The Birth of Nuclear Energy
Physicist Enrico Fermi was born on this day 115 years ago in Rome. Einstein had famously predicted the possibility of nuclear energy with the equivalence of mass and energy. But, according to the Writer’s Almanac: “It was Enrico Fermi who was the first to use that theory to build the first functioning nuclear reactor, and he went on to help build the atom bomb.”
Late in his life, Einstein said, “If I had known what they were going to do with my discovery, I would have become a locksmith.” Yet, ironically, now it’s possible that the world can downsize its nuclear arsenal and focus the attention of technologists in this space onto developing large-scale, and, most importantly, no-carbon reactors that function safely and cost-effectively.
If there is a path towards this level of progress, it requires the U.S. to lead the way. Last year, President Obama has both visited Hiroshima to expresses his sadness over the atomic bomb that was dropped there in 1945, and signed a $1 trillion package to modernize and expand America’s capabilities to engage in nuclear war.
Needless to say, that kind of duplicity isn’t going to get the job done. The U.S. has the power to de-escalate tensions and offer incentive for all nations with nuclear weapons to retire these systems on a mutual basis.
Exactly how close we are to such a scenario is anyone’s guess.
Nuclear promise and paradise lost.
Utopia may not be just around the corner but nuclear energy resources thoughtfully applied to today’s tense geopolitical struggles could go a long way toward ratcheting back the tension that exists between countries large and small.
There is enough energy available from existing worldwide fissionable material to provide electricity to every part of the inhabited globe. This along with a robust solar and wind deployment should take care of energy needs of the human race well into the next century. Of course this assumes the deployment of Thorium reactors supplemented with Plutonium breeder reactors. Maybe we can do without the plutonium but there is a lot of it sitting around. Take your choice, burn plutonium or burn fossil fuels. Either we step up to the plate and help the developing world with nuclear and solar or face the consequences of increased use of fossil fuels. When half of the world is on an energy consumption binge there is no way to hold down the other half in primate every 3rd world conditions without creating the tensions that lead to terrorism and all out war.
It is highly likely that nuclear energy will be what keeps the world habitable. Of course we must work towards eliminating nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons just got a lot more scary over the past few hours.
In spite of our Republican and Democratic traditions, it’s now said that there are really only two political parties – the Populist camp and the Corporate camp.
But the path we must tread is that of vigilance and communication, independent of any political party, and the bright horizon to which we again set our eyes must be the universal freedom and right for all to live in dignity and prosperity.
With our proven ability to harvest and store the free and abundant energy in the modern sunlight that pours down upon the globe every day, the prosperity and stability which we who live here in the US often ascribe to the 1950’s, and the social consciousness to which we aspired as a nation in the 1960’s, can both be achieved – for all the people in the developing nations of the world, for ourselves, and for future generations.
The now glaring alternative encircling us all is the perpetual indentured servitude of the entire human species to an elitist, autocratic, and monopolist collective whose core endeavor is to blindly exploit and deplete the people and resources of our world in order to increase the opulence of a few – with life-threatening consequences for all.
Our choices: dignity or slavery, liberty or death. It’s often been so.
Many civilizations have perished through blind and cruel devotion to monumental waste. Given our massive arsenals of indiscriminately lethal weaponry, if we fail, we may not be merely the next… we may be the last.
As Teddy recommended, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” Or, as it’s been said recently – think global, act local.
Truth — Non-Violence — Cooperation — Direct Action — Perseverance
Don’t. Give. Up.
