Dr. James Hansen’s reply to my question about Nuclear Power
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A a few years ago, Anthony Watts posted a link “The Middle Ground where AGW skeptics and Proponents should meet up“. At AGU2013, Anthony asked Dr. Hansen a question in full session about the very same topic and a video of that exchange follows.
The proposition is, that in the highly polarized global warming debate, there are, or should be, some surprisingly broad areas of agreement. A video also follows showing Anthony asking Dr. Hansen about this at AGU2013
One such area of agreement appears to be support for nuclear power. In addition to the Middle Ground article, WUWT has posted many other articles, on Thorium and next generation nuclear technology, which have been well received by regular readers of this blog.
Dr. James Hansen is also a supporter of nuclear power. A few months ago, James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley published an open letter, calling for and end to opposition to nuclear power, for the sake of the environment.
If I have understood correctly, scientists who are truly concerned about CO2, such as James Hansen, support nuclear power, because nuclear power a plausible route to decarbonising the economy, without the difficulty of convincing voters to accept drastic curbs to their lifestyles.
Skeptics like myself tend to support nuclear power, because it is the future – we tend to love high technology and the glorious rise of human civilisation, and yet we are, contrary to the straw man stereotypes projected by many of our opponents, concerned about environmental issues, such as the megatons of toxic ash and sludge produced by coal power stations. We see next generation nuclear power as the clean, inexhaustible energy source of the future.
So I sent an email to Dr. James Hansen mid March this year, asking whether he had ever considered sharing a platform with Anthony Watts, to jointly promote acceptance of a nuclear powered future. I made it very clear I was asking this question on my own initiative, and had not discussed it with Anthony.
This was Dr. Hansen’s reply:-
“The more important matter is the need for a slowly rising revenue neutral carbon fee, 100% of the funds distributed to the public, equal amount to all legal residents. This would cause nuclear power to win out for electricity. Otherwise we are going to get a very expensive dual renewables–fossil fuel system. This fee-and-dividend approach is by its nature a conservative agenda, allowing the market to work. It is also a winning populist political strategy, providing some correction to the increasing disparity of wealth, allowing the hard-working careful low-income person a chance to make some money and contribute to a cleaner, healthier world. This is what conservatives need to understand. If they don’t, the changing demographics will sink them, and we will all suffer under a screwed up energy system.”
I replied to Dr. Hansen, pointing out that Conservative opposition to carbon fees was entrenched, and asked whether the issue of how to make nuclear power economically attractive, on which there was no agreement, could be set aside for now, for the sake of jointly promoting research into next generation nuclear technology.
So far I have not received a reply to my second email to Dr. Hansen.
The conversation and questions I put to Dr. Hansen were meant in good faith. I hope the dialogue I have had to date with Dr. Hansen is not the end, that the conversation goes further, perhaps with other participants. Perhaps I am being naive, but I really am a keen supporter of nuclear power, and would like to find a way for everyone who supports a nuclear future to join forces, to overcome the decades of propaganda against nuclear technology, which has retarded its development in the West.
Here is Anthony asking Dr. Hansen about Thorium power at AGU2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good that Dr. Hansen replied to you, and that there are folks interested in clean nuclear power and improvement of that. Sad that he’s in favor of “behavior modification by taxation” which only serves to make most of us poorer.
China is apparently pulling out all the stops to get Thorium working ASAP (five years?), and if they do, they’ll hold the cards (and patents) for what happens on the (for lack of a better term) atomic front. I remember an article where a Chinese engineer basically said “the scientists/designers have all these wonderful dreams, but we’re the poor sods who have to implement it.” Sounds familiar….
Anyway, would be great if there was some common ground that could be used to move forward with clean, AFFORDABLE, safe energy that isn’t a blight on the landscape and is practical….
It will be intersting to see how far this goes, if any where. I applaud your effort to reach out. I hope Dr. Hansen will carefully consider how he replies, especially in light of his care and concern for future generations.
This article explores the logical result of an electricity grid powered exclusively by nuclear fission power plants as currently designed and constructed. The end result is power prices that are many times higher than today, for example, residential price will be 5 times what it is today, while industrial power price will be more than 8 times what it is today.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-two.html
Surely, there is a better option than nuclear fission.
