Gore vs. Hansen:  Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill 57

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   hapa Posted 3:23 am
   21 May 2009

   i don't think anyone should be doing anything except checking and double-checking the possibility of strengthening the bill. if you support it, you have a special responsibility to gather every single piece of evidence against the bill's flexibility and then prove beyond a shadow that the concern is unwarranted.

   Permalink

2. 

   randino Posted 4:14 am
   21 May 2009

   This bill is not before the legislature of Ecotopia. It is - god help us - before Congress.  One should be exceedingly modest in what you expect to get from the beltway.  In fact if it 51% good and 49% bad, I call it a victory.As much as we may bitch, moan and kvetch about this climate bill, I have to ask those who are opposing it if they want no bill at all. If we would get no bill at all, in order to wait for that great, getting up morning when we get all that we want, I want to ask the detractors how they will feel if it goes down.  I, for one, will feel like shit. And if it goes down, what will that do to the morale of the entire environmental movement, here and around the world. I think that morale will collapse, and despair will set in. And please explain to me what coalition, that is even conceivable in the present political status quo, will give us what we want? Bet you can't.  In my book, something beats nothing every time. Maybe other people prefer nothing.  Maybe they enjoy the view from Mt. Disdain. That's their call.Congress is the playing field.  Plan for the parking lot.  Remember where the action is. Randy Cunningham, Cleveland OH 

   Permalink

3. 

   Steven Earl Salmony Posted 8:01 am
   21 May 2009

   Many thanks to Al Gore and Jim Hansen for all both of you are doing.The family of humanity appears to be in clear & present danger because the Masters of the Universe among us are willfully denying one of God’s greatest gifts: humankind’s carefully and skillfully developed science on human-induced climate change.Faulty reasoning, contrived logic, ideological idiocy, arrogance, material obsessiveness, greed, linear thinking and a mechanistic world view, all of which we see pervading the predominant culture in our time, could result in the children following their misguided elders down a patently unsustainable “primrose path” only to be confronted by a colossal ecologic and/or economic wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen.Can it be that acceptable standards for determining what is real and true in our culture today have not much to do with science? Consider that whatsoever the Masters of the Universe instruct their minions to proclaim vociferously, share widely, consensually validate and judge to be economically expedient, politically convenient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated is true and real…. scientific evidence of the biophysical conditions of the natural world we inhabit notwithstanding.At least to me, it seems that God’s science is censored, gag rules imposed and countless distractions presented whenever reasonable and sensible evidence comes into conflict with what the economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians prescribe to be real and true. Perhaps science does present the leaders of the predominant culture on Earth with evidence of inconvenient truths.Steven Earl Salmony
   AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
   established 2001
   http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176

   Permalink

4. 

   kkloor Posted 8:27 am
   21 May 2009

   Thanks for the useful scorecard. I've been wondering about the full makeup of both teams.As you note, it'll be interesting to see who switches sides in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I've got a slapstick take on the proceedings, if anyone is interested in diversionary entertainment.

   Permalink

5. 

   Craig Allen Posted 9:52 am
   21 May 2009

   We have the same issue here in Australia. Our government is about to implement an emissions trading system, but it clearly falls short of what the science says is necessary.But you have to get your foot in the door. The legislation that the US and Australia are about to bring will get us heading in the right direction. Once it becomes apparent that reducing emissions won't destroy our economies, and as the science and climate signals progress and the dire nature of the situation becomes ever more apparent we will be able to ramp up our efforts. Once we are moving in the right direction accelerating to the required speed is going to be a lot easier to achieve than getting there immediately from the current stand-still.The worse thing we could do now is allow our legislation to be defeated and progress stifled for another couple of years.

   Permalink

6. 

   Royal Enfield Posted 10:57 am
   21 May 2009

   How about let’s split as a movement, divide our power, let the House bill slip before Copenhagen, wind up with no international treaty as a result which would further bolster the industry arguments that India and China are not at the table, ensure no bill is ever passed, and watch sea level rise water down our major cities instead of watching reality water down our climate legislation.

   Permalink

7. 

   davescott Posted 11:11 am
   21 May 2009

   I admire James Hansen.  He's on much firmer ground when he discusses climate science than when he discusses legislative strategy.  Bad things have happened at the hands of industry lobbyists, but I count myself among those who say "strengthen the bill." 

   Permalink

8. 

   Salzman Posted 11:24 am
   21 May 2009

   I won't despair if Waxman/Markey goes down. I will rejoice that the arguments against it can now be used to develop an agenda and maybe a movement based on science, not politics, a movement that categorically rejects compromises that necessarily will hinder future improvements in the bill, a movement that adheres to principles, not the political careers of flabby congressmen afraid to challenge the polluters and industry, a movement that states clearly the right and duty of citizens to confront the compromises that denigrate democracy and science and to involve themselves in policy- and decision-making rather than leaving it to the so-called experts.

   Permalink

9. 

   RossBleakney Posted 11:49 am
   21 May 2009

   Yeah, the bill isn't perfect and neither is Al Gore. He says he is green, but I don't think he is green enough. We should elect someone who is really green, like Ralph Nader. Oh wait, we tried that 8 years ago and got Bush. Maybe that strategy won't work.Another example of the left rejecting the good for the perfect was the response to Nixon's health care plan (which looked a lot like Clinton's plan and Obama's plan). Thirty five years later and we still don't have full health care in this country (nor do we have the single payer plan that the lefties wanted). Does anyone on the left think that was a good approach?Likewise, there are also plenty of examples of programs that started small but got bigger. I can't think of any case where a modest proposal was rejected, only to be replace by a bigger one. Al Gore (a professional politician) probably can't either. I see no one on the "reject the bill" camp with anywhere near the political experience of Gore. Just pass it already and then work on a better bill.  

   Permalink

10. 

    iwilker Posted 12:53 pm
    21 May 2009

    First of all: Nice scorecard, Lisa.I'm with Randino, and Royal Enfield -- by all means do everything possible to strengthen this bill, but we're way past the point where we can afford to take our ball and go home in a snit. Failure to move it along would likely cripple the Copenhagen effort, which just can't happen. And people underestimate (a) the institution-building and experience that would result from implementation of even this bill and a less-than-adequate Copenhagen treaty, and (b) the psychological value of getting such laws into the real world, where people will -- as they always do -- gradually accept and adjust to a world in which carbon emissions carry a price tag.These benefits of getting laws/treaties done now will make it much easier to tighten the screws as we go along. We know this isn't enough. We will have to fight relentlessly to improve the law for years, decades even, along the way accepting whatever fruits of the moment are possible.@iwilker

    Permalink

11. 

    Ian G Posted 1:36 pm
    21 May 2009

    I haven't looked over the details of the proposed legislation, but I would say support it unless it is locking the United States into a "this will be as good as it gets" legislative framework. Waxman-Markey needs to be a first step bill which paves the way for increased emissions controls, not an End-All bill. If opponents can't outright defeat the bill, they are going to try and insert language that locks us permanently into the least restrictive action, which is likely what Hansen et al are worried about. If that is the case, it should be fought and blocked.

    Permalink

12. 

    Tim DeChristopher Posted 2:19 pm
    21 May 2009

    Rmember, if we reject this bill, we don't get "nothing," we get the EPA regulating carbon dioxide.  So ACES would have to give us more hope than the EPA, which at this point it does not.  In 1965, progressives accepted Medicaid as the first step to universal health care.  They're still waiting.  With climate change, there is no later to strengthen the bill.  If this passes, Obama will declare victory, Congress will declare victory, Big Green will declare victory, and everyone else will relax.  In other words, the movement will be dead, and there will be no ability to strengthen the bill.  While we take a risk by pushing for everything we need to survive, we have absolutely nothing to gain by compromising.  Halfway to survival is still not survival.

