Time to stop pretending on emissions reduction

So the final model of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — Australia cap-and-trade system — has been released. It’s byline is ‘Australia’s ever-so-slightly-maybe Lower Pollution Future‘. Sorry, now I’m just being cynical.

There’s been plenty written about it over the subsequent 24 hours, including some comments from me here, here, here and here. I also hammered some points out in a few radio slots yesterday, but I’m not sure if the message is really getting through. A bunch of short but incisive comments from other scientists and economists is also available at the Australian Science Media Centre. They’re worth reading for (i) the diversity of issues raised and (ii) for the near unanimity of criticism of the targets and general model set forth.

The final scheme clearly rewards big polluters by handing them a swag of free permits, right up to 2020. The poor hard-done-by coal-fired power generators get the majority of these; $4 billion in the first 5 years alone — naturally (I’ll let you go figure that one out). It rightly provides significant compensation to low and middle income households, but sadly directs ~3% of the income generated into research and development on low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency. It sets a reduction target of 5% of 2000 levels by 2020, unless ‘all the major emitters come on board’, in which case the government says they’ll increase the cuts to 15%. In other words, Australia is only willing to move with the pack (actually, somewhere in the middle of the pack – you know, for extra safety). Global leaders? Forget it.

But in my opinion, the biggest problem is the sheer dishonesty about the science. If targets greater than 5% are impossible to implement on political grounds, then that’s the current reality. The government should be honest about this, and say:

‘This is as large a cut as we feel the community will accept, even though the science of climate change clearly show that we require much more. Accepting this current reality, our job, as government, is to now better inform you, the general public, of the seriousness of this issue, the short time frames for action, and the need for deeper cuts“.

But no. Instead we get artful political spin and greenwash, with the claim that Australia is doing something meaningful to avoid dangerous climate change and that the targets will miraculously allow us to go no higher than 450 ppm CO2. As the calculations in the Garnaut Review pointed out, this is simply false. It’s a shame the government has chosen to ignore a large swathe of the recommendations of that review, modest as they were.

I’ve opined on this further in a little piece I wrote for the Adelaide Advertiser. I’m not sure it if will end up appearing in the paper or not, but at least BNC readers can get to look at it.

With the Poznan climate conference now over, the Australian Government has announced its aim to cut greenhouse gas emission by up to 14% compared to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and 60% by 2050.

This is the centrepiece of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is another name for a cap-and-trade system for limiting Australia’s future carbon emissions, from 2010 onwards.

In many respects 14% seems sensible. After all, it represents a 41% reduction on a per person basis. It’s in line with goals set by other developed nations such as the UK, US and European Union.

Such a target seems to walk the political middle ground.

Not too steep a cut as to anger industry who are concerned about the economic risks of action. But enough to show Australia’s doing our part in reducing the impact of climate change. Enough to avoid 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, by limiting carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million (ppm).

That, at least, is the simple political message that is being sold. Trouble is, it’s simply not true.

First, it misrepresents what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. This work shows that to have a decent chance of avoiding warming 2 to 2.4C, the world must cut emissions by up to 80% by 2050. That’s a 98% cut for Australia, per person.

Second, it pretends that more recent relevant science doesn’t exist.

Work published in 2007 and 2008–after the IPCC closed its review books–shows that global carbon emissions growth is greater than had been previously anticipated. To add despair to this despondency,  recent observations also indicate that the climate system is more sensitive to additional greenhouse gases than we’d suspected.

This means 450 ppm is could commit us to 4C or more of warming. A dangerous prospect indeed, which risks appallingly severe impacts which were described in the Garnaut review earlier this year, on the economic and environmental costs of action (or inaction) on climate change.

Now even getting to a 41% per capita emissions reduction by 2020 will be tough. Really tough.

It will require strong policy intervention to increase the adoption of energy efficiency and conservation and build-out renewable energy such as wind, solar, wave and geothermal on a massive scale. No new coal fired power stations that do not capture the carbon dioxide. And so on.

Given this requirement for transformational change to even match middle-of-the road targets, why not commit to going ‘all the way’?  Actually fully solve the crisis before it happens, rather than merely half-fixing it, with adjustment pain anyway, and yet only delay the inevitable crunch.

But such full commitment would mean decision makers have to stop pretending that their emissions reduction targets match the latest scientific evidence. Right now, they don’t. So if nothing else, let’s at least be honest with the Australian public about that.

Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear power – Q and A

It seems like something that only a crazed conspiracy theorist would come up with. A source of carbon-free energy that holds the potential to provide base load power for the planet for thousands of years hence, and which could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations. A process that could eat existing nuclear waste instead of needing to store it in highly secure vaults such as Yucca Mountain for hundreds of millennia. A technology that enjoyed large investments in R&D by government, only to have the funding zeroed for political reasons when close to large-scale demonstration — and then the scientists involved told not to publicise this fact.  Well that, in caricature, is the basic story of Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear power.

Perhaps it is too good to be true — almost everything that’s been hyped as ‘the future of…’ is, after all. But not everything — the exceptions to the ‘hype rule’ now dominate our modern technological society (home computers, mobile communications, satellite communications, etc.). So what if IFR is the real deal? Well, some very clever folks have been looking into this and conclude that it is — or at least worth pushing. As I described in an earlier post, Hansen is among them — at least in terms of seeing the value in giving this tech a fair go — and he’s certainly not alone. Mark Lynas for instance, author of ‘Six Degrees‘, has also pitched in.

There are some great resources out on the web, and a new book, for those of you who want to know more about IFR nuclear — in order to make your own informed judgement about whether you choose to advocate it. Steve Kirsch, a Californian entrepreneur who invented the optical mouse (and former nuclear agnostic), has written a great summary article about IFR here (h/t to JM) and a shorter Silicon Valley newspaper Op Ed here. Steve’s website provides a wealth of links to additional information on IFR and related developments. The PBC television programme ‘Frontline’ recently interviewed nuclear physicist and IFR co-developer Dr. Charles Till — the transcript is available here.

