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
mpainter says:
April 1, 2014 at 8:10 am
In an absolute sense, there’s no such thing as safe living. Our foolish ancestors thousands of years ago took this incredibly dangerous thing called “fire” right into their dwelling places, and look at all the suffering and death that has caused. It’s been downhill ever since. Of course, lacking the internet at the time they couldn’t be aware that the maximum sustainable human population for the entire planet was at most a few hundred thousand.
We have managed the risk of nuclear power for over 50 years. We have also managed the risk of live H-bombs flying over our heads 24 hours a day for about 40 years starting in 1956 or so. As a previous poster has noted we’ve managed the risk of nuclear reactors (and weapons) aboard Navy ships ever since 1958.
Would I like more safety assurances? Of course, but I won’t refuse the advantages of nuclear power because it can’t be made absolutely safe. With good procedures and good people and sufficient budget to support them, we can make nuclear power very safe now. With more R&D we can develop safer designs and better materials. If you absolutely refuse to bring fire into your cave, you’re stuck in the cold and dark forever.
Personally I think James Hansen is crazy to refer to coal trains as “trains of death”, so I see no urgent need to shut down existing power stations and replace them with something else. Which is why I don’t advocate a crash program to go nuclear.
However in the longer run I believe that if our technical civilization is to continue to advance, we simply cannot walk away from the 4 million-fold energy density improvement nuclear processes have over chemical ones.
Mini-reactors, DOE’s latest central planning flop:
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/03/report-feds-worried-about-struggles-at-generation.html?page=all
@Peter at 9:44 am
1. Yes, good experience. Much more experience than LFTR unconventional. I hesitate to call a design proven until someone is ready to build a copy. THTR-300 had some bugs to work out.
2. Same episode. Source from Wikipedia. Dust released while unjamming pebbles. Then operators tried to hide the radioactive release by blaming Chernobyl fallout. When they were found out, the project was toast.
3. HTGR is a superset of reactor designs that includes THTR and general PBR reactor types. It is the High Temp, High Pressure Gas Coolant the identifies the class.
it requires no massive and expensive containment dome, emergency cooling system or emergency power supply. It does require containment — that was THTR’s downfall. The Helium is under pressure and it too must be contained (along with the dust it carries) if it leaks. It might require a smaller cheaper containment dome than a PWR, but it still needs one.
4. All I can say is the public experience of Fort St. Vrain was frequent shutdowns because of helium leaks. Helium will leak through openings that will contain steam. I agree that the explosiveness of superheated water to steam is not as great as with Helium.
5. I agree the SiliconCarbide shell on the graphite pebble is an important safety feature.
On negative feedback via temperature expansion. I’ve heard this from several sources. Particularly with Navy reactors, greater demands on electrical power increases steam throughput lowering the temperature of the steam, lowering the temperature of the primary coolant, contracting the moderator, increasing the reaction rate and power output. It is a remarkable design. Perhaps some of the reactor control veterans listening in can confirm or correct and supply details.
As for frustration, yep. Our society needs to choose between
1) continued coal power
2) increased nuclear power to replace coal
3) freezing in the dark.
Oil is too valuable for electricity gen.
Gas is too valuable for baseload, better for heating and topping.
Wind too unpredictable
Solar not available at night
Hydro, not enough to go around and environmentalists hate it as much as coal.
It is coal or nuclear (of some kind) in some rational mix.
In fact, promoting nukes is not about co2 or profits. It’s always been about one thing only, the military industrial complex. Absent that prerogative there would be no planned nukes and also no IPCC or AGW hypothesis.
Errata: 4. explosiveness of steam is GREATER than with pressurized helium.
Stephen Rasey @11.57am
We are basically in agreement..
Especially on one point I have been plugging for years but still brings people up short whenever I bring it up in discussion – which I always do!
OIL IS TOO VALUABLE TO BURN
The human race could last for hundreds of thousands of years – in spite of our best efforts to the contrary. Our descendants will curse us for wasting the most accessible oil.
Peter,
Ever hear of methane hydrates?
Saving oil for the unborn would not just be foolish, it would be immoral.
