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.
Stephen Rasey –
Wrong. The Germans ran a thorium-powered pebble reactor successfully, publicly demonstrating its “inherently safe” design by turning off the gas cooling/heat transfer medium and letting the reactor simmer uncooled for days with no sign of excessive temperature, let alone meltdown. No liquid sodium used – just thorium seeds in high-temperature-resistant ceramic pebbles which could not melt and collapse to form an over-critical mass, and cooled by a heat transfer medium which could not become radioactive. Ultra-safe.
At a later time they did have a purely mechanical problem with the valve designed to bleed off and replace depleted pebbles. Before they could re-engineer this valve, the German Greens Party – a powerful political party in Germany – raised a public outcry, lieing outright about the “dangers” of the design and getting the reactor shut down. A world tragedy for safe nuclear power, purely to satisfy the political ambitions of a bunch of airheads with no technical or scientific knowledge. and, apparently no care for the public good. German reactor research was permanently halted – a double tragedy, because if any engineers could design a cost-effective and safe reactor, you could put your money on German engineers.
.
more soylent green! says: March 31, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Does anybody have the numbers to compare the scenario of a grid powered solely by nuclear fission plants v. a grid powered solely by wind and solar, or wind, solar and geothermal, or any combination of exclusively alternative energy sources?
————————————————————–
Neither of the first two scenarios is a good idea. Nukes want to run at 100% power all the time and thus are good for base load, which is about 1/2 the daily peak load. Other sources that can be throttled up and down are good for peak load plants. These include natural gas burners and hydro.
The problem with a grid powered solely by wind and solar sources is that none of them provide power when you need it. Wind turbines provide power when the wind blows. Therefore, energy storage is necessary. Current technology power storage is about 18,000 MW in the US (1000 MW is a typical coal or nuke size) and about 70% efficient. Storage is expensive, and proponents of wind frequently omit storage costs in their proposals. Here’s a link to one of the bigger storage lakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant
Note the Tehachapi wind farm is only about 30 miles from this and can take advantage of some of the storage capabilities.
Leo Geiger says: A revenue neutral carbon tax is often cited by economists as an efficient means of reducing emissions…The province of British Columbia is a real world example that it can be done successfully….
I dunno about that, Leo. On the other hand, I hear that gas station owners in Bellingham might like it.
: > )
Attaching a political thrust to a technological proposal is unwise. It is certainly not for scientists to figure out how to make nuclear power cheaper than anything else, let alone winning populist political strategies and the like.
For that’s what has to be done, nuclear power should be inexpensive in the first place. I also believe it can have built in safety, e.g. passive cooling and no long half life isotopes left in waste. The only thing we need is to abandon Cold War style Plutonium factories which also supply some energy as a byproduct, but only a tiny fraction of the full energy content of their fuel, and go for safe, high efficiency &. sustainable commercial energy production. That alone, with some thought, would take care of the “proliferation” issue, for all the energy used up in the industrial process, no material suitable for bombs is left behind.
The only political decision needed for that end is the establishment of a sane, long term regulatory environment, where no political risk is attached to R&D investments. Otherwise only a price pressure should be kept up with no forced obsolescence of carbon based fuels. People are creative, they’ll find a way.
Only artificial obstacles can prevent a fuel with 3 million times the energy content of coal become cheaper and safer than traditional alternatives.
Even ordinary granite rock has some fifty times more energy in it, due to traces of Thorium and Uranium, than the same amount of coal. Go figure.
@Ira Glickstein 1:56pm
So does a “Carbon” tax include a tax on the export/import of wood pellets, wood and biomass plants that spew lots of CO2 into the air, just like “fossil” fuels? Does it include a tax on forestry companies for taking carbon absorbing species out the environment, and is there a different tax for equatorial rain forests that absorb a great deal of carbon versus our North American boreal forests that have a pretty neutral carbon absorption/production rate? Does it include the loss or gain in CO2 due to flooding of treed valley’s for a hydroelectric project? Does it include a tax on carbon used to produce the steel and concrete for a hydroelectric facility or a nuclear facility and all the stainless steel and other high tech piping and electronics? Same for every other type of power plant including wind and solar? Are there any energy producing technologies that don’t produce CO2? I am not aware of any except perhaps pyrolysis which would still require material that generated CO2 for production, containment and steam production … and looking at “pyrolysis – waste to energy plants, they certainly look to have a lot of carbon intensive material in them. A person lying on the beach absorbing the sun’s energy still produces CO2. Where does the taxation start and where does it stop? Simple answer: Once you give the power to tax carbon to the politicians and bureaucrats (like income tax), it will never stop. A carbon tax can’t help but favour one industry over another as the bureaucrats will always keep changing the definition of what does or does not get taxed for it’s “Carbon Footprint”. How big is the carbon foot print of a concrete or asphalt toll highway without a single vehicle on it? Huge. But people don’t think that way, do they? Not yet, anyway. So it’s back to the horse and buggy. OK for me, as I have both, but maybe not so good for you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Concrete is said to be the most used material on earth other than water. Great source of tax?
