In the spirit of conflict resolution, promoted by Marshall Massey and others, I am wondering if there are points we can all agree on. Do we all, from both camps, agree on any or all of the following?
• 13% of energy worldwide does not come from fossil fuels: oil (41%), coal (24%), and natural gas (22%). This 13% is nuclear (6%), hydroelectric (6%), and other, primarily plants and other biopower/biofuels.
• In the US, electricity (power) is primarily fossil fuel: half coal, 20% nuclear, 18% natural gas, 3% oil, and 9% renewable. Three fourths of the renewable is hydro, 17% is biomass/waste. Geothermal (not technically renewable) and wind are each about 4% of renewables, with solar energy 0.2%.
• GHG emissions from the power sector (electricity) are growing more rapidly than GHG emissions generally.
• Scientists are correct: climate change is the most serious and intractable problem facing humans ever.
• Improving efficiency (doing the same with less energy) and changing how we live are both part of the solution.
• Other low-GHG emitting sources of electricity, such as solar, wind, and geothermal (not technically renewable) are part of the solution. This is true even though all of them will require big subsidies for many years (in solar’s case, it may be decades).
• Coal power is worse than nuclear power. We should never build another coal power plant anywhere in the world, at least without carbon capture and storage. Yet that is what the coal countries (US, China, Australia, Germany, etc) are doing and intend to continue.
• Using natural gas is more polluting than nuclear power. Note: Natural gas and hydro are the two sources of electricity now widely used to provide peak power (during parts of the day and parts of the year when more electricity is needed). But does it make sense to use natural gas for baseload (24/7) power?
• If we create enough low-GHG emitting sources of electricity, a switch to plug-in hybrids will reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
Also posted at earthwitness matters
With regard to plug-in hybrids; the additional electrical power requirements will need to develop alongside the spread of these vehicles. Still more carbon-free electricity could allow a switch to alternative fuels synthesised using the additional energy – hydrogen, DME, boron, or whatever – for long trips.
The only problem I detect is a difficulty with improving efficiency that is not often discussed. Don’tt get me wrong here; I am absolutely in favour of improving efficiency wherever possible (although keeping a close eye on holistic costs). No, the problem is much simpler; if appliences and industry become more efficient, the likely outcome – from history – is not reduced power usage, but increased activity, and possibly even increased power usage.
Imagine an apartment with an AC box parked in one window. It’s just about keeping one room less unpleasantly sticky than the rest of the place. What will the result of increased efficiency be here? AC becomes cheaper to run, what would you do? I’d get a bigger unit or two and make the whole place comfortable.
As I say, not discussed often, but I think worth considering.
Glad to take your word on these. Data is plausible, but I don’t know the exact numbers.
Absolutely.
Certainly part of the solution. Not sure about the subsidies.
Do NOT agree with the “worse than nuclear power” phrase. Coal plants are horrible polluters, and certainly should not be built without extensive carbon capture technologies.
Coal is indeed “worse than” nuclear in terms of pollution from daily normal operations; not at all worse than in terms of possible catastrophe!
No!
Not at all sure. Reliance on individual low occupancy vehicles may be a critical part of our problem, and hybrids don’t affect that at all.
Certainly there is a common ground between anti and pro nuclear people who understand that global warming is a globe threatening reality. But that does not ease the tension.
The disagreement is whether we can handle the regular production of spent fuel, that must be stored, and whether safeguards to prevent plant releases of radioactive products, and to prevent catastrophic meltdowns, are or even can be at all adequate. We need to listen carefully to each other on these points, even if we are convinced that we already have the truth.
I have not verified all of the figures in Karen’s first few points, but they sound plausible.
• Scientists are correct: climate change is the most serious and
intractable problem facing humans ever.
Certainly one of the most serious problems, but I fear that nuclear proliferation and nuclear war are as as serious and possibly more intractable.
• Improving efficiency (doing the same with less energy) and changing
how we live are both part of the solution.
Agreed.
• Other low-GHG emitting sources of electricity, such as solar, wind,
and geothermal (not technically renewable) are part of the solution.
This is true even though all of them will require big subsidies for
many years (in solar’s case, it may be decades).
