From the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Throughout the history of Japan, its cities have been destroyed again and again by war, fire and earthquake. After each catastrophe, the Japanese have rebuilt, bigger and better. One hopes and expects that they will do the same again. –Lesley Downer, The Daily Telegraph, 15 March 2011
The Japanese disaster “will put new nuclear development on ice,” said Toronto energy consultant Tom Adams, the former executive director of Energy Probe. He said the nuclear industry was already facing challenges, noting that vast shale gas resources in North America and other parts of the world were starting to make cheaper gas-fired plants the electricity generators of choice. – Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail, 15 March 2011
Neither new nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, wind nor solar are economic. Natural gas is queen. It is domestically abundant and is the bridge to the future. – John Rowe, The Globe and Mail, 15 March 2011
Obama’s energy plan relies heavily on nuclear power to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions harmful to the climate as well as to reduce dependence on imported oil. The president proposed tripling federal loan guarantees to $54.5 billion to help build new reactors in the 2012 budget plan he sent to Congress. — Jeremy van Loon and Mark Chediak, Bloomberg 15 March 2011
President Barack Obama’s energy agenda appears to be jinxed. While Japan’s nuclear meltdown may be an ocean away, the industry has quickly become the latest example of a policy in peril not long after the White House embraced it. –Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, 15 March 2011
Despite Japan’s crisis, India and China and some other energy-ravenous countries say they plan to keep using their nuclear power plants and building new ones. With those two countries driving the expansion — and countries from elsewhere in Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East also embracing nuclear power in response to high fossil fuel prices and concerns about global warming — the world’s stock of 443 nuclear reactors could more than double in the next 15 years, according to the World Nuclear Association, an industry trade group.—The New York Times, 14 March 2011
New data suggests Israel may not only have much larger gas resources than believed, but also the 3rd largest deposit of oil shale in the world. As a consequence of these new estimates, Israel may emerge as the third largest deposit of oil shale, after the US and China. –Dore Gold, The Jerusalem Post, 11 March 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think Prof. Muller’s video (link below) is having a profound effect upon climate believers. After all, Muller is one, but he’s saying he now cannot trust the data because of the “hide the decline” If there is one video to break the camels back, I believe this is the one. I think “the team” may actually be sidelined/fired/demoted/not heard anymore, thrown under the bus etc…, shortly because of this video.
previous: LOL climate change/warming believers hahahah
Why does natural gas always seem to get a complete pass on carbon dioxide emission as though it did not emit any? (And besides, gas emits more water vapor than coal and that makes more snow from global warming 😉
I have written a blog on this topic
‘Meltdown’ blog
Posted: Mar 14, 2011 3:34 PM PDT
Updated: Mar 14, 2011 3:56 PM PDT
Monday morning, March 14, 2011
There is deep concern about “nuclear meltdown” at one or more of the nuclear power plants in Japan. While that concern is certainly valid, there is a general misunderstanding of what is meant by “nuclear meltdown” and what consequences follow such an event.
The entire blog is at:
http://www.kusi.com/story/14250073/meltdown-blog
Despite the nuclear disaster in Japan, it is insane, imo, to waste the spectacular raw material that is natural gas for boiler fuel. Natural gas is the preferred chemical feedstock for almost all plastics and a wonderful fuel for transport vehicles.
Like helium, it is a limited resource that should be used with respect, not simply stripmined to exhaustion.
Until US nuke plants are threatened by tsunami, I don’t see the connection.
This is such a load of hooey anyway. Even if worsed possible case were to come to pass in Japan, nuclear would still be safer and cleaner by orders of magnitude than gas.
I particularly liked drudge headline photo showing radiation of 2 microsieverts and hour (OH PANIC!) Here we have this enormous panic over radiation levels lower than people get when they go to the spa. A 500,000 hour dose recieved all at once has a slight chance of making you have nausea. Heck I have nausea just from reading this BS.
I did love that term ‘energy ravenous’ – because, in truth, that is precisely what the world has become – certainly the developed world, with the less developed world harbouring high hopes of attaining the same level as the major economies!
And what is the cause of all this energy demand? No matter how you cut it – it is you and I, our lifestyles and families! There is no getting away from it. Even those in 3rd world countries, supposedly recycling our secondhand PC’s and mobile phones are starting on the long road to energy ‘demand’!
The greenies can wave their arms as much as they like, Joe Average can save as much energy as he can – but the end result WILL be the same – we are heading for an energy crisis. (Yeah, I know it’s largely a population realted thing too..)
Until the world population begins to level out, there is no point in even thinking about a final guestimated level of energy ‘demand’ – it will simply keep rising UNLESS we all move back to mud-huts and raw meat! It doesn’t take a genius to see that when you add in all the products made and widely sold to make our lives ‘better’ – the energy demand is simply massive – and those aspiring to better lifestyles want it too!.
On the reasonable assumption that the worlds population is not about to ‘give it all up’ – and go back to the trees/caves. We must source more energy……..
Realistically, renewables can do their bit – but it simply cannot be enough. Oil is most definately a finite resource and Coal too (but obviously there is a good wedge of coal around). So ultimately, we WILL require nuclear power to supply our energy demands.
The green argument that says we should transfer to alternatives and save FF’s now is equally valid for application to nuclear power. The argument that alternatives will get more efficient with ‘practise’ and improved technology is again, equally valid for nuclear power.
One cannot ride a bike without falling off – make an omelette without breaking eggs, etc, etc. The oft quoted greenies favourite of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is entirely valid for nuclear power. We must maintain and develop nuclear power even if only as a precaution against the failure of other energy sources to meet demand!
Hence, as you may suspect, I am pro-nuclear – BUT with the obvious caveat that it needs careful consideration, design and implementation – after all, we can’t simply have unstable countries holding the keys to nuke power stations, can we? It seems the nuclear age has been forced to rest on its laurels over the last few decades because it fell out of favour. This kind of incident in Japan is a valuable lesson – but it IS a lesson – it simply cannot be seen to be a ‘nail in the coffin’ for nuclear power just because of a problem – and those that would do that are severely myopic. God forbid that anyone dies from radiation exposure in Japan – even one death is regrettable – but what would the world say about the number of people dying from electricution every year? Are we about to ban electricity?
I am suddenly reminded of a quote about electricity when I was a young lad in a Physics lecture. It was ‘Electricity is a great slave, but a terrible master’ – nuclear power is the same! (but obviously much worse in potential disaster!)
The development of nuclear programs is paramount to the long term energy demands of the world and needs to be encouraged – albeit under very very strict controls and designs. In the actual theme of global warming – how much long term production of CO2 would have been cut if all the resources used by AGW research had been ploughed into R&D of better future nuclear power stations?
Mike M says: March 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Why does natural gas always seem to get a complete pass on carbon dioxide emission as though it did not emit any?
————————————————-
Mike: You’re using logic and numbers. Western governments are getting further away from that. For example, the German government is calling to shut down 7 nuke power plants. I guess they’re afraid of an imminent tsunami in central Europe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72E17620110315
Mike M says:
March 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Why does natural gas always seem to get a complete pass on carbon dioxide emission as though it did not emit any? (And besides, gas emits more water vapor than coal and that makes more snow from global warming 😉
Well, it’s like this, most fuels get a complete pass on CO2 because it really doesn’t matter. CO2 is not a problem. Even the minute bits of ash from coal fired plants aren’t the problem that melted fuel rods are.
The sad thing is that we’re having to have any debate at all about nuclear energy. Had the U.S. Government not insisted on BWR for strategic military purposes in the 50s, and instead had gone forward with the safer Thorium reactors, we wouldn’t be having discussions about “green,” “purple,” or any other color of energy.
Personally, I hope that the Japanese turn rapidly to LNG fired powerplants. They can quickly be brought online.
We need more research into thorium reactors which could have a dramatically better safety profile.
I used to live in a country where we would set out to do big, ambitious things — build the Hoover dam, create an interstate highway system, go to the moon. Occasionally, our rockets would blow up. We would learn from our failure and build better rockets. We would get to the moon.
Now we just wet our pants when things go wrong.
There has not been one new nuclear reactor constructed in the US in the last 30+ years.
I have long believed that if – somehow – the political will could be summoned, and pressure-group and NIMBY opposition overcome – a new nuclear power plant could be built in the US, we would not be able to bring it online – a single nuclear plant – for less than 50 billion dollars.
And yet our need for electricity will increase. How will our needs be met?
We already saw how, in the recent winter storm in Texas. OUTSOURCING!