    Permalink

    1. 

       davescott Posted 3:08 pm
       21 May 2009

       To the poster who wrote "Remember, if we reject this bill, we don't get "nothing," we get the EPA regulating carbon dioxide."--------------------------In fact, the bill severely restricts EPAs ability to go after coal-fired power plants and it is crucial to understand that fact. That provision needs to come out of the bill.  Experts also are virtually unanimous in agreeing that Clean Air Act rulemaking is not the best way to regulate carbon dioxide.  Yes it is good that the Obama Administration has launched an EPA rulemaking process, which will provide a way to cut emississions even if the bill fails.  But we need strong legislation.My comments are my own, but I am a member of the Sierra Club board of directors.

       Permalink

    2. 

       davescott Posted 3:12 pm
       21 May 2009

       http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/04/brief-summary-waxman-markey-discussion-draftProhibits EPA from:Classifying GHGs as criteria pollutants on the basis of their climate impacts (Sec. 831, pg. 490)Designating any GHG as a hazardous air pollutant on the basis of its climate impacts (Sec. 832, pg. 490)Setting New Source Review standards for GHGs on the basis of their climate impacts (Sec. 833, pg. 490)Considering the climate impacts of GHG emissions when issuing operating permits under Title V of the CAA (Sec. 834, pg. 490)

       Permalink

13. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 3:02 pm
    21 May 2009

    I could take both those two glass jaws with one hand tied behind my back. 

    Permalink

14. 

    GreeningTX Posted 3:39 pm
    21 May 2009

    I get the distinct impression that the average member of the this-is-the-best-we-can-hope-for crowd knows a good deal less about the specifics of the legislation than the average member of the we-must-not-settle-for-this crowd.

    Permalink

    1. 

       hapa Posted 6:12 pm
       21 May 2009

       appearances can be deceiving, supporters are going to talk about general positives instead of debating details

       Permalink

15. 

    Gar Lipow Posted 9:04 pm
    21 May 2009

    To the "something is better than nothing crowd": Remember:
    Between offsets, downstream permits and giveways the cap-and-trade portion doe NOT lower emissions significantly.  For details http://www.grist.org/article/waxman-markey-bill-would-do-more-for-climate-without-cap-and-trade-provisioAlso because the entire architecture is wrong, improving it in the future is harder than passing a new bill because you will have large constituencies benefitting from counterfeit carbon permits (otherwise known as offsets), from the games that can be played with downsteamd permitting and sectorial caps. 

    Permalink

16. 

    Cacaoatl Posted 10:12 pm
    21 May 2009

    It's not just a matter of legislation, it's also a matter of changing attitudes. Americans as a group have to say that we will make lifestyle changes that will help cut greenhouse gas emissions. We need to conserve energy, drive less, buy less, eat locally grown produce, eat less meat...It's something that needs to happen from the bottom up not the top down.

    Permalink

17. 

    randino Posted 4:32 am
    22 May 2009

    I think the issue behind the issue is how the hell is change made in this society?  Often the people who say they are for change, are utterly clueless about how you get there.  They know how change is made in other societies, or they have  pet theoretical recipes on how it is made, but are otherwise in the dark.  In many cases, if change does happen, and doesn't come about like they thought it should, or doesn't end up looking like they wanted it to look, they will declare that we have been had, and that anyone who is still in favor of what just happened, is a fool and a sell out and will eat their words in the future.I am reading a history of SNCC - the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, whose members were the shock troops of the civil rights movement in the Deep South.  A group whose heroism was indisputable. They were largely dismissive of the major pieces of civil rights legislation passed in the 1960s.  These pieces of legislation were too compromised.  They did not fit their notions of how change should unfold.  Yet the communities they organized in, took the skills they got from SNCC, and the legislation passed by Congress, and built power and change, while SNCC went off in stranger paths that eventually destroyed it.  I think if we are going to change things in this country on climate and energy, it will have to be with combination punches.  It will be messy.  It will be contradictory.  We will see pet notions massacred wholesale.  But the important point, is that it is starting.  We have succeeded in making it an issue.  An issue that unfortunately has now been taken up by people we would not normally be seen dead with.  But it is a start, and I challenge anyone to say that is a bad thing. I may now be put on some list of the lost and the deluded for this stand.  So be it, but to really see where I am coming from, let me say that I applaud the actions of such groups as the Cheasapeak Climate group that got arrested at Boucher's office yesterday, as I applaud those who have worked for this legislation to get out of committee.  Contradictory?  Well, if it is, then welcome to the maddeningly contradictory and sloppy world of change.  All I care about is moving that ball. How it is done is irrelevant to me.Randy Cunningham,  Cleveland OH. 

    Permalink

18. 

    mwildfire Posted 6:36 am
    22 May 2009

    Nobody's really arguing the specifics of the bill--this argument mainly comes down to whether you believe that weak and inadequate legislation paves the way for better legislation later, or makes it less likely. Hard to say who's right--but unfortunately it's irrelevant. The reality is that as long as we have a system in which members of Congress get elected on the basis of who spends the most money, 90% of which comes from corporations with an axe to grind, we will NEVER get the legislation we need. And no, we can't solve the problem without policy change--personal reduction of carbon footprints is very important but there's a whole lot an individual can't do, or can't stop.That said, I clearly side with Hansen. I read a terribly harrowing eyewitness report from Bali which said it had become an obscene corporate extravaganza, everyone jockeying to see how they could make a bundle with credits and trading and REDD and offsets and all that. Meanwhile the indigenous people who said they had taken good care of their lands and should not be pushed off in favor of REDD schemes were ignored. And this post said that Gore was responsible for pushing Kyoto in the direction of cap-and-trade, which is nice for business, instead of other approaches which would have been more effective--and then of course it turned out his country never even signed on anyway.

    Permalink

19. 

    robert.hargraves Posted 5:05 am
    23 May 2009

    There is another option besides Gore, Hansen, and middle-of-the-road.We should, and can, develop a new energy technology that produces power cheaper than from coal, rather than fidgeting with a new tax structure that we hope will reduce carbon emissions. Remember that Europe has spent $50 billion in carbon credit trading, with the result that CO2 emissions increased and the largest payment went to Germany's biggest coal-burning power utility. Our world's problems are global, not limited to wealthy nations. China produces more CO2 than the US. The developing nations will never agree to carbon taxes that limit their potential to achieve economic prosperity through inexpensive energy. They point out that their per-capita CO2 emissions are a fraction of those of OECD citizens, and that they should be allowed to obtain as much fossil fuel energy as did the OECD nations on their march to prosperity. That's why carbon taxes will not work. Krugman advocates economic world war by taxing imports produced in CO2 emitting countries.The way to dissuade nations from buring coal is to provide an alternative energy technology that is cheaper than coal, so that they benefit from the increased economic productivity of lower cost energy, to say nothing of the decreased productivity of more taxes.
    One such technology is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, which produces energy cheaper than from coal. It relies on ample thorium fuel, which is sufficient to power the earth for millenia. It produces little waste and can even consume the existing spent fuel at today's nuclear power plants. An introduction to the technology and benefits is available in the Aim High! presentation athttp://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh   

    Permalink

20. 

