Greens want every possible intervention except one which “solves” their useful crisis
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
‘Drill Bit Dana’ has been at it again, trying to claim that we don’t “accept the science”, because we are ideologically opposed to their solution – massive government intervention.
There is just one problem with this argument – its an utter falsehood. The reason its a falsehood, is massive government intervention is not the only, or by any measure the best, route to reducing CO2 emissions. Most skeptics are supporters of power generation solutions which would, as a byproduct, significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
We have no reason to reject alarmist science, other than we think it is wrong.
Take the example of America. The USA has substantially reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade, because of fracking – the switch from coal to gas, even though energy use has gone up, has reduced the amount of carbon which is burned to produce that energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/
Of course, America’s coal producers are still mining as much coal as they ever did – and exporting it to Europe, whose disastrous policy failures have increased costs and CO2 emissions.
In the case of fracking, the reduction of CO2 emissions might have been incidental, but fracking has produced results. Surely when it comes to CO2, results are what count?
But the real elephant in the room, with regard to emissions reduction, is the nuclear option.
James Hansen likes nuclear power.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html
George Monbiot likes nuclear power. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Anthony Watts likes nuclear power.
James Delingpole likes nuclear power.
Jo Nova likes nuclear power.
The Heartland Institute likes nuclear power.
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/global-warmings-mt-rushmore-wisely-embraces-nuclear-power/
So why isn’t nuclear power the main focus of everyone’s attention? Why do far too many alarmists persist with antagonising us, by pushing their absurd carbon taxes and government intervention, when they could be working with us? Why do alarmists keep trying to force us to accept solutions which we find utterly unacceptable, when there are obvious solutions which we could all embrace?
Perhaps some alarmists are worried about the risk of nuclear accidents – but, if climate change is as serious as they say, how can the risk of a nuclear meltdown or ten possibly compare to what alarmists claim is an imminent risk to the survival of all humanity?
Why do alarmists persist with pushing falsehoods about the motivation of their opponents, when they could, right now, be taking positive, substantial steps to promote policies which actually would reduce CO2 emissions?
What was the motivation of Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, when he wrote the following Climategate email:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt
“Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/ Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. … He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.”
Does Phil Jones really think that nuclear safety is more of an issue than global warming?
The easy answer to this dilemma is that most alarmists are being dishonest – that they don’t really believe CO2 is an important issue, that its simply a convenient excuse to push their political agenda. But surely they can’t all be bent? Monbiot seems sincere about embracing nuclear power. Hansen, and the authors of the open letter, seem sincere about promoting nuclear power. Are they really the only honest participants on the alarmist side of the debate? Surely this can’t be the case.
What am I missing?
“The Margarita Declaration at the UN backed conference in Venezuela last month makes their position totally clear…”
And how many Margaritas per attendee were required to achieve this total clarity?
Good piece. But, true ‘greens’ support nuclear power because they recognize the key parameter for environmental benefit — power density.
Even present nuclear is ~500,000 times more power dense than the best combustion (hydrogen). advanced nuclear will be even better…
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/4/planId/15102
And it will be absolutely necessary ASAP because of what folks like Kochs, Heartland, the US Chamber of Commerce… have succeeded in doing to fool legislators & enviro groups and delay nuclear roll-outs that even JFK knew were needed: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
So, indeed self-proclaimed ‘greens’ are ignorant, arrogant & naively co-opted by combustion folks to be against nuclear, and are as guilty of adding to death & disease from emissions as are cynical interests like Heartland. How do I know? I’m a Sierra Club member who with other members have tried to get our board to rise above donation politics and return to the original, pro-nuclear club policy. No go.
So, we just have years, not decades, to avoid the most imminent & costly effects of >1.5 trillion tons of fossil fuel CO2 emissions…
http://tinyurl.com/n2qnos6
Feel free to step up and help. Kochs welcome. Our descendants are watching.
—
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara:
Your name links to a web site which is not your own. And your post at August 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm shows other indications you are a troll.
Please state “the most imminent & costly effects of >1.5 trillion tons of fossil fuel CO2 emissions…” which you claim exist and say why you assert we only have “years, not decades” to avoid them. Your claims of ocean acidification being a problem are mistaken so there is no need to iterate those.
