Esteemed Harvard Professor Delivers Critically Important Talk on Nuclear Energy
Here’s another post on Joseph Lassiter (pictured) and his high-level treatment of nuclear power as a necessary ingredient in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, and thus climate change. Dr. Lassiter is Senior Fellow, Senator John Heinz Professor of Management Practice in Environmental Management, Retired at Harvard University. According to his website: “He focuses on one of the world’s most pressing problems: developing clean, secure and carbon-neutral supplies of reliable, low-cost energy all around the world. He studies how high-potential ventures attacking this problem are being financed and how their innovations are being brought to market in different parts of the world.”
• What this boils down to in practical terms is a very well conceived argument that nuclear power is the other way to save the Earth from full-on destruction. As usual, I don’t deny that this is true, but I hasten to point out a few interesting features of his presentation:
• He doesn’t mention renewable energy. Like the pro-nuke people generally, he, for some reason, pretends that solar, wind and the rest are negligible components of our civilization’s energy future. Given the growth curves, especially of solar and wind, coupled with their rapidly declining cost profiles, it’s hard to hazard a guess as how an intelligent and honest person can make this omission.
• Lassiter discusses, in brief, the current nuclear technology (light water reactors) and then goes on to talk about the next generation, which he says consist principally of sodium fast reactors, high temperature gas reactors, and molten salt reactors. The highlight of this presentation is that, of these three, only molten salt reactors have the capacity to both produce energy that is cost-competitive with coal and scale, i.e., have the potential to enable us to add 50 – 150 GWs per year.
• He omits fusion in all its potential incarnations from the discussion entirely.
• He points out that each of the three new technologies are making progress, as evidenced by signed agreements to build pilot plants in Indonesia, China, and Canada respectively. The U.S., he admits sadly, does not have the legal, financial, and political framework to be a part of any of this development.
Again, very interesting, mysterious and saddening.
Aside from being much, much more expensive, much, much slower to build, much, much more dangerous to operate and producing a much, much more problematic waste stream compared to wind or solar, nuclear power is exactly what the world needs.
Craig,
I will submit a few points…
First, he absolutely should omit fusion. It’s far-future tech. It’s worthy of some limited scope research, because no-one can determine when the next true paradigm in physics might come along… but under our current paradigm the idea of a safe, cost-effective fusion reactor is sitting right beside faster-than-light interplanetary travel: on my book shelf in the sci-fi section.
Second, right now renewables are growing rapidly, but they are growing FROM virtually nothing. They are still in their infancy in terms of penetration.
In 2015 solar comprises less than 0.2% of U.S. electricity production, roughly 0% of transportation energy, roughly 0% of residential and commercial heating energy, and maybe ~1% of industrial heating energy. Wind is ~4.5% or so of electrical energy, and nothing else… For all of our self criticism, the U.S. is well ahead of every single developing nation on that score(~90% of the population of Earth lives in developing nations), and well ahead of some developed nations. It will take decades for renewables to scale up to a level that they can really take down coal and natural gas. But globally there’s no inherent problem with ~10-20 GW nuclear reactors beginning construction every year, meaning that within a matter of 2 decades all fossil power could be supplanted. Those reactors would gradually wear out and retire, but that would take 40-60 years, which is enough time for renewables to ramp up to the scale necessary to shoulder that load.
I suspect that’s why he omitted discussing wind and solar. They’re developing as fast as they can, and no-one with even a shred of conscience or decency wants to do anything other than encourage that… but that cannot grow to the scale necessary within a reasonable time frame.
We must eliminate coal as quickly as possible, which means NG. But to get rid of the NG on anywhere approaching a decent timeline, you have to transition to nuclear power, then as those reactors wear out over time they can be replaced by the continually growing renewable energy platforms.
@Craig thank you for the post.
Let me introduce two very different types of people to the debate.
One is very often heard and lauded in social media and energy centric forums, whilst the other has hitherto not often been accorded much credibility or interest in social media and energy centric forums.
Person A is a very passionate and well intentioned environmentalistic opinionator focussed on renewable energy generation technologies as we know them, and their important and useful role throughout future earth.
