Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events
The public relations machine that works so hard to generate doubt about climate change and the extreme weather events it causes must have its hands full at this point. 2012 was a year in which the United States had no winter, a March with most of the country above 80 degrees F, floods in its three largest rivers, a horrific drought all summer, and now Hurricane Sandy, with its loss of life, tens of billions of dollars in damages, and incredible expense and inconvenience to many millions of people. I’m not sure how you get people not to notice something as obvious.
The fossil fuel industry is by far the most profitable in the history of humankind, and thus can afford the very best and loudest of voices to protect its interests. They’ve spent an utter fortune obscuring the facts concerning climate change, and they’ve been fantastically successful in confusing a huge segment of the American public. But at a certain point, they’ll find themselves unable to fend off a rising tide of public opinion that screams to its government, “Do something! Help us! You’re suppose to be our leaders!”
Keep in mind that we as a species are not powerless to deal with environmental issues on a global scale, as evidenced by the effectiveness with which we repaired the hole in the ozone layer when we discovered it in 1985. Granted, that fix (a ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)) was far easier than dealing with the current crisis. Having said that, the moment we agree to price in the externalities of the energy we produce and consume, e.g., the costs to human health and the natural environment, you’ll see an instantaneous explosion in the development of clean energy and efficiency solutions, along with stunning levels of conservation.
We could even emulate the Chinese, who, unlike the U.S., have a 21st Century Energy Plan, and are busily making it happen. They have decided that it’s tantamount to national suicide to sit around and act like us Americans, bickering about renewable energy, or, in the case of the presidential debates, pretending it doesn’t exist and ignoring it altogether. The Chinese are hard at work, implementing all kinds of cleantech wonders: ultra-high voltage electricity transmission, electric transportation, smart-grid, and dozens of other cutting-edge solutions that will propel them swiftly and irreversibly into the position of world economic leader.
But I predict that Americans will not tolerate this indefinitely. Many of us can observe things for ourselves, and ignore the garbage we’re being told. The people telling us to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” are rapidly running just as low on credibility as did the Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
The signs of global warming are legion. In addition to the items you have mentioned, they include the melting of glaciers in many parts of the world and the shrinking of polar ice caps. Although there isn’t any one single thing that can be pointed to as proof of global warming, the sum total of many items makes almost unarguable the assertion that global warming is fiction.
You have correctly written, “We could even emulate the Chinese, who, unlike the U.S., have a 21st Century Energy Plan, and are busily making it happen.” You have also mentioned renewable energy in the same context. However, what you have not mentioned is that the Chinese are also busily working to implement nuclear power.
In addition to implementing a variation of the ubiquitous uranium nuclear technology, they are also working on the lithium fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) and phasing out the implementation of wind and solar power because, as they themselves have explicitly stated, they see wind and solar power as incapable of adequately contributing to their energy requirements.
Considering that world power requirements will not be met unless power generation capability increases dramatically from what it currently is, probably at least 90% of power must eventually be derived from non-CO2 emitting sources. It may be that we could generate 50% of power requirements from renewable sources, but reliably generating 90% of power requirements from renewable sources is unrealistic. Therefore, I see no way around greatly expanding nuclear power generating capacity.
Because of the problems associated with our most commonly used nuclear power generating systems, it is desirable to develop a better, more economical, and safer technology that does not generate waste that requires reprocessing.
Well, while I have seen a number of research studies in different scenarios and countries pointing to a 100% renewables scenario, I’ve never found the proof that it’s not possible.
As for a nuclear technology that does not generate waste… look at what the NYT had to say about thorium
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/us/uranium-233-disposal-proves-a-problem.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&
Actually, the article is not about thorium and says very little about it. The word “thorium” occurs only once in the article. Moreover, there is more than one way to use thorium in a reactor and the article doesn’t even provide a clue about the particular thorium reactor technology to which it refers.
It should be noted that very few newspaper writers have the necessary scientific background to write intelligently about technical subjects. Even worse, they commonly fail to understand their limitations, the importance of accuracy, and the need to have their articles reviewed by people who do have a good understanding of the subject. The result is that newspaper articles about technical subjects tend to be confusing, misleading, and inaccurate, and confuse readers. Almost always when I read newspaper articles about subjects with which I am highly familiar, I can find serious errors, and I am not talking only about energy issues. People who are intimately familiar with foreign relations probably can find serious errors in articles about foreign relations, etc. etc. Writers are in too much of a hurry to get their articles in print to do careful fact checking. That can make it very difficult to get accurate information about almost anything.
