Bjørn Lomborg writes on hisFacebook page about this story on WUWT: Newsbytes: Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit By Ditching CO2 Target
The last twenty years of international climate negotiations have achieved almost nothing and have done so at enormous economic cost. Japan’s courageous announcement that it is scrapping its unrealistic targets and focusing instead on development of green technologies could actually be the beginning of smarter climate policies.
Japan has acknowledged that its previous greenhouse gas reduction target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels was unachievable, and that its emissions will now increase by some 3 per cent by 2020. This has provoked predictable critiques from the ongoing climate summit in Warsaw. Climate change activists called it “outrageous” and a “slap in the face for poor countries”.
Yet, Japan has simply given up on the approach to climate policy that has failed for the past twenty years, promising carbon cuts that don’t materialise – or only do so at trivial levels with very high costs for taxpayers, industries and consumers. Instead, al…most everyone seems to have ignored that Japan has promised to spend $110 billion over five years – from private and public sources – on innovation in environmental and energy technologies. Japan could – incredible as it may sound – actually end up showing the world how to tackle global warming effectively.
Unfortunately the Japanese model is not even on the agenda in Warsaw. The same failed model of spending money on immature technologies remains dominant. That involves the world spending $1 billion a day on inefficient renewable energy sources — a projected $359 billion for 2013. But a much lower $100 billion per year invested worldwide in R&D could be many times more effective. This is the conclusion of a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, working with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think-tank that publicises the best ways for governments to spend money to help the world.
If green technology could be cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, not just a token number of well-meaning rich nations. We would not need to convene endless climate summits that come to nothing. A smart climate summit would encourage all nations to commit 0.2 per cent of GDP – about $100 billion globally – to green R&D. This could solve global warming in the medium term by creating cheap, green energy sources, that everyone would want to use.
Instead of criticising Japan for abandoning an approach that has repeatedly failed, we should applaud it for committing to a policy that could actually meet the challenge of global warming.
Read the full article in Britain’s The Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3924584.ece
More on Japan’s new climate policies: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-14/japan-sets-new-emissions-target-in-setback-to-un-treaty-talks
h/t to David Hagen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Grey Lensman says:
November 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Japan has a huge natural resource, one it can even export and the technology exists right now, 100% proven, 100% viable, 100% “clean” 100% cheap.
GEOTHERMAL
100% clean, I think not!! It actually produces a large amount of radioactive (usually radium 226, 228) and heavy metal contaminated water which is picked up whilst underground. It is also incredibly difficult to contain said water as the rock is full of fissures through which the water can escape.
Can we face the facts that all energy production produces “waste” it must do by the laws of physics. Its time we started to think rationally about Energy and its future. Is CO2 that bad? what do we do when the carbon runs out? What are the unforeseen consequences of the new energy sources and how can we mitigate them.
Lokki-
The CNN article you referenced shows Japan’s clathrate reserves off Its costal waters would only power Japan for 14 years…… Then what?…. Moreover, clathrate extraction sn’t even close to being economically viable.
There are 10’s of thousands of of years of easily accessible thorium reserves for LFTRs available and since there is only one isotope of natural thorium, no special processing is required: dig it up, purify it then burn it.
incredibly, one average-sized rare-earth mine “accidentally” produces enough “waste” thorium in a year to supply the entire world of its entire energy needs for 1 year….
CALTHRATE VS. LFTRs isn’t even worth discussing.
R. de Haan says:
November 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm
——————————————–
concur
cn
Tim says
Quote
100% clean, I think not!! It actually produces a large amount of radioactive (usually radium 226, 228) and heavy metal contaminated water which is picked up whilst underground. It is also incredibly difficult to contain said water as the rock is full of fissures through which the water can escape.
Unquote
So all the volcanoes there dont. Plus you use heat exchangers and send the water and minerals back down. Sigh, Its not rocket science.
SAMURAI says (November 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm): “Compared to LWRs. LFTRs are 200 times more efficient…”
As Kit P has pointed out, this is incorrect as written, although it’s not the only case of inadequate proofreading in this thread. SAMURAI probably meant to write, “A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is up to 200 times more fuel efficient than a traditional Light Water Nuclear Reactor.”
http://renewable.50webs.com/LFTR.html
“China is developing LFTRs technology at a rapid pace and expect to have their first test LFTR on line by 2020.”
Kit P also disagrees with this, but Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source) agrees with SAMURAI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Chinese_Thorium_MSR_project
Excerpt: “An expected intermediate outcome of the TMSR research program is to build a 2 MW pebble bed fluoride salt cooled research reactor in 2015, and a 2 MW molten salt fueled research reactor in 2017.”
Also, from a different page of Kit P’s referenced site, “The TMSR Research Centre apparently has a 5 MWe MSR prototype under construction at Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP, under the Academy) with 2015 target for operation.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China–Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/
Here’s a 2012 talk by one of the researchers:
The budget for the first 5 years of China’s thorium power development effort is reported as $350 million, which is 0.35% of the money Japan says it will spend on “green” technology over 5 years.
