Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. had a worthwhile guest essay in Foreign Policy titled: Climate of Failure published last year that Dr. Judith Curry has made a post about today that she calls a “good topic for Sunday discussion”. I agree. While I see many of the same things she does, I also see a different path forward. Her last takeaway point is:
… focus on goals that can actually be accomplished and getting people who think differently to act alike.
We have the technology to do that in our hands now, all we need is the will. If it weren’t for the need to make nuclear bombs (of which uranium based nuclear power is a spinoff), we might already have been there. Few people know this, but the demonization of coal didn’t start with environmentalists, it started with nuclear power advocates, but that is a story for another day.
Here are some excerpts from Pielke Jr’s essay in FP:
Environmentalists are just now waking up to the reality that if we’re going to stop global warming, we’re going to have to be a lot more politically savvy.
So what’s the next step? For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that human activities have an impact on the planet. That impact includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide. We are indeed running risks with the future climate through the unmitigated release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and none of the schemes attempted so far has made even a dent in the problem. While the climate wars will go on, characterized by a poisonous mix dodgy science, personal attacks, and partisan warfare, the good news is that progress can yet be made outside of this battle.
…
The heady days of early 2009, when advocates for global action on climate change anticipated world leaders gathering later that year around a conference table in Copenhagen to reach a global agreement, are but a distant memory. Today, with many of these same leaders focusing their attention on jump starting economic growth, environmental issues have taken a back seat. Leaders’ attention to climate policy is not coming back — at least not in any form comparable to the plans being discussed just a few years ago. A rising GDP, all else equal, leads to more emissions. But if there is one ideological commitment that unites nations and people around the world in the early 21st century, it is that GDP growth is non-negotiable.
Stabilizing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would require more than 90 percent of the energy we consume to come from carbon-free sources like nuclear, wind, or solar. Policymakers often discuss reducing annual emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels. But emissions today are already more than 45 percent higher than in 1990, so that higher level implies a need to cut by more than 90 percent from today’s levels. Put another way, in round numbers, we could keep at most 10 percent of our current energy supply, and 90 percent or more would have to be replaced with a carbon-free alternative. Today, about 10 percent of the energy that we consume globally comes from carbon-free sources — leaving a long way to go.
Consider this: If the goal is to stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a low-level by 2050 (in precise terms, at 450 parts per million or less), then the world would need to deploy a nuclear power plant worth of carbon free energy every day between now and 2050. For wind or solar, the figures are even more daunting.
…
Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, because it is still carbon intensive, but the rapidly declining U.S. emissions prove an essential policy point: Make clean(er) energy cheap, and dirty energy will be quickly displaced. To secure cheap energy alternatives requires innovation — technological, but also institutional and social. The innovation challenge is enormous, but so is the scale of the problem. A focus on innovation — not on debates over climate science or a mythical high carbon price — is where we’ll make process.
The vast complexity of the climate issue offers many avenues for action across a range of different issues. What we need is the wisdom to have a constructive debate on climate policy options without all the vitriolic proxy battles. The anger and destructiveness seen from both sides of this debate will not be going away, of course, but constructive debate will move on to focus on goals that can actually be accomplished.
Full essay here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/climate_of_failure
Notes from Anthony:
“…the world would need to deploy a nuclear power plant worth of carbon free energy every day between now and 2050. For wind or solar, the figures are even more daunting.”
Given the size of the task presented, and the “herding cats” nature of individual sovereign nation economies, it seems to me that the promise of clean energy alternatives as a solution to carbon emissions is essentially stillborn.
In my opinion, Thorium based nuclear power is the way forward. It has all the benefits of zero carbon emissions, plus it has less problematic fissile by-products than comparable Uranium235 based power systems. Plus, the fuel components of thorium based power systems aren’t generally compatible with current fission and thermonuclear bomb making technologies, making such technology less of a terrorist action risk. Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth’s crust.
Surprisingly, the US has already had (and discarded) a Thorium based power plant. The very first nuclear power plant at Shippingport , which converted to Thorium and began operating in August 1977:
It used pellets made of thorium dioxide and uranium-233 oxide; initially the U233 content of the pellets was 5-6% in the seed region, 1.5-3% in the blanket region and none in the reflector region. It operated at 236 MWt, generating 60 MWe and ultimately produced over 2.1 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. After five years the core was removed and found to contain nearly 1.4% more fissile material than when it was installed, demonstrating that breeding had occurred
It was decommissioned in 1982 and dismantled, the former site has been cleaned up and released for unrestricted use without any radioactivity issues.