The NYT article briefly mentions that although U233 can be used to make a bomb, doing so is problematic because, unlike the U235 obtained from natural uranium, it is contaminated with highly radioactive elements which make it exceedingly difficult to work with. Also, they fail to mention that some scientists deplore the intent of the government to destroy the U233 and, unlike what the article states, it is not unneeded. That’s because all thorium reactors, of whatever type, transmute thorium into U233 and the U233 fissions to provide the desired power; thorium reactors need a certain amount of U233 to get started. Thus, if the U233 is down-blended to make it useless, it will also be useless to start a thorium reactor. That means that if R & D determines that the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the way to go, there will be considerable delay in implementing it. That would extend the use of our problematic current nuclear technology which should be phased out as soon as possible. Surely it would be premature to rule out LFTR technology as an important source of power.
The article also refers to “ordinary uranium;” that is a meaningless term. Natural uranium is about 0.7% U235 with the rest being U238. Enriched uranium is about 90% U235 for use in bombs, about 20% U235 for use in marine reactors, and about 3% U235 for commercial power reactors. So, considering that there are several types of uranium, just what is “ordinary uranium?” The article doesn’t provide a clue as to what it means by that and the writer is exposing his incompetence on the subject.
I suggest doing a very thorough study of thorium, the isotopes of uranium, and various reactor technologies. Only after doing so is it possible to understand articles on nuclear power and spot any serious errors in them.
It is obvious that wind and solar power are intermittent sources of power. Therefore, it should be obvious that providing reliable power from those sources alone would at least be an extreme challenge. So far, renewable sources of power rely heavily on fossil fuels for backup. That is unacceptable because it would require excessive burning of fossil fuels, especially considering that, on a global basis, there is a need to increase greatly the amount of power generated to eliminate poverty.
Those who insist that we can get almost all of our power from renewable resources, on a global basis, should prove it if they expect to be taken seriously. I have diligently searched for credible quantitative studies that prove that it is possible and have not been able to find any, nor has anyone been able to direct me to such a study. Instead, we are expected to assume that claims that it is possible are correct, even in the absence of proof, and willingly spend untold billions of dollars on it.
Renewables certainly can and should fill a niche rôle. Hydro power, which is renewable, can provide 100% of the power required in limited areas. But renewables alone cannot provide sufficient reliable power on a global basis to reduce fossil fuel usages to an acceptable level.
As for thorium, I recommend visiting the following web site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8
We could even emulate the Chinese, who, unlike the U.S., have a 21st Century Energy Plan, and are busily making it happen.
Yeah, they do. They also have a dictatorship, they have built cities that no one lives in and they shut down all of the businesses around the capital for a month so the air would be clear enough so the athletes could actually perform. They dammed up their biggest river, flooding millions of acres of farmland to generate hydroelectric power.
I’m not sure that China is the best country to emulate because it’s easy to have a country-wide environmental plan when the people don’t have any say in what the government does.
That’s very true. It’s nonetheless inexcusable that the U.S. has no energy policy.
Anon – “I’m not sure that China is the best country to emulate because it’s easy to have a country-wide environmental plan when the people don’t have any say in what the government does.”
I agree, but I believe the underlying problem lies in an education system that is geared to teaching rather than educating, by education I mean teaching people how to think for themselves. We suffer from a similar problem in the UK, although probably to a lesser degree.
For democracy to work effectively you need the majority of the population who are capable of seeing through the political bullshit, euphemistically referred to as rhetoric, and support politicians with real and practical solutions not just charisma and promises of a lower tax bill.
As Al Stewart once said
“Well nothing that’s real is ever for free
And you just have to pay for it sometime”
From “If It Doesn’t Come Naturally”, Year of the Cat – (1976)
The sooner we realise this and politicians and business leaders stop trying to tell us otherwise the sooner we will sort this mess out.
I’m not convinced either that the cost for the solutions has to be excessive and is likely to be far less, in human/social and financial terms, than trying to hold back the tide. To quote another well known person, the renowned engineer and scientist Buckminster Fuller who said “there is no energy crises, just a crises of ignorance” (I believe this was sometime back in the eighties), and I believe this is true today, we have the technologies but lack the political will and imagination, at least in the west.
