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?
DMA says:
August 9, 2014 at 9:30 am
Is that a shortlist of the top three pseudo-scientific scams?
mpainter says:
August 9, 2014 at 4:43 pm
I hope you never fly in airplanes. You realize you get 5-10 times as much radiation up there as you do on the ground.
This forum is international: “we” (the US) may only import 18 – 20% of our oil from Saudi Aria-Persian Gulf region, but the rest of the world has little choice in their sources. (Since the US greens are successfully destroying US oil pipeline/shipping/refining/production/export options now as well.)
From: http://www.marcon.com/marcon2c.cfm?SectionListsID=93&PageID=771
Oil Exports
The U.S. received about 18 percent of its net oil liquids imports in 2006 from the Persian Gulf region. U.S. gross oil imports (mostly crude) from the Persian Gulf averaged to 2.2 million bbl/d during 2006. The majority of Persian Gulf oil and petroleum products imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (66 percent), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (25 percent), Kuwait (8 percent), and small amounts (less than 1 percent total) from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Iraqi total liquids exports to the United States reached 553,000 bbl/d in 2006. Saudi exports fell from 1.54 million bbl/d in 2005 to 1.46 million bbl/d in 2006. Overall, the Persian Gulf accounted for about 18 percent of U.S.net oil imports and approximately 11 percent of U.S. oil demand in 2006.
Western Europe (defined as European countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD) averaged 2.8 million bbl/d of oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2006, a decrease of less than 0.1 million bbl/d from 2005. The largest share of Persian Gulf oil exports to Western Europe came from Saudi Arabia (44 percent), with significant amounts also coming from Iran (33 percent), Iraq (13 percent), and Kuwait (7 percent).
Japan averaged 4.4 million bbl/d of net oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2006. Japan’s dependence on the Persian Gulf for its oil supplies increased sharply since the low point of 57 percent in 1988 to a high of 83 percent in 2006. About 35 percent of Japan’s Persian Gulf imports in 2006 came from Saudi Arabia, 29 percent from the United Arab Emirates, 12 percent from Iran, 12 percent from Qatar, 10 percent from Kuwait, and over 1 percent from Bahrain and Iraq combined. Japan’s oil imports from the Persian Gulf as a percentage of demand continued to rise to new highs, reaching 80 percent in 2006.
And from NPR, in a 2012 story highlights…
‘Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil
In 2011, net imports accounted for 45 percent of U.S. petroleum demand. Of that, 52 percent comes from the Western Hemisphere.
The top sources of crude petroleum and oil products: Canada (29 percent), Saudi Arabia (14 percent), Venezuela (11 percent), Nigeria (10 percent) and Mexico (8 percent).”
So why isn’t nuclear power the main focus of everyone’s attention?
==============
Because it is a messy, dirty, stupid & dangerous way to boil water; because it is heavily subsidized; because the slow deaths from cancers are statistically easy to hide (like 1/2 a million Vioxx deaths were easy to hide, and nobody cares anyway): because nuclear power is an industry built on a volatile core of lies and subsidies. Because Homo Simian is a lying and conniving animal. Because the word “tsunami” was made in Japan.
“Too cheap to meter!” – the nuclear promise.
Too cheap to meter – the hydrocarbon-based electrical reality in Qatar.
Gamecock says:
August 9, 2014 at 11:16 am
“It hasn’t been developed. You ascribe to it imaginary properties.
Maybe the Chinese will get it to work. Even if they do, it’s not economically feasible at this time. Your declaration “If China is allowed to pursue LFTR development exclusively” sounds like a certain president telling us “we can’t let China get ahead of us in developing solar power.”
======================
There is nothing “imaginary” about LFTR technology…..
All theoretical properties/concepts of LFTR technology have been proven to work through proof-of-concept experiments conducted at Oak Ridge Labs in the 60’s.
LFTRs are by far the most economically feasible form of power generation because they convert 99% of thorium to energy, as opposed to Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which can only burn about 0.5% of U235 before Xenon gas degradation destroys the expensive fuel pellets and require expensive reprocessing.
In addition, LFTRs run at single atmospheric pressure so no expensive containment domes are required, LFTRs heat inert gas to run gas turbines so, they require no water source (no need for expensive cooling towers), and unwanted waste material can be removed during operation allowing 24/7 operation. Furthermore, LFTRs have only ONE passive safety system that uses gravity; as long as gravity works, LFTRs are safe.