“But that undermines the whole point of the green movement – wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Of course it’s not on the agenda in Warsaw.”
Nonsense, the rich never give up their wealth – they want more and more. It’s climate (or green) profiteering.
There’s a lot of talk here about a green agenda for redistributing wealth, but its clear that the political wing of the green movement has no such agenda.
CAGW is about power and money, the Global Warming meme accidentally gained traction and green groups have been riding that influence because it gives them money, influence and power. If anything the greens are misanthropic, they believe in killing off half of mankind and substitution of their Gaia worship for modern wisdom – for the “Planet” -. There is nothing compassionate about a true Green, it’s about having the power to tell others what to do, about having the power to kill.
So, the green agenda is more about impoverishing the west than improving the lot of the rest of the world. After all an impoverished west wouldn’t be able to challenge them in the One World Government.
“Edim says:
November 19, 2013 at 2:08 am
“But that undermines the whole point of the green movement – wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Of course it’s not on the agenda in Warsaw.”
Nonsense, the rich never give up their wealth – they want more and more. It’s climate (or green) profiteering.”
Right! The “movement” is about taking from the poor and “giving” to the rich.
“Green” is nothing but a state of mind. It has virtually nothing to do with either what may be good for the environment or the economy. By definition, anything with the “green” label will cost more, it’s only added benefit being that of making folks feel good about buying it. The “green” industry disagrees with this, of course.
Wind/solar energy is already far cheaper than coal based energy. Coal’s negative impacts cost and additional $.18/kwh, from a Harvard Medical School study. We have been paying for “cheap’ coal with an additional $300-$500 billion/year and gambling with the one planet known to support life.
Gary Hladik says: “Part of the Chinese advantage may be economy of scale, i.e. ordering a number of plants at once”
More likely that the public purse is underwriting a significant part of the project risk and liabilities. Recent EPR construction experience has not been a happy tale – there is massive risk in construction of these things. And there are huge liabilities after the operational period – it is widely accepted the private sector is not the place to hold decommissioning and irradiated fuel liabilities for hundreds of years after plant operation (not in the public interest). This technology cannot exist and operate without hidden backing from the public purse.
Kit P says: “Surely Jordon can predict the price of the natural gas that must be imported to the UK for the next 60 years.”
True – just as you cannot predict the future cost of nuclear fuels for the next 60 years. But I’d happily take my chances on economic coal and gas supplies long after 60 years Kit. I might be proved wrong one day, but all this project does is to commit me now, when I don’t think it is justified.
Bear in mind the only way the UK Government can argue this project is economic is because the Government also imposes a rising carbon tax (“carbon floor price”) on the power industry. This will inflate power prices until £93.50/MWh looks remotely attractive compared to coal and gas. Bills to consumers and industry will have risen by about 75% compared to today (wholesale prices are only a part of retail prices). There has just been an intense debate about a 9% increase in bills due to Government-sponsored “green levies”: the Government is expected to move these out of electricity bills and into general taxation within weeks. What then are the prospects for this carbon tax increasing retail prices until nuclear looks good? Not much.
When the first American President has the stones to stand up and declare that “The man-made global-warming scare was a complete hoax,” then we’ll know that it’s over and we can get on with providing cheap carbon-based energy for the world. Until then, we’ll have to put up with fools like Lomborg wasting our time with “Plan B” or “Plan C” to stop “global warming” (or was it “climate change”?).
/Mr Lynn
Jan Freed says:
November 19, 2013 at 9:46 am
Wind/solar energy is already far cheaper than coal based energy. Coal’s negative impacts cost and additional $.18/kwh, from a Harvard Medical School study. We have been paying for “cheap’ coal with an additional $300-$500 billion/year and gambling with the one planet known to support life.
Greenie nonsense. It’s just one more way that envirokooks take to attack coal. And the “gambling with the planet” bit is priceless. The planet is doing just fine. Man, at the moment seems a llittle off his rocker with rampant envirokookmania.
“but Wikipedia”
The difference between a power reactor and a paper reactor is that power reactors produce lots of power. Paper reactors make interesting reading at Wikipedia.
“5 MWe MSR prototype under construction”
If I read a press release about construction of a 5 MWe landfill gas project I am not skeptical because there are hundreds of such projects. The same is true for biomass and geothermal. These are not big engineering challenges.
Large hydro, coal, and nuke plants are huge engineering challenges. I am skeptical right up to the time that that the output breaker is closed on the generator for a large reactor. The reason is the large number of things that must be done correctly.
“reported as $350 million”
Chump change and not an indicator of ‘rapid’ development. It will get a nice paper reactor. A serious conceptual design is expensive and a detailed for ‘construction’ design in on the order billions.
China could learn with a prototype that they have a better design than a LWR. Or they could learn that LWR are a better choice.