I just received an interesting link. It contains a video, and here is the introduction thereto:
” “We’re not in a clean energy revolution; we’re in a clean energy crisis,” says climate policy expert Michael Shellenberger. His surprising solution: nuclear. In this passionate talk, he explains why it’s time to overcome longstanding fears of the technology, and why he and other environmentalists believe it’s past time to embrace nuclear as a viable and desirable source of clean power.” ”
And the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment
Here’s a highly interesting and informative talk (also wisely and appropriately posted elsewhere on this site in an entry all its own), which addresses the current state and likely future of various energy resources and technologies – data quite contrary to many current and aging opinions… I wish it could be aired globally prime-time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6ag3b1WCYc
Yes, this is great. He’s one of my heroes. 🙂
Here is a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Going Green? Then Go Nuclear”.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323716304578482663491426312
Here is a quotation from the article:
“The only nations in the world that have achieved emissions reductions at a pace and scale that begins to approach what will be necessary to mitigate global warming are France and Sweden. Both did so by switching to nuclear energy. France shifted over 80% of its electricity to nuclear in about two decades. Renewable energy, despite decades of public subsidies, can make no such claim.”
That’s a 2013 article, Frank, and is thus a little dated in a rapidly changing arena.
Also, it’s useful for readers to remember that WSJ is an establishment publication now long-owned by Rupert Murdoch (who has left his regrettable mark on that institution).
That said, it’s interesting that one of the authors of the 2013 piece, Ted Nordhaus, co-founder and director of research at the Breakthrough Institute. His co-author, Michael Shellenberger is also co founder.
The Institute favors focus on higher levels of public funding on technology innovation to “make clean energy cheap,” and has opposed climate policies like cap and trade and carbon pricing that would raise fossil energy prices.
Breakthrough has been criticized by reactionaries for arguing about the importance of the federal government in producing technological innovations, and criticized by progressives for opposing carbon pricing as a way to address climate disruption, for favoring nuclear power,and for promoting natural gas to decrease coal usage.
Interestingly, The National Review called Breakthrough’s journal “the most promising effort at self-criticism by our liberal cousins in a long time.”
However, a December 2015 article published in the Guardian UK by climate scientists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley, in recognizing the rapidly closing window of time we have to evolve our energy stream to avoid severe environmental consequences, favors next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), as “uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous” to the extent it offsets carbon from fossil fuel combustion.
The also recognize that nuclear power poses, “unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards.” Nevertheless, worldwide, they favor new reactor construction meeting “a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system.”
The National Energy Agency states, “As nuclear power plants are complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit – not including the time required for planning and licensing.”
It’s also useful to consider that the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that a history of huge cost overruns have been “passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases.” By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power ‘the largest managerial disaster in business history.’
“With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate.
“When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own.
“Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.
“The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.”
So, taking the low-ball cost of $4 billion per unit times 115 units, that’s about a half trillion in construction costs alone (not even scaling with inflation through 2050). You hardly want a nuclear plant built on the cheap, but even that sum ignores the costs of mining and refining the fuel (not environmentally benign), and the costs of decommissioning at end of life.
That’s an awful lot of fiscal oxygen sucked out of the energy evolution room, particularly when a UCS analysis shows that power from new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia would be more expensive per kilowatt than wind.
Wow. Thanks for this incredibly detailed treatment of such an important topic.
Thanks, Craig – I’m always pleased to contribute to a meaningful conversation.
Cameron,
2013 isn’t exactly part of ancient history. Also, I’ve read many of the articles by Dr. Hansen and others.
Try comparing the raw material inputs of nuclear power with the inputs for wind and solar. I think you’ll find it very lopsided.
Cameron,
The silliness of your bizarre analysis is neatly summed up in the last sentence “UCS analysis shows that power from new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia would be more expensive per kilowatt than wind” .
Now what sort of ‘Nuclear Power Project ” would that be ? Oh, that’s right, the UCS article compared very old nuclear generation technology, with a really great day for wind generation. The UCS report was so inaccurate and distorted it lacked any scientific or economic credibility, except when preaching to the converted.
Frank is correct, it’s very difficult to derive any real economic conclusions, since so many variable factors must be taken into consideration, and complicated by the technology(s) rapidly evolution and the expense of complying expensive, but largely obsolete regulations.
As renewable, Wind and Solar both have important roles to play in small scale and specialist applications. The only technology that can be proven to provide surplus electricity at an economically realistic cost for large scale industrial demand is advanced nuclear.