Just think of the good people like Bill McKibben could do if they got behind ideas like Thorium power, rather than wasting their efforts trying to tear down existing energy supplies and replace them with impotent alternatives.
Here are two videos on Thorium based nuclear power, the first is 30 minute documentary,
The second is a 5 minute intro into LFTR reactors for the time-challenged.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If only McKibben were actually concerned about energy infrastructure and not remaking humanity in his own image
Oh, has somebody demonstrated that CO2 is a problem?
Thorium sounds great.
But the truth is it has never been developed economically.
Can anyone explain why the Shippingport plant was abandoned?
I want it to work but I also want to know why it hasn’t worked so far.
The BBC is running a number of programmes on tv and radio this week focusing on future energy needs and production. Time will tell if it’ll all be unicorn farts and fairy dust.
An existing CANDU reactor can use the Thorium-U233 cycle without any major design changes.
Roger Pielke, jr., “For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that … We are indeed running risks with the future climate through the unmitigated release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
His statement would be correct if and only if climate models made falsifiable predictions. They do not, have not, and will not for the foreseeable future.
Roger reads and posts here often. So I’d like Roger to publicly summarize here the scientific evidence he has to support his strong, positive, zero-doubt averral that human CO2 emissions have had or will have an impact on climate.
I claim no one knows what they’re talking about as regards any relation between human CO2 emissions and recent climate warming. Prove me wrong, Roger.
“Can anyone explain why the Shippingport plant was abandoned?”
Basically, it was too expensive. The aftermarket breeder core was costly to make (the way they went about it), and the rest of the plant wore out – it was too expensive to replace the outdated parts.
Man’s effect on climate has not been shown to be in any way a concern, whether it’s from CO2 or anything else. It therefore should not, and must not be in any way part of the discussion about energy. Soot is only a concern because it is an air pollutant, nothing more. Methane is in no way a threat.
Let the thorium research begin without abatement.
Meanwhile, a stab at the insanity of Obama and the EPA.
EPA To Regulate Water Vapor Emissions.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/epa-to-regulate-water-vapor-emissions/
No task is too big for Obama, the visionary.
In a very similar way to the corruption of science that has been associated with the cAGW saga, and starting around a similar time, the scientific establishment (probably with a little political help and a lot of help from the media) buried the observations of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 through falsified data and ad hominem attacks. Sound familiar? If genuine scientific curiosity had followed their observation of excess heat generation (based on five years’ carefully constructed experiments) as it should have done, possibly, by now we would have a CO2-free, very cheap, local source of energy. Instead, in a matter of weeks the topic was discredited.
It is interesting to follow both “debates”. The cold fusioneers (still going today!) rely on observations and data (and freely admit that the theory is not understood). The sceptics of cold fusion rely on theory (does not follow the established laws of physics), despite well-constructed experiments and good data being produced over the past 24 years. In the cAGW debate it seems to me to be the other way round – the “believers” rely on their (not-well-understood) theories and computer models, the sceptics prefer the observational data. Also Wikipedia’s approach to cold fusion (LENR) research is “Fringe topic with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources”. Wikipedia’s approach to climate scepticism seems to me to be similarly played down.
The corruption of science in both cases, in my view, has resulted in a world that is a poorer place.
Re: pat says:
September 1, 2013 at 11:12 am
“EPA To Regulate Water Vapor Emissions.”
I think you’ve “been had” on that one, Pat. The piece looks to me like an obvious spoof. I certainly hope so.
A couple of points:
“In my opinion, Thorium based nuclear power is the way forward.”
You mean power from Uranium-233.
“It has all the benefits of zero carbon emissions, plus it has less problematic fissile by-products than comparable Uranium235 based power systems.”
No. The fission products are largely the same. Anything that fissions is going to produce highly radioactive fission products. The advantage of using U-233, instead of U-235, is that reactors relying on U-233 don’t have the U-238 (the main component of both natural and “depleted” uranium) in the fuel. This other isotope, which doesn’t fission often enough to support a chain reaction, is the main isotope in natural uranium. Even uranium enriched to about 5% U-235, which is used as fuel in today’s nuclear reactors, is 95% U-238.