http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-concrete/
A BC style carbon tax is not a bad idea, especially if it doesn’t come in fast and opportunities for lower income households to improve efficiency are there if there’s an upfront cost problem in adjusting. I would worry that it could become a dead weight on the larger emitters and a problem for the economy since an equal rebate would amount to a tax on CO2 heavy industries ‘Robin Hooded’ out to everyone. It would likely just be passed on to consumers but exporters might have a problem.
The point is, it’s a much better idea than pretty much everything else politicians have done.
juan slayton says:
March 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Leo Geiger says: A revenue neutral carbon tax is often cited by economists as an efficient means of reducing emissions…The province of British Columbia is a real world example that it can be done successfully….
I dunno about that, Leo. On the other hand, I hear that gas station owners in Bellingham might like it.
: > )
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not just Bellingham. Every community along the border has a large number of people who trip across the border to fill up. When I visit my mother in Grand Forks, BC, I fuel up at the Alberta border. At Grand Forks, I go 800 metres across the border to the store in Danville, Washington to fill up before heading back to Alberta without ever buying a single litre of fuel in BC. The fuel in Grand Forks was C$1.28 per litre versus a C$1.08 in Danville. The Carbon tax is sure working there. (Sarc) I don’t know of many people in BC that are happy about the Carbon Tax, but maybe don’t know the right people. No one I know believes it is revenue neutral either.
Peter at 3:24 pm
Stephen Rasey, Wrong. The Germans….
Wrong topic, Peter. I was discussing LTFR (Liquid Thorium Fluoride (Molten Salt) Reactor). Your example is a Pelletized Thorium Helium Gas cooled Reactor.
So the two are about the same as Dried Apples and Orange juice.
China is posed to follow France’s low carbon nuclear based energy. We have existence proof that it can be done already (see France). We also have examples of how a solar/wind push works (see Germany). My money is on the Chinese.
“The nuclear race is on. China is upping the ante dramatically on thorium nuclear energy. Scientists in Shanghai have been told to accelerate plans (sorry for the pun) to build the first fully-functioning thorium reactor within ten years, instead of 25 years as originally planned.
“This is definitely a race. China faces fierce competition from overseas and to get there first will not be an easy task”,” says Professor Li Zhong, a leader of the programme. He said researchers are working under “warlike” pressure to deliver.”
“The Chinese appear to be opting for a molten salt reactor – or a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) — a notion first proposed by the US nuclear doyen Alvin Weinberg and arguably best adapted for thorium.”
“The thorium blueprints gathered dust in the archives until retrieved and published by former Nasa engineer Kirk Sorensen. The US largely ignored him: China did not.” [Note: I think Kirk also gets credit for “LFTR”.]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1452011/chinese-scientists-urged-develop-new-thorium-nuclear-reactors-2024
More info:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Thorium Salt reactors are a joke. Same with Hydrogen fuel cells (or rather, hydrogen fueling infrastructure)
The Chinese research won’t provide a workable product in the next 10 years http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0328/Thorium-a-safer-nuclear-power
“10-years” is code for “never”
on the other hand, GEN III nuclear plans have already been approved: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1135/ML113560141.pdf for current operations.
Believe me, in 10 years you will all be begging for carbon free energy production.