    Salzman Posted 6:30 am
    23 May 2009

    The coven of disgruntled witches is reconvening over the black kettle marked ""4th Generation Reactors". Not being content with the witches' brew of radioactivity released by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the reconstituted nuclear gang is now repackaging their poison just like Philip Morris did by changing its name to Altria. But instead of rehashing the dangers of nuclear power, we need go no further than the issue of cost and time. A new reactor will cost, minimally, $10 billion, hence the witches' beseeching of congress to grant them loan guarantees, since Wall St. is shunning them as it does all purveyors of voodoo. To replace all our existing coal plants with nukes would not only take decades (when we have only a handful of years to fend off the worst impacts of global warming) but would cost trillions of dollars that could be spent on wind turbines and various forms of solar power and which could be producing power in a few years. It is not surprising that nuclear engineers have pounced on the uninformed public and media, who are desperately looking for a silver bullet that will enable them to continue using energy in the same way and to the same extent as the last fifty years. They are looking in the wrong place, as usual. Energy efficiency , if mandated, could reduce our energy consumption by 30% within a few years, and thus buy us the time to seriously convert to a renewable energy economy. But the nuke nuts don't think in these terms. And neither does our government, sad to say. So we are doomed to useless schemes like Waxman/Markey and unachievable ones like nuclear power. As the late John Gofman said when told that coal plants were worse than nukes: I prefer a choice that doesn't offer me death by guns or death by knives. We need to make this clear to the nuclear gang too.

    Permalink

    1. 

       Kirk Sorensen Posted 5:16 pm
       23 May 2009

       What a hateful and utterly inaccurate comment, Ms. Salzman.You'd be harder pressed to find a technology that has done more to reduce CO2 emissions over the last fifty years than nuclear power.Your characterization of nuclear engineers as "witches" over their "black kettle" waiting to release their "brew of radioactivity" is absolutely the opposite of what nuclear engineers do.  We work to protect the public from dangerous levels of radiation while releasing the awesome power of the atom to drive our modern society in an environmentally friendly way.The fission products generated from fission are very radioactive but decay quickly to stable nuclides.  I've modeled this process extensively myself and it is quite remarkable just how quickly most fission products achieve complete stability and harmlessness.Fourth-generation nuclear reactors like the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) are specifically designed to improve public safety (by making an exceptionally improbable event essentially impossible) and to reduce the amount of long-lived radionuclides generated through energy generation.It would behoove you to learn more about something this important before you belittle and insult the very people who are doing the most to save the planet we all love.(note that I said "dangerous level of radioactivity"--because radioactivity is natural and all around us, and was here long before man ever learned anything about the atom)

       Permalink

    2. 

       Atomicrod Posted 5:45 pm
       23 May 2009

       James Hansen is far more correct than Al Gore on this issue. Perhaps that is because he is an honest scientist with an impressive record of achievement who reveres the truth rather than an opportunistic politician/businessman/salesman who appears to revere financial rewards here on earth. Hansen is a career government scientist with a modest middle class lifestyle while Gore lives an expansive, carbon intensive lifestyle with major investments in the kinds of energy companies that will directly benefit from the bill. It is no surprise to me that a number of "environmental" groups and spokesmen favor the Waxman-Markey bill in its current form. They have been representing the interests of companies like GE, Siemens, Shell, and Vestas for decades. I am one of those witches who is "desperately" looking for a silver bullet. I strongly believe that supplying clean, reliable, affordable energy is a respectable calling. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to sharing what I know about the amazing, natural qualities of heavy metal fission.It is a process that produces vast quantities of controllable heat with tiny material inputs and almost miniscule waste volumes. It is well known that we can turn that heat into electricity, but we have also proven that we can used the heat directly for industrial processes that otherwise would consume gas, oil or coal and we have shown that we know how to push very large ships around the ocean using the same kind of heat to power conversion process. Those ships would all otherwise be burning oil and creating a greater demand for that already high demand, high profit product. In the fifty years that the US has used commercial quantities of atomic fission, we have produced a grand total of 60,000 tons of waste material. A single coal fired power plant takes about 2 days to produce that amount of material.All of the atomic fission byproducts are carefully stored and inventoried in containers that keep the material out of our common environment. Coal power plant waste is immediately released via tall smokestacks to our shared atmosphere or piled up in enormous, unrestrained piles or uncovered ponds with earthen dams that have a history of failure. In just a brief period during the 1960s and 70s we started enough nuclear projects to eliminate coal from the US electrical power market. Unfortunately, about 60% of those projects were cancelled, partially as a result of pressure from people like Salzman and partially as a result of protective action by the coal and gas industries that pointed out an "oversupply" situation that was threatening their very existence. Fortunately, we did complete enough of the started projects that we now produce more than 800 terrawatts-hours of electrical power each year with fission, more than 20 times as much as wind and solar combined. By the way, Salzman, I have never worked for the nuclear industry. I learned my nuclear trade as a professional naval officer and continue to work for all of you. My career has no dependence on the success or failure of the commercial nuclear power industry, but I believe that the future prosperity of the nation for my children and near future grandchildren is very dependent on expanded use of heavy metal fission as a fossil fuel replacement. Rod Adams
       Publisher, Atomic Insights
       Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

       Permalink

    3. 

       Kirk Sorensen Posted 6:48 pm
       23 May 2009

       Speaking of radiation, Ms. Salzman, let's take a moment to pause and reflect on how radiation and nuclear technology directly contributed to saving Sen. Edward Kennedy's life:http://depletedcranium.com/?p=2756

       Permalink

21. 

    mwildfire Posted 8:04 am
    24 May 2009

    Okay, you atomic proponents: show me the beef. There are a lot of irrelevancies here; the real questions are:1. Do you have any way of disposing of the waste that's safe as long as it takes, even in the likely event that our descendents are illiterate? To compare the volume with that of coal waste is absurdly misleading--coal ash is only mildly toxic (and I am primarily an anti-coal activist) whereas some of that 60,000 tons is the most intensely toxic substance on Earth--and in any event, the question is NOT whether we want to go forward with coal or with nuclear, but whether there is any reason to invest billions in nukes (or carbon sequestration) rather than in the truly renewable and clean technologies that currently are expensive and intermittent--problems likely solvable if solar in particular were given the kind of government investment nukes have enjoyed.2. Do the fourth generation reactors produce material that terrorists could fashion bombs out of, or could they use the plants themselves in an act of terrorism?3. Does the technology get around the problem of limited supplies of uranium?4. Even if you have positive answers to these three concerns--which is to say, even if the so-called "fourth generation" is distinctly different from nukes as we've known them--there is still the question of whether they can be brought online quickly and at a cost that makes them preferrable to solar and wind and other renewable schemes.I suppose it's possible that they really are different--I know Hansen is pushing this option, and I have a lot of respect for him for reasons similar to what Sorenson says. But show me the evidence.

    Permalink

    1. 

       Tom Blees Posted 3:30 pm
       27 May 2009

        Your three concerns, MWILDFIRE, are all dealt with at length in my book "Prescription for the Planet." You can read the first chapter online at my website and I've also posted a chapter on Integral Fast Reactor technology from the book that will answer most of your questions, though there's much more in the book on the topic. You can find that chapter here: http://tinyurl.com/cwvn8n Barry Brook's web site bravenewclimate.com has been having exhaustive conversations about Gen IV nuclear power for months now. It's a treasure trove of data and links and explanations for anyone who's truly open to considering the science. Ms. Salzman, alas, is not.   Neither I nor any of the other "atomic proponents" I know who comment here are in any way connected with the nuclear industry, a baseless allegation meant as a handy slur by those who would seek to discredit anyone who contends that nuclear power should be used. I do, admittedly, know people who are involved in the nuclear industry and am proud to count them among my friends. They are not avaricious fiends out to destroy the world and poison your (and their) progeny.   Nuclear power can be utilized safely, economically, and yes, quickly, provided anti-nuclear ideologues don't derail it. Ask your library to get my book, and you'll find a thorough discussion of the technology, economics, safety, history, and more.   http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com 

       Permalink

    2. 

       splashy Posted 9:08 pm
       27 May 2009

       All good points. I'm thinking that solar and wind can be brought online very quickly - much faster than nuclear, not to mention that solar and wind can be anywhere and everywhere, sized to the needs and microclimates. It can be done in increments, and use the existing roofs that are everywhere.To me, something like a nuclear power plant that has to be monitored 24/7 or it can cause major problems for the surrounding area is not a good thing. Solar and wind are another matter. If they go down, perhaps a cow grazing below could be hurt, someone could fall from a wind generator, or maybe someone could get elecrtocuted if they weren't careful, but that's about it.