LFTRs require no expensive and cumbersome U235 fuel pellet processing/reprocessing; just dig thorium out of the ground, purify it and burn it… LFTRs really neat trick is that the decay chain of thorium231 creates U233, which can easily be removed and pumped back to the neutron core…
China’s 2MW test LFTR goes online in 2015; a mere 4 years of establishing their LFTR program…
A brief explanation of LFTR technology:
Eric Worrall asks a highly pertinent question in the lead to this thread. A large part of the answer lies in the historical roots of the modern environmental movement. It began with the “Ban the Bomb” movement in the late 1950s and 1960s, reaching a crescendo after 1. the Cuban Missile Crisis, and 2. the discoveries regarding the effects of atmospheric weapon testing that led to the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty.
Antinuclearism is to this day at the very core of Green ideology. Dr. Patrick Moore has documented this fairly extensively in recent years. Their opposition as illustrated by a few commenters such as mpainter is visceral and absolute. This is not a matter of empiricism. All of Col Mosby’s statistics may be correct, and they make absolutely no difference. The Green opposition to nuclear power is theological, not empirical.
It’s no surprise that this is found most strongly in Germany. West Germany spent 50 years as the front line between two superpowers, both armed with tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. And the Greens have never made any particular distinction between civilian and military applications.
The modern environmental movement is more than just the “Ban the Bomb” types. It was reinforced starting in the late 1970s by increasingly large financial support from a number of charitable foundations, particularly in the United States. A significant part of this funding came from the oil companies, recognizing that nuclear could pose an existential threat to their business. Even as late as 2006, Enbridge was still funding the Ontario-based Clean Energy Alliance, an overtly and primarily antinuclear organization.
Without lavish corporate funding, the environmental movement would still be largely what it was in the 1950s, a gaggle of bare-ass hippies that one one either paid attention to or cared about. Instead today, it’s arguably the largest and best funded political lobby organization in both Washington and Brussels. And it’s corporate money, the commercial opponents of nuclear power, which put it there.
And that they have lavish funding for antinuclear activities is amply demonstrated by such antinuclear shills as Roger Sowell here present
The second reinforcement of the environmental movement came with the collapse of Soviet communism in 1990. As has been well established, the disintegration of various communist political parties over Western Europe in the 1990s resulted in their former members largely flocking into nascent Green parties. What they brought with them was the ability to organize politically, something the Greens in the 1980s and 1970s had notably lacked.
So these are the three main elements of the modern Green movement: visceral antinuclearism; corporatist funding; and a haven for communist/socialist political refugees from the collapse of state communism. None of them can be readily separated out from each other. Antinuclearism was and remains the central driving passion of the Greens. It does not matter that nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce electricity, and with existing technology. It does not matter that fissile materials will be available for fission at reasonable cost for tens of thousands of years at virtually any scale of use. There are NO facts or logical positions which can affect the antinuclear dementia in the slightest. There is only the Green theology and the paid shills of the fossil fuel companies, neither of which is subject to persuasion or reason on this matter.
Climate alarmism has nothing to do with climate. That was proven by the instantaneous switch from cooling alarmism to warming alarmism by leading alarmists like Stephen Schneider as soon as thermometers indicated that the global temperature trend had switched in second half of the 70’s from cooling to warming. Their prescriptions remained identical. The trend was caused by human burning of fossil fuels, and unless fossil fuel burning was stopped the trend would rapidly accelerate with catastrophic consequences.
It isn’t fossil fuel burning per se that the alarmists are trying to block. It is economic growth, which these idiots believe is gobbling up the natural world. Really they are just a bunch of failed economists. They don’t understand that economic growth, which comes primarily from technological progress, does not harm the natural world but allows us to tread more lightly, doing more with less. The absolute best thing for the environment is human economic growth. THAT is where the environmentalists go wrong, with that totally ignorant economic mistake, thinking that economic growth is hurting the planet instead of helping the planet.
