The plot thickens:
White House aides Monday were mum about what would happen to the Office of Energy and Climate Change except to declare that Browner, a former Senate staffer to Al Gore, believed energy issues would remain front and center for the president.
One wonders now if Obama will even mention climate during the State of the Union Address Tuesday night. With jobs and economy taking front and center and Browner’s announcement right before SOTUA, government climate initiatives may be relegated to the back-burner. We’ll have to wait and see.
And it gets stranger, Haunting the Library writes:
Andy Revkin of the New York Times reported that Hansen was not happy with the current Obama administration, as despite offering his services “I never heard back anything from the White House”. This “lame” approach, he said could be seen in past Democrat administrations:
Nowhere is the lame middle-of-the-road go-slow compromise approach clearer than in the case of nuclear power. The [Obama] Administration has been reluctant to admit that the Carter and Clinton/Gore administrations made a huge mistake in pulling the U.S. back from development of advanced nuclear technology.
That is the way to make nuclear power safer (nuclear power already has the best safety record of any major industry in the United States) and resistant to weapons proliferation
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups who impede progress on nuclear power, rather than being a “responsible leader” and authorizing a major new programme of building new nuclear power stations:
Nevertheless, the easiest thing that he could do, and perhaps the best that we can hope for, is for him to give a strong boost to nuclear power.
Unfortunately, he seems to fall prey to Democratic politics on this, rather than being a responsible leader.
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen’s comments may well be a dig at blogger Joe Romm (Climate Progress), formerly Acting Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy for the Clinton administration. Despite frequently proclaiming global warming to be an existential threat to humanity, Romm has hindered the move to low emissions energy by waging a campaign against nuclear power, which – as Hansen notes – has “the best safety record of any major industry”. Why is Romm ignoring the advice of the scientists he himself champions? Is it science, or is it politics?
============================================================
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Seems like the climate/green energy movement is self destructing on the eve of the SOTUA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
WHile Obama appears free to appoint Czars, there is nothing saying that the republicans need to fund them. Given the magnitude of the budget cuts, I think perhaps Obama may be trying to negotiate the size of his budget cut.
Layne Blanchard says: “So we learn that Jim isn’t a green rent seeker, he’s just (partially) psychotic. I think I would rather he were the former.”
He’s probably neither. Psychosis is something else entirely. Here’s an informative article from Wankapedia:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/God_complex
@battman: I have a 1991 Saturn converted to an electric that uses 10 Trojan deep cycle marine lead acid batteries. The range is 40 mi. The charge time is 8 hours on 110, 4 on 220. Charging on 220 may heat the plates and warp them. Nice around town NEV, but that is about it.
As for Hansen, he always was a back biter wasn’t he?
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 never liked the old nuclear tech. It just didn’t cut it on so many fronts. First its insurance was covered by the gov, second they ALL had massive cost overruns, third the “screw Nevada” bill really was stupid (no I don’t live there but I do live by the do unto others motto), fourth it just wasn’t that cheap, fifth was the decommissioning costs were never accurately fleshed out and of course will be much higher than originally expected, sixth it was tech that was exported around the world and used to make real WMDs to some very unstable countries.
Then I was introduced to the thorium reactors and went “why aren’t we working on this?”. It has so many advantages and addresses all the disadvantages of the previous generations of nuclear tech. Very elegant design.
The biggest problem for nuclear now is natural gas. You just can’t beat it for price and simplicity. Too bad I would have loved to see the scientists and engineers finally get nuclear done correctly. Maybe they still can. We do have a luxury of no energy shortage for a century at least with the shale gas so lets put some research into thorium reactors.
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.
Laurence M. Sheehan, PE says:
January 25, 2011 at 10:46 am
You are quite correct Sir, we looked at all these things over thirty years ago and what did not work then won’t work now: but what goes around comes around I suppose.
I wrote for Jeff ID on his now, alas, to be closed website, an account of how here in the UK we went about developing an electric car back then: here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/electric-cars/
Since then I have kept a careful eye on battery technology and despite all the plaudits Lithium is not a good choice for a traction battery, it is simply too thermally unstable.
I await the day when some trendy driver of one of these contraptions gets fried as the Lithium battery pack catches fire and explodes: something which has injured lap top owners at various times. What litigation there will be then not to mention press exposes of the dangers and who knows what of a brouhaha.
Kindest Regards.
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.
If you understand their real goal, then the rejection of good alternatives are not surprising. They view man as a cancer on earth that must be erradicated in order for the earth to survive. So any alternative short of that is not acceptable to them.
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)
James Sexton says:
January 25, 2011 at 7:29 am
Smokey says:
January 25, 2011 at 5:32 am
Carol Browner pic
=======================================================
Now there’s a shocker.
——–
I hadn’t looked at that photo before posting the link about Browner’s role as “a commissioner in Socialist International.” So that photo did not surprise me as much as it would have a half hour ago.
Still, with people like that appointed to White House positions, and the incredible silence from the usual media about it, you really have to wonder about Obama.
And Browner is clearly a classic unequivocal example of a Watermelon!
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.
Have to agree with our arch enemy Hansen on this one. Maybe in his ol age he is beginning to see the light lets hope world temps follow cause it looks like they are anyway see AMSU satellite data
@ur momisugly 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.
Who would have thunk . . .
Agreement with Gore on ethanol and Hansen on nuclear in such a short period of time!
From the article (bold mine):
“With jobs and economy taking front and center and Browner’s announcement right before SOTUA, government climate initiatives may be relegated to the back-burner. We’ll have to wait and see.”
Remember, SOUTA spelled backwards is AUTOS, and it might not be wise to bring up CO2 driven CAGW, let alone refer to burners, front or back. We’ll just have to wait to hear what the Teleprompter-in-Chief has to say tonight. ;o)
The saddest thing is Hyperion’s tiny reactors, US originated and developed, are now going to be built in China rather than the US. US-based Hyperion will probably be the first to market in the world with cheap, modular nuclear reactors.
The technology could have easily been kept here with many direct jobs, and even more indirect jobs for the supporting industrial infrastructures.
But, alas, there is too much red tape here to move forward quickly.
The US keeps shooting itself in the foot.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news/newsreleases/AEHI-MOU-HPG.pdf
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.
Taphonomic says:
Thank You very much! I was not aware of the nuanced details that have Yucca Mountain repository on ‘life support but still breathing’! It gives me additional information to educate my ‘squish’ Representative and lead/drive him to provide what support he can to reinvigorate the project. I yet have hope that he may ‘grow a pair’….
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.
I believe the object is power not change, per se. Hansen is a user not a provider.
Awwww, is poor Jim being censored again?
RonPE says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Who would have thunk . . .
“Agreement with Gore on ethanol and Hansen on nuclear in such a short period of time!”
Good lord, man! Seek professional help immediately! ;o)
“”””” 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.