Richard
Dr. A Cannara, thank you for that refreshing mix of sour grapes, conspiracy wackiness and apocalyptic claptrap. OA is yet another fantasy and I wonder why you fell for it? Yet in the midst of it all you hit the right conclusion: We are better off we abandon the irrational and unfounded fear of nuke power and proceed back to the nuke path.
Frankly I bet you will be amazed at how the “combustion industry” will welcome a rational energy policy that prominently includes nuclear power. But leave the OA/slr/doomsday/cabal behind. It is not needed nor is it required or correct. Not to mention that Lewandowsky will pigeonhole you most annoyingly.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/07/10/free-energy-could-destroy-the-planet-the-most-powerful-argument-against-lenr/
(A Greenie thinks the heat exhaust from Low Energy Fusion E-Cats would cause global warming—so they should be banned. Comments refute this as ridiculous.)
“Our descendants are watching.”
My predecessors worked hard to free themselves from grinding hard labour, impoverishment, conflict, hunger and disease. They handed over to me the best technology they could develop (and good stuff it is too!). I will do my best to be responsible by seeking to emulate the efforts of my predecessors for the benefit of my descendants.
I have a moral duty to my predecessor to NOT squander all of their hard-fought achievements with anti-science chicken-little-mindedness. Who knows Dr. A. Canarra, I might help you avoid squandering the efforts of your predecessors.
Not thanks needed, you are welcome!
Has anyone else noticed that Dana and his pal look like cast members from 60s children’s TV series ‘Thunderbirds’?
The Greens are imposing unworkable “renewables” and have conned or coerced politicians into going along with this mad plan. Nuclear power is the only politically salable way of avoiding their wrecking our economies.
(Actually, I’m hopeful about the various LENR innovations in the pipeline mentioned in a comment above by DMA at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/09/dont-mention-the-nuclear-option-to-greens/#comment-1705667, plus Rossi’s. See http://www.e-catworld.com )
Roger Sowell ( August 9, 2014 at 6:29 am) asked:
1 Why has nuclear power achieved only 11 percent of world power production, after more than 5 decades of competition?
A: Intense opposition from greenies.
2 Why do small islands have zero nuclear power plants, but burn expensive oil or diesel resulting in power prices of 25 to 35 cents per kWh?
A. Their economies are too small.
3 Why do nuclear utilities never, ever, ask for a rate decrease when they build a nuclear plant?
A. Capital investment is high, as are future uncertainties.
4 Why did France install nuclear plants to provide 85 percent of the country’s power, and no other country in the world followed their lead?
A. Capital investment is high. Others chose less capital-intensive paths. Intense opposition from greenies may also have been a facvor.
5 Why does France have higher electricity prices than does the US, even with France heavily subsidizing their electricity industry?
A. The US has large supplies of coal (and now gas). Power prices are higher in Germany (thanks to Energiewende) than in France.
6 Why does nuclear power in the US require heavy subsidies from government – and almost total indemnity from costs of a massive radiation disaster?
A. Capital investment is high and lead times long. Companies are very reluctant to commit to that amount of investment if they are then at risk of government whim.
7 Why are nuclear plants shutting down in the US, with owners saying they are losing money?
A. There has been a surge in gas production, leading to low gas prices and a surge in power production from gas.
8 Why are there so many near-misses on meltdowns in US plants, on average every 3 weeks?
A. Many industries are dangerous. Nuclear power generation is no exception. The near-misses are in older reactors, new reactors are much safer. Stringent safety processes have kept deaths and injuries close to zero (yes we do have something to thank the greenies for!). By contrast, thousands of miners have died just in the 21st century, many of them coal miners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident.
9 Why were there three serious meltdowns worldwide in just a bit more than 30 years? (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island)
A. Only three, worldwide over all time. That’s impressively good. And designs and procedures are improving all the time.
10 Why are new reactor technologies being researched and developed?
A. Now that’s just a dumb question. There’s always a drive to improve performance, reduce costs, be more competitive, improve safety.
Richard
Dr cannara links to a web site of the Thorium energy alliance for which he is a speaker.His preach can be seen here
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC4.html
Tonyb
Richard
Oops, my iPad changed speech to preach!
Tonyb
[Nah, the iPod was write. Preach is probably more accurate. 8<) .mod]
Tonyb:
Yes, I get that. But the link from the name of Dr Cannara is to the organisation and not himself. In other words, his link proclaims that he is advocating the organisation’s interests.
And his post links to his speech on acidification.
I await his answers to my questions.
Richard
Nuclear energy? are you freakin kidding me!?