And so they seek to block the energy sources that power economic growth. They are against ALL energy sources. If “renewables” actually worked they would be against those too. In the 1980s Paul Ehrlich was horror struck by the possibility that “cold fusion” might actually work:
Ehrlich is the mentor and ideological soul-mate of Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren. The mainstream eco-left actually thinks this way, they are something close to pure Luddites, and they are in power. We might as well have the Unabomber as president.
cgh says:
August 9, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Very well said. I couldn’t have put it any better.
The anti-nukes, as far as I am concerned, are incapable of (or at least unwilling to) engage in careful, objective critical or analytical thought using facts and reasoning when it comes to nuclear power. The CAGW alarmists are the same way. Their emotional and spiritual devotion to their anti-nuke theological belief system trumps all else, facts be damned.
For them to suggest that we should listen to them instead of nuclear physicists, engineers, and other scientists with advanced nuclear education, training and experience is patently ridiculous and demonstrates the irrationality of their mode of thinking. I could try to explain the radiation hormesis hypothesis to them so they might understand that low-level radiation does not necessarily need to be feared, but it would be pointless.
If they are in fact being funded by the fossil fuel industry, then that is indeed ironic. This is because I have added up the number of deaths due to natural gas explosions worldwide over the past 50 years and came up with a total of in excess of 2,650.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll. (Explosions and Industrial Disasters tables).
I could try explaining to the anti-nukes that this natural gas death toll is many times higher than that of nuclear in the same time frame. Unfortunately, like most attempts at making them understand, it would probably be a waste of time. They would only make excuses to ignore it.
Like oil and vinegar, rational, critical analytical thinking and the anti-nuclear movement simply don’t mix.
I keep pictures of Nagasaki, Chernobyl on my smart phone as to the long term damage to life by living things. The children are hideous. The animals worst. Now, the new threat to Japan from the nuclear accident just a few years ago reaching Western USA. Wonder what the fish look like down below? Wonder what their future generations will look like and the women that were pregnant during the accident? Wonder what their babies look like now? How many A-Bomb Tests and accidents do we need? There is only so much space. Then there are the lost crops, lost land, lost lives, lost homes, and lost of a way of life. You should go on the web sites that show Chernobyl. Sad.
1. The greenies are IN power and shutting down coal power plants. That’s not imaginary.
2. If our side advocated nuclear power as our alternative, and got the GOP to go along, we could have a chance to at least “stalemate” the political situation for a few years until the globe started cooling and pulled the rug out from under CAGW.
The thing here in Australia is the amount of water required to cool a reactor, something like 200,000,000 litres a day! James Hansen reckoned that nuclear would be better for Australia than clean energy that didn’t work. We could use sea water to cool reactors around our extensive coast line. But more than anything, we have got the technicians and scientists to run them as yet, meaning we would have to import their expertise, and we can’t justify the expense.
Paris had a heat wave back in the 1980s and they nearly had to shut down one of the older reactors because of water reduction. No thanks, I’d rather stick to my grid electricity. It’s safer.
From Paul Pierett on August 9, 2014 at 8:53 pm:
Or better yet, Take The Tour!
Wow. Site of the worst nuclear reactor disaster ever, and you can visit the town, see the sites, speak to the people who’ve moved back, look at the reactor building, and even get a vegetarian lunch. And all for a price that’s easily cheaper than a day at an amusement park!
See the links at the bottom for the photos and videos. The abundant wildlife is spectacular.
Just finished transcribing in-depth interviews conducted by a researcher. Not sure the purpose of the study, but the interviews were with leading figures in alternative energy sources. The final question concerned the possibility of the particular energy source being able to be “swapped into” the existing infrastructure. The consensus was that if they could be scaled up, they would fit into the infrastructure fairly easily. (In one case I doubt it — in another case I concede that it might be possible, but not likely.)
But what bothered me wasn’t their optimistic predictions of success. What gave me chills, especially hearing it repeated by different interview subjects — was that according to these experts, having an energy source that was clean, free of emissions and met the world’s demands without calling for significant changes in the infrastructure would not solve the “real problem.” And what was the real problem? Our behaviour. In other words, no matter what energy source we use, no matter how “green” or “sustainable” it is, the ultimate aim according to their own words is to change our behaviour in order to cut down our consumption. It isn’t our use of resources that is the ultimate problem — it is the fact that we want to own and do things beyond the absolute necessity to sustain our lives.