Kirsch summarises the key advantages of IFR as follows:

1. It can be fueled entirely with material recovered from today’s used nuclear fuel.

2. It consumes virtually all the long-lived radioactive isotopes that worry people who are concerned about the “nuclear waste problem,” reducing the needed isolation time to less than 500 years.

3. It could provide all the energy needed for centuries (perhaps as many as 50,000 years), feeding only on the uranium that has already been mined.

4. It uses uranium resources with 100 to 300 times the efficiency of today’s reactors.

5. It does not require enrichment of uranium.

6. It has less proliferation potential than the reprocessing method now used in several countries.

7. It’s 24×7 baseline power.

8. It can be built anywhere there is water.

9. The power is very inexpensive (some estimates are as low as 2 cents/kWh to produce).

10. Safe from melt down because if something goes wrong, the reactor naturally shuts down rather than blows up.

11. And, of course, it emits no greenhouse gases.

———————————————————————————————————–

Key disadvantages (from the Wikipedia article) are given as:

1. Because the current cost of reactor-grade enriched uranium is low compared to the expected cost of large-scale pyroprocessing and electrorefining equipment and the cost of building a secondary coolant loop, the higher fuel costs of a thermal reactor over the expected operating lifetime of the plant are offset by the increased capital cost of an IFR. (Currently in the United States, utilities pay a flat rate of 1/10 of a cent per kilowatt hour for disposal of high level radioactive waste. If this charge were based on the longevity of the waste, then the IFR might become more financially competitive.)

2. Reprocessing nuclear fuel using pyroprocessing and electrorefining has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale. As such, investing in a large IFR plant is considered a higher financial risk than a conventional light water reactor.

3. The flammability of sodium. Sodium burns easily in air, and will ignite spontaneously on contact with water. The use of an intermediate coolant loop between the reactor and the turbines minimizes the risk of a sodium fire in the reactor core.

4. Under neutron bombardment, sodium-24 is produced. This is highly radioactive, emitting an energetic gamma ray of 2.7 MeV followed by a beta decay to form magnesium-24. Half life is only 15 hours, so this isotope is not a long-term hazard – indeed it has medical applications. Nevertheless, the presence of sodium-24 further necessitates the use of the intermediate coolant loop between the reactor and the turbines.

———————————————————————————————————–

Tom Blees has spend the last few years writing a book on IFR and a few related techs (such as ‘boron power’ for vehicles) called ‘Prescription for the Planet‘, which Hansen referred to, and it has received unanimous highly favourable reviews at Amazon. (side note: if you want a contrasting view, see Helen Caldicott’s book ‘Nuclear Power is Not the Answer ‘). I can’t vouch for the quality of Blees’ book myself, but I’ve ordered it and will post a book review here on BNC once I’ve had it delivered and mentally digested.

Something I found really useful in addressing my doubts and scepticism about the feasibility, safety and scalability of the IFR process, were two Question & Answer overviews / FAQs. This includes a detailed refutation of all of the ‘cons’ listed above. One is written by IFR project physicist Dr George Stanford called ‘Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power‘ . The other was put together as a compilation by Kirsch, and integrates a collection of comments from Blees, Stanford, Carl Page and some quotes from those who have reviewed the material.

Read these, judge for yourself, and feel free to post comments here — I (and others I hope) will do my best to answer you or direct you to the right material to get your answers. I’d appreciate continuing the critical examination of this that was started in the two other posts.

Does the above mean I’ve given up on my strong push for large-scale renewables? Absolutely not (!), and for a nation like Australia, solar thermal, wind, wave, geothermal and microalgal biodiesel, along with energy efficiency and conservation, should be a primary focus for the next decade. But I strongly doubt they will ever be wholly sufficient [I'll explain why in another post]. That’s why IFR and similar techs also desperately need our support — not our unthinking denigration just because we may have some ingrained distaste for anything nuclear.

We can’t predict what will ultimately deliver the best solutions to society, in terms of securing a near-zero-emissions energy supply and arming us with the tools the avoid catastrophic climate change. To do this, we must use whatever options are at our disposal, and push these potential solutions as fast and hard as we possibly can.

Squeezing the marine nutcracker

I haven’t talked a lot about marine impacts of climate change on this website — mostly because it is quite thoroughly covered by Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg in his Climate Shifts blog and Dr Simon Donner on Maribo. But in short, the marine environment is under severe stress from chronic human impacts (over-fishing, dredging, pollution [e.g., chemical and oil spills], structural damage [e.g., dynamite fishing on coral reefs], traffic [boat strikes]. etc.) and a double-whammy from climate change. Assoc. Prof. Corey Bradshaw talked about this in detail here (slides and audio available).

A recent editoral in the peer-reviewed journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, by Prof Charles Sheppard of the University of Warwick, UK, spells out just how grim this ‘marine nutcracker’ is. Why does he use the nutcracker analogy? Because: “…coral reef calcification is squeezed, by temperature near the equator and by acidification from the poles“. Let me explain further, by some selected citation from the essay.

It is not farfetched to say that in the marine environment, coral reefs will be the first major ecosystem to be functionally extinguished because of climate change. Of course, many entire small areas of global systems have disappeared already for a number of reasons, from industrial pollution or coastal construction, and many areas of soft substrate have been totally obliterated (trawled for example). But a whole ecosystem with a pan-tropical span? Probably not…

…Warming which causes, firstly, widespread bleaching of corals and which is then sufficiently severe and persistent to cause subsequent widespread mortality was not really noticed until the 1970s. It began to be increasingly noticed from the 1980s, and now occurs with frequent if erratic occurrence. The years 1998, 2001/2 and 2005 were seminal. Several predictions (calculations are a better word) have been made that severity and frequency of such events will increase so that the sea temperatures which cause widespread mortality will become a near annual occurrence well within the lifetime of most people alive today. Some suggestions are that, on average – there are many local variations – this will be most severe across a tropical belt and will expand outwards. Some extrapolations (Sheppard 2003) showed that the timing of critical dates are nearest close to the equator, becoming later as one moves polewards, in some oceans at least…

…But most importantly perhaps, the argument that corals can perhaps move polewards a bit overlooks ocean acidification. The oceans are having to absorb more CO2 than ever before and, to date, half to two thirds of all CO2 generated since the start of the industrial revolution has been absorbed by the surface layers of the sea. It is, in fact, only the smaller portion which has not been absorbed by the ocean which causes our greenhouse effect and which is giving rise to all those conferences about global climate change and warming. That portion which has been absorbed, however, has changed the pH of the surface ocean by 0.1, which is a 30% increase in H+ ions [Ed: Hydrogen] (Royal Society, 2005). As a result, the complexities of the carbonic acid – bicarbonate – carbonate buffering system mean that calcification by marine life is increasingly curtailed…

In simple terms, marine systems, especially sensitive areas like tropical coral reefs, are being regularly ’shocked’ by extreme heat wave events, which causes loss of symbiotic algae (microscopic plants that live in the tissues of the coral polyp and provide a source of nutrition) and eventually coral death (and the loss of other shell-forming organisms). Further, as the oceans absorb vast amounts of CO2, the surface waters acidify, which undermines the ability of reef-building organisms to produce skeletons of crystalline calcium carbonate (calcite and aragonite).

…To risk adding despair to the despondency, the time lags in the system mean that even if the problem of produced CO2 was solved immediately, and the atmospheric level started to drop today, impacts from acidification will continue for a few decades to come. What we have done already and what we do in the next, say, 20 years, will have an inevitability about it which, as far as we know, will be irreversible in human terms at least…

…It appears to be part of the natural human scientific mind to prioritise problems. Hence there have been arguments about which is the worst problem of the two described above, or even which is the one to worry about most. This is a false debate. Recovery from a thermal shock of a particular magnitude may be possible in an aragonite saturation state of >4, but would it be possible in a saturation state which has fallen to, say, nearer 3?…

…it now seems likely that although temperature rise causes the present noticeable declines in many areas, the pH problem will inexorably assume the ascendancy in becoming the greatest inhibitor to marine life in the oceans as a whole, and that this will be increasingly noticed during the lives of most of us here today…

So just as with the ecological impacts of global change in land-based environments, the synergistic interactions of threatening processes are the overarching problem — a common systems feature of the Sustainability Crisis. With further impacts on the base of the marine food web — plankton — the whole biotic ediface begins to crumble. The worst-case-scenarios, at 5 to 6 C warming above pre-industrial levels, is described by Mark Lynas (based on a review of the peer-reviewed literature):

At sea there are only losers. Warm water is a killer. Less oxygen can dissolve, so conditions become stagnant and anoxic. Oxygen-breathing water-dwellers – all the higher forms of life from plankton to sharks – face suffocation… Then would come poisonous hydrogen sulphide from the stagnant oceans. It would be a silent killer: imagine the scene at Bhopal following the Union Carbide gas release in 1984, replayed first at coastal settlements, then continental interiors across the world. At the same time, as the ozone layer came under assault [from the hydrogen sulphide], we would feel the sun’s rays burning into our skin, and the first cell mutations would be triggering outbreaks of cancer among anyone who survived. Dante’s hell was a place of judgment, where humanity was for ever punished for its sins. With all the remaining forests burning, and the corpses of people, livestock and wildlife piling up in every continent, the six-degree world would be a harsh penalty indeed for the mundane crime of burning fossil energy.

Such a vision of the brave new climate is not close to the realm of ‘adaptation’ and cost-benefit analyses set against such scenarios are a mere farce. Yet that is the very future that we — the global human collective — are rapidly pushing the Earth system towards. Closer and closer, year by year, as incrementalism rules the day.

Managing catastrophic climate risk – the six step plan

Guest Post by Ian T. Dunlop.

Ian was formerly a senior oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the AGO Experts Group on Emissions Trading in 1999-2000 and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He is a CPD fellow and is currently researching policy responses to climate change. He is deputy convener of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

The various reports of the Garnaut Review (i, ii, iii) contain extensive discussion on the risk implications of anthropogenic climate change, in particular differentiating between risk and uncertainty (iv). The Review emphasises the potential for extreme outcomes, noting that the latest science suggests the extent and impact of climate change may be occurring faster than previously anticipated, certainly faster than the median IPCC (v) estimates upon which most current policy proposals are based. It notes that, due to inherent complexity, much climate science is difficult to assess in terms of quantifiable probabilities, and hence is positioned toward the uncertainty end of the risk-uncertainty spectrum (vi).

These extreme outcomes would represent catastrophic failure at both a national and a global level, albeit the word catastrophe is rarely mentioned by the Review, apart from reference to the recent catastrophic climate change scenario developed by CSIS in the US (vii, viii). Catastrophic failure may be defined as “a sudden and total failure of some system from which recovery is impossible”.

The latest scientific information which has become available since the release of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report in 2007 suggest that the risks posed by climate change are now significantly worse than indicated in that Assessment; inter alia:

• Rapid summer melt of Arctic sea ice, far greater than IPCC projections
• Accelerating growth in human carbon emissions, above worst IPCC projections
• Decline in natural carbon sinks
• Large increase in projected sea level rise
• Increased response to climate forcings, hence potentially greater temperature increases
• Potential tipping point for loss of ice sheets lower than expected
• Increased ocean acidification
• Initial indications of Arctic seabed methane hydrate emissions

Despite the predictable resurgence of climate scepticism as the time for real action nears, political and corporate leaders nationally and globally now claim to have crossed the threshold in accepting that climate change is serious and requires urgent action. The Garnaut Review, to its credit, has gone far further than any other Australian study in acknowledging the dangers of extreme outcomes and the looming risk of climatic tipping points. International leaders are issuing similar warnings (ix, x, xi). In parallel, scientists re-iterate ever more urgently the need for rapid action (xii), most recently that the target for atmospheric carbon concentrations has to be reduced to less than 350ppm CO2 if dangerous climate change is to be avoided (xiii, xiv), rather than the 450-550ppm CO2e range currently favoured politically. Intelligence communities worldwide are factoring the implications of climate change, combined with energy security, into their strategic assessments – “business-as-usual is now an environmental security threat”. Medical authorities are planning for the public health impact that climate change will bring (xv). Leading international organisations are increasingly attempting to quantify the probabilities of catastrophic climate change (xvi), no longer casting it as high impact / low probability, but viewing it as having increasingly higher probabilities of occurrence.