REPLY: 1. NEVER underestimate the Chinese. 2. We won’t beg for something we won’t need in 10 years when current energy production technology (with all that fearsome carbon) does just fine. – Anthony
Resourceguy says:
March 31, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Solar and wind suffer from intermittent and unreliable output level, regardless of the quoted power cost (which is based on peak, not average power), and are the most expensive sources of power at present in real workable systems. To compensate for that, a full capacity backup/alternate adjustable source (generally gas turbine) system is needed, so instead of cutting cost, you add complexity and actually increase cost over gas alone. If gas becomes much less available, coal is likely needed for backup. At some point, more solar and wind may make sense, but not from an economic standpoint, and not for centuries at least. If super cheap batteries eventually become a fact, the issue may change, but that is not the present world.
Large nuclear may not be the best choice for many reasons, but it is not due to cost. New concepts possibly based on small distributed nuclear power plants (to cut transmission and interconnection cost), plants based on safer Thorium, or even individual home power based on LENR technology will eventually be add to improved conventional nuclear plants to satisfy energy needs. Solar has a nich use, but windmills are a bad idea for many reasons beyond the lack of reliable output.
@Leopold Danze Geiger at 3:16 pm
A revenue neutral carbon tax is often cited by economists as an efficient means of reducing emissions. At its heart is the understanding that people are smarter than governments.
This is both true and false at the same time.
In theory it is true. A carbon tax is an efficient means of reducing carbon compound emissions, so long as you only care about mass of the carbon and not the actual compounds. Trouble is we do care whether the compounds are CO2, CO, CH4, C2H6, C8H18, (Ca,Mg)CO3.
But it is false for another reason. A revenue neutral carbon tax is an efficient means of collecting the tax, but the redistribution of its proceeds involves that very inefficient entity called government. And that’s where it breaks down. There is nothing neutral about the hand of government with a new source of lucre.
“To tax or not to tax, that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outraged lobbyists,
Or to take arms against a sea of voters,
And by opposing shaft them?
To tax, to keep;
To keep: perchance to do good: ay, there’s the rub;”
Nuclear is fine for base load but should not be used to load follow. The bulk of nuclear cost is embedded capital cost…..look at EIA numbers to confirm. They are very expensive per kWH if not operated at a high capacity factor. Simple economics.
“This fee-and-dividend approach is by its nature a conservative agenda, allowing the market to work. “ NOT! Mr. Duplicity in the very next breath describes it as a wealth redistribution scheme, ala Barackward Obama.
Mr. Duplicity is not interested in comity or ‘bipartisan’ compromise. His is a ‘divide and conquer’ approach, designed to lull and mislead in the same way his splicing of incompatible data sets yielded the misleading hokey stick!
I would not trust Dr. MMaann as far as I could throw him… and, on a good day, I’d guess that would be about 10 to 12 feet.
James Ard says:
“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.”
Jaczko tried, but he didn’t. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is still the law of the land. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to re-start their work on reviewing the Yucca Mountain License Application.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf
As an added bonus the Circuit Court called out Jaczko’s malfeasance in their ruling:
“Although the Commission had a duty to act on the application and the means
to fulfill that duty, former Chairman Gregory Jaczko orchestrated a systematic campaign of noncompliance. Jaczko unilaterally ordered Commission staff to terminate the review
process in October 2010; instructed staff to remove key findings reports evaluating the Yucca Mountain site; and ignored the will of his fellow Commissioners.”
I found it bit ironic that the next Youtube video after the Hansen/Watts dialogue was this one.
Does Thorium have a far away look to it?
There is NO such thing as a “revenue neutral” tax. Governments ALWAYS waste money.
If it was truely revenue neutral IT WOULD COST NOTHING .
Just another way to scam the “little people” …
Spent 21 years working in Nuclear. Left 14 years ago. DEAD, DYING, GONE. Dispirited people, no future. NO FUTURE WITHOUT A TOP DOWN MANDATE (See FRANCE). Substituting reality with a PIPE DREAM. Sorry, won’t work.
If anyone wants to see the full original video, I must thank Sou from Hotwhopper, for publishing the following rather excellent instructions on how to register with AGU, to gain access to their official videos.
This is what you need to do, if you’re not already registered.
1. Go to http://virtualoptions.agu.org/
2. Scroll down and enter your email address in the box under “Registration”
3. Check your email and click the hyperlink or copy and paste it into the address bar on your web browser
4. On the page that appears, be sure enter promo code AGU13 so you aren’t charged $100
5. On the next page fill in the boxes – you’ll need to repeat your email address and come up with a password
6. When you get to the end you can go back and check your email again, you’ll need to view it in HTML, not plain text, to read it.