It doesn’t matter whether or not you are in favor of nuclear energy or wind turbines: either way you are a victim of some serious brainwashing, brought on by the culture creators/ruling elite.
Energy is over-rated- plain and simple. And I highly doubt that any of you will be able to fathom that statement; which just indicates your level of ignorance.
Ponder the following:
You need all this energy because…..
-there’s steaks being kept in the freezer
-maybe you can’t live without all that street lighting
-or you need to watch 5 hours of t.v every night
-so you can run the dryer for 2 hours
-run the A.C (which is making you sick, but you don’t know it) after all 25C is now just to hot for most.
Keep boring holes into the Canadian Shield and maybe one day an earth-quake will bring all that sh#t back to the surface.
Keep signing over the rights to your land for a freaking tax break and some extra income while some foreign owned Corporation erects a turbine next to your home for 40 years.
pathetic…..
Reflecting on the 9th International Climate Change Convention earlier (in July), there were many moments when I agreed with the words that were spoken, but there were also a few moments when I cringed. I also muttered a few quiet words at times, such as “BS” or “Not true!.” I didn’t quite do a Wilson and yell out YOU LIE!!!, but I did feel like I could have.
The moments at issue were those when somebody at the microphone said something pro-nuclear energy. I cannot recall who, nor the exact words. What concerned me most was the obvious approval across the room, and it is a big room. It comfortably held 600 people seated at round tables. There was a smattering of applause. I knew before the convention that many, if not most, climate skeptics are pro-nuclear. I knew I would be in a small minority, perhaps a minority of one at the meetings.
I remember thinking, if only they all knew what I know about nuclear power. I wish I could convey to each one of them the truth about nuclear power, have them read and understand the many, many issues that show nuclear power is not economic, not safe, and will not ever be safe nor economic. Instead, it appears they have blindly accepted the talking points from the nuclear advocates. (a 30-part series on Truth About Nuclear Power is available on SowellsLawBlog)
This is just a bit odd, because nuclear advocates have taken to cheering for nuclear because it emits no carbon dioxide – it is “carbon free power” in the latest incarnation of their talking points. Yet, as climate change skeptics, why would anyone want a power source on that basis? Surely, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not harming the planet, so why use a source that produces zero carbon dioxide?
One of the speakers mentioned that Germany’s government is shutting down nuclear plants because, and I believe I have the quote correct, “Chancellor is afraid a tsunami will hit Germany.” That line drew laughter from the audience. The Chancellor is well aware that a tsunami will not hit Germany – but she is also keenly aware (after Fukushima) that nuclear plants will meltdown with devastating consequences for any number of unforeseen circumstances. In short, if the grid goes down for an extended period, and the backup generators fail, the nuclear plant and surrounding population are in a world of trouble.
I have also read in other places the talking points that nuclear power is low-cost (it is not), the fuel is readily available for thousands of years (it is not), the reactors are perfectly safe and new ones are much safer (they are not), nuclear power reduces dependence on foreign oil (not true, unless a country is actually burning oil for power, which almost no country does), nuclear plants use very small land area (true only in some cases, but not for those that built their own cooling lake such as South Texas Nuclear Project, and the land area does not consider the uranium mining and processing plants). Few web sites mention the points raised by Professor Derek Abbott, that both uranium fuel, plus raw materials for the plants are limited and running out, and that suitable plant locations are few and getting fewer as more plants are built.
Also, almost nobody mentions the huge consumption of cooling water in a nuclear plant – four times that of a comparable gas-fired combined cycle plant.
I also read in other places that nuclear plants are highly reliable, yet I wonder if those people who repeat that talking point know the truth: nuclear plants shut down at a moment’s notice and with great regularity. Upon shutdown, the grid operator must somehow find 900 to 1200 MW of power rather quickly, as in a few minutes, or drop some load to balance the grid until the replacement power is humming. These same pro-nuclear voices complain that wind power and solar power are both unreliable, that they must have “full-time backup” power. Actually, every nuclear plant also must have 100 percent backup for the times when they shut down.
I also read that nuclear plants “last for 60 years,” which they do not.
Finally, I read that alternative energy technology requires subsidies for their very existence, that no wind turbines and no solar power plants would be built absent these substantial subsidies. I wonder, though, how many of these people making those subsidy claims are aware that nuclear plants also are heavily subsidized, that nuclear plants would not exist at all unless the government takes on the substantial liability of a major nuclear accident – a meltdown with radiation release that injures or kills people.
