An open letter to James Hansen
The real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm 16
-
Posted 12:07 PM on 24 Nov 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
You don’t have to be big to go green
Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 5:41 am
24 Nov 2008
Time and again, people who have surmounted impossible challenges report that the most important factor in their success (beyond the specific, substantive factors particular to the enterprise in which they were engaged) was setting their sights on the absurd goals that required nothing less than destroying their old approaches and reinventing how they approached their task.
We may not get to 350 ... or 450, for that matter. But experience tells us that a goal set too low (in this case, too high) is far more likely to result in failure than one too high.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:59 am
24 Nov 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:13 am
24 Nov 2008
grist.org
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:15 am
24 Nov 2008
350 ppm can be achieved. Joe is right about his 8 wedge theory. But all these can be done; coal and natural gas plants can be shut down by 2030.
All we need is coordinated political will.
The missing ingredient in Joe's recipe (and why he raised the white flag) is 4th generation nuclear power. Sadly, Joe is unaware of the potential of mass production for 4th generation reactors such as IFRs. These reactor types have no construction bottlenecks, and there are no fuel bottlenecks.
In fact, we would have been mass producing IFRs at this very moment, if not for the bone-headed decision of the Clinton administration to discontinue the IFR project in 1994. The cost of stupidity can be quite high, as we realize today.
Let's restart the IFR project. While we are at it, let's also start the LFTR project. With the technical knowhow that we have accumulated till now, we can build prototype reactors quite rapidly. By 2015, we would have already open commercial designs, several hundred years of reactor experience (globally, we already have 300 reactor-years of experience in running fast reactors), and mass production facilities.
Let's cut the crap about cutting down emissions. What we need is a fossil fuel moratorium.
If Joe & co have solved the energy crisis by 2015, and shut down all coal & natural gas power plants (in the entire world, not just in USA), we are well and good, no need for nuclear. Otherwise, we will have a champion power source to vanquish fossil-fuels. A global fossil-fuel moratorium by 2030 can be easily imposed. This moratorium is a necessity for our planet. Let's make it a reality.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:03 am
24 Nov 2008
Historically, it has generally been the case that when a country wants to "catch up", as the literature puts it, the faster they want to go the more they turn to the government. The more time they have (say, the UK or the USA in the 19th century), the more they have the "luxury" of a market-based solution. Essentially, we're trying to become a "ecologically developed" country, which is a task on the order of the jump to modern industrial society, in my opinion.
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 8:19 am
24 Nov 2008
As for legacy coal plants, most U.S. plants are very old and will be ready to be phased out as renewables are phased in. In China, health benefits would probably more than offset the cost of shutting down coal as renewables come online.
Regarding transportation fuel, CARB projects a net savings of $262/MT for incremental vehicle improvements beyond its existing Pavley regulations. The most advanced vehicle efficiency technologies, including PHEV's and ultra-lightweighting, would probably be commercially viable with stable price incentives commensurate with zero net cost. (Do the math: 100 gallons of gasoline equates approximately to 1 ton of CO2.)
Another point: Costs should not be confused with marginal incentives. $1,000 per ton doesn't necessarily imply you spend $1,000 for every ton you emit - it could mean a regulatory cost of $1,000 only for every incremental ton in excess of some benchmark performance level, or a $1,000/ton gain for emission reductions below the benchmark. If pricing regulations are revenue-neutral, the benchmark would go to zero as the economy approaches carbon neutrality.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 8:22 am
24 Nov 2008
Hansen gets some of the details re nuclear power wrong as well. Just because gen iv is likely to be much better than gen iii+ doesn't mean that we shouldn't be building gen iii+ like crazy today.
I am confused by the assertion that we can't build 700 GW nuclear power in 20 years, about 500 nuclear power plants, though we apparently have the capability of building 3,000 GW wind, and almost 3,000 GW natural gas backup for the wind. France, with a population 1/5 of the current US population, built 34 GW in 8 years, but the plants were smaller and more technically difficult than today's plants. France's power plants average about 1 GW, but new plants are expected to average 1.4 GW.
China plans to add 40 GW by 2020, and what, 100 GW? or more? by 2050. The US, if it added 5 x as many nuclear power plants in 8 years as France, and they average 1.4 times as large, can add 240 GW. In 8 years. The UK is adding new nuclear according to the formula "as fast as we possibly can", as electricity shortages are expected soon, much of that will be replacing expected shutdowns. Add in another few countries, and getting to 500 GW will be difficult, yes, but not so difficult as adding the same amount of energy (and significant transmission infrastructure) for wind power.
Inernational Atomic Energy Agency's current estimate is that nuclear power could grow by 300 GW between now and 2030, but this estimate itself has been increasing rapidly. If Germany doesn't close its plants, most of its 21 GW should still be around. If Germany replaces its coal plants with nuclear, there's another several tens of GW. Etc. Still not at 700 GW, but with wind and natural gas backup, it would be even harder.