Dr. Hansen is mistaken in his opinion that the “fee-and-dividend approach is by its nature a conservative agenda, allowing the market to work.” It fails to recognize that setting the fee is manipulation by government, not the market, which falsifies his idea. It’s like saying you can have any color of automobile as long as it’s black, as Henry Ford is reputed to have said. There is no choice, so it’s not a “conservative” position. Hansen needs to get over his social policy obsession and just promote a better technology.
“The more important matter is the need for a slowly rising revenue neutral carbon fee…”
————
No, if nuclear power were taken off the sh!t list, a free market would sort things out.
Besides of which, CO2 is not a pollutant and society does not need to be crippled by the warmunist anti-carbon agenda.
“…providing some correction to the increasing disparity of wealth…”
————
Getting rid of obama and his lot should take care of that. They are killing off the folks in the middle of the economic bell curve. We need a level basis of opportunity without the federal government skewing the rules in favour of its friends, and sticking its greedy, grasping fingers into private business.
Using Thorium in a power reactor is a proven technology. The United States constructed one at Oak Ridge in the early 1960’s and ran it continously for many years. You can extract Thorium from coal ash and get a two-fer; reduce coal ash bulk and obtain usable nuclear reactor fuel. Another benefit from a Thorium reactor is using the process heat to convert any carbon rich feedstock into liquid hydrocarbon (read: diesel) fuel! The research has been done. It is an engineering problem now.
they always claim to be interested in the environment, but when you get down to brass tacks it’s always, “mo’ money, Mo’ Money, MO MONEY!!!”
Roger Sowell on March 31, 2014 at 12:36 pm
This article explores the logical result of an electricity grid powered exclusively by nuclear fission power plants as currently designed and constructed. The end result is power prices that are many times higher than today, for example, residential price will be 5 times what it is today, while industrial power price will be more than 8 times what it is today.
France falsifies your argument. Their percent of nuclear has approached 80% with unexceptional electricity prices. 100% nuclear is meaningless except as a straw man argument. Nuclear generation is bwst kept constant so nuclear should provide just baseline, something else more adjustable for peak power
Progress (in the form of broad support for nuclear power) seems to me unlikely any time in the next decade or two. The opposition to nuclear power among greens is even stronger than conservative opposition to carbon taxes. The other even more difficult factor is that the overriding green/malthusian objective is forcing people to live materially poorer lives. Any path which does not force reduced material wealth will face green opposition. You seem to imagine a shared set of priorities which are not in fact shared. I agree that nuclear power is the inevitable future, but not the near future.
“This article explores the logical result of an electricity grid powered exclusively by nuclear fission power plants as currently designed and constructed. The end result is power prices that are many times higher than today, for example, residential price will be 5 times what it is today, while industrial power price will be more than 8 times what it is today.
I have no idea where people get these figures from. Before natural gas became much much cheaper, nuclear power had become the cheapest power available- even cheaper than coal, previously the cheapest form of electricity. Currently operational and maintenance costs of
nuclear power run around 1.35 cents per kWhr here in SC, a lttle more in other sections of
the country. Uranium fuel costs are now less than 3/4 of a cent per kWhr, and a guaranteed 60 year lifespan (more likely 75 years ) Gen 3 plant these days,even in “most expensive build” U.S.,
can be built for roughly $5 billion. That could be paid for over a 60 year period for less than a cent per kWhr. Costs for nuclear waste disposal are less than 1/10th cent per kWhr and decomissioning costs vary, most likely a small fraction of a cent per kWhr.
Industry figures indicate the costs for multi-site nuclear power to be least, around $39 per MWhr (3.9 cents per kWhr), and $49 per MWhr (4.9 cents pe kWhr) for single reactor sites. Most sites are multireactor sites. Current national residential rates are roughly 12 to 13 cents per kWhr, with Hawaii (all coal and LNG) running the highest at roughly 35 cents per kWhr.
The main reason natural gas has had a negative impact on nuclear build here in the U.S. (but NOT in China, or India or the Middle East or Russia or elsewhere) is because of the high upfront build costs for nuclear versus natural gas. But that is short sighted – natural gas prices will increase in time while uranium prices have been very steady and promise to continue to be so. We have plenty of uranium capacity and when fast reactors appear, with their need for a small fraction of the uranium used by today’s reactors, uranium from the oceans can be economically mined and will never become exhausted.