Person B is a very passionate and well intentioned environmentalistic opinionator also, focussed on permanent global greenhouse gas emissions reversal to insignificant proportions via the energy generation technologies that will enable that critical global imperative to be fully satisfied in a foreseeable and achievable timeframe.
Although they seem to have a lot in common, they are focussed on entirely different subjects. Poignantly only Person A has a possible pathway to morph towards Person B’s focus through further education; new skills acquisition and new knowledge learning: but Person B has gone beyond any pathway whatsoever to rediscover person A’s focus.
The key point: there have been two ‘completely separate’ debates going on in the energy centric world this last 10 or so years, but the near hysteria globally around RE technologies, effectively drowned out and neutralised the important (but very different) greenhouse gas emissions generation technologies debate, and through overzealous self-promotion of RE technologies over time, RE effectively bludgeoned itself into general acceptance as being the answer to greenhouse gas emissions in the minds of ordinary people, without any scientific justification whatsoever.
Most energy centric blogs and forums including 2GreenEnergy failed to understand this point at all, and like a run-away train kept haranguing all and sundry with largely fantasy world stuff. But it now seems that those commentators worldwide wondering when the ‘penny would finally drop’ won’t be wondering much longer.
Yes Glenn Doty is a type B person, and is precisely correct in his commentary, having done the math on global greenhouse gas emissions.
Like Frank Eggers, Glenn is a very capable and committed forum commentator on this subject as we move forward.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
A strange belief seems to exist among energy advocates that it’s a choice of either Nuclear Power or renewable represented by Wind and Solar!
The only explanation for this totally illogical belief, must be either the two sides are motivated by self interest, or have formed two weird tribes of “supporters”, who like football fans have developed an almost religious fervor for their “side” while hating their imagined opponents. .
In reality these are just technologies to generate energy. The most efficient and appropriate for a specific application will prevail.
Suitability should be determined by practical and economic considerations.
No one is suggesting abandoning advanced Solar applications located where solar has a huge advantage, just as no one should be advocating building 1950’s nuclear technology.
It’s obvious that Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Hydro etc, have limitations as generators of “power on demand” for large scale industrial energy usage.
It’s pointless trying to fiddle the figures and pretend unsuitable technologies can overcome inherent limitation and why would anyone do so, unless blinded by irrational “supporter loyalty”.
If coal, and eventually natural gas are to be replaced, the replacement technology must be capable of being both economic and sufficiently flexible to take advantage of contributions from other technologies.
Only advanced nuclear can fulfill that role. (Fusion seems unlikely to prove of any value in the foreseeable future).
Craig, it’s not that Wind and Solar have no future, but rather they have a limited future, due to the inherent limitation of the technologies.
Advanced Nuclear can produce truly huge amounts of reliable relatively economic “power on demand” , located exactly where power is needed.
Just as in shipping, wind was replaced by coal and coal was replaced by oil, (even nuclear)so will power generation be determined by the most appropriate technology.
On my Australian farming property, I will continue to use solar and wind when their deployment is most appropriate.
However, if I operated a cement manufacturing plant, wind and solar would be inadequate and inappropriate.
Wind and solar advocates always rant on about inventing better storage, transmission etc, but why would anyone bother when advanced mini-nuclear facility can cheaply , cleanly, reliably and economically produce all the power needed without the inconvenience of massive transmission problems, storage etc ?
Wind and Solar will still be part of the energy generation mix, but only in appropriate applications.
I’m sure no one wants to see another ideologically created disaster like US corn ethanol, but here we are doomed to repeat all the same errors, with all the same fierce, passionate loyalties !
Well Marco Polo is now showing his team bias.
Renewable energy has an amazing growth future and I will be a continuing part of it for sure. It is pure gold for what it makes possible.
But it is an entirely different debate to greenhouse gas emissions energy generation reversal and elimination science and technologies.
Obviously Marco hasnt done the maths yet!
Lawrence Coomber
@Marco
Excuse my previous Marco.
I am in a rickety trishaw in New Delhi and only got 1 paragraph of your post.
Of course you are entirely correct and I endorse you remarks fully.
And you have done the maths.
LOL
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Lawrence,
Anyone who takes a Trishaw in New Delhi, must be a courageous soul ! Anyone reading, and not praying while riding in a New Delhi trishaw must have nerves of steel 🙂