       Permalink

       1. 

          Tom Blees Posted 8:25 am
          28 May 2009

          <!--StartFragment-->That would be all well and
          good if wind or solar could provide anywhere near the electricity and 24/7
          reliability of a nuclear plant, which contrary to uninformed or misleading
          opinion can, have, and are being built in 3-4 years, not ten or more. As the new
          crop of Gen III and III+ reactors come online, you'll see three-year timelines
          as the norm except in places where political obstacles slow things down. It
          does no good to tout the benefits of one system that isn't comparable to
          another. Wind and solar simply cannot provide all the energy we need, and
          anyone who's done a serious study of the statistics can tell you that. See
          David MacKay's and Ted Trainer's books, among others, for a serious discussion
          of what wind and solar can and can't do. Look at Germany for a case study in the potential
          of renewables. For over 25 years Germany has
          had massive public subsidization of wind power to the point where 38% of the
          world's wind power is produced in Germany, and about half of all
          the world's solar power. The upshot? Subsidies for this "green"
          electricity of up to 7 times USA average rates, and Germany now produces about
          7% of their energy from wind and a trivial 0.5% from solar (this from a
          pro-solar website, no less). Worse yet, most of that wind power is produced in
          a couple months during the winter, with long stretches of the rest of the year
          where wind turbines are operating at a tiny fraction of that capacity. If Germany can provide such an insignificant portion of their
          electricity needs now from their wind and solar, what happens as they switch to
          an all-electric future? The idea that Germany and the USA and other developed
          countries can provide all their energy needs from renewables strains credulity
          to the breaking point if you look at what Germany's done, and the fact that
          they've got over two dozen coal-fired power plants on the drawing board now is
          a damning testimony to the failure of their all-renewable fantasy. But even if,
          against all odds and at staggering cost, Germany and other developed countries
          could conceivably pull off an all-renewable energy future, would the entire
          world follow suit? It wouldn't matter a bit if Chinese and Indian coal-fired
          power plants continued to belch forth CO2. We'd all still be cooked
          (metaphorically if not literally).<!--EndFragment--> 

          Permalink

22. 

    Atomicrod Posted 8:31 am
    24 May 2009

    MWILDFIRE - An honest "show me" attitude is quite refreshing, but I do not want to take the conversation way off topic here. Both Kirk and I have published extensively on the topic and have solid answers to your questions on our respective blogs - Kirk's is Energy from Thorium, mine is Atomic Insights. We both have search enabled on our sites - please read and ask clarifying questions.I will answer your question about waste disposal - we know how to store it safely and we have been doing so for more than 50 years without a single known incident of death or even injury being caused by accidental exposure to used nuclear fuel. Protection is a simple matter of applying a mantra that all nuclear workers learn very early in their career - use time, distance and shielding. Minimize your exposure times, stay away from concentrated sources and put shielding between you and the source. When we get tired of simply storing the material, we can recycle it into new fuel and other beneficial uses.Just because you have been taught, often by people with strong economic motives for discouraging the use of atomic fission as a replacement for fossil fuel combustion, that there is no long term solution for used nuclear fuel does not mean that your education on the topic is complete or accurate.Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights; Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

    Permalink

23. 

    Salzman Posted 9:05 am
    24 May 2009

    I have been arguing with these guys recently and over the past thirty years with all the nuclear proponents. THEIR motives are the ones to be scrutinized, not mine. This is all the more urgent given their misleading statements about nuclear wastes and proliferation. The 4th generation reactors they are promoting will both produce and utilize plutonium, which they propose to deal with by "burning" it in the reactor to shorten its 24,500 year half life. Unfortunately reprocessing is the filthiest part of the nuclear fuel cycle, contaminating workers, tools, premises irrevocably. This was done at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West Valley NY until it was closed due to high and wide contamination of Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Eric. The reactors the nuclear gang is promoting will, like all reactors, become highly radioactive and some technical sources say they would have to be completely replaced within a couple of decades. But all this is irrelevant given that a single reactor will cost $10 billion, a fact that Wall St. has recognized by refusing to invest in them. This has forced the nuclear industry to go hat in hand to congress, which has rewarded them with taxpayer's loan guarantees. OK, so you build one reactor. It takes ten years to come on line, and replaces one coal fired plant. But we need to replace coal entirely, right? So you need to build 100 reactors to replace all operating coal plants: a cool $1 trillion...which could buy all the wind turbines, photovoltaics, solar collectors and solar thermal plants we could need for the whole country, and which could come on line within two or three years, not ten. Clearly nuclear plants have NO potential for displacing coal plants or mitigating CO2 emissions within any time frame of relevance. This has been proven in an important report done at William and Mary College on why nuclear reactors are utterly USELESS in mitigating global warming. So the issue of safety becomes irrelevant to the discussion. So why do these guys keep on with this propaganda?

    Permalink

    1. 

       Kirk Sorensen Posted 11:41 am
       24 May 2009

       "The 4th generation reactors they are promoting will both produce and
       utilize plutonium, which they propose to deal with by "burning" it in
       the reactor to shorten its 24,500 year half life."That is not the case with the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.  It is not designed to produce plutonium (and indeed can be operated in such a way that eliminates its generation).  Any small amount of plutonium that it did produce would be plutonium-238, with a ~70 year half-life, not Pu-239, which has the longer half-life.  Pu-238 is FAR more radioactive than Pu-239, due to its shorter half-life, but also decays more quickly, due to its shorter half-life.  Plutonium-238 is highly desirable for use in NASA deep space missions.If it is desired to dispose of plutonium, the practical way to do this is through fission in a reactor.  In that manner a great deal of energy can be extracted as the plutonium is consumed.The basic fuel of the LFTR is thorium, which has a 14 billion year half life, which means it has exceptionally low levels of radioactivity.Long half-life = low radioactivity = less dangerouShort half-life = high radioactivity = will decay to stability soon

       Permalink

    2. 

       Kirk Sorensen Posted 11:41 am
       24 May 2009

       "The 4th generation reactors they are promoting will both produce and
       utilize plutonium, which they propose to deal with by "burning" it in
       the reactor to shorten its 24,500 year half life."That is not the case with the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.  It is not designed to produce plutonium (and indeed can be operated in such a way that eliminates its generation).  Any small amount of plutonium that it did produce would be plutonium-238, with a ~70 year half-life, not Pu-239, which has the longer half-life.  Pu-238 is FAR more radioactive than Pu-239, due to its shorter half-life, but also decays more quickly, due to its shorter half-life.  Plutonium-238 is highly desirable for use in NASA deep space missions.If it is desired to dispose of plutonium, the practical way to do this is through fission in a reactor.  In that manner a great deal of energy can be extracted as the plutonium is consumed.The basic fuel of the LFTR is thorium, which has a 14 billion year half life, which means it has exceptionally low levels of radioactivity.Long half-life = low radioactivity = less dangerousShort half-life = high radioactivity = will decay to stability soon

       Permalink

24. 

    robert.hargraves Posted 9:24 am
    24 May 2009

    Thank you for the opportunity to respond.1. Waste
    Current spent nuclear fuell contains two kinds of "waste". (1) heavy metals like plutonium that are radioactive for hundreds-to-billions of years, and (2) much more radioactive fission products like barium and krypton that result from dividing the uranium nuclei in two. Slides 66-68 of the Aim High presentation illustrate the radioactivity of each. Spent fuel from a LWR contains both, so it is kept in cooling pools while most of the fission products decay, then transferred to concrete casks. Maybe someday the remaining uranium and plutonium will be used for fuel.Keep in mind that long-lived elements are less radioactive. Something with a million-year half-life decays at 1/10,000 the rate of something with a hundred-year half-life. Also, consider that the total nuclear fuel waste is not much compared to the 1,000 times that amount of toxic waste that is sequestered and registered with the EPA annually. And toxins like arsenic never decay.The liquid fluoride thorium reactor generates <1% of the long-lived elements such as plutonium, as illustrated in slides 65 and 69 of Aim High. This is because thorium is a lighter element than uranium, and because the small amount of plutonium that is generated remains in the reactor to be consumed.2. Terrorism
    No, terrorists can not use any material from an LFTR to make weeapons; all fissile material remains in the reactor. No fissile material is ever transported to the reactor, except for startup, and that material could be spent nuclear fuel from LWRs. LFTRs would be hardened in underground silos. But could a rogue nation use an LFTR to manufacture weapons material? This proliferation concern is addressed because the generated fuel inevitably contains U-232 whose decay chain emits hazardous gamma radiation that prevents its use in manufacturing. As a practical matter, no nation would ever attempt to use any power reactor to generate nuclear weapons material, because it is so much easier with existing technologies (a) centrifuge enrichment of uranium (Pakistan, Iran,...) or (b) plutonium production in a reactor designed for frequent fuel changes (India, North Korea,...).3. Fuel supply
    The advantage of thorium is that it is 3X more plentiful than uranium. Also, the LFTR consumes 100% of the thorium, while today's LWRs consume < 0.7% of the uranium. It costs about $100,000 per ton. One ton will run a 1,000 megawatt power plant for a year. 500 tons would generate all the electric powerr for the US. There are 600,000 tons in Lemhi Pass in Idaho.4. Development time
    Development time for fourth generation technologies today is nearly infinite, because we in the US invest so little in it -- perhaps $100,000/year in molten salt reactor research. France has a group of about 20 people. Others do theoretical work in Japan, Russia, Czech Republic, Norway, Canada,... There is no operating research reactor, although two existed at Oak Ridge in the 1970s.Not enough energy can be generated from renewables; poeople don't do the math. Check the new book by David MacKay, Sustainable Energy: without the hot air.We won't make any progress unless we establish a national energy project. Remember that the Apollo moon program was accomplished by NASA in 8 years, and the Manhattan Project in 3 years.On-line study course
    For a more detailed overview, please check out the on-line course materials for Energy Policy and Environmental Choices: Rethinking Nuclear Power.

    Permalink

25. 

    Atomicrod Posted 9:31 am
    24 May 2009

    Salzman - If someone was proposing to use the same technology as was used at West Valley, you might have a point. That is not at all what either Kirk or I advocate.If the people designing and building nuclear power plants were stupid or brainwashed, you might have a point. However, most of us are quite good at what we do and we are also pretty dedicated to our job and motivated by the potential we have for making the world a better place. Feel free to ascribe whatever motives to wish, but rest assured that we are not faceless tools who will accept your diatribes without response.Going back to the main point of the initial post which compares the positions of Al Gore and his followers with Dr. James Hansen and his supporters. I agree with Dr. James Hansen that replacing coal burning in power plants is an important goal which would be made much easier with a straight TAX on carbon than with a convoluted, politically determined "cap and trade" system.I also agree with his analysis that both Gen III and Gen IV reactors offer potential solutions enabling that goal. Here is what he said in his January 2009 open letter to President Obama: Moreover, improved (3rd  generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.   In our opinion, 4th GNP deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material.  Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.  Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste.  4th GNP can “burn” that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. The point is that Hansen recognizes that the obstacles associated with deploying new nuclear power plants are solvable by science and engineering. What he does not clearly state, but implies, is that solving intermittency challenges of wind and solar cannot be solved no matter how much science and engineering are applied - the weather will always be unpredictable.Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

    Permalink

26. 

    hapa Posted 10:12 am
    24 May 2009

    oh look, it is nearing summer and the glowbugs are out, and they have hijacked the thread, without making a single comment on the gore-hansen point of agreement, a 2030 target for defossilizing. gosh i wonder why they don't fly near that burning concern. i wonder i wonder i wonder.

    Permalink

27. 

    Salzman Posted 10:24 am
    24 May 2009

    What Gore and Hansen agree on has been rendered irrelevant by the Waxman/Markey bill. Were Gore sincere about decarbonizing by 2030, he would not be supporting the cap and trade regime, which will allow coal fueled plants to operate indefinitely. Nor would he accept the pathetic emissions reduction of 17% by 2020. Gore, by supporting this bill, has thrown climate science to the wolves. Hansen's proposals, on the other hand, are completely consistent and meaningful: stabilization of CO2 emissions at their present level, phasing out coal plants, a stiff carbon tax that prices carbon high enough to encourage serious energy efficiency and conservation and which spurs a faster transition by utilities to renewable energy as they phase out fossil fuels. The Waxman/Markey bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the science. The science tells us that we have to REDUCE CO2 concentrations back to 350 ppm (we are at 389 ppm now and will be at 400 within the coming decade at our present rate of energy consumption (many scientists say we are already at 400 ppm carbon equivalent, which counts other greenhouse gases in, not just CO2), at which point all bets are off and cutting back to 350 ppm will probably be impossible). There are a whole slew of treasonous groups and people responsible for the deceit of this energy bill, but all of us will bear the consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I believe that the passage of this bill has shut off, for all practical purposes, any chance of getting back to 350 ppm or decarbonizing by 2030, a date that is probably too late. In other words, we are already toast.

    Permalink

    1. 

       Kirk Sorensen Posted 11:31 am
       24 May 2009

       Finally something we agree on!Yes, to reach the ambitious goals of decarbonizing by 2030 we must replace coal as quickly as possible.  Ms. Salzman believes that efficiency and solar thermal will do this (I think she's dead wrong) and I believe that thorium and the liquid-fluoride reactor are the way to do it.She thinks that there's no solution to waste and safety; I know there is.She thinks a 4th-gen power plant will cost $10B apiece; I don't know what they will cost but I think it's very likely they'll be much less than this if they're based on LFTR technology.As far as hijacking the thread, Mr. Hapa, I'm sure Dr. Hansen would disagree with you, since this is precisely the subject that occupied so much of his letter to the President.  I attended the workshop that preceded the writing of this letter and briefed Dr. Hansen and a group of energy experts on this technology and received their ideas and criticisms as we discussed it further.  The fact that Dr. Hansen included the importance of 4th-gen reactors so prominently in his letter tells me that he must have accepted to some degree our arguments, which as Mr. Adams points out, are made clearly on our respective blogs and are available for you to study at your leisure.

       Permalink

28. 

    hapa Posted 10:37 am
    24 May 2009

    joe romm thinks the current political disconnect from reality will last a decade. i think it will last 5 more years, because lately everything's been moving faster. in the mean time, the "great recession" has stabilized human emissions for maybe that long, and i'd already basically concluded we'd peaked, as joe declared recently. it looks like waxman-markey is corrupt and troublesome on its pricing side and insufficient on its implementation side. but i'm not taking any bets on this stuff lately, any more than i would bet someone what world GDP will be in 2014. we're into the transition and our spreadsheets are full of "TBD" cells.

