenty enough to cause mischief. So is Browner going out some sort of local politics, or is Obama changing his mind about energy and climate?
========================

_Jim says: Wrote
January 25, 2011 at 3:35 am
‘You COULD have stopped right there … (sorry, (well, not really sorry) for some of us Soros-funded lefty non-critical-thinking Arriana HufPo is a no-go zone)”
Jim,
I’m not a lover of Huffing and Puffungton Post.
You know what they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, or something like that.

I don’t think Europeans have looked up to Americans since Kennedy for political leadership, but that has changed now. According to polls 80% of Europeans have a positive view of Obama. That is extraordinary. Usually American leaders have been ridiculed and seen as shallow and populist, if not down right evil like Bush.
Greens in Europe are desperate for Obama to make a stance on Climate, because it will help them considerably to put pressure on their own governments.
Well, personally I don’t mind Obama, but the way some see him as some sort of world-historical person is bit odd.

Browner is an avowed communist/socialist/fascist.
Her exit can only be described as positive.
That said, one must question the ulterior motives of an administration that would hire her in the first place.
I hate to admit it but I must agree with Herr Hansen about the nukes.

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION! This is the Captain of the USS CAGW: DON THE LIFE JACKETS! MAN THE LIFEBOATS! SCIENTISTS AND POLITICIANS FIRST!

Buddenbrook says:
January 25, 2011 at 4:26 am <blockquote
I don’t think Europeans have looked up to Americans since Kennedy for political leadership, but that has changed now.
That’s the best indication I know that Obama is no good for the US.

Hansen has jumped Romm’s shark.

Hansen must’ve went to a different set of meds…
Glad to see both a pro Nuke statement and the Departure of Browner.
Next!…

Here in the UK we’re not usually given to praising our arch-enemies, the French – but we have grudging admiration for their energy policies which mean that they generate 80% of their electricity from nuclear.
They even sell us some of it, via the under-Channel feeder – well, its got to come from somewhere, since our much-vaunted ‘renewables’ (that’s wind farms to you and me) regularly produce less than 1% of demand… On the coldest night of the winter (7th December 2010) – demand exceeded 60000MW for the first time – coincidental with a nice static anticyclone. Contribution to said demand from wind..? 0.1%….
Perhaps if all our politicians blew at once – hang on, though, that would produce more CO2….

kim [January 25, 2011 at 4:06 am]
No kim, it’s not ‘local’ politics…For those of us who follow this stuff, Browner is a very toxic character with an incredibly questionable past.
She was the key figure in opening up the Alamogordo Weapons Lab to espionage, thus the PRC gaining god-knows how much of our nuclear weapon designs and associated energy research.
For the Left, she is the very definition of a ‘good little soldier’; meaning she will do *whatever* is asked of her, neither balking, nor ‘talking’.
No, with power (and oversight) coming into the hands of the House-side Repubs, watch as Dear Leader continues to shed his more toxic assets, while preparing to defend others (you named a few of them).
And no, Browner won’t ‘going away’, there’s too many Soros shell organizations her in ‘disappear’ into until she’s needed again. That woman has too many connections, and dirt, to ever be completely removed (short of an ‘aspirin overdose’…).
And get any idea that Obama will be ‘rethinking’ his policy positions out of your head. Pronouncements without meaningful follow-thru is his M.O. Calling for ‘action’ while allowing his Leftist allies to block, or subvert, said actions is his other M.O.
He’s not going to abandon the ‘Green Movement’ because that would halt the money flow to his allies, that’s the long and the short of it. And, since his ‘friends’ have control of the main-stream info flow, the truth about Green Energy being a ineffective alternative to our current (and future) needs will not see the light of day until it’s too late (cedarhill did a wonderful summation of where *that* path ends up at…).
And as for Hansen, all he does is show that he’s not in the ‘anti-human’ faction of the green movement, nothing more. I still wouldn’t trust him as far as I could toss my Pontiac G5.