Put bluntly, the potential for catastrophic impact from anthropogenic climate change is increasing rapidly. Strangely, the official Australian response largely ignores these warnings.

The Federal Government’s CPRS Green Paper (xvii) sets out proposals for the mechanics of an emissions trading scheme without defining the targets which are a pre-requisite for realistic system design and its serious assessment. Regrettably, it has committed to compensate established emitters before the size of the emission reduction task ahead has been defined. The preliminary indications are that the government’s concept of an emissions target for Australia will be around a 60% reduction by 2050 relative to 2000 levels. This was conceived in the build-up to the 2007 election without consideration of the latest science and is far from the 90-95% reduction now being indicated. The latter objective would leave minimal capacity to fund the compensation being promised, compensation for which there is no justification particularly in circumstances of catastrophic change.

Corporately, in contrast to the stated public rhetoric of numerous industry sectors to be active players in meeting the climate challenge, the entire debate is about rent-seeking – compensation, decelerating the introduction of any climate change response, and government support for offsetting emissions technology research (xviii), despite the fact that major corporates have been well aware of the likely introduction of carbon pricing for at least two decades. There is minimal discussion about action and solutions, particularly the enormous business opportunities they present. Critical carbon emitters, such as the coal industry, whilst publicly accepting that climate change must be addressed, demand the right to continued expansion on the premise that carbon sequestration will solve the emission problem in due course. Given that this technology is 10-20 years away from large-scale commercial application, which even then is not guaranteed, and that science is suggesting we are already in the zone of dangerous climate change, it is hard to see any justification for expanding unconstrained carbon emissions in the interim, other than short-term commercial cynicism in total disregard of the consequences. Arguments that “if we do not supply coal, others will, and of poorer quality with worse environmental implications” no longer have credibility in a world facing the risk of catastrophic failure.

Political and corporate leaders continue to emphasise the need for the developing world to join in the emissions reduction task as a pre-condition for Australia taking strong, early action. But no serious initiatives to encourage the developing world to do so have been put forward, either here or overseas. Little wonder that Chinese and Indian leaders at the July 2008 G8 Summit were dismissive of the developed world’s emission reduction commitments (xix).

Finally, the Garnaut Review in its “Targets and Trajectories Supplementary Report”, adopted a pragmatic view in contrast to the principled position put forward in its “Draft Report”. Having strongly made the point that extreme outcomes are in prospect, it then bases subsequent recommendations on incremental change from business-as-usual, rationalised on a priori perceptions of the art-of-the-possible. Thus the prospect of achieving early global agreement to limit atmospheric carbon emissions to 450ppm CO2e is discounted as unrealistic and initial planning built around a global 550ppm CO2e target is suggested (xx), with the proviso that a 450 ppm CO2e target, or lower, be re-considered if global negotiations progress more rapidly. Implicit in this approach is the desire to protect Australia’s economic position, and trade-exposed industries, until other nations adopt more stringent emissions reduction targets – in short to only gradually traverse the global “prisoner’s dilemma” as and when others make similar commitments.

This approach must also be seen against the Garnaut Review Terms of Reference, which require the Review “to take account of (a) core factor”, namely “the weight of scientific opinion that developed countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050 against 2000 emission levels if global greenhouse gas concentrations are to be stabilised to between 450 and 550ppm by mid-century.” That scientific opinion has been superseded by more recent information.

These attitudes are fundamentally inconsistent with a world confronting the risk of catastrophic failure from climate change, and indeed with the public rhetoric of the key players themselves. So how should catastrophic risk be addressed if the dangerous consequences really are to be avoided, rather than just lip-service paid to the principle?

First, the philosophy of pragmatic, incremental change from “business-as-usual” is not tenable. This must be replaced with a normative view of the targets required to avoid catastrophic consequences, based on the latest, considered, science. Action is then determined by the imperative to achieve the target, not by incremental, art-of-the-possible, change from business-as-usual. This will involve both mitigation – avoiding the unmanageable, and adaptation – managing the unavoidable.

The target for stabilisation of atmospheric carbon to avoid dangerous consequences is now a concentration of less than 350ppm CO2. Many will dismiss this as unattainable given that current concentrations are 385ppm CO2; it will require not only the rapid curtailment of emissions, but the re-absorption of some carbon already in the atmosphere. However it is only unattainable when viewed with a business-as-usual mindset, influenced by established vested interests. When real emergencies loom, as at present, then remarkable change is possible, but only with a paradigm shift in thinking. There are numerous historic precedents, for example national mobilisations pre-WW2, the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of post-war Europe, the Apollo Project etc (xxi).

Second therefore, is a need for such a paradigm shift in thinking, to regard the climate change challenge as a genuine global emergency, to be addressed with an emergency global response.

