Building Energy Policy on Facts, Not Dollars
Here’s a well-written article that contains a great deal of truth. Many environmentalists take knee-jerk positions, often rooted in an incomplete and self-serving view of the relevant science, and these positions can ultimately do more harm to the environment than good. It’s sad but true.
Can thoughtful and fair-minded people see a case for genetically modified food? Can nuclear energy and shale gas play a role in mitigating the planet-wrecking horrors of coal? I believe the answer to both question is Yes. As frequent commenter Glenn Doty of Doty WindFuels likes to say, “This is a marathon. Sprinters will not cross the finish line.”
So yes, let’s admit that a rigid, “don’t confuse me with facts” position is childish and indefensible, regardless of the issue and which side of it you believe you’re on.
But my concern is that, as a society, our decision-making processes aren’t really based on facts at all; they’re based on money.
Take GMOs as an example. Are they dangerous? I don’t know. They certainly don’t seem to be, based on incredibly vast amounts of carefully collected data. My concern about GMOs isn’t that they’re dangerous; it’s that neither you nor I nor our elected representatives had even a tiny peep of a voice in the decision to move GMOs into the marketplace. That decision was made by Monsanto and a few other mega-corporations, whose unfathomable power steamrolls the process that we might hope would regulate a decision of this magnitude.
This, of course, gets us back to the U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United” and how, until it’s overturned, the “corporatocracy” described in the Monsanto/GMOs case will remain pervasive here in the United States. Everything we do that has any real monetary value, whether it’s the consumption of food, energy, transportation, healthcare/pharmaceuticals, etc. is mandated by a few people at the top of the corporate world who make the decisions as to how we live and, often, how we die. We get excited about the decisions we make each two years in our election cycles, but we’re kidding ourselves if we believe we have any meaningful participation in our government. Thus, it’s probably a good time for another plug for “MoveToAmend.org” and Bernie Sanders’ initiative: “Saving American Democracy.”
Someone wrote the other day that the subsidies we hand out to solar are disproportionately large compared to those for wind, given their capability to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, to which I replied: What’s really required here is fair-mindedness. As long as decisions are being made to favor a concept purely on the basis of how much clout it has, we’re doomed.
It was interesting to read the anti-nuclear comments following the article. Not even one of the writers of the anti-nuclear comments indicated any awareness of the multiple nuclear technologies available and the ways in which nuclear waste can be reduced to less than one percent of what is produced with our currently most common nuclear technology. That indicated a willingness to comment on scientific matters without first doing the necessary reading to gain an adequate understanding.
Although the article itself did make many good points, I do have one criticism. The logic of expanding the use of both renewables and nuclear power escapes me. If one is better than the other, as determined by economics and other criteria, it would seem more reasonable to use only that one except in the special circumstances where the other would be better.
Hmmm…let’s see now.
1. The “money hungry group” are the deciders.
2. The global climate situation has gotten completely out of hand.
3. EVERYONE reads, sees, and knows the impact that global climate change will make on mankind.
4. EVERYONE has read, saw or heard of Renewable Energy Sources.
5. NOT EVERYONE knows how to get started!
WHAT ARE THE “money hungry group” waiting for – the day that “MOTHER NATURE” takes charge and “kicks-butt”?
Please do consider the following:
– Thermal power plant technology was developed a century in England and the money invested was mostly public to create jobs, industrialize the nation and generate power. Developing new technologies today requires the same efforts. Old technologies have all the advantages than new ones.
– All coal power plants can have better emission ratings with available technologies such as electrostatic precipitators for example and can even have no emissions with CCS (capture and storage)
– Shale gas involves using a considerable amount of energy to get it that may be questionable if it makes sense all together
– Nuclear is not cheap, will never be cheap and Mr Warren Buffet walked away for the business for a reason and without subsidies to decomissioning there is no viability in nuclear. Besides that nuclear waste can only be stored and not disposed
Sustainability is as a friend of mine defines it “solutions that do not cost the earth”. Shale gas, unconventional oil, gas, oil, nuclear are all finite and we shall keep them available for the next generations if we do not find another way to live without them. Capture the emissions of a coal power plant is not safe, will never be safe and we are building time bombs for the next generations to deal with. Nuclear power risks and threats are real and again we are jeopardizing the future of our next generations and this time across the world and not only where nuclear power plants are installed. Renewable Energies on the other hand are free, global and are hard to monopolise. That is the main reason why RE are not loved by many: they cannot be kept under control.