Nuclear power and fossil fuels and biomass with carbon capture and storage are not the only answers. But Hansen is right. The assumption in every peer-reviewed analysis I've seen is that we will require boucoup nuclear power and CCS. And we cannot allow opponents of these technologies to stop them. The world we live in depends on our ability to overcome ideological insistence that the solutions include only what some individuals personally find acceptable.
I hope that Gristmill can find an articulate pro-nuclear power writer to articulate these views. I can recommend several among those who comment regularly.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:49 pm
24 Nov 2008
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:45 pm
24 Nov 2008
Time is short. I fear experimenting with caps and taxes, though necessary, won't give us the certainty we need. Joe's wedges are certainly useful but it's not clear to me how they are put into practice (regulation vs. carbon price vs. gov't mandate).
I'm encouraged by Ted Nace's recent article to phase out coal plants by reverse seniority. It seems that by phasing out the oldest plants firsts (by government mandate/aid) you could adjust the phase-out schedule to minimize economic and social disruption. For example, you start by taking out a coal plant from State X. Then work with State X to ensure renewables come online quickly enough to stabilize the grid. (And find new jobs for laid-off workers.) It would take an awful lot of coordination (and the countries' best engineers). But it would have the advantage of flexibility.
Of course, it would have to be led by a team impervious to lobbying. But it certainly seems we are in need of concrete proposals and proofs of concepts.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 2:15 pm
24 Nov 2008
Why do so many analysts, the peer review kind, believe that at a fairly low GHG tax, or the equivalent due to cap and trade, that nuclear is clearly a good choice, and some find it competitive with coal even without the tax?
And why would any gristmill writer spend even one erg of energy arguing against nuclear power if the market didn't favor it? That's my absolute favorite argument, from the first time I saw it in 1995, that no one will ever build nuclear but I'm devoting a lot of energy to convincing you it's bad anyway.
(My second favorite argument against nuclear power comes from Union of Concerned Scientists--let's see if renewables and efficiency are enough first, as if no one has ever done the calculation.)
But maybe I'm not understanding your point? The government must sponsor large scale R&D. Government also sets mandates, for minimum amounts of renewables, or in California, that GHG emissions can be no worse than for natural gas. The government also can tax emissions, or effectively tax them through a cap and trade proposal. In several states, such as CA, new nuclear power is banned until "the nuclear waste problem is solved" as if the problems of nuclear waste even in the absence of climate change are somehow comparable to the problems of fossil fuel waste.
Why would government need to specifically require nuclear power? It can give it the same perks it gives other high capital cost energy sources (good loan rates), but that's not a preference so much as an even playing field. New nuclear technologies need R&D, but wind and especially solar will for a while as well, and as all peer review policy reports are emphasizing in italic bold, we really need to get started on CCS R&D. Several years ago!!!
It seems to me that the biggest government selection process, beyond requiring the reduction of GHG, is the selection of certain technologies through renewables portfolio standards. But even RPS have their limits.
OK, the US recently completed a nuclear power plant (Browns Ferry), and has one under construction (Watts Bar). Some utilities expect to be building more modern plants beginning in 2009 or 2010, with construction complete as early as 2014 to 2016. This interest to a large degree exists because some kind of GHG tax is anticipated. So where is the throat-jamming?
Unless you mean that it will be necessary for the government to have a strong cap and trade program with a rapidly decreasing cap, in order to discourage the very large number of fossil fuel plants planned, as well as eliminating restrictions on nuclear power "until the waste problem is solved"? Yes.
We will accomplish a good part of it with cap and trade, because the EU is working on phase 2 of their cap and trade policy, working out the second set of kinks. It makes sense that whatever basic program the EU ends up with is the one we are likely to more or less adapt. It would be a lot of work to reinvent the wheel.
Re phasing out coal power plants, it can only happen when there are other sources of power to replace them.
Karen Street
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:48 pm
24 Nov 2008
Sure, RPS and pricing will help. But the grid won't be rebuilt without government help, systems of high-speed and light rail trains won't happen without government financing, and it's quite possible that there won't be enough building of carbon-free energy generators without direct government financing.
We've discussed before the market viability of nuclear power -- Lester Brown in fact argued entirely from the viewpoint of the market that nuclear won't happen, you argue that he's wrong, and time will tell. Environmentalists have many rational reasons for arguing against nuclear power, as you well know. But even if, for the sake of argument, we agree that nuclear power would be part of the solution, we still have a very long way to go. We still need plenty of wind and solar, and we have to solve the transportation problem. We have to increase the density and "mixity" of towns and cities. We have to make buildings zero-emissions. These are all huge tasks, and if we want to do this fast, and we want to guarentee that these transformations take place, then we will have to discuss the idea that the government will simply build it. That's been the pattern for thousands of years when a people want to transform their society in due haste.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:31 pm
24 Nov 2008
It's a government specified and planned product that went on to become extremely popular with consumers. So free market forces took it up and expanded it's production and it's still around 70 years later, in updated versions.