Third, climate change, and its potential to trigger catastrophic failure, must be thought of differently from conventional economics, operational risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. The use of an Irreversible and Catastrophic Harm Precautionary Principle, and a Principle of Intergenerational Neutrality (xxii), are particularly appropriate in developing solutions to the climate change tipping point scenarios now being articulated by leading scientists. Under these circumstances, we should be prepared to pay a great deal to maintain societal, environmental and economic flexibility for both current and future generations. In so doing, we should recognise the following pertinent facts:

• Whilst quantitative analysis, in assessing costs, benefits and expected values of courses of action, can be helpful, the major factors inevitably have to be considered on a qualitative, moral and ethical basis. Where quantitative analysis is applied, an objective view should be taken of both costs and opportunities, rather than the bias toward costs which typifies most current analysis.
• A catastrophe carries with it the potential for the social amplification of risk, in that the impact is often far wider than the immediate consequences. For example, the harm done by the 9/11 attacks far exceeded the immediate deaths on the day. In the aftermath, many people switched to driving long distance rather than flying, the switch producing almost as many deaths as the attacks themselves, simply because driving is more dangerous than flying. This must be borne in mind in weighing the consequences, particularly for events at a global scale.
• The potential for catastrophe also suggests the need to create a margin of safety, or insurance, against its occurrence. This is particularly so when, as with climate change, the immediacy of the problem is not obvious. Carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades. We have already seen a warming of around 0.8oC relative to pre-industrial times, with a further 0.6OC being inevitable as a result of the lag effect of historic emissions. However non-linear climatic responses are already evident at current levels of warming with the potential to trigger tipping points far earlier than previously suggested (e.g., Arctic sea ice melt).
• A margin of safety can be “purchased” by the use of scenario and real option thinking to maintain flexibility (xxiii). For example sensible risk management, given climate change lag and the escalating probability of catastrophic impact, strongly suggests early and rapid action to curtail emissions, not the gradual incremental response now being advocated.
• In taking steps to reduce catastrophic risk, it should be borne in mind that those steps will impose risks of their own which must be anticipated and addressed where possible. The same applies to the lack of action.
• Irreversibility, particularly if occurring on a global scale as with climate change, suggests that special precautions should be taken that go well beyond those that might apply if irreversibility were not a problem.
• Irreversibility is a particularly relevant consideration for new investments which might adversely compound future climate change impact. For example new coal-fired power stations and coal export facilities being built without a guaranteed means to secure the carbon emitted make no sense in current circumstances. Once built, it will be extremely difficult to shut them down – far better to withhold approval until carbon sequestration can be guaranteed.

Fourth is the need for genuine global leadership. Current responses reflect the dominance of managerialism – an emphasis on optimising the conventional political and corporate paradigms by incremental change, rather than adopt the fundamentally different normative paradigm needed to contend with the potential for catastrophic failure. In practical terms, leadership means committing today to rapid emission reductions, irrespective of “prisoners dilemma” considerations, and actively promoting concrete proposals to involve the developing world. For example via the Contraction and Convergence concepts mooted in the Garnaut Draft Report, but well in advance of the UNFCCC 2009 Copenhagen meetings. The conditional approaches recommended by both business, government and the Garnaut “Targets & Trajectories” Report almost inevitably becoming self-fulfilling barriers to progress globally. A nexus-breaker is urgently needed, and Australia is ideally placed to provide it, with the potential for considerable national benefit.

Fifth, it must be acknowledged that climate change, though difficult, is only one of a number of critical, interrelated, issues now confronting the global community, as a result of population pressures and economic growth, which threaten the sustainability of humanity as we know it. The immediate pressure point is the convergence of climate change with the peaking of global oil supply, water and food shortages.

Rather than viewing these issues separately in individual “silos” as at present, an integrated policy approach is essential if realistic solutions are to be implemented. For example, some peak oil estimates suggest that, due to declining production from existing oil reservoirs and limited potential for new discoveries, even at high oil prices, global oil supply may reduce by up to half by 2030, raising major questions as to who receives the available oil and our ability to make rapid substitution (xxiv, xxv).

Australia is particularly exposed in this regard, with only around 50% oil self-sufficiency. Thus we may well be attempting to transform our society to a low-carbon footing in the face of acute oil shortages; given our dependence on oil, early planning for this eventuality is essential. We will not be able to fall back on more extensive use of our coal resources in the absence of safe carbon sequestration technology (xxvi), and that is unlikely to be available.

It is unfortunate that the Garnaut Review thus far has ignored the potential impact of peak oil (xxvii), which may be the most critical factor affecting our transition to a low-carbon society. The International Energy Agency, at the behest of the G8, is focusing on the integrated climate change/energy security challenge and is expected to publish a major review of global oil supply prospects, and the climate change implications, as part of their 2008 World Energy Outlook released on 12th November 2008 (xxviii). This analysis, along with that referred to above, should be essential input to Australian policy development.

A further consideration is the need to incorporate greater resilience into Australian society to withstand and recover from the changes ahead (xxix).

Sixth, there needs to be an honest articulation of the catastrophic risks and the integrated sustainability challenge we now face, with extensive community education to develop the platform for commitment to the major changes ahead, albeit community thinking is in many respects more advanced than political or corporate attitudes to these issues. This must include a more mature and responsible political approach, as catastrophic risk cannot be handled realistically with current adversarial attitudes.

Conclusion. The Garnaut Review emphasises that Australia, as a hot dry country surrounded by less robust developing countries, is more exposed than other developed countries to the risks of anthropogenic climate change (xxx). As the science evolves and it becomes clear that the risk of catastrophic climate change is growing rapidly, Australia becomes even more exposed. For all the reasons advanced in the Review, this implies that Australia has even more reason to take a genuine leadership role in triggering global initiatives to avoid catastrophic consequences. Unfortunately this will not be achieved by the incremental policy formulations currently being proposed.

A different approach is required, based on a normative definition of emission reduction targets determined from the latest science, then working backwards to define the action required to achieve those targets. Action must be structured in the context of an emergency response, incorporating the concepts of an Irreversible and Catastrophic Harm Precautionary Principle, and a Principle of Intergenerational Neutrality.

The first priority of responsible government is to address major threats to national security. Climate change and the related issues of peak oil and energy security are arguably the greatest threats to national security Australia will face in the next decades, with potentially catastrophic implications. The legitimacy of any Federal Government now depends on its preparedness to acknowledge these realities and take the serious action required.

——————————————————————————-

“There is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prosper under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.”