@Peter at 1:02 pm
Oil, liquid hydrocarbons, is meant to be burned —- as a transportation fuel.
Try feeding the world without oil.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/11/british-columbia-british-utopia/
Oil is a valuable, irreplaceable chemical feedstock which enables the chemical industry to make many important products much more cheaply than by using other feedstocks.
Shale gas can be burned for top-up electricity generation, and used as fuel for cars and trucks.
Liquid fuels for air transportation can be made from agricultural waste.
Nuclear is the only sensible option for baseload electricity generation and Thorium is the most sensible fuel..
Peter,
Actually, chemical feedstock is the one application where biofuels are truly preferable for use over petroleum.
Biofuels should never be used for transportation fuels. Petroleum is far far more economical for that purpose.
Nuclear power is proven time and again to destroy habitable land for countless generations, total insanity.
Peter
OIL IS TOO VALUABLE TO BURN
The human race could last for hundreds of thousands of years – in spite of our best efforts to the contrary. Our descendants will curse us for wasting the most accessible oil.
I have heard that argument before (didn’t Jimmy say that in the Stainless Steel Rat stories? 🙂 ), but I suspect our descendants will be fine.
Between advances in genetic engineering, and nanotech, I suspect our descendants will have no problem creating economical chemosynthesis plants using just about any raw materials.
I know (or used to know) someone who is involved in this, he synthesises vitamins on an industrial scale using genetically modified yeast. There have also been programs to synthesise plastics biochemically from simple pre-cursors, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic
If all else fails, Saturn’s moon Titan is basically a vast ball of crude oil and methane. It might seem ridiculous to even consider mining hydrocarbons from another planet, but there is no doubt that we could produce technology capable of economically shifting large masses around the solar system, if we absolutely had to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
We must remember that, just as AGW is only a hypothesis, petroleum as a product of squished ferns and fish is also totally unproven. Depleted fields are known to replenish. Petroleum is found in geologic formations where it could never be found under the dinosaur theory.
Regardless of the possible finite nature of petroleum, it is but a small fraction of known carbon based fuels. Methane hydrates exceed it by orders of magnitude.
Eric, I agree entirely with your comment. There is not and never will be an absolute shortage of raw fuel. There will only be in the future as there has in the past shortages of invested capital and technology to make use of it.
“SAMURAI says:
April 1, 2014 at 12:48 am
…
Since I live 150KM south of Fukushima, I must admit I’m strongly against LWR reactors… My family had to carry Iodine pills in our pockets for 2 months following the Fukushima meltdown… I don’t want anyone in the world to go through that.”
There’s little danger of that. I happened to arrive at the tip of the Shandong peninsula two days before Fukushima happened, and was stuck there for the next three months. I couldn’t find a source of thyroid blockers anywhere in a city of more than a million, and curiously, neither could my wife, back in Canada.
The Chinese and Canadian governments were singing from the same page: “the amount of radioactivity in the environment is harmless, we’ll get you the thryroblock when you need it”. I found out later that the Canadian government backed this up by making a secret deal with the Canadian Pharmacists associations not to sell thyroid blockers to the public.
Of course the real reason for this obscenely irresponsible deception – since there’s no way either government could possibly deliver the pills to the public when they became necessary – was that they would have had to pay millions of dollars to the manufacturers to make these pills, which are normally only made in enough quantity to supply the staff of nuclear power facilities and the immediately surrounding neighbourhoods, and more money to distribute the pills and instruct the public when and how to take them.
The message to thoughtful people had to be read between the lines – find your own supply, and make sure you have an appropriate meter or alarm as well, as the government is never going to warn you that you’re about to be irradiated because of its own negligence.
On my return to Canada, the only place I could find thyroid blocking packets was in health food stores, and at rather steep prices – $22 to $25 for a 10 day course of treatment. I ended up buying online from LEF.org, paying under $3 for a 14-day course of the same strength. I bought a Nuke-Alert keychain alarm as well (and was able to test its accuracy at a local hospital).