We will buy power from Mexico.
Mexico will build coal, and maybe even nuclear plants, with little threat of enviro-activist oppostion, and sell us their electricity.
Mexico will get the architect jobs, the engineer jobs, the construction jobs, the power plant operator jobs, the repairman jobs and the supplier jobs, and lots and lots of our money; and in return, Mexico will rescue us from our self-inflicted cold and dark (dark green) future.
etudiant says:
March 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Despite the nuclear disaster in Japan, it is insane, imo, to waste the spectacular raw material that is natural gas for boiler fuel. Natural gas is the preferred chemical feedstock for almost all plastics and a wonderful fuel for transport vehicles.
Like helium, it is a limited resource that should be used with respect, not simply stripmined to exhaustion.
I would suggest that you do a little more research on the subject of natural gas. The amount currently available on the market has caused prices to drop below $4/mmcf. And stay there, with oil up from $60/bbl to $104/bbl. Remember at the time of the oil price spike ($150+/bbl) in 2008, it was at $15/mmcf. It’s low because there is plenty of it.
I would point out that the latest generation of co-gen power plants using natural gas can get very high thermal efficencies (60-70%) and are ideal for electrical power generation … they are a very efficient way to generate electricity which is and will continue to be the primary power source for non-transportation power consumers …
Apparently I need to move to Mars to get away from all the luddites.
I would also point out that these nuke plants is question are of 1970’s design and are actually old designs from a safety perspective yet they have thus far managed to avert an actual disaster … (fingers crossed of course) …
Not exactly true, the Norwegian government resigned in 2000 over this issue
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-09/world/norway.govt.01_1_coalition-government-power-plants-vote?_s=PM:WORLD
Obviously, the CO2 emissions don’t affect the climate in any measurable way, even if they said so then and say so now.
Meanwhile the Guardian, the UK’s green propanda tabloid is lapping up the horrendous event in Japan:
“Japan nuclear crisis puts industry revival in doubt
Disaster described as a colossal setback for industry at a time when climate change is sparking a renaissance”
The bed wetters are out in force, the cause of the accident was the diesel engine generators were flooded with salt water from the Tsunami(something that can be remedied in future).
The greenest nastiest bed wetters are rejoicing the devastation in Japan, in particular the problems with the cooling system. Really and truly the greens have a hatred for the advancement of the human race.
The problem with this situation is that the debate if being framed by the media. They have paraded one after another “expert” to create fear. Have been checking up on these “experts” by googling on them. Many are poli-sci majors with their own agenda.
The congress needs to fire up some meetings to discuss nuclear power and particularly how to replace older gen 1 nukes in the US with gen 3 or gen 4 nukes.
Get the word out that the issue in Japan is largely due to it being older technology and if we’re smart we’ll swap out some of our older units with newer ones to improve safety. This might get the ball rolling again.
The disaster in Japan has made conventional nuclear power untenable. Fortunately we have natural gas to use as a bridge, while thorium LSR’s are developed. Three mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and two weeks ago it was looking like nuclear power was an acceptable alternative. In another 15 years, memories will fade, fossil fuels will be more expensive, and nuclear power will once again start looking good. Hopefully we will not waste the time in between.
Business as usual: Russia, Belarus sign 9 billion nuclear power contract
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Russia-Belarus-sign-9-billion-apf-4040845331.html?x=0
Etudiant,
“Despite the nuclear disaster in Japan, it is insane, imo, to waste the spectacular raw material that is natural gas for boiler fuel.”
You are right, but this is happening because of the market distorting effects of anti-co2 measures. Coal is cheaper, and more suitable for electricity generation. It would free up gas for domestic use and transport. Whenever governments get involved in markets they create a disaster. Ronald Reagan once said, “if the government ran the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand.”
Welcome to the Third World, by Paul Driessen
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
“Smart” Germany is shutting down the nuclear plants because of Japan – no earthquakes seen so far, and tsunamis not very frequent there too. Will anounce
to go green and then buy French or Czech, or Russian nuke power. Hmmm.
Some NIMBYies do live in the States, but in Germany they are all over the place.
They should ban water, considering its the killer here. First there was too much of it and it got everywhere, smashing homes, cars and people, then it went away when it was needed to cool the reactor core. Water is completely unreliable and needs to be banned.