    Permalink

29. 

    LaurieWilliams Posted 11:30 pm
    24 May 2009

    We are long-time environmental attorneys.  Allan is an expert in cap-and-trade and offsets.  Many people who claim that the Waxman-Markey bill is “good enough” use the justification that the cap-and-trade system for Acid Rain program has been highly successful.  Relying on the acid rain experience ignores crucial differences between the two challenges.  Acid Rain required moderate alterations to existing facilities and infrastructure.  Reductions were accomplished primarily by a fuel switch to readily-available, affordable, low-sulfur coal.  In contrast, climate change requires massive investment in substitutes for fossil fuel energy -- the scale-up of new clean energy infrastructure.  Many cap-and-trade experts (e.g., David Montgomery, cited in the NYTimes on Sunday 5/17) agree that cap-and-trade does not apply to the much more difficult problem of CO2 emissions.  A system that does not put a predictable price on carbon, insuring that currently available clean energy alternatives become price-competitive with fossil fuels within a known time-frame cannot deliver the change we need. Waxman-Markey completely fails to do this.  In addition, 2 billion metric tons per year of outside offsets further destroys the integrity of an inapplicable approach.   Waxman-Markey will lock in a completely ineffective approach, using a methodology ideal for handing our political favors, but completely incapable of correcting incentives for conservation and a rapid transition to clean energy.  As mentioned by other commenters, additional flaws include weak controls on coal fired power plants and stripping EPA of the power to regulate CO2.Our conclusion – Waxman-Markey is not good enough!  Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel   

    Permalink

    1. 

       Atomicrod Posted 12:20 am
       25 May 2009

       Laurie and Allan - thank you for sharing your expertise. Do you have a web site or articles published with more of the technical details of the argument summarized above?One of the infrequently discussed aspects of the acid rain cap and trade system was that it contributed to a significant rise in CO2 and fly ash emissions because the low cost way to meet standards was to increase the transport of low sulfur, but also low energy density coal from the Power River basin. That coal source is often thousands of miles from the population centers and the established coal plants. Low energy density (7,000 BTU per ton vice 10,000 for anthracite) means that the coal trains need 30% more car loads to deliver the same quantity of energy.For those plants that did install scrubbers so they could continue burning eastern coal, the plants had to increase the amount of coal burned for the same electrical power output to cover the increased energy requirements of their newly installed equipment.Of course, the sulfur scrubbed from the emissions stacks did not magically disappear. Instead of being distributed into the atmosphere, it is simply combined with other chemicals and put into slurry ponds near the coal facility. Though the industry publicizes recycling programs for the sludge that results, only a tiny portion of that material is currently being recycled. Though certain components of the sludge have some value, there are also a lot of contaminants from the fly ash that make most potential customers a bit wary of using it. http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/fgd1.htmPeople who point to the "success" of the acid rain focused cap and trade as a model for CO2 cap and trade do not give me much reason for optimism about its long term positive effects. A straightforward tax on emissions seems to be a much more viable and direct way to discourage atmospheric waste dumping.Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

       Permalink

       1. 

          hapa Posted 1:46 am
          25 May 2009

          that's fascinating, rod, that you see the enforcement mechanism as being responsible for determining the goals and technologies of the program. that's -- baseless, and likewise unproven in your narrative, but are you, by any chance, concerned that supporters of cap-and-trade have a negative point of view toward nuclear subsidies? because that would add a sort of logic to the story.

          Permalink

30. 

    Atomicrod Posted 2:07 am
    25 May 2009

    HAPA - I happen to have a negative view toward nuclear subsidies as well. I am a reluctant supporter of well designed loan guarantees. As has been often repeated, typical investment bankers have been somewhat reluctant to fund large scale, long term nuclear construction projects because the risk/reward profile does not suit their desire for rapid returns that can generate large bonuses and fees. Well designed programs to enable nuclear plant construction should have essentially the same impact on taxpayers as a well designed home loan guarantee program. My example is the VA loan program, which has always been self supporting because it charges adequate fees and serves a customer base that is likely to repay the money and not need any bailout.
    
    Based on what I know about the proposed nuclear power plant projects and the people who are running them, I expect that they will also be solid investments with good prospects for loan repayment as long as the operators are able to overcome natural and man-made obstacles to their success.
    With regard to the mechanism of cap and trade versus a tax, it is quite clear to me that the trading mechanism is flawed because the price of polluting will vary widely and because the current plan is to give away the right to pollute to the organizations that have already done the most damage to our shared environment with the size of the gift being directly proportional to the previous damage done. That is what you get when you allocate credits based on historical emissions levels.
    With the acid rain trading program, the mechanism was responsible for the choice of compliance path - there was no mandate to install emissions control equipment so the utilities opted for fuel switching as a cheaper method of compliance.

    Permalink

    1. 

       hapa Posted 3:22 am
       25 May 2009

        With the acid rain trading program, the mechanism was responsible for the choice of compliance path - there was no mandate to install emissions control equipment so the utilities opted for fuel switching as a cheaper method of compliance.ah. i see. you're arguing that a tax is a technology mandate. that's nonsense, as is:I am a reluctant supporter of well designed loan guarantees.ok. reluctant. now. you suggested i visit your blog to gather information. here is your "reluctance":http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-defense-of-nuclear-plant-loan.htmlI believe with all of my being that such loan guarantees for solid, well thought out investments are part of what made America one of the real economic powerhouses of the world....Coming back around to nuclear power plant loan guarantees ... there should be a lot of winners.now i have to tell you something. i'm talking with you because i'm awake late at night and i'm bored and when i get this way there are very few things that are more entertaining to me than watching a nuclear advocate choosing words.

       Permalink

       1. 

          Kirk Sorensen Posted 6:17 am
          25 May 2009

          My, my, you're pompous.  Don't feel any special need to talk to me.

          Permalink

31. 

    Atomicrod Posted 4:15 am
    25 May 2009

    HAPA - As I said, I am a reluctant supporter who does not like the idea of providing government money to large corporations. I came to my support of the loan guarantee program after a series of discussions over a several year period of time - in my mind, that qualifies as reluctance.For example, here is a quote from a post I made back in Jan 2006:(Ref: http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_01-25-06.html)"I share your frustration about the subsidies provided to the nuclear power industry, but those are more a factor of our political system and the fact that companies like General Electric, Westinghouse and monopoly utility companies have a long history of demanding and receiving taxpayer dollars. That is not nuclear fission's fault, those companies look for and often receive subsidies for all of their development work."With the current energy situation and the changes in the financial market since 2006, I stand by my decision to support an expanded loan guarantee program as a way to enable nuclear fission plants to be developed and to put Americans to work in a meaningful enterprise that offers a reliable, clean source of power for another couple of generations.BTW- sorry you cannot sleep but I am happy to have contributed to your entertainment.
    Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights

    Permalink

32. 

    mimi Posted 4:05 pm
    25 May 2009

    mimi is happy that something is being done. finally.http://twitter.com/yomimi

    Permalink

33. 

    Axil Posted 11:12 pm
    25 May 2009

    Many of our decision makers are afflicted with the silver bullet syndrome. They say that all we need to do is begin a Manhattan styled project to solve our energy problems; we got to the moon is 10 years, why not do the same thing for our energy production. But the reply from journeymen researchers like Chu and the energy experts from MIT and Harvard is that “there is no such thing as a silver bullet”. What are they telling us? What does that really mean in detail? To start off with, any given energy production system is extremely complex. These systems take many years to really understand in depth and to mature. No one is wise enough to project the final performance and applicability of a system as laid down on paper or even as a prototype before it reaches it mature deployed form. Small incremental improvements deep inside the interworkings of such a system can result in a major advance it its evolution.  Yes, evolution is a good word. Just like an organism evolves by simple small steps from a more primitive form into a more advanced species that can better adapt to its environment, so it is also true for a complex energy production or utilization system as it is constantly perfected to better fulfill it energy production or consumption role.  These experienced researchers tempered and tested though wide life long experiences have without exception gone through the school of hard knocks. They can look back over many decades of errors, misjudgments, and less than perfect strap-on fixes that they have personally experienced first hand throughout their long careers, or witnessed up close by watching fellow workers, or have heard about through the professional grapevine.   They have seen wonderful ideas turned into unwieldy Rube Goldberg atrocities that they can only shake their heads at. This usually results in humility, a willingness to listen, and a deep and abiding respect for the ideas of others in the field.  Then there is a relentless and random change in the political landscape to deal with. These changing flight of public fancy can either discredit or empower any given power system with a random and unpredictable capriciousness.  No energy solution is guarantied to work no matter how good it looks in the beginning. There are too many variables to consider; too many unknowns that are unforeseen; too many nasty tricks that the future can unfold.  For a system that will be around for many decades or centuries, too much can happen to change things down those long corridors of years. Think back to the days when the internal combustion engine was developed a century ago, who would have predicted global warming as an important factor in its initial design evaluation. Would the prophet who would have foreseen such a condition in a blinding flash of insight be laughed out of town --- of course. But there is a fundamental constant in all of these musings; a universal fact of life that has been true since the Italian Renaissance; when Leonardo da Vinci,  and Michelangelo, plied their trade. What any experienced energy developer wants is a secure source of funding that is not subject to the arbitrary whims of popular fads and perceptions. Anything that is hard and takes a long time to do needs rock solid stability and an unwavering commitment --- a patron to ease the way. In research and development, at the roots of all stability is a steady and reliable source of funding. It takes human as well as technical resources to sustain a long development effort. People will gladly devote their lives to the development of a technology. But they must first be supported for a lifetime in that work and granted respect for what they are trying to do.  Any given system may not work well in the end but those that have tried their best to bring it to completion at the least deserve respect. They really don’t deserve to have their motives questioned. But a healthy and a constructive competition that will naturally develop among the various groups of developers is also a good thing to foster. When people invest their egos in their work, and sense respect for what they do, then they will press though seemingly insurmountable obstacles to get to the final goal. In addition, cost effectiveness is important. A functional, open ended, safe, and versatile energy system is not enough; it must be cost effective and efficient. A solar technology might function just fine, but it may need many years or even decades of innovation to be cost effective.    Chu thinks it will take 100 years to perfect solar energy. Wind power needs more reliable wind turbines, blades, lower operation and maintenance costs and a complimentary power storage technology. We should not let these shortcomings discourage their continued development. Nuclear power cost and efficiency must also improve. There are electric transportation systems to develop and liquid fuels cycles to invent.  Energy systems are just too big and risky to let the market pick the field of options. Long term energy stability can only be provided by a public funding approach. In the good old days, big companies provided research support in centers like Bell Labs, but these companies have been transfigured, broken up, and right sized, to compete in the global marketplace where investment in the future is a fatal diversion of focus. To provide this stability, both wise energy systems developers and savvy customers want an non-governmental R&D funding source that is off-budget, funded by its energy users, and exclusively devoted to conceive and improve the broadest range of possible energy systems.   What must be avoided is destructive and cut-throat competition for meager energy development funding that exists today with each camp trying their best to undermine or destroy the credibility of the other potential energy providers with the victor in control of the pathetically inadequate development funds.  Just like the motorist have funded advancements in oil drilling technology over 100 years, so too the electric customer should fund a diverse and robust electric power production portfolio. A fair number of diverse electric power production platforms should be developed, put on the shelf, and made available to the world wide power producers to acquire and fill their needs as they see fit.  The world is a big place. No one solution meets every need. In a perfect world, when the situation changes, there will be an appropriate energy system waiting on the shelf to fill the new needs. There must not be technology loch-in. The inability to change direction may result in unfortunate outcomes. Let the market decide which solution is the right one for a given age. But there first must be a wide array of energy solutions available to support this choice.  The best guaranty for "a secure energy future" and the "survival of civilization as we know it" is a robust and diverse portfolio of energy systems waiting there on the shelf to fill the need when the situation calls for it.

    Permalink

34. 

    mwildfire Posted 7:44 am
    26 May 2009

    Axil--if I understand you, you're saying that no one knows which technologies will prove best so all should be funded for the R & D all need, and then the market can decide which take a bigger share over time. But you want a non-governmental source of funding, to somehow come from electricity (and liquid fuel?) users. I see some merit to your points, but1--sufficient funding for massive reasearch in several different technologies can only come from one source: severe reduction in the money we're currently wasting on the number one use of tax monies now--the non-productive-by-definition monies going into the Pentagon. This would be a very sensible diversion, but is politically impossible. Instead, apparently, the percentage of our surplus going into the military must keep expanding until our civilization collapses (a couple of decades from now at a guess).2--Now why is this? I don't know, but I think one factor is that we do not have a democracy (the definition of which is "rule by the people" NOT an election every so often). What we have is a system in which corporate interests dictate policy, an insane arrangement given that corporations are profit-making machines, not people, despite having been given human rights by the Supreme Court in 1886. Many people understand this, but all too many fail to appreciate that they are not at all LIKE people. They can't be reasoned with, punished, or influenced any more than your car can. True, they will generate PR about their great concern for the environment, yadda yadda if their PR department discovers they have a public relations problem. But their actions will not change unless forced by the government...and there is no threat of this if they send enough lobbyists to Washington or the state capitals. Which is why we're arguing about whether to support a laughably inadequate piece of legislation to sort-of eventually address one of the greatest crises humanity has ever faced, more than a decade after we determined that it was urgently necessary to do so.I think it's imortant that we have the argument about whether nuclear power is a viable and intelligent pathway...but I'm afraid it doesn't much matter. Unless we pull the plug on corporate rule, the choice of funding for R & D in energy will not be significantly influenced by our discussions--all that matters is who succeeds in buying the most Members of Congress.And I don't agree with you, Axil--I think adequate funding for R & D in ALL competing technologies would be too huge, we must make choices. And it's so late now in terms of the climate change tsunami barreling toward us, that we can't afford to invest in the wrong things, change our minds, back down the tree and bark up another one. We've got to get it right from the start.

    Permalink

35. 

    moregreeneachday Posted 9:38 am
    26 May 2009

    i've read this thread in it's entirety with great interest. however, i strongly believe the solutions to our current environmental (and economic) problems do not reside in washington d.c. or any state house. right or wrong, i strongly believe the solutions can only be made in our own respective communities.it is up to us as individuals, and communities to reduce our own reliance on all forms of energy, regardless of how it is produced. yes, we need to find alternative sources to oil and coal for our future energy needs. for a community to survive the impending economic and environmental crisis we must generate our own power, and the only way that makes sense is by use of solar, wind and/or geothermal sources depending on which will be the most dependable in each community. of course hybrid systems appear to offer the most flexibility.communities must become more resilient ("self sufficient") not only in matters of energy production, but in food, shelter, trade and all other needs of the given community, if they are to survive. the only seemingly viable way of achieving these goals is through what has become known as "transition initiatives" in communities around the globe.there are no easy answers, and what we all face in the not-too-distant future will not be easily dealt with. only the strong and truly forward thinking who come together and work towards the singular goal of survival in their communities will succeed in what appears to be the greatest challenge thus far for human kind. with hope and unity and, above all, great sacrifice, especially for citizens of the one country that has contributed the most to our current dilemma, we can succeed. one thing is certain: change is coming.