If braindead Obama had devoted just one of those trillion dolars toilet flushes to nuclear power, he could have built 200 reactors, which along with today’s 100 reactors, could provide close to
80% of this country’s electric power.
It is with more than a little trepidation that I disagree with Anthony Watts, on anything. Solar costs are still plummeting and the leading edge of this tech innovation will reshape the debate whether pundits, industries, or nuclear cheerleaders like it or not. This is not easy for casual observers of this or any industry to navigate the twists and turns. From the time of Jimmy Carter’s install of solar panels on the roof of the White House to just a few years ago solar was uneconomic and many segments of it today exist by subsidy (shift of taxpayer liability) alone in pricing and configuration. That was followed by an industry shakeout with solar costs falling along with profitability and European subsidies. But now the costs are still declining in the lab, on the production line, and in financial disclosures as profit margins for the industry winners are reviving. Rooftop installations remain a sideshow to the core issue of utility-scale competitiveness. Also embedded in the cost comparison is the fact that utility-scale solar can be completed in stages and the whole project can now be completed in the time it takes to fill out the permit process paperwork for nuclear and coal. Natural gas is the only thing standing in the way of leading-edge solar at this point and I think even the casual observer can watch the evolution of policy and investment trends leading up to the next energy crisis as too many sectors and policies depend on it to remain cheap. It’s that straight-edge thinking again that gets them every time.
As a person that is a reactor operator at a nuclear power plant, my opinion is that the grid is best supported by a wide variety of power sources. Natural Gas makes for the best peaking plants as it can respond to changes in grid conditions much faster than something like nuclear. As far a base load plant, that is what the nuclear plants are designed for. Making a plant do something that its not designed for then claiming its not the best option for that purpose is kind’ve obvious. There is a reason every utility has different plants for base load and peaking purposes. The goal of a nuclear plant is to get up to 100% power, stay there for 18 months, then shutdown, refuel, and repeat. There will always be a need for peaking plants and nuclear is not the best option for that style of plant, they just don’t change power quick enough. For that you need a power source that can change quickly with the conditions.
Too late, former NRC Chairman Jazko shut down the Yucca Mountain project in the dead of night. Without a suitable waste storage location, the nimbys will rule the day.
The important thing to see about Hansen’s response is the sequence. Carbon taxes first. Then nuclear. Does anyone believe that the greens would stick to their word and go for nuclear–they would fight it tooth and nail. What we would get from Hansen’s proposal is just the standard green dream–very high energy prices and no appreciable increase in nuclear power. Hansen, Gore, and the ruling class greens would continue to be wealthy and powerful. The poor schmucks passing out global warming pamphlets at Earth Day will be out of work and desperately poor for the rest of their lives. And that would be sustainable.
I might add that South Carolina is now constructing two more reactors (Westinghouse AP1000 1160 MW) , which will then have 9 reactors, supplying close to 80% of the state’s power. South Carolina electric rates are close to the national average of 12 to 13 cents per kWhr and will not go up as a result of having two more reactors.So much for that BS nonsense about nuclear power costing 5 times the national residential rate, or 65 cents per kWhhr.
The two new reactors are being constructed on time and under budget and join another existing reactor at the same site, with a guaranteed build time of 36 months or less.
Well done Eric for making the approach and I hope the conversation continues. But I agree with Gary.
Frankly I don’t understand Hansen’s argument that some sort of redistribution of money will help nuclear power win out –or is he just saying nuclear is expensive so we have to tax everyone and subsidise the lower income earners so they can pay their power bill ( I’m not sure how that equates with” the equal amount to all legal residents”).
Jeff makes an important point about the Chinese charging ahead with the developments and getting all the patents ( if that is possible) while the west get distracted with IPCC reports and other nonsense. If it occurred then the Chinese would definitely be the “boss”
Using Thorium in a power reactor is a proven technology.
No it is not. There is much more on the learning curve before we can say that.