This isn’t about energy. It’s not about resources. It’s not even about the planet. It’s about controlling our behaviour. And the open, smug, and laughing way in which they blatantly expressed this was downright scary.
cirby says:
August 9, 2014 at 6:32 am
“The statement, organized by the Civil Society Initute and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), urges Hansen and his colleagues to publicly debate the question of climate change and nuclear power.”
“Nuclear power is not a financially viable option.”
What they left out:
“Mostly because we’ve spent most of the last 60 years making it as expensive as possible due to extreme ‘environmental’ restrictions that make no sense with modern designs.”
+++++++++++++++
From my reading of the history the nuclear power industry, faced with a market for weapons grade byproducts and a desire to make as much money as possible, manufacturer chose the most expensive possible technology available with the most expensive possible fuel processing and reprocessing requirements in the early 70’s. G.E.and those guys. The decision maximised costs and therefore turnover.
The strange union of ideas of the greens to try to make nuclear power as expensive as possible to render it economically unattractive exactly matches the nuclear power industry’s interest in making it as expensive as possible without killing the host, so to speak. The biggest threat to pressurised light water reactors is the much cheaper nuclear and far safer alternative nuclear options. Thorium in particular threatens the reprocessing industry because it is so much more benign.
Irrational opposition to ‘nuclear’ anything is the downfall of the anti-nuke arguments.
Re the real cost of power from various sources have a look at Ontario Power’s very public website showing nuclear, wind, gas, solar and biomass generation and cost on an hourly basis. Wind and solar are heavily subsidised by hydro and nuclear. Natural gas compensation stations are required for the wind farms. The whole ‘renewable’ scheme is subsidised by jacking up retail prices.
The back of my envelope calculation shows a $20 bn price tag for enough wind power to replace a nuclear power station of equal capacity. At that price only the windmill industry is interested in wind power, save for isolated communities.
I can see some vocal anti nuclear people who would of course be opposed to scientists researching the theory that underneath the mantle of the earth is a natural heat producing nuclear reactor keeping all our volcanoes well supplied. I guess you could picket both the scientists and the planet to shut down both – just in case !!.
As to risks, Nuclear generation plants are proliferating as countries seek ways of future proofing the supply of energy for them, but strangely, those very same vocal people choose to prevent your own countries taking that step, now that seems to me to be head in the sand stuff – but I guess it is O.K. if you so distrust the capability of your designers, engineers, technicians or the competence of your government to overcome safety concerns especially if we prove to be heading into a time of lowered temperatures (little ice age like) colder world.
Then again it could be equally put that there is more mathematical risk potential in an asteroid impacting on the planet than the realisation of your nuclear fear.
Brian says:
August 9, 2014 at 6:09 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/09/dont-mention-the-nuclear-option-to-greens/#comment-1705938
Absolutely! I couldn’t agree more.
“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.”
Guys, please! Learn the spelling of the contraction of it and is. It is “it’s.”
bushbunny says:
No thanks, I’d rather stick to my grid electricity. It’s safer.
I usually agree with bushbunny’s posts, but this one doesn’t compute. We would all rather just stick with our present electricity supply. The problem is, that supply is finite. It is not enough, and we need a relible source of electricity.
That has to come from somewhere. ‘Alternative’ power sources are preposterously expensive, and in the case of wind and solar, they are unreliable, or they work only during the daytime.
Nuclear is one option. I would personally prefer coal and natgas, but the eco-lobby has hobbled those very cheap power sources. Where will we get the power we need?
Rather than say “I’d rather stick to my grid electricity”, what are the reasonable alternatives? The enviros want to totally restrict power generation, but that is stupid. People are not going to wash their clothes by hand again.
So, what are the alternatives? Where do we get the electricity we need?
SAMURAI says:
August 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm
There is nothing “imaginary” about LFTR technology…..
All theoretical properties/concepts of LFTR technology have been proven to work through proof-of-concept experiments conducted at Oak Ridge Labs in the 60’s.
==============
There was no thorium in the Oak Ridge LFTR reactor.