The way forward is for us to learn to live with what we have and be happy. Respect nature and our next generations, stop being greedy and find a balance. If we are not able to do it, war is the next step and war always works to get things solved regarding demand and offer!
Best regards,
Free markets are important. That said, free markets are nothing short of pathetic at taking long views. Very similar to Ebola virus killing the host so quickly that it doesn’t have a good opportunity at pandemic. What has not yet been made clear to me is whether the occasional entrepreneur that does choose to take a longer view (marathon) will survive within our current system. Thus far, the only mitigation to survival of the cheapest has been government. In the case of the USA, that is a (thus far) poor best friend.
Free markets will cut down every tree of a particular type until it is extinct and then go “oh well” and move on. The world is doing this with coal, and as much as I love the sciences, it is nothing short of fairy dust to advocate replacement technologies only when they win the economic battle. They quite simply won’t. It is always less expensive to pollute your section of the river and go “not my problem” for the folk downstream.
The world has to get off of its economic high horse in these decisions, and simply reading that statement in print reinforces for me the incredibly low probability of such happening.
We are doomed!
Logic and science are totally missing in everything we do.
We are bombarded with only half-truths.
The real problem is our planet’s unrelenting need to consume more energy. The “all of the above” argument is important but we as a planet consume everything we can generate. Alternative energy has only continued to stoke our appetites for more energy consumption.
Something needs to happen to change our ways of living.
We are doomed.
Mr. Miguel wrote:
“- Nuclear is not cheap, will never be cheap and Mr Warren Buffet walked away for the business for a reason and without subsidies to decomissioning there is no viability in nuclear. Besides that nuclear waste can only be stored and not disposed…”
The reasons that nuclear has not been cheap are that until recently, there was not a unified design; there were a multitude of designs and that increased construction costs and delayed licensing. Bureaucratic inefficiency also contributed to licensing delays. When a nuclear plant is almost complete, there is already a considerable investment. The interest on the investment has to be paid even when the plant is not yet operating. When licensing is delayed for years, as it has been, costs can easily more than double. The solutions are obvious.
It is untrue that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of. No one who as adequately studied nuclear energy would state that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of. There are multiple ways to dispose of it instead of simply storing it.
Nuclear waste, except for a small part of it, can be disposed of by recycling. What we call waste is actually unused because our inefficient nuclear technology uses less than 1% of the available energy in the fuel.
Another way to dispose of the nuclear waste is to use it to fuel reactor types that can use it as fuel thereby reducing it to a tiny fraction of its original volume.
A better way is to use a more efficient nuclear reactor technology to avoid creating the most of the waste in the first place. Metallic salt reactors, of which the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a subtype, create less than 1% as much fuel as our current pressurized water uranium reactors and the waste that they do create degrades so quickly that it needs to be stored for only a few hundred years.
Here is what I wrote in my first post in this thread:
“It was interesting to read the anti-nuclear comments following the article. Not even one of the writers of the anti-nuclear comments indicated any awareness of the multiple nuclear technologies available and the ways in which nuclear waste can be reduced to less than one percent of what is produced with our currently most common nuclear technology. That indicated a willingness to comment on scientific matters without first doing the necessary reading to gain an adequate understanding.”
Granted doing the necessary studying is very time-consuming, but it is possible to do it and without doing it, one is not qualified to comment on nuclear power. To start, I recommend reading the book “Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin. It is readily available from the usual sources.
I also recommend visiting the following web site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
By all means, make comments to these articles, but not without first doing the necessary studying.
Error correction in my previous post:
“Metallic salt reactors, of which the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a subtype, create less than 1% as much fuel as our current pressurized water uranium reactors and the waste that they do create degrades so quickly that it needs to be stored for only a few hundred years.”
The phrase, “less than 1% as much fuel” should read, “less than 1% as much waste.”
The others errors are obvious and minor so need no correction.
There are so many different opinions on clean energy, some are (in my view) clean and other not so much. Nuclear energy, even the new technologies, are a problem, as I view it. If you do statistics you may come up with better runner ups, but what happens if one of YOUR sons or daughters comes too close to a nuclear depository and gets poisoned? That would be statistically very high, meaning, 100% death sentence, but if you consider the same information in a wider volume of probabilities, well, then, that would be acceptable. The difference is only from which point of view you are looking; so it seems, it all depends. Processing nuclear material is dangerous, handling it also, using it, also, storing it, also, so,… I think you get the point. Imagine, as it happened last summer, a prolonged drought, no water, nuclear plants can´t operate with water to warm or not enough water, then what? A shut down, a meltdown? What happens with a solar plant, no sun, no water, … nothing! A wind turbine, the same! So you see, there are many problems that may appear and the solutions are very close to none.
When we, as humans, as business people, come up with a solution, whom are we thinking of? What are the consecuences of our “business” propositions?
Mr. Andrews wrote:
“I think you get the point. Imagine, as it happened last summer, a prolonged drought, no water, nuclear plants can´t operate with water to warm or not enough water, then what? A shut down, a meltdown?”
That statement indicates a failure to study various nuclear power technologies.
The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) CANNOT melt down! The fuel is thorium tetrafluoride, which is a crystalline solid at normal temperatures but a liquid at normal reactor operating temperature. Obviously a liquid fuel, unlike a solid fuel, cannot melt down.
The LFTR can be designed with a drain plug consisting of solid fuel which is kept solid by having air blown over it. If overheating were to occur, the blower would be shut off, the plug would melt, and the fuel would be drained into holding tanks configured in such a way that criticality could not occur. That has been successfully tested.
Moreover, the LFTR can be designed to be self-regulating. If it tends to over-heat, the fuel expands, becoming less dense, and fission slows down with no operator or electronic intervention required. Again, that property has been successfully tested.
Also, the LFTR can operate at much higher temperatures. That makes it possible to use the Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle. The Brayton cycle, operating at higher temperatures, does not require water cooling; it can use air cooling. The Brayton cycle has been tested here in New Mexico.
LFTR technology has been tested successfully in prototype form. It will require some work to implement it for actual use, but indications are that probably there will be no serious problems to doing so.
In a previous post, I included a link to a site that included a video of LFTR information. It would be a good idea to view that video before making any comments on nuclear power. The only clear objection to LFTR technology is that it has been tested only in prototype form, as I mentioned above, and therefore will require some more R & D to prepare it for implementation in the real world. But such a promising technology should not be overlooked!
Again, people should thoroughly study various nuclear technologies before making comments on nuclear power.
The LFTR resists diversion of its fuel to nuclear weapons, which is probably why we chose the path we did and continue to act like LFTR’s don’t exist.
Marc, from what I’ve read, it seems that you are correct.
There are those who argue that an intermediate LFTR fission product, U233, can be used for weapons. In theory, that is correct, but in practice, it would seem unlikely.
It’s not as though the LFTR produces bars of U233 and stacks them neatly on a shelf so that they can easily be picked up by terrorists. Rather, the U233 is in the form of a fused salt mixed with other salts. Although it could be separated out chemically, that would take extra equipment which would not be present at a normal LFTR site. Even so, at least in theory, a rogue nation could find a way to do it.
Assuming that a rogue nation did build a LFTR installation which included means to separate out the U233, there would be other problems. The U233 would be contaminated with U232 which is highly radioactive and a strong gamma emitter. The radiation from it would kill anyone who tried to work with it meaning that fabrication of it into weapons would have to be done with robots, unlike the U235 which is normally used for weapons and is only very slightly radioactive and can be handled by hand.
If they succeeded in fabricating the U233 into shapes suitable for weapons, they would face additional problems. The radiation from the U232 contaminant would destroy the electronics required to trigger the weapon. If they got around that problem, it would still be exceedingly difficult to store and transport the weapons because of the bulky and heavy shielding required. The radiation would also make it difficult to conceal the weapons.
It would be easier to use centrifuges to extract U235 from natural uranium than to use the contaminated U233 from an LFTR, which is what Iran is doing even now. Thus, it is unlikely that implementing LFTRs on a large global scale would actually increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation.
Those who fear that LFTR implementation would increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation, without explaining how it could be done in spite of the fact that the U233 would be contaminated with U232, probably have not done their homework. I find it very disturbing that people who have not done their homework persist in making statements even though they lack sufficient knowledge.