The problem with U-238 is that it readily absorbs a neutron and becomes a heaver nucleus. Sometimes this is good (depending on the application), because U-238 can be transformed to Pu-239, which is useful as both nuclear fuel and bomb material. Sometimes when it absorbs a neutron, U-238 eventually becomes other actinides, which are (slightly) radioactive materials that have half-lives of thousands of years or more. Whenever someone talks about needing to store “nuclear waste” for tens of thousands of years, it’s because of the actinides.
“Plus, the fuel components of thorium based power systems aren’t generally compatible with current fission and thermonuclear bomb making technologies,”
No, it is no easier to build a nuclear bomb from Pu-239 generated from U-238 in the spent commercial fuel from today’s nuclear reactors, than it is to build a bomb uses U-233 generated from Th-232 in a thorium reactor. The reasons are quite technical, but anyone who is claiming that spent nuclear fuel from today’s commercial reactors can be used as bomb material is selling snake oil.
“Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth’s crust.”
It’s more abundant overall, but it is less concentrated in ore and not as easy to mine.
“Surprisingly, the US has already had (and discarded) a Thorium based power plant.”
In addition to Shippingport, the Fort St. Vrain reactor in Colorado used a uranium/thorium fuel cycle. The Thorium High-Temperature Reactor (THTR-300) in Germany also used thorium as fuel.
Is this a piece from the Onion? What next, bottles we have to exhale into to collect both CO2 and water vapor?
OTOH, if true then they could ignore CO2 completely, but how are they going to stop water vapor from 70% of the earth’s surface?
Thorium was discussed in the last third of this Bloomberg item that I saw Friday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/three-of-mit-tech-review-s-top-innovators-under-35-sJcwnquFSB~FTmnLrUljKg.html
The company site.
http://transatomicpower.com/index.php
Thorium is probably the long term solution. The problem is, we have several hundred years worth of power tied up in spent fuel rods. There are a several proposal that use molten salt fuel that are designed to burn up our current and future spent fuel rods. One is the proposal out of MIT and the other is the DFR out of Germany. We should be looking at how to reduce our current stockpile of spent fuel.
Good topic. Needs parsing.
First, parse into liquid transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet kerosene) and other, which is mainly natural gas or electricity from various sources.
Second, parse into short term (10-20 year horizon) and long term.
Now, liquid transportation fuels are a short term potential problem that nuclear does not solve, because hydrogen for fuel cells isn’t practical (storage and logistics). Without any new invention, some blend of conservation (e.g. Hybrids like Prius or Fusion, PHEV, smaller vehicles, more efficient drive trains like DCT transmissions, intermodal long haul freight) and biofuels (e.g.the KIor process, perhaps) buy decades to get to more inventive solutions. But that needs to start soon given lead times on full fleet changes. Most places outside Europe it isn’t in any meaningful way.
If one has a concern about coal fired electricity, the immediate short term solution is off the shelf CCGT. Combination of greater efficiency (about 61% for latest and greatest CCGT versus about 41 for SCS coal) plus nat gas as fuel reduces CO2 emissions by 2/3. That is why Muller suggested helping China learn how to tap their shale gas reserves. That is one way the US xceeded Kyoto targets despite itself.
The long term electricity solution is obviously nuclear. Hubbert said that in 1956. But we perhaps have a few decades to develop better engineering solutions, of which thorium is only one. Modular non-refueled units (like the Navy), traveling wave “breeders” like Bill Gates is investing in at TerraPower, and a host of other ideas deserve development before committing to massive construction programs with 50 year plant lives.
The sad part is that with focus on general CAGW cap and trade, or carbon taxes, or ‘renewable’ but unfortunately irredeemably intermittant and therefore costly electricity,none of these things are getting the attention they merit, and on which a lot of common ground could be found–except among diehard greens such as those opposing fracking in the UK.
Thorium is the way forward in a Molten Salt Reactor. It can’t blow up, melt down and is walk away safe. Actually Thorium is 500 times more prevellant than the Uranium Isotope needed for power plants and it is found in high quantities with rare earth elements. It’s presence is why China has a monopoly of REEs, EPA regulations force Thorium containment. Thorium burns 99% of its fuel in a Molten Salt Reactor, while. Light water reactor burns 1-3% or so, with 300k years of needed storage versus decades for a MSR waste stream.