It’s not a question of whether the planet adopts advanced nuclear technology, but how soon and what technology.
marcopolo, you state the following:
“Frank is correct, it’s very difficult to derive any real economic conclusions, since so many variable factors must be taken into consideration, and complicated by the technology(s) rapidly evolution and the expense of complying expensive, but largely obsolete regulations.
“As renewable, Wind and Solar both have important roles to play in small scale and specialist applications. The only technology that can be proven to provide surplus electricity at an economically realistic cost for large scale industrial demand is advanced nuclear.”
These statements of yours indicate it is your position that:
a) it is not possible to derive real conclusions about the economics of an energy resource, and that;
b) therefore humanity ought to bet on “advanced nuclear” (please define that term), which you state “can be proven to provide surplus electricity at an economically realistic cost for large scale industrial demand…”
(I note with interest that you state “can be proven” and not ‘has been proven.’)
Do I read your statements and position correctly?
Cameron,
Let me correct your misrepresentations:
I wrote, “it’s very difficult to derive any real economic conclusions, since so many variable factors must be taken into consideration, and complicated by the technology(s) rapidly evolution and the expense of complying expensive, but largely obsolete regulations.”
You represent me as saying :
” it is not possible to derive real conclusions about the economics of an energy resource”
My context was solely confined to Wind and Solar v Nuclear generation and was intended as support for Frank’s request for a fully comprehensive analysis to be undertaken on a global scale of the economic factors which affect these these technologies.
The economic analysis of other energy resources are a different matter and not relevant.
Cameron, so long as you continue to interpret other opinions through the narrow prism of your own fixed ideological/political precepts, you’ll always distort information.
That’s the problem with prisms, they distort.
My position is simple. If I were asked to provide investment advice to determine the most effective means of providing economic long term low carbon emission power generation for industrial and developing societies, I would do the following:
1) Define the terms of the ‘Brief’ comprehensively, establishing and defining the objectives,outcomes, and priorities.
2) Complete a comprehensive analysis of all current technologies, including a study of contributing dynamics such as government subsidies, localities and a myriad of other factors.
3) Assess the effectiveness and compatibility of existing generation.
4) Analyze the economic capacity of different jurisdictions to implement energy strategies effectively.
5)Complete a comprehensive comparative study of competing technologies.
6) A comprehensive analysis of potential technologies proposed or under development, including raw material reserves etc.
There would be more aspects in determining the brief, but I hope the above serves as an insight into the complexity of what Frank is requesting.
If I were asked my current opinion, ( I am not a prophet)I’d choose the sort of advanced Nuclear technology being developed Japanese and Swiss engineers based on Thorium fueled micro-reactors.
IMO, only this sort of evolving technology has the potential to meet more of the many diverse requirements of industrial and developing economies, than any other.
If I were asked for investment advice for short term alternate energy generation technology, that would be a different matter altogether.
As immediate investments, both Wind and Solar have some attractive products, supported by equally substantial and generous Taxpayer/consumer subsidies and government guarantees.
The development of technology for small scale Wind and Solar applications has also been very impressive.I’ve enjoyed considerable success in investing and promoting these technologies, especially among small innovative component suppliers.
Cameron, if you undertake the complex task of trying to analyze the logistics of Industrial scale power generation, you may be dismayed to realize the massive scale of the undertaking !
As with any in-depth study, you will become aware (with a shock) just how much of the existing “expert” assessments and theories are inaccurate, inadequate, based on assumptions, guess work, and full of erroneous predictions based on political,ideological or other extraneous material.
I’m not just talking about advocates and academic’s like Craig’s hero Joe Romm, but also highly respected industry insiders and well regarded experts. The level of speculation and confusion is astonishing !
That’s why I sympathize with Frank’s desire for an objective and dispassionate comprehensive reveiw. It’s disappointing to see the very institutions which should be undertaking such reviews enmeshed in the same partisan in-fighting as the self interest of the various factions produces.
Although it would be neither definitive nor comprehensive, it may help focus our discussions if we formed a sort of “wish list” where we could decide by common agreement for set of targets to be met by large scale energy generators.