“Recent EPR construction experience has not been a happy tale –”
Sounds like the story from China is going very well.
“it is widely accepted the private sector”
I think the private sector is doing very well. There does seem to be a problem with US politics and DOE. The engineering to meet the regulatory are just not that difficult.
“just as you cannot predict the future cost of nuclear fuels for the next 60 years.”
That I not true. Predicting the cost of nuclear fuel is easy since it has been very stable. In the US, coal has been a stable commodity. For coal and gas you also have to consider the cost of fuel transportation. A large coal power plant needs 100 rail cars a day to keep running.
“But I’d happily take my chances”
Are you willing to go to jail because you guessed wrong? Providing power is a serious responsibility.
“UK Government”
I live in the US and decisions on building power plants are based on intense public debate. It is a complex issue that is specific to each location. Some like to make broad sweeping statements without doing their homework. I checked. One of the reasons stated for new nukes in the UK is concern with importing natural gas.
Why is China building nukes? In 2005, China stopped exporting cheap coal. This is also why the US is exporting more coal.
The world energy market must be watched carefully to understand the trends. Making electricity is generally a local matter until you have to import fuel. If you can import LNG at $4 per MMBTU (what the experts said was the ceiling price) to the power plant, the world would not be building new nukes. Then the cost of LNG went to $16 per MMBTU.
Again, one of the reasons to have a mix of energy sources is the future is not easy to predict so using nukes is a mitigation of the cost variability of fossil fuel.
I prefer plan C. Open up the windows and let the air in. Might help the alarmists cool down a bit, and clear their heads.
Kit P says…
Nope, you haven’t convinced me.
You have a decent point about a portfolio of sources, but not at any cost.
The UK has imported most of its energy for many years now – gas, coal and nuclear fuel. Life in the international energy market is nothing new, and it is not a challenge.
Coal is “dirt cheap” right now – partly influenced by the US shale gas revolution, which has caused a switch to gas in the US (because the US is in a position to switch between coal and gas for power generation) leaving a lot of coal looking for a market. We can get this over to the UK and it is still economic to do so – coal has dominated the UK power supply since the Fukushima incident. Gas is relatively expensive, partly because of Japan’s move away from nuclear and switch to gas.
These are international influences and do not threaten our competitiveness. UK energy costs are around £50/MWh and amongst the lowest in Europe. This, despite a Government imposed carbon tax.
The UK (and other economies) will be in a good position if they maintain the ability to switch a significant proportion of power production between coal and gas as market conditions dictate. The UK and US have had this ability for at least a couple of decades now.
The case for UK nuclear is based on the assumption that the carbon tax will double the wholesale electricity price and close all the coal stations. It’s never going to happen – this policy will push business abroad, put people out of work, and make it very difficult to heat their homes. It will be political suicide for any Government who tries to push it through. The death of the carbon tax is already assured – it will only last as long as it takes to bite the electorate and the backlash will be underway. I give it a couple of years.
By then we will be committed to the new nuclear projects, leaving the UK with a hideously expensive cost for decades.
“Coal is “dirt cheap” right now…”
I do not think Jordan understands the concepts. Yes coal is cheap but the daily 100 car freight train of coal is not.
The fuel cost for fossil plants are a significant costs. When the UK imports a year’s worth of nuclear fuel it cost about $30 million compared to the $300 million in fossil costs. A slight change in the fossil cost and that is $500 million, but it is only a few $$/MMBTU to make it a billion dollars.
Currently, the UK gets a lot of power from nuclear but it has to decide what course of action to take when the existing nukes are retired. There are three and only three choices:
Build a new nuclear steam electric station: Very expensive!
Build a new efficient coal steam electric station with modern pollution controls: Very expensive.
Build a new efficient gas fired steam electric station with modern pollution controls: Very expensive.
So Jordan is not considering the cost of new steam plants. Jordan is also not considering the how nuclear lowers the cost of fossil fuel.
“The UK and US have had this ability for at least a couple of decades now.”
Power plants come on like in order of their generating cost. On a mild day with low natural gas prices, a CCGT gas plant might be able to beat at $38/MWh an old less efficient coal at $40/MWh. On a day with high demand, all the efficient fossil plants are on line already on line and demand is coming from $50/MWh to $100/MWh sources.
It is hard to predict the future but I can tell how many time people have been wrong about ‘expensive’ nuclear power. About 30 years ago, I worked a new nuke plant when it went commercial. The state PUC said the power was not need so the new plant could not be put in the rate base. The utility said okay and sent out the bill to its customers with an apology. We had to produce your power with oil and sell the cheaper nuclear generated power to New York City. Oucch! One month later, the nuke plant was in the rate base.
What is the status 30 years later! Yes, the oil power plant is still running to provide power to NYC. The utility has upgraded the two reactors on site and has licensed them to run 60 years. It has also applied to the NRC build an EPR.