I saw an original military model for sale in someones yard the other day.
A plugin hybrid drivetrain, complete with battery could be specified and ordered by government, placed in whichever models from various auto makers, for government contracts. Once mass producyion kicked in, free market forces would take over. Simple.
Pay for it with subsidies now going to big oil. A simple plan, easy to understand and get the public behind.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:11 pm
24 Nov 2008
This is the reason why Dr Hansen doesn't prefer cap & trade, and favors carbon tax. For him, and anybody with a serious desire to stabilize around 350 ppm, a carbon tax is just a way towards a moratorium on fossil fuel use.
I don't want to pick a fight with you cap&trade supporters, please get these annual CO2 emissions reductions, by all means. Use efficiency, plugin hybrids whatever. But in the din of your noise about emissions, the real message is getting drowned. Cap & Trade is a cap with lots of holes. Even the fattest coal power plant can pass through this "cap". In my humble opinion, it never loses its joke value.
When we have gen-4 reactors up and running, all the criticism against nuclear power becomes moot. We DO have a solution for nuclear waste, then what is the point of discouraging gen 3+ reactors ? Before any coal or natural gas plant is built, we should first consider building a gen 3+ nuclear plant instead.
Jon, Don't bring unneeded assumptions
In computer science, we call it the principle of Occam's razor. We should support a theory with the least number of assumptions. I agree with you whole-heartedly that urban sprawl has to be reduced, public transport has to be increased, energy efficiency should be ramped up etc.. But these are all unneeded assumptions to solve the specific problem at hand, preventing climate tipping points.
We should keep the solution simple and straightforward, and attack one problem at a time. As you bring unneeded variables into the picture, you are making the problem more complicated than it is.
The solution for climate-change is simple "A moratorium on fossil fuel use". The road map for achieving this is also simple : non-fossil-fuel energy sources : these include energy efficiency, a variety of solar power sources, and most importantly, nuclear power.
Again, government intervention for solving this problem will definitely be helpful. But it is stupid to be dependent on this. Voluntary reduction of energy use by people will be helpful. But it is stupid to build a strategy based on this assumption.
Technologies like CCS, biochar, (and less-heard-of olivine minerals) are medicines to recuperate from the disease. They are by no means, a method for prolonging our fossil-fuel addiction.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:02 am
25 Nov 2008
That would be going too far. Wind is a much cheaper, safer alternative.
Present generation plants are fatally flawed from a cost and safety point of view. R&D on fast neutron, waste eating reactors and then on mass produced modular design to bring the cost down, that is the way to go with nuclear power.
No more old style nukes! Wind, solar, efficiency/conservation is great in the meanwhile.
That will halt new coal projects much more effectively than boondoggle, leaky, cost over run, nimby lawsuit plagued nuclear plants.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MrRich Posted 8:04 am
25 Nov 2008
Can we get someone competant already? Please?
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:29 am
25 Nov 2008
I have pretty much given up hopes that any "existing - right in the market" technology can make significant dents in curtailing fossil fuel use. Current generation 3+ nuclear reactors are carefully tailored to cater to new energy demand. None of them are planning to "replace" existing coal plants.
So is the case with wind or solar power. I don't see any of them shutting down existing coal or natural gas power plants. This problem is much more exacerbated in China (India and several other countries).
All these technologies have significant bottlenecks to overcome before they make a serious impact on the energy landscape. For the wind and solar power plants, it is simply their ability to scale up : their demand on land and raw materials is huge. Their requirement for investment is huge. I don't think I can convince any of you "wired-in-the-mind" guys but I will give another try : Wind power has 10 times more requirements than nuclear power on steel and about 5 times more requirements on concrete. How in a physical world can this be cheaper than nuclear power ? Can you please understand logic ?
The current generation 3+ reactors have bottlenecks in the form of construction (pressurized chambers need specialized foundries which are non-existent), fuel (peak Uranium is nowhere as close as peak coal, but it is quite close if you consider country-by-country basis), and man power (nuclear engineers are running out, and we need a lot of them to man the active safety systems).
But still, I place my bets on generation 3+ reactors than wind/solar power to reduce emissions at this very moment. Apparently, the CANDU reactors don't have some of the construction bottlenecks, and this is the reason why the fossil-fuel-establishment fears them in the USA. But I haven't investigated this issue in detail.
In any case, I hardly care about reducing emissions. Because I believe what we need is a fossil fuel moratorium, nothing more nothing less.
We clearly need to have generation 4 nuclear power to achieve this. So I gave up on arguing on generation 3+ reactors. It is upto you guys who care about annual CO2 emission reductions, to figure out what are the safest bets. I hope logic wins in the end.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink