Grist — A Beacon in the Smog

News
Grist Voices

GristTV
Community

Green Jobs
Eco-Shop

Log In or Register (Why?)
Why register?
As a registered user, you can control whose comments you see, follow your favorite authors, and generally play god in your own little Grist kingdom. What’s not to love?
Grist by Email
Give
About
Pressroom
Contact

> > Print this article now

Carbon is forever 35

22 Nov 2008 6:47 PM
by JMG
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Climate & Energy
Read More About
- climate science,
- greenhouse-gas emissions

Share

Nature reports that a quarter of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels hang around, essentially, forever.

If humanity is to avoid sending the climate into a runaway chaos state, we have to emit far less carbon, fast.

Comments

Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

Related Stories

Jon Rynn Posted 11:58 am
22 Nov 2008
forever for humanitynot much time geologically -- 500,000 years, so who's counting?
Essentially, we're taking the carbon locked away hundreds of millions of years ago in the carboniferous period (most coal) and a few global warming pulses almost 200 million years ago (oil). That sequestration probably profoundly changed the Earth when it took place, and now Earth's "intelligent" species is putting it back out again, which will obviously completely reshape earths' ecosystems.
Permalink
ssn139 Posted 12:38 pm
22 Nov 2008
Different Time ScalesNot much time geologically speaking, yes. But an eternity for modern humans. Basically this means that delayed action will have long-lasting consequences. But preventing or at least spreading out the release of the other 75% of locked up CO2 will help keep CO2 concentrations from reaching epic proportions.

www.thefiniteworld.com

A resources and energy blog.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:26 pm
22 Nov 2008
I don't think spreading out cuts italthough I could be wrong -- my understanding is that it doesn't really matter when you put the CO2 into the atmosphere. Which means, for instance, that plug-in hybrids, if they just spread out carbon emissions, won't do anything for climate change problems. But it's also why James Hansen calls for keeping coal in the ground, we can't use it, in any time frame.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:28 pm
22 Nov 2008
Do we really think.....coal burning is going to stop in the next twenty years? I can't see that happening.
If we aren't going to quit sending carbon into the atmosphere we better work on ways of pulling it back down. Increasing soil carbon is one possibility but given that the majority of the planet is covered by water we might want to revisit ocean nutrient fertilization. Isn't that how the oil deposits got laid down?
Somethings gotta give and I don't like the frog-in-the saucepot option.

Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
retroproxy Posted 3:38 pm
22 Nov 2008
Where's the Warming?Where is the catastrophic warming? The IPCC predicted we'd be seeing significant warming by now, but in fact we've seen no global net warming for a decade with a cooling trend since 2002. The fact is CO2 doesn't and won't produce the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC computer simulations. Natural climate drivers override any miniscule effects of the essential trace gas known as CO2, essential because without it life on Earth wouldn't exist. CO2 is beneficial for life. It is plant food. Plants thrive when exposed to higher concentrations of CO2. Satellite data has shown the Earth has actually grown greener year after year as CO2 levels have increased. Meanwhile, global mean temperatures haven't risen alarmingly. Over the course of the 20th century, they rose by a net of about 0.7 degrees Celsius. They've fallen by about that much since 2002.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:57 pm
22 Nov 2008
Actually, almost half of CO2 emissionscome from land use changes. We can only blame half of the problem on fossil fuels. We need to keep that firmly in mind.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
23 Nov 2008
Good point bio-dThat means that land use that sequesters CO2, like organic farming and conservation, can reverse the GHG climate change trend.
Along with a switch to zero carbon footprint living, this can restore the carbon balance, to the state before the industrial/agricultural revolution around 300 years in the making.
Just because GHG has acunulated over this period, does not mean that it can't be extracted by a change in human activity. At least until a tipping point of no return is reached.
How close is that climate change tipping point? Will this looming recession into depression economic tipping point speed or slow the rush to the climate tipping point?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:59 am
23 Nov 2008
retroproxy...

Here's a great source for helping you to get up to speed with the science...
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
In particular, your question about post 2000 temperatures are discussed here...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
It's critical part of the understanding process to realize that temperatures do not rise in a straight line year after year, nor are they expected to do so.
Climate is a very complex entity with several contributing factors adding and subtracting at specific points in time. Notice how the strongest El Nino of the century in 1998 forced a very unusually high average for that year.
And, yes, CO2 is an essential gas. But I would not advise spending much time in a room filled with nothing but CO2. There's such as thing as enough of a good thing, and there's clearly such as thing as too much.
It's something like driving your car off a high cliff.
At first you get a great improvement in your gas mileage....
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:50 am
23 Nov 2008
not that much from land useAccording the the IPCC, at any rate. You can see this in the Synthesis Report, which if you use a PDF viewer is page 14, although it's page 36 in the report. There's a pie chart there, which breaks it down thus:
Energy supply: 25.9%

Industry: 19.4

Forestry: 17.4

Agriculture: 13.5

Transportation:13.1

Residences and Buildings: 7.9

Waste and Wastewater:2.8
Most of forestry seems to be actually the burning of peat bogs and tundra melting. Anyway, I'm also not sure where industry comes from, if it's not energy. There's another pie chart there which shows that CO2 from fossil fuel use is 56.9% of CO2 equivalent.
The main report on sources of emissions (and mitigation) is from Working Group III. (got into this while my kids watched Jurassic Park for the zillionth time).
Permalink
ssn139 Posted 3:49 am
23 Nov 2008
re: I don't think spreading out cuts itI should have been more specific. According to the study, a large percentage of CO2 (~75%) is reabsorbed out of the air relatively quickly, then 25% takes a very, very long time on a human time scale. But it still takes a couple hundred years for the ocean to absorb the first 25%. So, if we burn all of our fossil fuels over the next 50 or 100 years, its going to push CO2 concentrations to much higher levels than if it took 1000 years to burn through the rest of the coal and petroleum. That 25% is still going to be there, but the other 75% can cycle out before more is added, thus limiting the CO2 ceiling.

www.thefiniteworld.com

A resources and energy blog.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:26 am
23 Nov 2008
Spreading it out...Slows it down.
We don't have better alternatives than PHEVs for personal transportation at the moment.
We aren't going to build public transportation for no-urban areas quickly. If at all.
The more we can reduce our carbon output the better. Slow it down until we can cut it out or take it back....
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:12 am
23 Nov 2008
Not merely "reducing" emissionsWe need to start thinking on a whole new level.
We should stop merely aiming for "carbon-neutrality" or "zero emissions", we need to think in terms of "negative emissions" energy and carbon sequestration, in soils, in trees, in ecosystems.
Preventing or reducing new emissions is too weak an offer, it will still ruin our planet. 450ppm is not an option, it's a crime.
We need to do everything to revert to a path towards 350ppm now.
This is what we must do:
-All coal plants must be closed if they don't implement CCS. No new coal plants are allowed if they don't do CCS.
-All deforestation in the tropics must be halted at once.
-We need a massive biochar campaign, which helps end deforestation.
-We need a massive reforestation campaign.
-We need a massive carbon-negative bioenergy campaign.
These are the Hansen priorities. Anything less must be seen as a fraud. "Reducing" emissions is only half the story.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:32 am
23 Nov 2008
Well, Jonas...Doing all that would most likely solve the problem.
But we aren't going to do all that anytime soon.
We don't have enough political will or military might to make those changes.
Unfortunately we've got to solve the problem on a more gradual basis and in a way that isn't terribly painful for the vast majority of people.
Humans are not willing to make significant short term sacrifices for even very important long term gains. Look at how few of us invest for retirement. Look at how few of us pick a salad rather than cheeseburger....
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:42 am
23 Nov 2008
Good list, JonasI would just add that there must be some benefit to building up the soils all over the world, particularly in agricultural areas, since humans have been on a soil-destroying orgy for a few millenia. It seems to me that organic agriculture would fit that bill, but as I think you've pointed out before, that will require large-scale assistance from developed countries in order to feed everyone in the developing countries organically
ssn139 -- I agree that if we can drag out fossil fuel consumption for 1000 years then it would make a difference, although I'm not familiar enough with the climate models to know. But note that dragging it out for 1000 years would mean phev's that sip gas.
Bob Wallace, you are invoking the main conundrum that humanity faces, and that Gore has explicity raised, that is, that what is politically possible will not solve the problem. My view on this is the following: we should articulate an end-goal that works, then we can move backward and see how to design a path to that end-goal that is more or less politically possible. If we let our political superego get in the way and fail to even consider technical possibilities, then we block off paths of survival, it seems to me.
So, as you bring up, public transit will have a tough time, as will the attendant mixed/dense urban structure, but I still think it's something we need to consider, because it would work, whereas it's unclear to me that PHEV's will work, carbon-emission-wise.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:41 am
23 Nov 2008
Well, maybe not quite "almost half" but 100%-57%=43% isn't trivial :-/
Check out this chart from wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/ ...

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jonas Posted 6:55 am
23 Nov 2008
Bob, gradual, but firmBob, you're right that reality will put us before a gradual implementation process. But the ideal, and the target, must be firm and established, pronounced, put into law, made explicity now and at once.
That's the point. It's a matter of using the right words.
Nobody should be allowed to use the terms or targets that point to a 450ppm scenario, nobody should be allowed to stick to mere GHG "reductions" or "zero emissions". The correct words and targets are: 350ppm, and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The latter targets imply zero emissions infrastructures and initiatives (e.g. the fact that no more coal plants without CCS are allowed, implies the need for zero-emission renewables). But we need to switch the language and make it much clearer.
The aim is 350ppm, negative emissions, a reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:58 am
23 Nov 2008
I also see on that chart that forestryand agriculture alone combine for 39%. I wonder how much GHG emissions other land use changes (like road building and sprawl and whatever) account for?
That's a great list, Jonas

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:00 am
23 Nov 2008
Careful there, pal,It sounds like you're saying ignorance isn't strength.
... we should articulate an end-goal that works, then we can move backward and see how to design a path to that end-goal that is more or less politically possible. If we let our political superego get in the way and fail to even consider technical possibilities, then we block off paths of survival ...
You're not of the body.
--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be tamed')

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:19 am
23 Nov 2008
Biodiversivist, exactlyExactly, biodiversivist, it's a great list, because it's the by now famous Hansen list.
The Hansen paper clearly outlines that a great deal can be done in the forestry and agriculture sector.
"In Supplementary Material we define a forest/soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150 (Fig. 6B). This scenario returns CO2 below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level."
It's the biochar + reforestation part.
But more rapid drawdown is needed and will be achieved by implementing carbon-negative bioenergy.

Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:29 am
23 Nov 2008
The continental sized subject of land useThere's a whole book on land use available at the IPCC site, and much (all?) of it seems to be available there. Here's their summary about agriculture and soils:On agricultural land, by far most of the carbon is stored below ground (see Table 1-1). Losses of carbon from terrestrial systems during the past 200 years, particularly until the middle of the 20th century, were mostly the result of the establishment of agriculture on grassland and land that was previously covered by forests. Regular plowing, planting, and harvesting led to enhanced oxidation of organic matter in the soils, which has been emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Today, agricultural lands are major sources of CO2 in many countries as a result of past land-use changes (e.g., Cannell et al., 1999). Soil organic carbon in cultivated soils is continuing to decline in many areas of the world. The use of fertilizers, high-yielding plant varieties, residue management, and reduced tillage for erosion control has contributed to the stabilization or increase in soil organic carbon (Cole et al., 1993; Sombroek et al., 1993; Blume et al., 1998).
GRL Cowan, I was talking about technologies that have been deployed extensively here and now. I'm even being skeptical about PHEVs in that statement. Wind and solar PV is here; I'm not even sure about solar thermal, because I think that there are water issues; in any case, I'm not sure that it will have a very large role to play. Transit has also been here for a hundred years.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 10:38 am
23 Nov 2008
Solar thermal - water useSolar thermal can be closed loop systems. Little to no water loss.
Solar thermal can even be done with liquid salts.
Solar thermal provides energy that can be stored for hours in a more cost effective manner than storing energy from wind or PV solar.
It can provide power into the late peak hours when PV solar has gone off line and can keep some power in reserve to fill in the gaps in wind production.
(And let's keep our fingers crossed for dry rock geothermal. That could be the real solution.)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:08 am
23 Nov 2008
Bob, hope so!and it depends if they choose closed-loop systems, we can hope. But again, I was just making a distinction between forecasting with technologies that are here now, and those that we might have in the future. Obviously, we shouldn't stop technological progress. Maybe it's a question of risk -- put a certain percentage of your "portfolio" of capital in tried-and-true technologies, distribute the rest to other projects, depending on how tested they are.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:40 am
23 Nov 2008
Thermal solar...Seems to be for real.
Here's a nice summary. If you click on the link to "world view list" you can see the plants that are already operational.
Seems like we have six operation - supplying the grid and another dozen under construction. One plant in California has been putting out power for 15+ years.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/solar-thermal/so ...
--
The other really promising technology is drill-down hot rocks geothermal. So far there are only a couple of these plants in operation.
Some engineering problems left to solve along the lines of getting large diameter holes down a couple miles or so. We can get down that far with oil wells, but they're smaller diameter.
We can make electricity in most parts of the world with hot rocks geothermal (closed loop systems ;o) and it cranks out 24/365.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:08 pm
23 Nov 2008
yeah, geothermalwould be great, especially since it could provide baseload...I've never understood why there isn't more research...maybe an Obama administration will do better
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:30 pm
23 Nov 2008
Money...Here's an interesting article about a "wet rock" geothermal plant currently powering Reno. And discussion of dry rock generation. Sounds like lots of plants underway.
Note the mentions of Buffett, Google, and "Money is falling out of the sky"....
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-fi-geothermal3-200 ...
"Costing about 4 to 7 cents a kilowatt-hour, Taylor said, geothermal is competitive with wind power and significantly cheaper than solar. Geothermal facilities occupy a fraction of the space required by wind and solar farms. The energy is also more reliable. Plants crank electricity around the clock, irrespective of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing."
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:44 pm
23 Nov 2008
Getting back to 350 ppmThere is a tangible, realistic way to implement what Jonas posted using known technology.
The solution to the issue of CO2 from coal plants in the US is not to attempt to implement CCS, but rather to convert them to using torrefied biomass. This biomass can replace coal on a 1:1 basis with virtually no change to the facility, and it creates the carbon-negative bioenergy approach Hansen asks for.
The process of producing the "bio-coal" creates excess bio-char... exactly what Hansen asked for. Feeding this bio-char into the soils in the existing forests and new biomass plantations surrounding each coal facility both sequesters more CO2 and increases the productivity of those forests.
Anyone can go through the figures with relative ease and see that the resource base is available around virtually every coal facility in the US to make this conversion. The beauty of it is that the bio-coal can be mixed in with conventional coal gradually as the conversion process ramps up over time. And it includes a massive reforestation program which includes converting abandoned strip-mined land to biomass plantations, thereby addressing another part of Hansen's plan.
Of course, this also more than solves the problem of jobs in coal regions, because even more people need to be employed to produce the biomass than are needed to mine the coal. And the economics of burning bio-coal vs. conventional coal are not significantly different to derail this approach.
We have this technology right now and it rather well known. This approach could start to be implemented today. All we need is the political will and the dollars to make it happen.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:28 pm
23 Nov 2008
no discussion on the recent post of Dr HansenFellow comrades at grist,
what is going on !!? It's been 3 days that Dr Hansen has published his letter on his webpage, and no discussion on grist.
Please check out the document : Tell Barack Obama the truth - the whole truth.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:09 am
24 Nov 2008
GeothermalEarthquake, water use....

How much water does a plant require?

Answer: The flow required depends on the temperature of the fluid, the ambient (sink) characteristics, and the pumping power required to supply and dispose of the fluid. Excluding fluid pumping, a closed-loop binary-cycle geothermal power plant would need 450 to 600 gallons per minute (gpm) to generate 1 MW from a 300° F fluid with an air temperature of 60° F. If the fluid temperature were only 210° F, one would need 1,300 to 1,500 gpm to generate the same amount of power. If an evaporative cooling system were used, 45 to 75 gpm of make-up (clean) cooling water would also be required to generate 1 MW.

...and eventual cooling of the rock over a period of 10 years, requiring relocation of the wells and plant; could be signifigant problems with geothermal.
The metal and acid content of water escaping the system into aquifers is another problem.
As with other technologies, geothermal power production needs serious research before it is ever rolled out on a mass production scale to address a signifigant portion of energy demand.
Rooftop solar cogeneration, wind, ground source heating/cooling, plugin hybrids, smart grid technology, and biogas from waste used in distributed fuel cell/turbine backup generation, are all ready for mass production now.
Deployed in a systematic method over the next decade, while other research continues, these systems can replace most of our fossil fuel use.
Use what we know works, meanwhile support R&D in selected areas, like geothermal, but don't count on them until research confirms that they are safe, cost effective, and in the case of geothermal, "clean" coal, and nuclear, make sure the high water use is curtailed with recycling that protects aquifers and rivers.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:22 am
24 Nov 2008
I understand your point amazing, but @amazing
"research" doesn't confirm that nuclear technology is safe or cost-effective.
Careful statistical analysis of the technology tells how safe a technology is.
Lots of reactor experience in running the power plants tells us further about safety.
Careful point-by-point break up of costs will tell us about how cost-effective a technology will be.
More important than dollar costs, environmental costs of a technology (land use, water use, requirement for mining, particulate air pollution, GHG emissions, potential threats to biodiversity) they can all be worked out through statistical analysis and simulation.
Under this consideration, nuclear power plants are the friendliest technology for the environment. Nonplussed ? Bamboozled ? Discombobulated ? You are not the only one.
Sometimes, truth is very counter-intuitive.
Please be more open on 4th generation nuclear power. It is a vital bullet that we need for preventing climate tipping points.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:54 am
24 Nov 2008
James Hansen letteris comvered by Andy Revkin at DotEarth at the NY Times, which my wife told me about -- the publicity is bad?
I've heard bad things about geothermal and water -- and the same applies to nuclear and solar thermal, so I think the issue of water needs to be worked out before any of those technologies becomes part of a large-scale solution.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:08 am
24 Nov 2008
Good HansenThanks for the link Vakibs.
But he makes a rash statement. That 4th generation, waste eating nuclear reactors can be ready for mass deployment in the 2015 to 2020 time window.
Hansen is picking technology, and doing something he says he is against, asking government to pick technology. He uses the old false dilemna fallacy, in a soft way. Stating that we manybe able to rely on renewable/conservation energy technology to replace fossil fuel, but China and India won't. Leaving the reader to conclude that nuclear and CCS will be necessary.
Before R&D can test 4th generation nuclear power and CCS, how can they be a necessary part of the climate change cure? Analysis of data compiled by non-regulated industries like nuclear and CCS, used only in oil extraction so far, can't be trusted as a basis for mass production capital investment.
As Hansen points out, we are in a crisis situation, we can't waste time and money on untested techologies, to find they are fatally flawed only after mass production and adoption are underway. That is the problem with present nuclear power, problems were glossed over with industry/lobbyist hype.
Since we are in a climate crisis approaching the GHG tipping point, Hansen and his group ought to place more of their emphasis and energy behind renewable/conservation technology that has already proven to be worthy of immediate mass production and mass adoption.
The self-contradictory bias against "picking technology" is the glaring error in this piece. He askews it, begging instead for a carbon tax, then proceeds to pick 4th generation nuclear power and CCS.
I suspect the same old "free" marketeerian bias is at the heart of this mistake.
It is time for government to pick technology, just as it did during WW2 war production, then order millions of units of renewable/conservation energy devices, spurring mass production and stimulating a new green energy economy.
Hansen completely overlooks subsidy diversion as well, the idea of removing subsidies from fossil fuel industries and applying them as direct incentive for consumers to purchase these new energy economy devices. Why? It's the remaining bias against government intervention in "free" markets.
Wake up and smell the anti-regulation, anti-government "free" marketeerian caused financial meltdown! Please Dr. Hansen, pick renewable/conservation technology, just as we picked devices like the jeep and the P-51 during WW2. We won't avert this climate and economic crisis without government leadership.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:26 am
24 Nov 2008
Maybe his best quote:A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO2 does not help, because of the long lifetime of

atmospheric CO2. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to

continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left

in the ground or used in a way such that the CO2 can be captured and safely sequestered.
He seems to have given up on preventing oil from being used up -- this has been his position for a while now -- and the implication, I suppose, is that it doesn't matter, climate-wise, what kinds of cars are built, the C02 will wind up in the atmosphere anyway. I sort of think that this is giving away too much. So he concentrates on getting rid of coal -- although unless we move transportation away from fuels and to electricity (electric cars and electric trains in dense/mixed use communities), then we'll start to use even more C02 emitters -tar sands, shale, coal to liquids,etc, so it really is necessary to focus on both transportation and coal at the same time
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:42 am
24 Nov 2008
Dr Hansen is not picking technologies @jon
It is a pity that Andy Revkin has completely erased all references to the 4th generation nuclear power plants, in his references. The story of these amazing reactor types needs to break out in the public sphere, and it will anytime soon.
@amazing
Dr Hansen is not picking technologies. I think he loves renewable technologies far more than any of us. As he repeatedly mentions in his letter, his priorities are (1) energy efficiency (2) renewable technologies (3) nuclear power and (4) coal CCS, in that order. He says that he has fond hopes that all electricity can be provided by renewable sources in USA and Europe. All he cares for is a foolproof solution to preventing the climate tipping points. It is precisely for this reason that he champions 4th generation nuclear reactors, all the gaps will be filled up by them, and we will leave no scope for coal.
I deeply respect Dr Hansen, for speaking out on this issue. But my priorities for nuclear power go even higher. I would not want to support renewable technologies over nuclear power, just because of some symbolic face value. I support the technologies which are the least destructive for the environment. I strongly believe that nuclear power wins the race, in this criterion. And we should encourage significant expansion of nuclear power.
How would we know if this is the case ? How would we know if nuclear power will be the cheapest or environmentally the best option ? We have enough time to debate and analyze. Any significant deployment of 4th generation nuclear power cannot begin before 2015 (We should immediately start building prototype reactors and accumulating experience in reactor-years). Mass deployment is possible only after extensive testing, modularization and open designs.
The advantage with 4th generation reactors is that they don't have construction bottlenecks : all the pipes and valves that they need can be built at any industrial foundry. The reason for this is that they operate at atmospheric pressure. The current plants need highly pressurized chambers, which can be built at only one facility in the world ! For this reason (and also for the problem of nuclear waste), 2nd or 3rd generation reactors cannot make a significant dent in the energy sector. But 4th generation reactors are revolutionary, and this is precisely the reason the fossil-fuel establishment fears them so much.
So what I say is that (1) for the immediate future : the 2 terms of Obama administration :), we concentrate on energy efficiency , public transport and better electric grids (2) we test and prototype all technologies out there : geothermal, concentrated solar thermal, tidal etc. (3) Most importantly, we immediately build the integral fast reactor (IFR) and LFTR prototype reactors. We already have commercial designs (S-PRISM design of GE) to start with. (4) Have a serious international collaboration in this effort with France, China, Japan, Russia and India (all these countries have rival designs and are making great progress in nuclear fast reactors) (5) Start shutting down coal plants.. To begin with we can replace them with energy efficiency, biomass plants, 3rd generation nuclear plants, wind power etc.. (6) From 2015, all remaining coal plants will be replaced with IFRs or LFTRs. By 2030, no coal plant will remain. This is our target.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:14 am
24 Nov 2008
The large-forge capacity can change quicklyThe current plants need highly pressurized chambers, which can be built at only one facility in the world ! For this reason (and also for the problem of nuclear waste), 2nd or 3rd generation reactors cannot make a significant dent in the energy sector. But 4th generation reactors are revolutionary, and this is precisely the reason the fossil-fuel establishment fears them so much.
Actually, I think that's why they fear 2nd and 3rd generation reactor types.
I don't know what generation CANDU counts as, but it does not depend on large forged pressure vessels.
Linked below, my isotope-separation-free proposal.
--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be tamed')

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:17 pm
24 Nov 2008
Pretty close VakibsNow if we were negotiating the energy plan it would be right on track, hehey.
But let's just accelerate the whole scenario by agreeing to pick technologies for ommediate mass production and R&D. This is as serious a crisis as the great depression and WW2.
That fast neutron reacor that neutralizes waste is an excellent design, Hansen really explains it in a way that is easy to comprehend. I think that should be the winning nuclear design, even if only to take care of the waste already generated.
Even if renewable/conservation technology makes it unecessary, a few of these reactors could still be built to process waste and clean up the rad mess we already have to deal with.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink

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.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

More

Commented

More

Advertisement