Mr. Cook, IMO, you seem to have started so well, untill you quoted Stewart. In truth, everything that is “real” is free. The self deception lies in ones interpretation of reality. Materialistic societies settle with the belief that form is reality. Hence, we believe in all that supports what the bodies eyes can see and what can support satisfaction of perceived needs in form.n And all this occurs in a country that majoritively proclaims itself to be foundationally Christian, while having perverted their belief system into one of largely Pagan beliefs. It is not Christian to make war. It is not Christian to bury your dead. It is not Christian to believe the body form is Holy. And it is not Christain to believe that the devil, hell, and sin are real things. I know many will immediately refer to thoughts of the Bible to justify contrary beliefs. You must realize the Bible is a collection of stories made for one to choose among. You may choose illusions from them as well as truth. Even what is ascribed to be the “words of God” are interpreted many times, through many cultures, and certainly at times, misinterpreted. In this world, it has become the norm to see the ego and what it perceives as real thought. Until our “public servants” (they are not leaders), become charged with honoring a higher reality, nothing will change in the way reality is perceived and held in personal embrace. This will not happen unless the people who are charged with “electing” them lead or decide upon their own “will” with an understanding of their true identity of God (by whatever name one may give) within their own mind.
Many say they do not believe in God. That doubt is their god, having been taught that god is deceptive and in form, and entirely unbeleivable. But to posess an open mind, one may choose again at any time, for that is what time was made for. Beleiving the mind must remain fixed is not mind at all, but reaction, and of lower life forms.
I will quote Geo Washington; “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”. This, after leaving his term as president.
So, one must ask, if this be true, and it seems so, then either the force of the “peoples’ will” must be applied to determine government force, or the next available bidder will prevail. Meanwhile, one must merely establish ones own will in the matter, for we are all teachers, teaching with all we say and do. To say that solar energy isn’t cost effective is to settle for the dogmatic belief that what is cheaper today is cheaper over one’s life and that of the generation, and that all science is suspect. We have spent many years determining energy options, and there comes a time to choose among them and apply them. Many of us may do this on a personal level. Some may choose to petition the government to effect this, and many more may do both. Movement must begin soon if one is to trust the overwhelming scientific reports and one’s own senses.
When “Mother Nature” wishes, “SHE” can be at her worst. BUT, when was the last time “SHE” dealt such a blow!
The public reaction may be totally different than the government reaction. We have already seen our “government” at work (???).
I believe that time has come for all good men & women to come to the aid of their country! – to coin a phrase.
Never so blind as he who does NOT want to see!
Wake our government up and demand they change pace and catch up with time!
The production of animal food causes more pollution than all the cars, trucks, buses, ships, planes, etc. What difference does it make if one drives an ICE, hybrid, or an electric vehicle to the grocery store or food service establishment if the wrong fuel is purchased for the primary mode of transportation–your body? It’s irrelevant what type of vehicle you own if you are unable to drive or not around to do so.
I sent an idea to the unsolicited department at the DOE for a practical solution to supply energy in urban areas and create jobs. But without lobbyists pounding down the white house door there is no chance for an individual to make a difference. To much gridlock in our goverment. I understand we need r&d to advance our energy needs. But why can we not find practical and efficient uses for the technology we already have.
Don’t forget the “not invented here” syndrome.
Many organizations, bureaucracies, companies, countries, etc., automatically reject ideas from outside, regardless of the quality of the ideas. Even within an organization, people of higher status may automatically reject ideas from people who have lower status. That problem can be exceedingly difficult to circumvent. No doubt many people here, perhaps even most people, have had first-hand experience with that.
There may be hope AFTER the elections are over; right now and for the last year politicians don’t care about anything but getting re-elected. I had a delegation of company people set up to meet with one of the politicians in Washington DC to inform and get his endorsement on a 1.5 billion dollar pump storage project in his district, He had plenty of notice however, it ended up that a junior under staffer met with the group, she was un-informed, un caring and un engaged; this reaction isn’t new, over the last four years I have seen this type of treatment numerous times and it is un excusable. I did campaign against this incumbent democrat, hopefully he will be replaced.
Don’t be too sure that there will be hope AFTER the elections are over; perhaps there will be, but don’t count on it.
Politicians, from the first day they are elected, are concerned about the next election. To raise money for the next election, they have to be very careful not to alienate big donors; that includes large corporations that profit from activities which are detrimental to the environment. Even if they don’t expect to run again or if they think they might lose the next election, they may want to ingratiate themselves with potential employers that are capable of paying huge salaries. The bureaucrats who enforce regulations also do not want to irritate possible future employers. These factors may make it exceedingly difficult to have regulations enacted and adequately enforced to limit CO2 emissions.