    Permalink

36. 

    Axil Posted 11:04 am
    26 May 2009

    Politics and systems engineering don’t mix. The Waxman-Markey bill is an example of this. The intent of this bill is to generate an abundance of energy systems that have a low carbon footprint. But the bill is a blunt tool at best. Its intent is to circumvent the poisonous impact that politics has on the development of energy systems.  Without exception, large energy projects are initiated under one administration and killed by the next. The unfortunate system must not only be canceled but the technology base of that project must be plowed into the earth, in the same way that Rome plowed the remains of the Carthaginian civilization into the earth and salted its fields so that this bitter foe of Rome would never again threaten its hegemony. Over and over the pattern repeats. Knowledge that is painfully gathered and recorded to documents and implemented in prototypes are immediately relegated to the trash bin as a consequence of the last election. This is one of the spoils of the election process. Elections have consequences and purging politically incorrect systems is one of them. Waxman-Markey bill is an attempt to protect the systems engineers from the rampaging hordes of politicians that reign havoc regularly every election cycle. Since it produces and abundant revenue stream, it is enshrined in permanence. A tax never dies. But it just might provide enough control over energy systems to leave them to completion. But this is not certain with only the revenue steam as a lasting remnant; diverted to other more politically essential uses. I favor positive, efficient, and active control of energy systems development. Under the current political system for every dollar gainfully employed in producing energy systems, 100 have been wasted. An agency like NASA or the FAA that has the interests of the country and the energy user at heart should be given exclusive authority over energy policy much in the same way that the Federal Reserve has been given authority over monetary policy. Keep Congress out of the affairs of the department of Energy. Move all the non-weapons energy work done by current DOE to the new agency. Give the new DOE a funding source exclusive of the power of congress much as the FAA taxes air line user to advance air flight. This crisis in energy needs our best efforts, not politically acceptable non starters. 

    Permalink

37. 

    Citizen Andy Posted 12:54 pm
    27 May 2009

    I know this is late to the party, but I want to comment quickly on Public Citizen's position on ACES, which is listed above as being closer to Hansen than Gore.  I quibble with this, especially given Hansen's support for nuclear (and our clear opposition), since our position is more nuanced. 
    I would put us more in the corner of 1Sky, UCS, and others: pass it, but strengthen it.  As the co-author of the statement you linked to, I know that we were being negative.  But we were also being nuanced.  We have said that the bill as it stands will be inneffective and hurt low income families the most.  But we've never told anyone to oppose it.
    I also know we signed onto the joint statement with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth stating our concerns about the bill, but we have not actually opposed it.As a consumer advocacy group, our specific quibble is not just the efficacy of ACES in reducing carbon and preventing warming (since runaway climate change would be the biggest consumer issue EVER), but also how in its current form this gives everything away to big polluters and is a regressive burden on poor and middle income families.But I think being opposed to bill is not effective to actually get something done.My personal opinion (not necessarily that of Public Citizen) is that we should be looking at alternatives such as Lloyd Doggett's "Safe Markets" bill that could be plunked into ACES to make it stronger.  It would remove a lot of the vagaries of cap and trade and replace it with a system where tradeable credits are sold at a set price with the price set by a group of climate scientists, economists, and cabinet secretaries.  They could then also reduce or increase the number of credits sold and the price based on the newest emerging science and economic conditions in the country.  This would mean you get tradeable credits and the market functionality of cap and trade, but you also have a moveable cap based on SCIENCE, and all of the auction revenue to take a cap and invest approach.  Of course, that could just be because Doggett is my Congressman and I like him a lot (and I'm a nerd when it comes to public policy).Any questions, we'll try to answer them.  You can also catch us on our blog at http://www.TexasVox.org and read my statement on ACES here and watch Tyson Slocum talk about the bill on DemocracyNow here. Andy WilsonGlobal Warming Program Director, Texas OfficePublic CitizenAustin, TX

    Permalink

38. 

    Mark J. Fiore Posted 4:13 pm
    27 May 2009

    Hello Everyone. This is my first post with Grist.I read the entire thread.I'm a liberal Democrat envrionmentalist.I've read all the global warming stories in the news since 1987, approx two hours per day, every day, for the past 22 years.I am an attorney (Harvard undergrad and Boston College Law School). I've posted only on DeSmog .blog, and RealClimate.org.This bill is way worse than nothing at all. Worldwide manmade co2 emissions must fall 80% below 1990 levels, right now, to make any difference at all.The frozen methane on the ocean floor, the peat moss in Siberia, the ice caps at the poles;just do the math.Hawkings says a runaway greenhouse effect is not out of the question.350 ppm?No way, folks. My research indicates that with this bill the planet has zero chance of stabilising below 800 to 1000 ppm. See Peter Ward in Scientific American for what a 1000 ppm co2 world will look like.Extreme methane outgassing from the oceans will lead to an anoxic extinction. We are already in the Anthropocene, the 6th epoch, caused by mankind.The bill prevents the EPA fron further regulating co2. See the post person who listed the actual provisions. So, not only is the bill weak in the extreme, it sets up a shield for the coal companies so that the EPA will not be able to regulate.Folks, this is a terrible bill. Hansen and the rest of the scientists know it. It comes nowhere near saving the planet.Halfway to survival?Try 2% to survival. The bill is so weak as to be worthless. Call it what it is.And, folks, if you say this is the best we'll get, then I'd rather take my chances with Jackson and the EPA. What a terrible bill.Not worth the co2 emitted to manufacture the paper it is printed on. Can you say 1000 ppm?End of story.Mark J. Fioremarkfiore50 @hotmail.com 

    Permalink

39. 

    Woody Posted 7:19 am
    28 May 2009

    What makes anybody believe there's any chance of making the bill STRONGER, when the only impetus now is to weaken it? That's the way Congressional compromises ALWAYS work. You start with the least you can live with, and then watch as that becomes too much for the CorpoRats, and the least you can do with gets whittled down to nothing except cosmetics.How does anyone think that  provisions which are only in the Bill to appease the corpoRat interests can be taken out?The power is not with the environmentalists. It is with the energy CorpoRats.Think of what happened with the credit-card legislation. It was hyped as a great deal, epochal, a great victory! ut the ONE provision that would REALLY have protected "consumers"--capping the interest rates that could be charged--was stripped out of the bill with very little fanfare.The real danger is, of course, as so many other commentors have stated, that the corpoRat propagandists can take this bill and claim that it actually accomplishes something, and that it is enough. Can't you hear it: "We've suffered enough, by Gawd!"  

    Permalink

40. 

    sassafrasgreen Posted 10:43 am
    28 May 2009

    We environmentalists are practically famous for helping Perfect defeat Good.  If a solution is not perfect, we are such idealists that we demand that a good solution be defeated until our own version of perfection is acheived.  All we accomplish then is to let the opposition take these debates and build their political opposition by emphasizing that "even the experts don't think this is a good bill."  By demanding perfection-or-nothing we ensure our own defeat.  Then we whine about how nobody cares.We need to grow up and realize that life is not always fair, we don't get our way all the time, and neither human beings individually nor human societies will ever be perfect.At this point ANY progress on capping the use of fossil fuels is GOOD.  Get it PASSED! 

    Permalink

41. 

    moregreeneachday Posted 2:02 pm
    30 May 2009

    All this talk about how wonderful the new nuke plants are seems to be premature based on the following article in the NY Times:In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble NOTE: You may need to be registered to view this article!http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html

    Permalink