I definitely agree that they are a big part of the solution. How big the subsidies need to be depends on a lot of factors.
• Coal power is worse than nuclear power. We should never build
another coal power plant anywhere in the world, at least without carbon
capture and storage. Yet that is what the coal countries (US, China, Australia, Germany, etc) are doing and intend to continue.
Define “worse”. I agree that in terms of greenhouse gases, pollutants put into the air (including mercury, particulates, and many other nasty things) coal is worst than nuclear power. I also agree that any future coal plants should have carbon capture and storage.
• Using natural gas is more polluting than nuclear power. Note:
Natural gas and hydro are the two sources of electricity now widely used to provide peak power (during parts of the day and parts of the year when more electricity is needed). But does it make sense to use natural gas for baseload (24/7) power?
Again, much worst in greenhouse gasses than nuclear power.
• If we create enough low-GHG emitting sources of electricity, a
switch to plug-in hybrids will reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
I agree that this could happen. After more extensive use of public transportation this is probably the best near-term solution for reducing greenhouse gasses from the transportation sector.
In the spirit of conflict resolution, I would also like to see if we have agreement on some additional points:
• Nuclear proliferation (including the threat of nuclear terrorism) and nuclear war are serious threats, possibly as serious as the threat of global climate change.
• Any nation that has the infrastructure to support civilian nuclear power plants (including the ability to obtain and enrich uranium, possibly the ability to reprocess spent fuel to obtain plutonium, trained nuclear scientists and engineers, and an industrial base to support the above) can produce nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time, if it chooses to do so.
• That India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, and probably Israel produced nuclear weapons from equipment that was nominally intended for non-weapons uses (a research reactor in India, enrichment centrifuge technology in Pakistan, reprocessing plutonium from reactor fuel in North Korea, a uranium enrichment plan that supplied fuel for South African nuclear power plants, and a joint French-Israeli reactor that was supposed to desalinate water in Israel). That Iran today has built uranium enrichment facilities that are capable of producing weapons-grade uranium, although the claim is enrichment is for for Iranian power plants.
• That past attempts to have nuclear power while preventing that
technology from being used to develop nuclear weapons have often failed.
I think, Scot, you will be lucky to find the points you offer as common ground, at least in the words you have used. I think this:
– Nuclear war is a terrible prospect
is common ground; but the links between nuclear weapons and nuclear power are definitely not agreed. Here’s a point you might like to see if you agree with:
– Use of nuclear power does not lead to acquiring nuclear weapons.
since there are plenty of non-weapons states using nuclear power. However since this linkage is one of the favourite anti-nuke themes, I think it unlikely to bring agreement.
The reality is that any industrialized naton could choose to have nuclear weapons, without ever making a reactor, given sufficient political will. Centrifuge cascades to enrich widely-available uranium up to bomb quality isotopic mix require only enough nuclear understanding to avoid assembling a critical mass accidentally. To some extent experience in operating power stations might make that process easier, but it would still require dedicated effort and investment.
I don’t understand your last point at all.
How about we agree to compromise?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1752031.html
Thusly. Put your money where your mouth is. If nuclear is the answer you all think it is, this will prove it. And opposition by nuclear phobic opponents will be asuaged.
Are you afraid to compete without subsidies with solasr, wind, water, and biogas distributed generation and storage power generation? Maybe you aren’t but I bet your favorite nuclear contractors like Bectel and GE will never compromise.
They know that without concessions on insurance, safety, evacuation plans, groundwater leaks, mining contamination, fuel processing contamination, nuclear plant security,and waste disposal from the government they could never compete on a level playing field.
“the links between nuclear weapons and nuclear power are definitely not agreed.”
Then why is this administration using those links to threaten to invade Iran? You can’t have it both ways.
Either Iran’s nukes are not capable of producing weapons or the administration that loves nuclear power is right, and nations like Iran and korea are using their reactors to produce bomb material.
If that is true, that Iran and korea are usuing nuclear power as a mask and means to produce weapons, then how can anyone be in favor of exporting nuclear power around the world?
We know that toxic substances used by terrorists and assasins, like pollonium, can be made from harmless, easily obtained elements placed in nuclear reactors to bake in the neutron flux.