Ed Mertin says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:40 am
Quoth John Kerry…
“I’m hoping that reason can take hold here, that we can find a critical mass here in the House and Senate that can recognize truth,” the Massachusetts Democrat said.
“The president will put some proposals on the table tomorrow. Let’s see how the Republicans receive it,” he added. “I will use every power I have — every breath I have — to fight against that partisanship and unreasonableness.”
—
It’s high time to Downsize the Government-Funded Climate Industry…

Whos Next?

Buddenbrook says:
January 25, 2011 at 4:26 am
Well, personally I don’t mind Obama, ……….
=======================================================
Obviously, because he isn’t leading your country.
50 bucks says he’ll be asking for more spending in tonight’s state of the union address. Infrastructure spending, code word for payola for cronies.

Leaving DC before she can get taken to task by the Republicans… Coward.

John Marshall says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:34 am
…But burying rubbish produces its own problems- it rots and produces methane which is wasted. It would be a good ides to convert rubbish into methane to burn in a power plant producing electricity….

We’ve been doing this in Southern California for years now. I’m not sure just how much methane is captured or how viable it is economically, but we have been doing it for a while.

Smokey says:
January 25, 2011 at 5:32 am
Carol Browner pic
=======================================================
Now there’s a shocker.

Go nuke, lots of nuke fuel rocks on the native American lands.
Pay back time.

If memory serves, Jimmy Carter killed off the Nuclear Energy Industry with an executive order banning the recycling of spent nuclear fuel rods. The “fear” was that these rods in mass could create a runaway reaction and cause a meltdown. Thanks to Three Mile island and a Jane Fonda movie, The China Syndrome, the enviro’s had the wind at their back and scored a decicive victory for their movement. How short sighted.
Perhaps we should have the new Republican Congress look into reversing that Executive order and pass legislation overturning it. From what I understand, Nuclear fuel rods can be repeatedly recycled and eventually you only end up with a small amount of highly radioactive waste.
As I am not a nuclear expert, would someone with more knowledge weigh in and correct me if I am wrong here?
Regards,
Matt

I here I was thinking Obozo didn’t have anymore space under his bus to throw people who no longer were useful to him and his agenda.
Foolish me, I guess he’s compacting his garbage now before throwing it out.

“Cory says:
January 25, 2011 at 12:33 am
I’m kinda sad to say that I actually agree with Mr Hansen on this one. We should have more nuclear plants. The only problem most of the population has very little understanding of how the plants are built, or the basic concepts of what makes a reactor work.”
That is easy to solve. France had the same problem. So they opened up many nuclear facilities for tours by the public so the public could see with their own two eyes what is going on in them. And they answered all questions honestly and openly. In general, in France, communities fight to get nuclear plants built near them, rather than fight to keep them away. They want the jobs and benefits. The same can happen here. It’s all a matter of how the public is treated.
“Jeremy says:
January 25, 2011 at 7:13 am
Oh, and Obama’s loan guarantees for Nukes are a total farce. His direct decision effectively closed Yucca mountain before it had even begun operations, and after taxpayers paid all that money to create it/defend it. The loss of that new storage facility means that new nuclear is dead in America for the time being. How does a local government answer the environmental protestors when they say all waste has to be stored in their backyard? Without meaningful storage at the national level, nuclear will continue to die off in the U.S.”
Once again, the French have learned this lesson. Nuclear ‘waste’ problems disappear with reprocessing. Nuclear ‘waste’ is not waste at all. The very quality that makes it ‘toxic’ by virtue of ‘radiation’ makes it very valuable. That ‘radiation’ is free energy.
The French re-process all nuclear waste to extract every bit energy in it. As a result, their entire current ‘waste’ product per home for 30 years electrical supply is only about the size of a US silver dollar. And they do not even store that permanently. The entire ‘waste’ for France for the past 30 years is temporarily stored in a single location underneath an area the size of basketball court. And it is temporary storage because they intend to wring every bit of energy out of it. When all the energy is removed, it is no longer radioactive.
The US has a problem with ‘waste’ only because of the short-sightedness of Jimmy Carter. He banned re-processing by executive order. So, industry could not proceed like the French. That executive order was finally scrapped by George W. Bush, I believe.
France has solved a lot of the problems. The US needs only to study their methods.

One down, many more remain. Until someone recinds Carter’s decision not to reprocess nuclear waste, we will have nothing but hot air from nuke proposals. France reprocesses, has for 30 years, without many problems. Reprocessing nuke waste cuts the volume by 90% or so, far less to be buried.
Until we do that, it is a ‘waste’ of time.

“…despite offering his services “I never heard back anything from the White House”
Mr. Hansen really comes across as ‘full of himself”, similar to Our Dear Leader.
If we want nuclear power, we have to get Yucca Mt. operational. Politics shut it down and only politics with a backbone will get it operational. To achieve that and so much more that is needed and warranted, We must tear our Nation free from the restraining web of half truths and deceits spun by environmental Lilliputians like James Hansen and Al Gore.
We must work diligently these next 21 months to educate, campaign for, and elect pols to the House, Senate, and White House that will reject the socialist ‘green’ agenda hamstringing our national energy production and get on with the pragmatic business of powering a nation that will explore the solar system and reach for the stars! The planets are within the grasp of manned spacecraft, using nuclear powered plasma engines known as Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rockets (VASIMRs) drives.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/vasimr_plasma_for_iss_griffin_remark/
Capture the imagination of your children and encourage them to demand their birthright as explorers of the Solar System. Give them something more to strive for, beyond the navel lint gazing of environmentalism. Give their lives optimism and meaning!
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Engine_That_Does_More.html

Carol Browner is both corrupt (caught destroying her agency files and then lying about it) and a lunatic. Combined with a total lack of scientific credentials, a strong belief in socialism, total disregard for individual rights, and you have a thoroughly unpleasant person on your hands.

The Environmentalism stance on nuclear power confuses me. They oppose all nuclear because of its potential environmental impact and champion hydrogen fuel cell cars, batteries and solar panels as clean energy. The manufacture of all of these things creates carbon emissions. The disposal of batteries is an ongoing concern. The production of hydrogen fuel requires large quantities of fossil fuels or water. The benefit of increased efficiency over the environmental impact is negligible. As I would argue with any of the aforementioned “green” energy sources.

starzmom wrote: “And the Obama administration has presided over the shutdown of Yucca Mountain and ended efforts to license it.”
Jeremy wrote: “Oh, and Obama’s loan guarantees for Nukes are a total farce. His direct decision effectively closed Yucca mountain before it had even begun operations, and after taxpayers paid all that money to create it/defend it.”
Amazingly enough, the Yucca Mountain Project is not completely dead. Work by the Department of Energy (DOE) has stopped on it due to Obama submitting a 2011 budget request with zero funding for the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, Congress never passed that budget and the government is still working under a continuing resolution for 2011 funding.
The DOE submitted a License Application to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain to the NRC for review in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Halfway through the review, Stephen Chu (Obama’s appointee as the head of DOE) requested that the License Application be withdrawn (Amazingly enough, Chu was all for Yucca Mountain before being appointed Secretary of Energy. The only reply he gave when ask why it was being shut down was that the administration had decided to go in a different direction).
A panel of NRC judges with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that DOE does not have the authorization to do this. The commissioners at the NRC then reviewed the matter and could not come to a conclusion on what action to take. The Chairman of the NRC, Greg Jaczko, worked for Harry Reid (senate majority leader and as Senator from Nevada opponent of the repository) and has delayed announcing results of any vote that the commissioners took. Jaczko has also ordered the NRC staff to stop reviewing the License Application, a move that the staff disagreed with.
In the meantime, multiple States, cities, Indian tribes, and business men have sued in court claiming the work stoppage and failure to proceed with the License Application violates the NWPA. This case was stalled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But since the NRC Commissioners failed to take any action the court plans to hear oral arguments March 22. Given that the NRC judges with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board already ruled that DOE can’t withdraw the license the Circuit court has a significant precedent.
Additionally, multiple bipartisan members of the House of Representatives plan hearings on this whole fiasco, as shutting the project down for no good reason (possibly other than to get Harry Reid re-elected) is seen as wasting ratepayer and taxpayer money. Money continues to be collected on every kilowatt of power generated by nuclear power to pay for permanent disposal and more court cases have been filed over this as there are no current plans for a permanent disposal site.

Most (but not all) intelligent folks who see AGW as a serious generational challenge embrace nuclear as a base load energy source, including many who opposed it before the threat of AGW became apparent. Be careful in painting with too broad of a brush. While those wacky “environmentalists” may have driven initial opposition to nuclear power, it is primarily astronomical start up costs that have prevented new nuclear in recent decades. Most of the leading environmental groups, from business-minded NRDC to tree-hugging Sierra Club, recognize that nuclear has to play a role in a less carbon intensive energy future. (Environmnetalists are not the reason ethanol continues to be subsidized either … that’s the farm lobby).
While Obama pledged to triple DOE guaranteed loans for new nuclear, Congress did not carry that pledge thru with legislation. And there’s blame on both sides for that … the Dems tried too hard to limit that pledge to part of an overall energy bill that died its predicted death, and the GOP refuses to couple new nuclear incentives with any alternative energy incentives . It’s politics, and it’s a shame.

Colonel Sun says:
January 25, 2011 at 7:36 am
I’m bemused that the majority owner of Westinghouse Electric Company is Toshiba.
From my memory, the nuclear stuff went to Siemens. 20 years ago Toshiba was ban[n]ed for a spell because they ripped of some of our technology for nuclear subs.

*****
Sera says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:53 am
Go nuke- and use the extra electricity at night to make hydrogen for my car.
*****
I worked with pressurized H2 — large utility generators are cooled w/H2 gas (but only at a mere 30 psi). I chased tiny hydrogen leaks at regular intervals for yrs. From that experience, I would not want an H2-powered car. Why?
1. Hydrogen is extremely flammable — more than anything else. It’s the epitome of volatility. When you “fill-up” at a station, there’s going to be some leakage. Note how even a tiny source of H2 like a lead-acid battery can explode when you jump-start.
2. It can’t reasonably be liquefied (unless you’re NASA), so to get any “storage” in a vehicle, it must be highly pressurized. You have a 2000+ psi pressurized “bomb” in your car. What happens in an accident?
3. Hydrogen is the smallest atom, so it leaks out of the tiniest crevices, pipe unions, valves, fittings, etc. Completely eliminating every leak is nearly impossible.
Given the current nanny-state concerning “safety”, it’d seem incongruent to have a vehicular hydrogen fleet. LNG, propane, etc, that can be liquefied & stored at reasonably lower pressure are much more sensible.

For an old engineer like me, this is but a rerun of the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The main problem, as aways, is transportation and fueling points. The costs of providing fueling points would be enormous.
Back then, experimental vehicles were tried. For instance, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles were tried. Of course, they had to be dual fuel vehicles, for the lack of fueling points. The mass of the CNG tanks on the vehicles, + the mass of a filled tank of gasoline made for extremely unwieldy vehicles with terrible performance, and the lack of energy density with natural gas as opposed to gasoline assured that before all that long, only gasoline was used.
Electric battery vehicles have and will have limited range, and there is no way to have an accurate fuel gage. They do run out of electrical energy abruptly. A few kilowatt hours can not be transferred to the battery quickly. The traffic congestion caused by all the tow trucks would be amazing. Are there no DIYs with lithium battery powered drills?
As for hydrogen powered vehicles, hydrogen/air mix is extremely explosive, and the last thing I want to drive is a miniature Hindenburg.
Transportation, transportation transportation. Any economy revolves around transportation. Our Interstate Highway System has fueled the economy of our nation since its inception, along with relatively inexpensive carbon based fuels. Goods AND services have to be transported as well as people. Fuel has to be transported, the less expensively the better.
The USA has the most reserves of carbon based fuel, in equivalent barrels of oil, as compared to any other nation. That is, petroleum, natural gas and coal. To prevent our use or significantly increase the costs of these fuels is no more than to destroy our economy.