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch.6 1514

References

i Garnaut Review, Interim Report February 2008

ii Garnaut Review, Draft Report June 2008

iii Garnaut Review, Targets & Trajectories – Supplementary Draft Report September 2008

iv ibid Draft Report P25

v Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

vi ibid Draft Report P27

vii ibid Targets and Trajectories, P6

viii “The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change”, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC, November 2007

ix “This is an emergency and for emergency situations we need emergency action”, Ban Ki-Moon, Un Secretary General, 7th November 2007

x “ — putting these two things together, the short term and medium term security of our oil markets, plus the climate change consequences of this energy use, my message is that, if we don’t do anything very quickly, and in a bold manner, the wheels may fall off. Our energy system’s wheels may fall off —— within the next seven years”, Fatih Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency, 7th November 2007

xi “World leaders need to take action on the energy crisis that is taking shape before our eyes.—We need to act before crisis turns into catastrophe.”, Mohamed El Baradei, Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, Financial Times, London, 24th July 2008

xii “Although dangerous climate change is already with us, we still have a good chance of being able to cope with it if we stay below 450ppm CO2e. This is the number we have to aim for. Any higher, and the risk of catastrophic climate change becomes just too great”, P98, The Hot Topic, Gabrielle Walker & Sir David King, 2008

xiii “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, Hansen, Sato, Kharecha et al, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2008

xiv John Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute, The Guardian, 15th September 2008

xv “Global Climate Change – Looming as Health Risk Factor No.1?”, A.J.McMichael, ANU, Canberra, August 2008

xvi “Global Risks 2008”, World Economic Forum, January 2008

xvii “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”, Australian Federal Government, July 2008

xviii “Modelling Success – Designing an ETS That Works”, Business Council of Australia, August 2008

xix G8 meeting, Hokkaido, Japan 9th July 2008

xx ibid Targets and Trajectories, September 2008

xxi “Climate Code Red”, Philip Sutton & David Spratt, July 2008

xxii “Worst Case Scenarios”, Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard University Press, 2007

xxiii “Scenarios, Real Options and Integrated Risk Management”, K.D.Miller & H.G.Waller, Long Range Planning 36, 2003, P93-107

xxiv Association for the Study of Peak Oil, 2007 Base Case

xxv “Crude Oil – The Supply Outlook”, Energy Watch Group, October 2007

xxvi “Implications of “Peak Oil” for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate, P.A.Kharecha & J.E.Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, March 2008

xxvii ibid Draft Report, Chapter 20

xxviii World Energy Outlook 2008, International Energy Agency, Paris

xxix “Rapid and Surprising Change in Australia’s Future – anticipating and preparing for future challenges and opportunities on the way to a sustainable Australia”, Australia 21 Monograph, October 2007

xxx ibid Draft Report, P2

Hansen to Obama Pt IV – Where to from here?

So what are the priorities for Obama, and indeed, for world governments, as they gather to discuss the next international treaty at Poznan this month? Can something meaningful be hammered out in Copenhagen in a years time? What are the implications of us collectively making a choice to do nothing, or at least very little? Can ‘politics as usual’ and international diplomacy be bold enough to make the critical decisions?

In this short concluding piece, the key options open to humanity – and the ‘no go zones’ -  are reviewed.

————————————————————–

Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth (Part IV of IV)

Dr James E. Hansen

Implications. All of the slack in the schedule for averting climate disasters has been used up. The time has past for ‘goals’, half-measures, greenwashing, and compromises with special interests. We have already overshot the safe level of greenhouse gases. Things are just beginning to crumble – Arctic ice is melting, methane is bubbling from permafrost, mountain glaciers are disappearing. We must move onto a different course within the next year or two to avoid committing the planet to accelerating climate changes out of our control. Geophysical boundary constraints are crystal clear: coal emissions must be phased out and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, tar sands, e.g.) must be prohibited.

Priorities for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy are steps to: (1) improve energy efficiency, (2) develop and deploy renewable energies, (3) modernize and expand a ‘smart’ electric grid, (4) develop 4th generation nuclear power, (5) develop carbon capture and sequestration capability.

Prompt development of safe 4th generation nuclear power is needed to allow energy options for countries such as China and India, and for countries in the West in the likely event that energy efficiency and renewable energies cannot satisfy all energy requirements.

Deployment of 4th generation nuclear power can be hastened via cooperation with China, India and other countries. It is essential that hardened ‘environmentalists’ not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power. Thus it is desirable to avoid appointing to key energy positions persons with a history of opposition to nuclear power development. Of course, deployment of nuclear power is a local option, and some countries or regions may prefer to rely entirely on other energy sources, but opponents of nuclear power should not be allowed to deny that option to everyone.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills more than 100,000 people per year. If such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal plants be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground.

Nevertheless, R&D for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) deserves strong support. It is needed to provide the full range of options in energy choices, for countries that insist on exploiting their coal resources. Moreover, CCS has another potentially more important role to play: it could be used at power plants that burn biofuels, such as agricultural wastes. This sort of ‘geoengineering’, which draws excess CO2 out of the air and puts it back in the ground where it came from, may be needed to get atmospheric CO2 back to a safe level.

Transition to the post-fossil-fuel era with clean atmosphere and ocean, requires a carbon tax. That tax will cause unconventional fossil fuels to be left in the ground, as well as much coal and some oil and gas that resides in remote regions. The public will accept such a tax if the funds are returned entirely to the public, no funds going to Washington and other capitols for politicians and lobbyists to determine its fate. Tax and 100 percent dividend is not sufficient by itself – many other actions are needed – but it is necessary. No time remains for a transition via ineffectual half measures.

Frank communication with the public is essential. At present, all around the world, governments are guilty of greenwash, an implausible approach of goals and half-measures that will barely slow the growth of CO2. The world, not just the United States, needs an open honest discussion of what is needed. It is a tremendous burden to place on the President Elect, who seems to be the only potential candidate. The only chance seems to be if he understands the truth – the whole truth.

Young people realize that they, their children, and the unborn will bear the consequences of our actions or inactions. They do not blame their parents, who legitimately ‘did not know’ what they were starting. Young people have recently worked hard to influence the democratic process. Now they expect the system to take appropriate actions. If that does not happen, surely they will begin to raise their voices louder.