These comments regarding new – or non implemented – methods of harnessing nuclear energy are interesting, and I hope to delve into it more thoroughly when I have the time.
But one comment I can make without in the least bit being ignorant is this: that nuclear power, regardless of the “type” involved, is self evidently complex, even “esoteric” to most laymen. Hence the admonishment to “study it” before making “ignorant” comments . . . .
And that leads us (or should) from the subtle (and largely “hidden”) to the obvious.
And so – what is the obvious?
Well, many things (obviously! haha!). One example that pops immediately to mind is this: industrialized or “developed” nations use a tremendous amount, and have done so largely thoughtlessly – until recently. Yet this energy consumption still is quite extravagant and wasteful amongst most of the population.
And that brings us to the perceived need for ultra-lucrative sources of energy.
As someone posted in the past year on one of the REW message boards (I don’t remember who) – to paraphrase, “We ‘need’ to move tortoises off the desert to build gigantic solar arrays and ‘need’ more nuclear and coal and natural gas plants, and we ‘need’ more wind turbines and new sources of alternative/conventional energy production because we want the same poorly insulated houses/office buildings, same inefficient modes of transportation, and most important – we ‘need’ the same basic mindset that spends most of its money on wars – both covert and overt – and idiotic, childish ‘entertainment’ that we’ve always enjoyed.”
So yes – maybe we will come up with better, more efficient nuclear (or not), better wind turbines, better storage etc. etc. (or not). And thus maybe we will “save the world” from global warming or some other doomsday catastrophe. But if we are doing it just to live as an aggressive and war-like domination as we always have (and there is no indication that we’re changing for the better in that respect), then I can’t help but wonder if ANY of it is really “worth it.”
This isn’t because I don’t want us to succeed – I am not a cynic – but at the same time I am certainly not a sucker for human nature. Stopping the “Greenhouse Effect,” whether through wind turbines or alternative nuclear (etc. etc.) is not going to prevent us from blowing innocents up via the Federal government’s drone strikes, or via individual madman via assault weapons. Stopping those “heat trapping gases” isn’t going to reshape our foreign policy that topples foreign democracies, like Honduras, any less likely. Nor will it magically cure insane gunmen or bombers from their madness.
That should be obvious to anyone who takes a moment to observe the sameness in this so-called “new age” to what it was before, whether its ten years, a hundred, or a thousand years (and beyond) ago.
Thanks for reading! Have a good day!
Lawrence,
It is certainly true that our foreign policy is unduly warlike which, however, is not unusual. Back in the early 1900s, we freed the Philippines from Spanish colonialism after which the Philippines stated that they wished to be independent. Instead of granting them independence, we fought a war against them to make them into an American colony. For that, there was no excuse. Our engagements in Central and South America were also inexcusable.
Part of our current foreign policy is designed to protect our access to foreign oil. Thus, it may be assumed that our foreign policy would become significantly less aggressive if we achieved energy independence. Doing so would require making some difficult changes to transportation technology and city planning. Unfortunately, there are also other factors which encourage an aggressive foreign policy.
We have committed ourselves to defending Israel. To an extent that may be reasonable, but it seems that we have also committed ourselves to defending just about everything that Israel does, regardless of whether it is fair to its neighbors. That requires us to maintain a rather aggressive foreign policy. Also, our present dependence on imported oil and our policy concerning Israel are not the only factors that cause us to become involved in foreign conflicts.
So, although using energy more wisely would enable us to have a somewhat more benign foreign policy, it certainly would not prevent us from being more aggressive than we should be.
It’s not clear that the way we use energy always improves our quality of life. It is likely that we could reduce our energy use without reducing our quality of life. In fact, in some respects, that could improve out quality of life. However, it seems that there are a few radical environmentalists who would have us return, to the extent possible, to the way our ancestors lived before the industrial revolution. That is unreasonable and it will not happen.
I try to imagine what our world would be like if we suddenly “discovered” abundant cheap clean energy. Although it sounds good, I wonder if it wouldn’t be the death of us, if for no other reason than the unfettered, supercharged growth it might enable.
What will it take to develop the maturity, self-restraint and wisdom as a species to handle it? I believe it will take every individual doing all they can to develop within themselves the qualities and character necessary for living into this ideal world.