Advocacy of nuclear power may be Dr. Hansen’s best idea. Perhaps he will support electric vehicles powered by nuclear plants situated along the interstate highways (submarine size) and connected so as to charge the vehicle’s batteries on the fly. Until such plants are up & running we won’t be seeing many electric cars. AD 2200?
The batteries in these cars could be cheap, simple (yes, they are heavy) lead-acid types available without gigantic subsidies.

When people say they believe that the world is in peril and then reject the only practical, affordable technolgies to address the problem they have invented; then it is impossible to believe them. Nuclear can reduce carbon dioxide by hundreds of times the fossil fuel dependent wind and solar technologies. We have a revolution in natural gas which burns with half the production of carbon dioxide and virtually pollution free. The response to both is rejection and attempts to place roadblocks in the way of both these technologies.
This leaves only a few possible conclusions. Those making these claims do not really believe them, they find the existing problem useful to gain political goals and do not want it to be solved; or they are dumb as rocks. I can easily accept either of these possibilities. The only possibility I cannot accept is that they feel there is a problem threatening mankind and refuse to utilize the best and only way to fix their problem.

I have serious doubts that present corporate or government morals present any possibility of proper control of nuclear sites. We would be risking core meltdowns similar to the financial meltdown from which the US, and indeed the entire world, is presently suffering and for the same reasons. I agree that nuclear is needed but it would not be safe under the present corporate governance rules and operating methods and the federal government cannot be trusted to supply the oversite required at this time. With an abundance of available coal, oil and gas, proper development of these resources is all that needed at this time. Major changes in our political and corporate systems would be needed before I would trust that safe expansion of nuclear energy is possible in the US.

Taphonomic says:
January 25, 2011 at 9:05 am
Amazingly enough, the Yucca Mountain Project is not completely dead…

That is interesting, I thank you for sharing that. I had no grasp of the details there until you posted that.
As kind of an aside… is it really reasonable for a taxpayer project the size of Yucca Mountain to be closed down on the whim of a new administration? This isn’t nearly the first time this has happened. For instance, the Nixon administration killed the Apollo program for political purposes just when it was starting to pay real scientific dividends. Is that an appropriately representative government when a project that managed to have the support of a number of elected representatives can be shut down by one man like that after all that money has been spent? If it wasn’t so crazy I would propose an amendment to the constitution that permits taxpayers perhaps a direct voting/petitionary power to block such forms of waste.

Odd that this little factoid never made bigger news:
“Thursday, January 15, 2009
By Steven Milloy
Incoming White House energy-environment czar Carol Browner was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480025,00.html
(Found via a link to http://greenhellblog.com/2011/01/25/bad-day-for-socialists-browner-leaves-white-house/ from climatedepot.com)

Obama is making calcualted moves to get past his re-election in 2012. He knows he will have to keep EPA from finalizing CO2 rules until after he begins his second term. Browner is just collateral damage. She wanted to be chief of staff but didn’t get the position. Instead, Obama gave it to Bill Daley who runs in big business circles. Obama needs big business money for his re-election campaign. Browner was probably taken somewhat out of play after her ridiculous fiasco of editing the initial scientific investigation of the Gulf oil spill to make it look like the scientists on the panel agreed to the moratorium (which the vast majority did not.) Browner recognized that her influence would be greatly diminished and left.
Lisa Jackson at EPA is a brown shirt, not a zealot. She will run the play that the White House calls. Browner tried to call the plays. If Obama wants to get past his re-election before turning the brown shirts at EPA loose on businesses and consumers, Jackson will go along with the plan. But rest assured: if Obama is re-elected, all of this talk of moderation will disappear and he will resume the zealotry that he is now trying to conceal.
As for Hansen and his nuclear energy push, as others have noted, without a federally approved method for disposing of the wastes, nuclear energy expansion is going nowhere. Obama could have led the charge to make Yucca Mountain operative, but he chose instead to shill for his rube, Harry Reed, whose re-election depended on him telling the voters that he had gotten Obama to kill the facility.

@ DD More January 25, 2011 at 11:19 am
I’m all for the Navy having nuclear propulsion systems. Cost is not much of a consideration there. Few widows or orphans or very poor citizens will see their electric bills skyrocket when the Navy runs nuke-powered ships and subs. For land-based nuclear power plants, it is a completely different story.
Still, it intrigues me that zero islands of approximately 1 million population have a nuclear power plant. If they were so very, very desirable, what’s the big holdup? I listed more than a dozen such islands; not a one has a nuclear power plant.
As to the attorneys driving up the cost of a land-based nuclear power plant, true. And we will do so again, and again, and as many times again as those things are built. I am an attorney, but do not practice in nuclear power plant law. I do practice in construction law, however.
The US legal system is designed to provide access to the courts for any legitimate plaintiff – including those who want to sue the owners or constructors of a nuclear power plant. If the nuclear power plant constructors would do everything correctly the first time, there would be no or very little reason for lawsuits. Sadly, the nuclear power construction industry has an abysmal record of doing anything correctly. One would expect that the project cost and schedules would be easily determined after building 400 plant world-wide. That is just not the case, though. The South Texas Nuclear Plant Expansion is an excellent case in point.
As just one other example, the Waterford nuclear power plant in Killona, Louisiana had a cost overrun of 12 times the initial cost estimate. No utility in their right mind would build a nuclear power plant today with the final cost 12 times the initial cost estimate. It would likely bankrupt the utility to do so.
Nuclear power plants are not the only projects that are subjected to lawsuits that increase costs and create delays. The list of such lawsuits for non-nuclear projects is very long. Chevron’s proposed refinery modification at their Richmond, California location is a good example.
So, there is the challenge. Develop a proven nuclear power plant technology that is safe, costs no more to build than a gas-fired power plant of equal power output, can be built on a predictable schedule, and that produces zero poisonous and toxic radioactive byproducts. Also, it must be able to follow the electrical load. We are a very long way from accomplishing any of those with a nuclear power plant.

I dislike nuclear (the waste never goes away and is a terrorist target) but think we should be building many, many more coal plants. They are the cheapest with the longest lived reserves. North America has at least 1000 years of coal reserves. Cheap power helps thepoor the most. Cheap power attracts industry.

Regarding Hansen vs Gore/Obama
Nuclear vs Renewable/Coal is a wedge issue for both CAGW movement and the skeptics, and it is going to come up more regularly.
The issue however is based on the still questionable assumption that CO2 is bad for everything between heaven and earth.
Many skeptics would be happy to replace twice over every single coal power station in the Western world with nuclear, and completely electrify the transportation system, if that were ever possible, in order to shut down the corrupting influence of the CAGW movement.
Going nuclear is not an issue only for Climate Change. It will have significant geo-political implications as well. Can Obama launch a major nuclear power program while seeking nuclear dis-armament with Russia and scolding Iran for its secretive nuclear program? Yes, he can, but not the US. Not the country that has so many international enemies who dream about ‘going nuclear’.
Peaceful international nuclear proliferation wouldn’t be such a major issue if it weren’t so easy to use the expertise to make a bomb. And there are dozens of tyrants and unstable regimes out there that dream of such power. The West cannot possibly sustain a moral and political position whereby it re-orders its energy sector on nuclear while maintaining the international anti-proliferation stance.
James Hansen is flying too close to the sun on this. He may be an expert climatologist but he is no politician. Obama has solid anti-nuclear credentials, he is Hansen’s ultimate boss, and he’s no Bush. If he becomes a thorn in the side, can Obama pension off Hansen after 30 years in the helm? Yes, he can.
Indeed, it seems James Hansen is already clearing the tables, as though he’s not going to stay at his post for very long. And once this spiritual and intellectual father of the CAGW movement departs from such an influential pedestal as NASA, the CAGW movement will disintegrate.

Awwww, is poor Jim being censored again?

“”””” William Nichols says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I dislike nuclear (the waste never goes away and is a terrorist target) “””””
The French word for “nuclear waste” is “fuel”. You separate out the fuel from the real ashes, and then you burn the fuel in a different reactor; and pffftt its gone ! The ashes are good stuff too, you can use them in all kinds of applications, as short lived radio-nuclides; but you have to use them before they decay. It’s a good thing that the power station keeps on resupplying us with them. We in the USA let ours go to seed, because we aren’t as smart as the French are. They probably would take ours off our hands; they can always use more fuel; specially at a good price.

In case you can’t wait to see it, here’s the SOTU speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/obama-state-of-the-union-_1_n_813478.html
Unless I missed it, he does not utter the words ‘climate change.’

“”””” Roger Sowell says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:01 pm
@ DD More January 25, 2011 at 11:19 am
The US legal system is designed to provide access to the courts for any legitimate plaintiff – including those who want to sue the owners or constructors of a nuclear power plant. If the nuclear power plant constructors would do everything correctly the first time, there would be no or very little reason for lawsuits. Sadly, the nuclear power construction industry has an abysmal record of doing anything correctly. “””””
It is instructive to compare the operations of businesses like Power engineering businesses; the sort that design and build all kinds of power stations, of different technologies; with another class of businesses that can be generally categorized as “Professions”; of which there are quite a few varieties; staffed of course by “Professionals”.
“Professionals” are not like other business persons; they don’t have a “job”; they have a “practice”, and they “Practice” their “profession” on their customers, or clients if you will. Often they are not very good at it; so no “professional” will ever give you a money back guarantee; you assume ALL of the risks of their “practising” on your behalf. Then there is the CYA factor; so ALL professionals carry malpractice insurance to protect their A**** when they screw up. So their insurance company will pick up the pieces for them.
And to limit the competition, so they don’t have to become very good at their “practice”, all “professionals” are protected by laws that prevent anybody else from horning in on their “professional operations”. You simply aren’t allowed to do your own brain transplant, even if you wanted to try it.
A good example is the tax lawyers, who will go to bat for you at the IRS, if you have failed to file a tax return for the last five years. Well you didn’t file, because you didn’t have any money left to pay what taxes you might owe. Not to worry; the tax lawyer will get you a deal for ten cents on the dollar. Of course before he will take your case, you will have to pay him his “one time fee” so you know ahead of time how much it is going to cost you to get a ten cent on the dollar deal from the IRS. If you don’t have the money to pay your taxes owed; how the heck are you going to pay the lawyer his up front retainer.
Of course the IRS really loves these tax lawyers. If the lawyer brings them another tax deadbeat or cheat, to get them back on the tax rolls, the IRS would be smart to let the taxpayer off for ten cents on the dollar; just this one time, to get him back on the tax rolls. Well the IRS agent would never say that; that would be improper; and the tax lawyer, would never make that suggestion to the IRS; that would be kinda like bribery. So the tax lawyer collects a fee that should have been paid to the IRS in taxes, and he doesn’t have to make an improper suggestion to the IRS, about going easy on his victim; scratch that; make that client; and the IRS collects something which is better than nothing and they get another tax payer’s vital statistics, and they didn’t have to grease anybody’s palm to bring the rascals in.
Yeah it’s great to have a “practice”; so that you don’t get fired when you screw up, and your product doesn’t work, like the engineer designing a power plant would. His work is expected to do what he says it will, or the customer demands their money back.
Yes the world needs better regulation of people who design and build stuff, to make sure it works, and the customer gets his money’s worth; and if it doesn’t then there is always a “Practitioner Professional” to stand up for the wronged customer of the incompetent engineer. Well once in a while; actually most of the time, what the engineer designed and built works exactly like it was supposed to, and everybody benefits from that. The “Practice” of the “Professional”, is like the bartender who skims from the till to line his own pocket, while the restaurateur has his back turned. Like the Mafia, it’s just another cost of doing business.

A measure a societies technical and engineering sophistication is how its power is derived from advanced sophisticated sources. Nuclear Power is the most advanced sophisticated power source there is. The size of a cell phone or PDA indicates nothing nor does the output from Hollywood or conspicuous consumption (maybe indicates decadence).

“Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups”
Pot, Kettle, Black, spring to mind!

It seems to me that nuclear energy is the only real source of alternative energy available right now.
It is used safely all over the world, in spite of some terrible fiascos due to poor maintenance or failure to close down obsolete facilities.
Wind turbines and solar panels are much worse than “pie in the sky”, in my opinion they are just highly polluting government-subsidized “green” scams. These two “cures” are worst than the sickness.

“B ob Newhart says:
January 25, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Hansen is going to jail, Hansen is going to jail, Hansen……
He’s done, put a fork in him.”
Are you a mad or are you a troll?
The only ones who carry pitch-forks in this debate are the “97% of scientists agree” club, the 10:10 mob and other affiliated pot-garden bully society.
No other government employee enjoyed as much latitude to criticise his/her own bosses publicly as James Hansen did during his 30 year stint as the head of NASA GISS. Probably no one under Hansen’s own playground dared to criticise the boss.
As for Hansen going to jail, he was arrested twice for the same offence. He is lucky he didn’t spend a few days in jail. And he is very lucky that the world didn’t get to see the James Hansen mugshot.
Indeed, since James Hansen was arrested, the police must have taken his mugshot. I wonder if an inquisitive American mind can dig that out for us.

*sigh* Be careful what you wish for, folks! As Frank Herbert said in “Dune,” we have “plots within plots….”
How can we have all of Hansen’s nice, new, advanced nuclear plants without any waste disposal/recycling option? Obama already killed Yucca Mountain off, and there is no other viable alternative. One very promising technology, the “Integral Fast Reactor,” was killed by Clinton/Gore.
Building up an advanced nuclear infrastructure will take decades, and in the meantime, Prof. Hansen desperately wants to reduce your carbon emissions (per his book “Storms of My Grandchildren”). Don’t cheer for this guy, but ask questions.
Also, speaking of “plots within plots,” this is a very interesting development = a union of GE and the Obama Administration:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/560525/201101211832/Obama-And-GE-New-Industrial-Superstructure.aspx

@Taphonomic says:
January 26, 2011 at 10:53 pm
——
Thanks, good stuff! There is a lot of legal action going on as you pointed out:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/01/14/1326866/dc-appeals-court-sets-date-for.html
The trump card will be “environmental impact.” Yucca Mountain repository was extremely unpopular in Sen. Reid’s home state, and arguments about groundwater contamination etc. (bogus) will be used by Obama.
This will be interesting to watch. No matter what the environmental drawbacks, storing the waste in Yucca Mountain is far safer than stockpiling the stuff in cooling ponds near Lake Michigan or other water supplies. Really dumb.

New nuclear power plant projected cost to produce electricity is 50% greater than natural gas. It takes at least a decade to get one from initial planning to full power operation. In the meantime a breakthrough in biofuel from genetically engineered organisms could handily be less expensive than natural gas. At this point in time the rate of progress in synthetic biology looks like 10 years is more than enough time to git ‘er done. If/when that happens any new nuclear plant becomes a dinosaur overnight that would be operating at a loss. Serious investors know the risk of investing in nuclear and just won’t do it. If no one will put all that capital at risk then no new nuclear power plant will be built.
Nuclear power isn’t the panacea many seem to think it is. IMO the number of existing plants will decrease through attrition as their service life ends and they won’t be replaced.

John Kehr says:
January 25, 2011 at 12:50 am
Any warmist that opposes nuclear power doesn’t deserve the time of day.
John Kehr”
Those of the “feral human”mentality want to go back to a world lit only by fire if that, a world living in caves, a world of creatures cowering before thunder and lightning storms, …
It is going to take much more for the Modern Liberal yuppies who support radical environmentalists to smarten up, so far they are too stupid to see that their comfort and health are in danger.
PS: Yes, “feral human”, the term used for themselves by environmentalist protesters at a road construction site in Langford BC Canada.