————————————————————–

That’s it from Hansen to Obama. If you want to keep up with his latest thoughts on climate science and policy, I’d encourage you to visit his website and subscribe to his mailing list.

Will Obama, or his new Energy Secretary, listen to this advice? Will they move with the required speed to push through the energy efficiency, technological R&D, massive renewable and nuclear layout required to avoid a climate and post-oil energy catastrophe? Will coal with no emissions capture be stopped? Will the Sustainability Crisis even be recognised for what it is by decision makers in time? I sincerely hope so.

But to be brutally honest, I doubt it. There will be movements in the right direction of course – two steps forward, one step back, partial solutions to individual issues, policies that go some way to fixing the problem. Too little, too late. Beyond the slight hope of a silver bullet solution, in 10 or 15 years, ‘we’ (global society) will realise to our horror the depth of our mistake – but by then, there will be no going back. Just countless bleak years lying ahead, when we’ll really appreciate what ‘adaptation’ means.

Hansen to Obama Pt III – Fast nuclear reactors are integral

Nuclear energy? Pah! Too dangerous (risk of meltdown or weapons proliferation), too expensive, too slow to come on line, insufficient uranium reserves to power more than a small fraction of the world’s energy demand, blah di blah blah blah blah. There is certainly plenty of opposition out there to nuclear energy in any way, shape or form. Nuclear is bad news, it’s a distraction, it’s a carry over from the cold war, it’s old school thinking. And so on.

Well, the above is what the majority of environmentalists and pacifists would tell you. And there is some very solid reason for scepticism about the widespread use of nuclear power, especially Generation II nuclear fission reactors (I suggest we keep the ones we’ve got, but don’t bother with any more of them). But in the brave new world of the Sustainability Emergency (climate crisis + energy crisis + water crisis + mineral crisis + biodiversity crisis, etc.), we simply haven’t got time or scope for such hard-line negativity. We need every solution we can lay our hands on — and more for good measure.

Hansen is willing to talk about nuclear energy. I am too – given chronic intermittency issues with large-scale renewables and the need for plenty of extra energy to fix huge looming problems with hanging together a sophisticated civilisation on a habitable planet, it’s got to be in the mix. Indeed, in the long run, it, in the form of fusion power, could well be the only form of energy that matters to humanity (if we manage to get through the post-industrial crunch, that is). There are plenty of tantilising prospects for safe, effective, long-term baseload power from 4th+ generation nuclear fission power. But for now, there is just nowhere near enough action ($$ and willpower) on the R&D and roll out front.

Hansen explains this in part III. He also goes into more detail on this issue in his earlier Trip Report, which I also quote below…

————————————————————–

Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth (Part III of IV)

Dr James E. Hansen

Nuclear Power. Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.

There is about a million times more energy available in the nucleus, compared with the chemical energy of molecules exploited in fossil fuel burning. In today’s nuclear (fission) reactors neutrons cause a nucleus to fission, releasing energy as well as additional neutrons that sustain the reaction. The additional neutrons are ‘born’ with a great deal of energy and are called ‘fast’ neutrons. Further reactions are more likely if these neutrons are slowed by collisions with non-absorbing materials, thus becoming ‘thermal’ or slow neutrons.

All nuclear plants in the United States today are Light Water Reactors (LWRs), using ordinary water (as opposed to ‘heavy water’) to slow the neutrons and cool the reactor. Uranium is the fuel in all of these power plants. One basic problem with this approach is that more than 99% of the uranium fuel ends up ‘unburned’ (not fissioned). In addition to ‘throwing away’ most of the potential energy, the long-lived nuclear wastes (plutonium, americium, curium, etc.) require geologic isolation in repositories such as Yucca Mountain.

There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons ‘fast’ during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely burn the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only sever decades, thus largely solving the nuclear waste problem. The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors. Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate buildup of long-lived nuclear waste.

The United States chose the LWR development path in the 1950s for civilian nuclear power because research and development had already been done by the Navy, and it thus presented the shortest time-to-market of reactor concepts then under consideration. Little emphasis was given to the issues of nuclear waste. The situation today is very different. If nuclear energy is to be used widely to replace coal, in the United States and/or the developing world, issues of waste, safety, and proliferation become paramount.

Nuclear power plants being built today, or in advanced stages of planning, in the United States, Europe, China and other places, are just improved LWRs. They have simplified operations and added safety features, but they are still fundamentally the same type, produce copious nuclear waste, and continue to be costly. It seems likely that they will only permit nuclear power to continue to play a role comparable to that which it plays now.

Both fast and thorium reactors were discussed at our 3 November workshop. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at the Argonne National Laboratory and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFR keeps neutrons “fast” by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. It also makes fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFR can burn existing nuclear waste, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name “integral”) and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shutdown safely under even severe accident scenarios.

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWR’s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

The common presumption that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready until 2030 is based on assumption of ‘business-as-usual”. Given high priority, this technology could be ready for deployment in the 2015-2020 time frame, thus contributing to the phase-out of coal plants. Even if the United States finds that it can satisfy its electrical energy needs via efficiency and renewable energies, 4th generation nuclear power is probably essential for China and India to achieve clear skies with carbon-free power.

————————————————————–

MORE by Hansen on the same topic, with some extra details and a book recommendation for further reading…

Trip Report – Nuclear Power

On one of my trips I read a draft of “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees, which I highly recommend. Let me note two of its topics that are especially relevant to global warming. Blees makes a powerful case for 4th generation nuclear power, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). IFR reactors (a.k.a. fast or breeder reactors) eliminate moderating materials used in thermal reactors, allowing the neutrons to move faster. More energetic splitting of nuclei releases more neutrons. Instead of using up less than 1% of the fissionable material in the ore, a fast reactor burns practically all of the uranium. Primary claimed advantages are:

a) The fuel is recycled on-site, incorporating radioactive elements into new fuel rods. The eventual ‘ashes’ are not usable as fuel or weapons. The radioactive half-life of the ashes is short, their radioactivity becoming less than that of naturally occurring ore within a few hundred years. The volume of this waste is relatively small and can be stored easily either on-site or off-site.

b) The IFR can burn the nuclear ‘waste’ of current thermal reactors. So we have a supply of fuel that is better than free – we have been struggling with what to do with that ‘waste’ for years. We have enough fuel for IFR reactors to last several centuries without further uranium mining. So the argument that nuclear power uses a lot of fossil fuels during uranium mining becomes moot.

c) IFR design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem. The terrorist threat can be minimized by building the reactor below grade and covering it with reinforced concrete and earth.