It seems I’m going too fast. Let’s start at the beginning:
– Uranium enrichment is not nuclear power.
– Some countries have nuclear power but not nuclear weapons
– Historically, most countries with nuclear weapons developed them before using nuclear power.
– Terrorists have never used nuclear power byproducts.
Are these simple enough points to understand and agree on?
From the dialogue above, it’s clear that one of the major objections to nuclear energy is the perceived tie with nuclear weapons.
I tend to view this rather like an argument to ban the use of hammers because hammers can be used to hit someone in the head and possibly kill them, as well as for driving nails, breaking rocks, and other constructive purposes.
A tool is a neutral thing. It can be used for good or bad. Think about tools as varied as a kitchen knife, a thumbtack, the hammer, a hybrid automobile, a baseball bat, or a piece of string. We use knives in the kitchen to cut veggies or meat. Thumbtacks are used for putting notes and other pieces of paper on bulletin boards. Hammers are for driving nails. My hybrid car gets me from place to place and saves on gas as well as CO2 emissions. Baseball bats are for hitting home runs, foul balls, and everything in between. Duct tape, scissors, and string have 101 uses and I should tie a string around my finger to remember to make a list of what they all are! 🙂
But…we should ban the use of all of these items! They are also deadly weapons! Kitchen knives and meat cleavers can be used to murder people and they’re certainly banned from school campuses (except under authorized use by the cooks in the cafeteria). Thumbtacks can be placed on someone’s seat, and when they plop their rear end down, ouch! We’ve discussed the hammer’s use as a murder weapon. Crazy people have mowed down pedestrians on the sidewalk using automobiles…and a Prius has more weight (from the hybrid battery) than a car of similar size and is thus, probably more deadly. The Toyota Prius has indeed been used to kill someone. It should be banned! Baseball bats have been used in murders, and duct tape, scissors, and string or rope is sometimes used in the commission of horrible crimes. By the way, the duct tape and scissors were used together. We should certainly ban both both duct tape and scissors!
From mundane tools that are used as murder weapons, let’s go back to the concept of nuclear fission and its use for bad or for good.
Two wonderful advocates of nuclear disarmament, both with the first name of “Hans” have worked tirelessly to forge the distinction between nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power. I believe that the arguments used above have ignored that distinction, which is basically as great or greater than the distinction between a tank of gas used to fuel an automobile (or lawnmower or whatever) and that same gasoline used in a molotov cocktail.
Dr. Hans Bethe spoke at Pugwash meetings and did other disarmament work before his passing at the ripe old age of 98. Dr. Hans Bethe advocated civilian nuclear energy and also did work in conciliation on the issue.
Dr. Hans Blix, who was proven correct in his 2002-2003 assessment of the lowly status of Iraq‘s WMD program, is a strong advocate for the regulated, monitored use of nuclear energy.
As it happens the only path to nuclear disarmament is through nuclear power.
We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. That has been true since 1945. What we can do is to make them more difficult and problematic to build.
Weapons grade plutonium cannot be made nonexistent unless it is placed in a nuclear reactor, partially fissioned and subject to isotopic denaturing. It is true that in theory one can make a nuclear weapon with any plutonium, but isotopic changes make the system far less reliable and far more difficult to handle.
It is interesting to note that even uranium can be so denatured by raising the proportion of U-236 and ideally adding U-232 derived from thorium fuels.
There have, in any case, been zero nuclear wars since 1945. but there have been many fossil fuel related wars. Thus it is immediately clear that the path to minimizing war is the same path as minimizing the attraction of fossil fuels.
Further one may argue that poverty and ignorance are causes of war. If so, by attacking poverty, one is preventing war. As it happens nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy are the only exajoule scale forms of energy that are simulataneously cheap and free of global climate change inducing gases. In the case of the gases, I believe that the creation of a subset of climate refugees will raise, and not reduce, the probability of all kinds of war.
The association between nuclear energy and nuclear war, however prominent they are in the public imagination, are at best specious in observed reality. They are hardly related. I am not worried about Belgium starting a nuclear war with Sweden. I am very concerned about the United States starting (another) oil war in Iran.
This blog is getting long, so I posted a response in Anti- and Pro-Nuclear Agreement?