Few people think about how dependent on the conscientiousness of government leaders and officials nuclear power would make everyone downwind, or that civil defense, medical, and political leaders would likely argue (in camera, of course) that cancer for millions (of other people) months or years down the road would be preferable to immediate carnage on the highways injuring thousands (and possibly obstructing their own getaways) of panicked motorists trying to escape the fallout.
otropogo and SAMURAI
As far as I know thyroid pills are just Potassium Iodide – http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp . The idea is that if you take a large regular dose of safe iodide, you dilute the impact of any trace amounts of radioactive iodine you absorb. If presented with a large amount of iodide, the body will only take what it needs – and if most of that iodine is “safe”, non radioactive dietary supplement, then the probability that your body will absorb radioactive iodine is substantially reduced.
So if you can’t get the pills, it should be possible to purchase pure Potassium Iodide from a pharmacy or chemistry supply store, mix the required dosage, and administer it yourself (only in an emergency of course – I’m not advocating this action, nor am I a doctor – this is just what I would consider doing in such a situation).
Having said that, the best thing is not to be caught in a radiation disaster. I understand why people have negative perceptions of nuclear power. Frankly I wouldn’t want to live near a nuclear power station built to the Fukishima design.
Hence my emphasis on the need for more research into passive safe designs.
Fukishima got into trouble, because it wasn’t passive safe – when all the active safe systems were destroyed by the Earthquake and Tsunami, there was nothing left to prevent a meltdown.
Passive safe systems, by contrast, should shut themselves down, in the absence of any external equipment whatsoever. So even a total power blackout and complete failure of external systems should not cause a passive safe system to melt.
Roger Sowell says:
March 31, 2014 at 10:16 pm
“Therefore, from 1946 until 2004, EDF was a state-owned, nationalized electric utility. The monoply can and did charge whatever price it wanted to, without the need to show a profit. ”
Roger, you’re evading again. Tsk Tsk asked you to provide evidence supporting your implication that French nuclear power is “fully subsidized by the government”. Saying it was nationalised until 2004 is, well, tangentially interesting, but says nothing about subsidies. You may be correct, but you’ve yet to provide any evidence. I’m still waiting (As is Tsk Tsk, I suppose).
… For clarity’s sake, I’m hoping you’ll provide evidence to support your assertion in toto. That is, that French nuclear energy was “FULLY subsidised” (my emphasis). Me, I’d love the idea of a big fat zero on my energy bill …
I know that at least for the last ten years of which I have personal knowledge,,French domestic electricity bills have been much the same as the rest of Europe, cheaper than many. French citizens are a stroppy lot and would soon dismiss any government that made them pay significantly more for electricity than neighbouring countries. – especially as they know well that their superb fleet of reliable nuclear power stations produces power at very low costs – and they are proud of their technical achievement. This is something they do better than the Germans!!
Furthermore, EDF sells its surplus (off-peak) megawatts to all its neighbours, who would not pay over the odds.
I realise that none of this is proof that some sort of political double dealing does not exist to subsidise EDF, but the realities of the huge amounts of money involved, of state budgeting and aggressive French journalism make it unlikely that sufficiently large subsidies exist.
Peter,
France exports of electricity to the UK yesterday averaged 1,999 MW compared to 2,299 MW from wind power. The 2 GW from France is pretty steady while some days the wind does not blow!
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
“Eric Worrall says:
April 1, 2014 at 11:26 pm
otropogo and SAMURAI
As far as I know thyroid pills are just Potassium Iodide – http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp . The idea is that if you take a large regular dose of safe iodide, you dilute the impact of any trace amounts of radioactive iodine you absorb. If presented with a large amount of iodide, the body will only take what it needs – and if most of that iodine is “safe”, non radioactive dietary supplement, then the probability that your body will absorb radioactive iodine is substantially reduced.
So if you can’t get the pills, it should be possible to purchase pure Potassium Iodide from a pharmacy or chemistry supply store, mix the required dosage, and administer it yourself (only in an emergency of course – I’m not advocating this action, nor am I a doctor – this is just what I would consider doing in such a situation).”
Thanks for the link – it makes this reply a lot easier to compose. But I think you should have taken more care in reading its contents.
Where in the cited page did you learn that any amount of potassium iodide is “safe” so long as it’s not the radioactive isotope?
Where did you see any instructions on making your own solution from potassium iodide crystals, as you so recklessly suggest?
Did you not notice the differential doses for infants, children, and adults, and infer from that that KI is indeed toxic above a certain amount? In fact, didn’t the mere fact that such treatment is limited to periods of 10 to 14 days suggest as much to you?
No, your statement that “the body will take only what it needs” of potassium iodide is false. If it were true, no one would buy KI tablets. Your statement is dangerously misleading.
You can fill up the thyroid with enough KI. That doesn’t mean that you can’t poison the body with the surfeit.
Yes, a safely useable solution, as described by the link you provided, can be produced from crystals and water by a knowledgeable , careful person with enough time, and administered safely by a careful person. And indeed, during the period of the Cold War (and perhaps still, being downwind of the Hanford nuclear facility) pharmacies in Washington State were required by regulation to keep adequate supplies of KI crystals on hand for a fallout emergency, to be prepared and distributed as and when needed BY PHARMACISTS.
How the public health authorities planned on getting this “just in time” solution to the public quickly enough to be useful, remains a mystery to me.
You have also misrepresented the reality of Fukushima’s failures. The most damaging failure in Fukushima was not the meltdown, but the failure IN ALL THREE REACTORS of both the automatic mechanism and manual backup procedure for venting pressure from the containment vessels, leading to the explosion of accumulated gases, the breaching of the containment vessels, and ultimately the long-term contamination of large tracts of inhabited and farmed land.
I have yet to find an explanation for two sets of three identical failures in three machines that are minutely and regularly monitored and tested. But I’m fairly certain that its not a problem gravity will solve. And meltdown is not the only danger posed by radioactive material – by a long shot.
“But I’m fairly certain that its not a problem gravity will solve.”
It’s a problem that never would have happened had the seawall been just 10 metres higher. All of the reactors shut down safely during the earthquake. It was the tsunami that did all the damage by demolishing the diesel storage tanks and flooding the backup generators.
Even with the station inundated, the generators would have worked fine if they had been according to standard modern requirements behind steam doors and the storage tanks had been properly bunkered. The newer Fukushima B plants, and Daiichi Units 5 and 6, just a few miles down the coast were entirely unaffected by the events, as were the rest of Japan’s nuclear fleet.
The Daiichi reactors were not destroyed by nuclear fission; all three reactors (the fourth was already down for maintenance and refueling) shut down safely. What destroyed them was the decay heat from the fuel. This potential problem exists in all LWRs because of the small core size. In other reactor types, the problem can be either minimized or does not exist. In old Russian VVER 440s, for example, decay heat is much less of a problem because these reactors have at least double and as much as triple the water inventory in the core, doubling or tripling the time before the core is uncovered.
In CANDUs, the problem does not exist at all, because the reactor’s physical size is so large that all of the decay heat simply radiates into the building concrete without any effect.
It should also be noted that passive shutdown systems are extremely difficult to do in LWRs, whether they are PWRs or BWRs. Because they are pressure vessel reactors, the shutdown rods must be driven into a high pressure steam environment. In the case of BWRs like most of the reactors in Japan, they have to be driven in from underneath the reactor. That requires in-plant electrical power. CANDUs however do not. The calandrias are at STP, meaning that the reactors can be shut down and decay heat removed without any electricity in the plant at all. This is not something new; CANDUs have had this characteristic since the early 1980s.
otropogo
Thanks for the link – it makes this reply a lot easier to compose. But I think you should have taken more care in reading its contents.
Where in the cited page did you learn that any amount of potassium iodide is “safe” so long as it’s not the radioactive isotope?
I did not say any amount of Potassium Iodide is safe, I said in a desperate radiological emergency I would be tempted to try to mix my own dose, if I could find instructions on doing so.
Where did you see any instructions on making your own solution from potassium iodide crystals, as you so recklessly suggest?