7. Click on this link again http://virtualoptions.agu.org/ and enter the email address and password you provided in step 5.
8. I think it’s here that you have to fill in more details
9. You’ll finally arrive at the page you want, which is full of videos – live streaming and all the sessions held so far.
10. Set aside several hours for the next several days.
11. Enjoy and learn 🙂
If anyone wants to view the original video, I must thank Sou for providing the following excellent instructions:-
This is what you need to do, if you’re not already registered.
1. Go to http://virtualoptions.agu.org/
2. Scroll down and enter your email address in the box under “Registration”
3. Check your email and click the hyperlink or copy and paste it into the address bar on your web browser
4. On the page that appears, be sure enter promo code AGU13 so you aren’t charged $100
5. On the next page fill in the boxes – you’ll need to repeat your email address and come up with a password
6. When you get to the end you can go back and check your email again, you’ll need to view it in HTML, not plain text, to read it.
7. Click on this link again http://virtualoptions.agu.org/ and enter the email address and password you provided in step 5.
8. I think it’s here that you have to fill in more details
9. You’ll finally arrive at the page you want, which is full of videos – live streaming and all the sessions held so far.
10. Set aside several hours for the next several days.
11. Enjoy and learn 🙂
@max Hugoson 4:51 pm.
I can understand how people in the nuclear industry feel they have no future.
People in the coal industry are feeling no future, too.
The problem as I see it is that at least one of these two groups must have a future or mankind’s future is going to be dark.
jai mitchell says:
March 31, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Believe me, in 10 years you will all be begging for carbon free energy production.
Jai,
Stop your profligate waste of electrons, a non-renewable and finite resource in our abused and over used universe! It’s an environmental electron crime, causing unsustainable valence shell disruption with lambda like emissions… and you could get charged for that! I’ll be keeping my ion you, mister!
Believe me, Jai. If you continue on this irrational path, in 10 years, you’ll be begging for free range, no hormone or meat by-product, environmentally conscious, locally grown and sustainable electrons…. and the Chinese will be the only source.
Sincerely,
Mac
(PS: Sarchasm intended…)
[The mod notes that sarchasm, of course, is that gaping whole between the CAGW religion and the real world. Mod]
bair polaire says:
March 31, 2014 at 2:32 pm
“Count me out.” on the basis of snake oil from an environmentalist writer:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/
Your link was the work of this non-scientist who is on a level with Al Gore in being deeply over his head in his chosen topic. If you want to impress on WUWT you need to do more research than this. If you actually read the stuff, he even admits that it is safer and has much reduced waste. It’s like the revised IPCC proclamation of yesterday – were only getting 1.7C warming by 2100, instead of 4.5C but then it goes on with how hazardous this will be. Man only a year or two ago and that 2C was the limit we had to hold the line at 2C or face dire consequences. Poritt does the same thing. He’s in alarm about the dust from mining and the processing of fuel and the corrosive environment. This is definitely 60s stuff. He even remarks that people are optimistic that research will solve the problems but he doubts it. Trust me, engineering research WILL solve these standard problems. When you look at our technological world today – computers, rovers walking around on Mars, probes going into liquid methane lakes in very harsh environments. How about a Russian snapshot of the surface of Venus at 500C where half a dozen common metals melt, the air pressure ~100bars and clouds of dense sulphuric acid are floating around. Engineering!! not political science.
While I think it is always commendable to offer a olive branch, it is also prudent to recognize that there may be no common ground. Hanson has repeatedly exagerated, deceived, and condemed with lies. He and the prophets of global warming, climate change, climate disaster have no interest in abandoning the power they derive from the spector of global armagedon only they can prevent and the never-ending grants they receive from politicians eager to share that power. The have reached a point of desparation, seeing their lies exposed one by one. They have no choice but to focus the frenzy on on their deminishing number of zelots. Science is no longer effective, only the silencing of their detractors can restor them to their god like infallibility.
Sad that he’s in favor of “behavior modification by taxation”
================
negative incentives do not work. psychology has shown over and over again that people do not react the way you expect when given a negative incentive. rather, they will cheat, lie, steal, and do all sorts of things to mess up your carefully orchestrated plans.
you can’t hit someone with a stick and expect them to like it. they will do their best to turn the stick against you. the only long term way to motivate people is via positive incentives.