Wait a minute! If it’s that good, why aren’t we doing it? Well, according to Blees, it’s because, in 1994, just when we were ready to build a demonstration plant, the Clinton Administration cancelled the IFR program. Blees offers a partial explanation, noting that Clinton had used the phrase “You’re pro-nuclear!” to demonize rivals during his campaign, suggesting that Clinton had a debt to the anti-nuclear people. Hmm. The matter warrants further investigation and discussion. It’s not as if we didn’t know about global warming in 1994.

Even more curious is the assertion that Argonne scientists, distraught about the cancellation, were told they could not talk about it (why do I find this easy to believe?). Here too there is no explanation in depth, although Blees notes that the Secretary of Energy, Hazel O.Leary, was previously a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies (my gosh, is everybody in Washington an ex-lobbyist – alligators will go extinct!).

I have always been agnostic on nuclear power. I like to hope that, if our next President gives high priority to a low-loss national electric grid, renewables will be able to take over most of the power generation load4. Wind and solar-thermal are poised to become big players. IEA’s estimate that renewables will only grow from 1% to 2% (by 2030!) can be dismissed due to IEA’s incestuous relation with fossil industries – nevertheless, one must have healthy skepticism about whether renewables can take over completely. Maybe an understatement – I’m not certain.

Blees argues that it made no sense to terminate research and development of 4th generation nuclear power. Was it thought that nuclear technology would be eliminated from Earth, and thus the world would become a safer place?? Not very plausible – as Blees points out, several other countries are building or making plans to build fast reactors. By opting out of the technology, the U.S. loses the ability to influence IFR standards and controls, with no realistic hope of getting the rest of the world to eschew breeder reactors. Blees suggests, probably rightly, that this was a political calculation for domestic purposes, a case of dangerous self-deception.

Bottom line: I can’t seem to agree fully with either the anti-nukes or Blees. Some of the anti-nukes are friends, concerned about climate change, and clearly good people. Yet I suspect that their ‘success’ (in blocking nuclear R&D) is actually making things more dangerous for all of us and for the planet. It seems that, instead of knee-jerk reaction against anything nuclear, we need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimize dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents. Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimize the others. In any case, we should not have bailed out of research on fast reactors. (BTW, Blees points out that coal-fired power plants are exposing the population to more than 100 times more radioactive material than nuclear power plants – some of it spewed out the smokestacks, but much of it in slag heaps of coal ash. See http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3614/dirty_smoke_signals/ re the effect of this waste on Native Americans in the Southwest, as well as ‘Burning the Future’, above, re the Appalachians.)

I don’t agree with Blees’ dismissal of the conclusion of most energy experts that there is no ‘silver bullet’; they argue that we need a mix of technologies. Blees sees a ‘depleted uranium bullet’ that could easily provide all of our needs for electrical energy for hundreds of years. His argument is fine for pointing out that existing nuclear material contains an enormous amount of energy (if we extract it all, rather than leaving >99% in a very long-lived waste heap), but I still think that we need a range of energy sources. Renewable energies and nuclear power are compatible: they both need, or benefit from, a low-loss grid, as it is more acceptable to site nuclear plants away from population centers, and nuclear energy provides base-load power, complementing intermittent renewables.

BTW, nuclear plants being proposed for construction now in the U.S. are 3rd generation (the ones in operation are mostly 2nd generation). The 3rd generation reactors are simplified (fewer valves, pumps and tanks), but they are still thermal pressurized reactors that require (multiple) emergency cooling systems. France is about to replace its aging 2nd generation reactors with the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR); a prototype is now being built in Finland. According to Blees, OECD ranks EPR as the cheapest electric energy source, cheaper than pulverized coal – that evaluation doubtless presumes use of a standard design, a la the French procedure for its 2nd generation reactors. The prototype in Finland, according to reports, is running behind schedule and over budget – that was also true in the prior generation, yet the eventual standard French reactors have been economical. Current efforts to start construction of 3rd generation nuclear plants in the U.S., so far, do not seem to have achieved a standard design or to have avoided project delays (partly due to public opposition) that drive up costs.

Blees argues that the 4th generation technology basically exists, that the design will be simplified, especially due to the absence of a need for emergency cooling systems. He foresees a standard modular construction of the reactor per se, smaller than earlier generations, which can be built at the factory, shipped to the site, and dropped in the prepared excavation. His cost estimates have this nuclear power yielding cheaper electricity than any of the competition. The system is designed to eliminate long-lived nuclear ‘waste’ and minimize proliferation dangers. There is enough fuel available without further uranium mining to handle electricity needs for several centuries, for whatever fraction of electricity needs cannot be covered by renewable energies. If these claims are anywhere close to being correct, we could phase out use of fossil fuels for electricity generation over the next few decades.

I do not have the expertise or insight to evaluate the cost and technology readiness estimates. The overwhelming impression that I get, reinforced by the ‘boron’ topic below, is that Blees is a great optimist. But we need some good ideas and optimism. The book contains a lot of interesting insights and tidbits, e.g., there is more energy available in the nuclear material spewn out as waste by coal plants than the amount of energy produced by the coal burning. The book will be available in about a month; see his web site www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com

————————————————————–

Well, that’s sure to stir the pot. But he’s got a point, hasn’t he? Part IV wraps this up, and closes with some strong statements about what we should and shouldn’t be willing to do.