I didn’t – I was simply postulating a course of action I might consider in a desperate emergency.
Did you not notice the differential doses for infants, children, and adults, and infer from that that KI is indeed toxic above a certain amount? In fact, didn’t the mere fact that such treatment is limited to periods of 10 to 14 days suggest as much to you?
No, your statement that “the body will take only what it needs” of potassium iodide is false. If it were true, no one would buy KI tablets. Your statement is dangerously misleading.
Fair point, if the risks inherent in what I described were not obvious, I apologise. Once again I thought I made it clear that this was a course of action I would consider if I personally was exposed to radioactive iodine, and no other option was available. I was also trying to describe my understanding of why iodide pills work. By increasing available iodide available to your body, you reduce the probability that the body will absorb radioactive iodine.
You can fill up the thyroid with enough KI. That doesn’t mean that you can’t poison the body with the surfeit.
Correct.
Yes, a safely useable solution, as described by the link you provided, can be produced from crystals and water by a knowledgeable , careful person with enough time, and administered safely by a careful person. And indeed, during the period of the Cold War (and perhaps still, being downwind of the Hanford nuclear facility) pharmacies in Washington State were required by regulation to keep adequate supplies of KI crystals on hand for a fallout emergency, to be prepared and distributed as and when needed BY PHARMACISTS.
How the public health authorities planned on getting this “just in time” solution to the public quickly enough to be useful, remains a mystery to me.
I was *not* suggesting people should DIY if pharmacist prepared medicines were available – I was answering what I would consider doing in a desperate emergency where pharmacy prepared medicines were *not* available. Obviously it would be a horrifying, high risk decision either way – a choice between radioactive iodine contamination or self administering a toxic substance.
You have also misrepresented the reality of Fukushima’s failures. The most damaging failure in Fukushima was not the meltdown, but the failure IN ALL THREE REACTORS of both the automatic mechanism and manual backup procedure for venting pressure from the containment vessels, leading to the explosion of accumulated gases, the breaching of the containment vessels, and ultimately the long-term contamination of large tracts of inhabited and farmed land.
No, I did not provide a complete description of the Fukishima failure. My understanding there was at least a partial meltdown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Core_meltdowns Obviously there were a lot of other problems.
I have yet to find an explanation for two sets of three identical failures in three machines that are minutely and regularly monitored and tested. But I’m fairly certain that its not a problem gravity will solve. And meltdown is not the only danger posed by radioactive material – by a long shot.
Passive safety is about a lot more than preventing a meltdown. It is about making the reactor inherently safe, even in the event of total system failure.
“Roger, you’re evading again. Tsk Tsk asked you to provide evidence supporting your implication that French nuclear power is “fully subsidized by the government”. Saying it was nationalised until 2004 is, well, tangentially interesting, but says nothing about subsidies. You may be correct, but you’ve yet to provide any evidence. I’m still waiting (As is Tsk Tsk, I suppose).
… For clarity’s sake, I’m hoping you’ll provide evidence to support your assertion in toto. That is, that French nuclear energy was “FULLY subsidised” (my emphasis). Me, I’d love the idea of a big fat zero on my energy bill …”
Roger, you sill there? I’m still hoping for a direct and honest answer.
…
*Sigh*
“cgh says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:26 pm
“But I’m fairly certain that its not a problem gravity will solve.”
It’s a problem that never would have happened had the seawall been just 10 metres higher. All of the reactors shut down safely during the earthquake. It was the tsunami that did all the damage by demolishing the diesel storage tanks and flooding the backup generators.”
And yet, new reactors currently under construction on the same tsunami-exposed coast of Japan are NOT being built with seawalls “10 meters higher”.
In fact all of your safety points, including that of “passive shutdown”, are just mantras without constant reliable monitoring and testing of all nuclear facilities. What Fukushima decisively demonstrates is that such reliability is a pipe dream, even in one of the least repressive and technically advanced nuclear nations in the world.
That anyone would expect more conscientious monitoring, reporting, and addressing of nuclear safety issues in states where whistleblowers are likely to “disappear” at the first toot is sheer lunacy.