Yes, I felt a bit sad at the ICCC9 when people were applauding the pro-nuclear power statements. I suppose it is best to forgive them (for now), for they know not what they do. Hopefully, they will someday (soon) understand the truth. Whether they will follow the data and question the dogma from the nuclear industry, as they have done with climate science, is another matter.
kenin
Well done for giving me a good laugh. Your post is like a scene from Monty Python’s “Life Of Brian” (What have the Romans ever done for us?)
Jordan says:
August 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Col Mosby
If it can be argued that a nuclear design reduces the probability of uncapped liability is zero, the investment community might be persuaded to stand fully behind nuclear power stations and to underwrite ALL liability.
===================
Nope. Politicians have poisoned the well. When government can decide to destroy a billion dollar investment on a whim, private money will stay out. It happened in New York a few years ago.
Tragic. I have been an avid watcher of doings regarding Warming,in the US, since the late seventies. I believed then, and I believe the ensuing decades have proven my early read correct, that counting clouds and disentangling omni-scale vorticity would prove stubbornly intractable to applied math. If we have to make such profound judgments in the face of persistent uncertainty, a minimal cost shift from coal power to nuclear was an obvious early beginning. That the enviro-left was as enduringly opposed to this first step was sin enough, but that the right never rallied to nuclear was just tragic. Instead, they have organized around their never-ending attack against science itself–and appear to the younger generation as both uncaring and retarded.
Incredibly, the American voter has been given by this circumstance, no opportunity to vote for that first step, and even today, with the craft crews rotating off assignment at Watts Bar, their skills will soon go fallow. As have the SoCal plants in California, the Florida plant, and soon, Vermont Yankee.
Instead of plowing so much intellectual energy into your endless guerrilla campaign here, sniping and propagandizing amongst the shadows for a program that is intrinsically lethargic, why not shift some effort towards active remediation? After all, the warmists concede in their conventional depiction, that enduring three-fold uncertainty attends their theoretical anxieties. The minimalists harp on about their doubts, but never quite own up to the implications that they also, wield no magic knowledge that the planet will ultimately not register an outcome for posterity in the upper range of unpleasant possibilities.
If it’s been happening every three weeks for over forty years with almost no meltdowns, it seems a stretch to call it a “near miss.”
Rogerknights@3:32pm:
Let us not be stampeded into nuclear power by some imagined fear of Green power.
mpainter says:
August 9, 2014 at 1:41 pm
“So what do you know about oil and dollars that is about to change, pray share your information. ”
Saudi has flipped to the East. Petrodollar is toast.
Nuclear would upset the depopulation agenda.
Dr. A. Cannara says:
August 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm
“Good piece. But, true ‘greens’ support nuclear power because they recognize the key parameter for environmental benefit — power density.”
Could the “true greens” first kick out the false greens from their green parties – i.e. the Maoists – because I have never talked to a Green who would even have been capable of comprehending the term energy density.
Or maybe you go and found the True Green party with actual intelligent people. That would be quite the novelty.
DirkH
We buy oil Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria but how much Saudi? Methinks little if any.
“I remember thinking, if only they all knew what I know about nuclear power.”
Ha ha ha! Mr. Sowell, with all due respect, the truth is that you know almost NOTHING about nuclear power.
I’m very familiar with your writings on this subject, and if you’ll forgive me for being blunt, you’re just an ignorant shill lawyer who is paid by fossil fuel companies to say this stuff (as you explain on your own web site) and who knows nearly next to nothing about what you are hired to be a mouthpiece against.
Your stupid talking points are cookie-cutter stuff that are taken straight from Greenpeace and similar organizations and that have been rebutted ad absurdum (even in the comments section here). You make claim after claim that you simply can’t back up. Even when it comes to arguing like a lawyer, you’re totally incompetent.
mpainter,
Don’t forget Canada.
I’m sure I am not the only one who sees that every policy that is bad for America and the West is favored by the enviro groups, and vice-versa. If I didn’t know any better [and I don’t], I would think that those groups are being controlled by the FSB [successor to the old KGB] and Chinese interests. There is a large movement that would like to see the U.S. hobbled, if not destroyed. ‘Greens’ always seem sympathetic to that view.
I think any student of human nature would see the same thing. Like with Obama, never listen to what they say. Watch their actions instead.