“For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that human activities have an impact on the planet. That impact includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide.”
There is little doubt that human activities over the past 100 years have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I fail to see any clear evidence to show those CO2 levels have changed global temperatures or climate. Nor am I convinced that the impact of the extra CO2 is harmful in any way. It might be beneficial for much/most of the planet and its inhabitants.
Energy policy for the future is easy. Everyone makes it out as if this is a hard choice, but the reality is this:
Only power sources that are on demand (put out 100% capacity when it’s needed) are worthwhile. Anything that does not do that is by definition obsolete.
Nukes, coal, ng, hydro, and even biomass are what we have to work with. Anything else is obsolete and not worth even exploring. Tidal is a terrible idea because its not in demand. Funny enough geo can work like this, but I doubt it’s a very large solution to energy needs.
if you believe carbon is pollution your only option is nukes. Otherwise, you must advocate research and development for other sources of power whether that be thorium as Anthony says, or fusion power or yet some undiscovered technology such as sim city microwave power.
Wind power for instance became obsolete the second The modern power grid came into being and solar is just a tad better than wind. Those and other green advocated power sources should be relegated to special circumstances such as islands that are off the beaten path that don’t mind spending the extra money for those sources.
I would actually argue Antarctica wouldn’t be a bad place for a combination of wind and stored power. No flying animals to kill, very few mammals including humans to be effected by ulf sounds, an best of all the gravity winds are nearly constant making it actually feasible.
In any event, either promote what we have or advocate for research and development. Any other advocacy is a waste of time and money that will accomplish nothing in the end and you will have only yourself to blame for advocating obsolete technology,
OK some people have fallen for the spoof on H20. That is sad but the article does make the point that H20 is the major GHG both in quantity and effect.
Climate sensitivity is the extra GHE caused by the extra H2O in the atmosphere due initially to CO2 warming the place up a tad (warmist and skeptic theory). Atmospheric H2O has shown it is entirely governed by the Gore Effect and has gone seriously the other way of late despite increasing CO2.
Gizza link somebody….
Just think of the good people like Bill McKibben
deserves a comma between the word good and the word people
unless you were intending to describe Bill McKibben as a good person.
OK the could do after it almost rescues it, but by then one has already misread it to mean that Bill is a good chap.
The real problem is dropping the word “that”, it has somehow become optional in English, but cause so many problems when left out.
I am getting sick of jnr’s fence sitting. He is playing both sides against the middle at every opportunity in order to maintain his ego and funds in good shape. Give me dad any day.
New forms of nuclear power, like thorium, are the solution to the energy problem. Why are we not full speed ahead busy developing that? There is support for developing new nuclear power sources by someone you would least expect to agree with Antony Watts. I am talking about James Hansen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
So when both Watts and Hansen have a lot of agreement about the new energy we need in the future, how come the world is wasting enormous amounts of money on very expensive, unreliable ineffective and inefficient windmills and solar panels, a bottomless pitt? That is not the answer to our need of abundant and cheap energy, whether you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (like Hansen) or not (like Anthony Watts).
Some comment that Thorium is abundant but dispersed. It has become much more readily available with the recent rapid development of demand for rare earth elements (lanthanons: 15 metals La to Lu+ yttrium) with which Th occurs. Indeed, many excellent rare earth deposits are shut in because of the abundance of Th contained in them (because of hysteria over radioactivity yet it is readily fixed and removed virtually 100% before separation of the individual rare earth metals). If many knew that natural beach sands around the world tend to have a significant content of monazite sand, a rare-earth thorium mineral, they may abandon their tans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite
“Thorium content of monazite is variable and sometimes can be up to 20–30%. Monazite from certain carbonatites or from Bolivian tin veins is essentially thorium-free. However, commercial monazite sands typically contain between 6 and 12% thorium oxide.”
Monazite bearing-sands are produced in Australia, India, Brazil, and even in the USA (Florida and South Carolina beaches). They get a number of products like titanium and zirconium minerals, garnet, etc. along with monazite.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1390/report.pdf
Go to Thorium and the rare earths for magnets for windmills and other electric generators and motors would become considerably cheaper, too. How’s that for green?
Stephen Richards says:
September 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm
I agree. It reads like a pitch for funding to me.