Furthermore, the heavy lifting in the Thorium Power promise is in the continuous materials processing of the molten salt core. It must be the equivalent of a smelter + refiner done in air tight conditions next door to the reactor (or better, as part of a matrix of reactors and processors). There must also be a solution for the spent chemical reagents which will be mildly radioactive at best. It is not the physics that is the problem…. it is the chemistry.
Eric: I think we could find consensus on the idea of a carbon tax, if it was based on Mckitrick’s idea of a TTT (tropical troposphere temperature ) tax, or the T3.
There would be a very small initial tax, that increased as the T3 increased. No temperature increase, no tax increase.
The T3 is the so called hot spot, and is a signature of global warming, and especially of AGW from CO2.
For business planning purposes, you could use a 5 or 10 year running average.
The ever present danger of course, is that inherent in all taxes. Politicians arbitrarily increasing the tax, based on revenue needs, rather than ecological needs.
But, as a carbon tax goes, its the most acceptable, at least to myself. If I am wrong, and the global temperature increases to dangerous levels, there would be a built in mechanism to respond. If I am right, and temperatures don’t increase, then the cost is very little.
https://sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/
As the Warmist camp fragments driving wedges like this into it will certainly help speed up the process!
The greater expense of nuclear power in the U.S. is the regulation and time needed to approve a new facility which makes no contribution to the construction of the project. In a “friendlier” political climate those costs are reduced. If you have to spend gobs of money fighting the Green Lobby in the courts and regulatory agencies, preparing endless environmental impact studies with no assurance of success, you will have few investors and the few you have will expect a high return for the risk they are taking. Thus, higher prices to the consumer. If on the other hand, the government agrees to fast track the approval process, remove unreasonable impediments, and puts money into the basic research that everyone can use, the costs will be much lower.
BTW if the Chinese do the research and get the patents, I suggest that we treat the patents in the same way that the Chinese treat our patents: “What patents?” And let’s remember that patents create a product specific monopoly which in general is not consistent with free enterprise. Patents are very friendly to the patent holder, but not to the consumer. Short patent life encourages innovation and reduces costs to the consumer. The Chinese just use our patent system to prevent U.S. companies from competing with them here in the U.S. while totally ignoring our patents in their own markets and the rest of the world. How dumb are we?
Col Mosby said:
“If braindead Obama had devoted just one of those trillion dolars toilet flushes to nuclear power, he could have built 200 reactors, which along with today’s 100 reactors, could provide close to
80% of this country’s electric power.”
This is really something we should all think seriously about. The ‘trillion’ dollar argument applies to a great many options other than nuclear. (Hint…restocking bank reserves is not one of them.) But a big head start to a hydrogen production, storage and distribution infrastructure could be.
Comment above “This article explores the logical result of an electricity grid powered exclusively by nuclear fission power plants as currently designed and constructed….”
That uses a cost of 30 cents per kWh. Looks like the EIA has a figure of 10.84 cents. So maybe the numbers are a third of that article.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
An error : Hawaii produces electricity primarily using oil and LNG imported by ship. The oil is the main reason why Hawaii has such high electric rates.
@frank at 1:14 pm
The important thing to see about Hansen’s response is the sequence. Carbon taxes first. Then nuclear. Does anyone believe that the greens would stick to their word and go for nuclear–they would fight it tooth and nail.
Very well said. Perceptive.
Hansen’s argument presupposes that the some “free market” agreement on a carbon-tax levy can be found representing quantifiable climate change risks. I’m skeptical of that. It also presupposes that third party effects and risks associated with nuclear fission are not ultimately worse than any danger actually posed by a marginal equivalent GT of coal use, the only real fossil fuel that would be displaced by nuclear.
It is interesting that if we had gone to nukes, emissions would be at 1930s levels in the US.
The US CO2 emissions would be between 50% and 75% of todays emissions, if nuclear power had taken hold, and all licensed power plants built. (assumes coal replaced nuclear, not gas)
So, blame environmentalists for the high CO2 emissions today.
If all the ordered nuke plants, at the time of Three Mile Island, had actually been built, CO2 emissions would be at 1957 levels in the US. If the same rate of orders had continued, the US would now be at 1939 levels of CO2 emissions.
Comparing to France, with over 70% of power from nukes and a 40% drop in emissions, its not unreasonable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/30/anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it%E2%80%99s-significant-contribution-to-global-warming/#more-36920