Louis (August 9, 2014 at 11:01 am) asks “why France installed nuclear plants to provide 85 percent of the country’s power and other countries haven’t.“. Does it matter? All sorts of different countries make all sorts of different decisions. No matter what the topic is, there will be a country or countries at the top of the sorted list, and another or others at the bottom. Why is Germany currently building coal fired power stations while no other European country is? Why does Germany have (or recently had) a third of global installed solar power while Norway has 0.01%? Who cares.
Gamecock— The purpose of the initial Oak Ridge Lab reactor was to prove molten salt reactors worked, which is precisely what was proven.
The next experiment was a test LFTR but the idiots at NRC and govt hacks pulled the plug; they coveted the bomb-grade fissionable material that LWRs created– a mistake that has cost the world $100’s of trillions….
Anyway, China is now finishing what Dr. Weinberg started 50 years ago… What a colossal waste due to political incompetence, crony Crapitalism and warmongering.
The utilities decide on power generation options and they have rejected nuclear for mostly economic reasons: power generation by conventional fuel (coal, natural gas) is cheaper cheaper to build and to operate and without the expensive headache of disposing of the dangerous waste.
So the bloggers here who say “ignorant” and “irrational” to those who express their concerns about nuclear power generation should hurl such epithets at the utilities.
Concerning LFTR, this technology is still in the development stage and they would have us believe that it is on the showroom floor. So much for the reliability of proponents of nuclear power generation.
I’m against Nuclear power due to the cost. The price of a new plant in the UK will saddle us with debts for years to come owed to foreign governments. We need traditional power generation, but if the money spent on nuclear plant were invested in free or subsidised solar panels for UK homes we could reduce the need for energy generation through fossil fuels at a stroke. There is a major drawback, and that is once a solar panel is installed, it does not continue to generate profits for investors, which makes it unattractive. We will always need some traditional power generation,we have prime sites in the UK for hydro and tidal power generation, but decisions should be informed by a populations need for energy, not just profit.
Gareth Phillips:
Regarding solar panels instead of power generation, you will need electricity at night and on cloudy days; solar panels are limited in their usefullness, unfortunately.
CD(@CD153), the wiki list you referenced is fine as far as it goes. Better however is the huge analysis done by the Paul Scherrer Institut. They classified energy hazards based on 1. loss of life, 2. injury, 3 economic costs, 4. population displacement, for all energy generation types per unit of energy generated. They’ve also divided the analysis into Global, OECD, and non-OECD nations.
Per unit of energy generated gives the best measure of the risks any technology poses. PSI produced the original report in 1998, and they produce regular updates to it as new data is added and new events take place.
In general, per unit of energy generated, nuclear is by far the safest in terms of fatalities or injuries. In general by far, liquefied petroleum products are by far the most dangerous, considerably exceeding coal even on a non-OECD basis. For LPP, the principal hazard is transport. For coal, the principal hazard is mining.
Even hydraulic poses much greater risk than nuclear, albeit considerably less than coal (exclusively because of dam ruptures). However, the non-OECD rate is at least four times the risk of OECD installations.
I can post a link to this if you want, but it’s a massive document.
bushbunny: “The thing here in Australia is the amount of water required to cool a reactor, something like 200,000,000 litres a day!… No thanks, I’d rather stick to my grid electricity. It’s safer.”
You’re a bit confused on two points. Your grid electricity comes from coal-fired thermal plants in Australia. Their demand for water is not significantly different than that of nuclear plants. Both require cold water to condense the turbine steam. After which, the water is returned to the water body slightly warmer. It is not used up or consumed.
Also, the intake for water for any thermal plant can be reduced by closed-circuit cooling towers, which again have nothing to do with the type of energy source of the thermal plant.
The French heat wave to which you refer was about five years ago, not back in the ’80s. Plants had to reduce output, and one had to shut down, not because of lack of water, but that the discharged water would have violated the temperature limits for the river, causing fish kills. This would be the case regardless of whether the plant was nuclear or coal-fired.
You are correct that Australia does not currently have the expertise to build and operate nuclear plants. But that expertise can be acquired, and the cost is minor relative to the quantity of power generated. What is costly is if you build the infrastructure in human and technical expertise and then DON’T build the power plants afterward.
You are correct regarding seawater cooling. This is done by many nuclear plants around the world, and Australia is fortunate that most of the high electricity consumption regions are coastal ones.