Using this criteria we could each contribute and compare the merits of each technology, making allowance for future developments. (Improved battery technology etc).
We could improve such a comparison by either setting aside the political considerations and subsidies, or applying them equally to all technologies.
It might prove illuminating ?
As I wrote on September 30, echoing comments I’ve made previously on this site, “My hope is that the people making the decisions use the best data and operate from a place of compassionate integrity – it’s a fond hope, but I cling to it.”
I’m pleased to see statements from you today indicating that you would not oppose a “comprehensive comparative study of competing technologies” and a “comprehensive analysis of potential technologies” of energy resources – presumably including fossil energy.
As to your assertion in your comment today above, that your “context was solely confined to Wind and Solar v Nuclear generation” – that may have been your internal/intended context, but your comment lacks the clarity to make it plain what energy technology you’re referencing in that sentence.
You go on to say, “so long as you continue to interpret other opinions through the narrow prism of your own fixed ideological/political precepts, you’ll always distort information.”
I would say that as long as your statements lack clarity, then a lack of “distortion” of your perceived intent becomes a rather random prospect (and not the result of any “prism”).
You further state, “The economic analysis of other energy resources are a different matter and not relevant.”
Wow… That’s a stunningly convenient way to dismiss the avalanche of externalized costs resulting from existing fossil energy use. This statement from you calls into question the ingenuousness of your acceptance of a “comprehensive analysis” of “other energy resources” apart from wind, solar and nuclear – for example, fossil resources.
Regarding your mention of Japanese and Swiss thorium micro-reactors, they offer a fine – if distant – potential, but all the genuinely planned commercial nuclear grid electricity generation projects, and all the currently operating commercial nuclear grid electricity generation facilities, are based on the old-style nuclear technology.
That old and persisting form of nuclear power is prohibitively expensive when all the costs are accounted for – mining, refining, construction, insuring, waste containment, facility lifespan, decommissioning – and, given natural disasters, human error and the real and growing potential for sabotage/terrorism, it’s clearly proven to be inherently dangerous to the biosphere just to operate.
Thorium for commercial nuclear grid electricity generation remains deep in the R&D stages. It’s the judgment of a great many folks familiar with the relevant data – including Dr. Romm – that we can and must begin the evolution toward harvesting modern sunlight now, and that we no longer have the luxury of waiting for a nascent technology to mature.
I asked you on October 3, and again yesterday, “Which of the data in Romm’s presentation would you dispute?”
I’ve seen you make a sweepingly generalized accusation that “like all advocates he cherry picks data to support his predictions.” I’ve yet to see you provide a specific answer my specific question.
I think it’s probably a more useful strategy to compare…
…the most successfully proven and cost-effective actual deployments of nuclear, wind and solar (CSP and PV, centralized and distributed)
…together with necessary HVDC grid modernization, and the best current storage tech (including electric vehicles and 2nd use battery applications)
…using a holistic accounting of all the costs and risks end to end (including those externalized and long-term), and all the results, end to end.
That’s rather different than comparing raw material inputs.
Unless there have been changes, using an EV for storage would void the warranty.
Hi Frank,
You might want to look into the established business model – already well in play – where used EV batteries are removed from vehicles and used for distributed storage.
Cameron,
You may be surprised to learn that I have done considerable reading on various power and energy systems, including various types of nuclear reactors, multiple nuclear fuel cycles, and various types of renewable power systems including storage. My degree in business administration helps me to understand how to evaluate investments. And, my two years of physics at the college level helps me to understand technical information.
Yes, it is true that used EV batteries, which have lost part of their capacity, are still serviceable for other purposes such as grid storage. I first read about proposals to do that a few years ago, so I am well aware of it. However, the numbers don’t add up. Even if there were several times as many EVs as there are now, using previously owned EV batteries would not begin to provide sufficient capacity.
Determining how much storage is necessary is not an easy thing to do. Even a bit of cloudiness can stop concentrated solar systems from producing any power at all. PV systems are somewhat more tolerant since they can at least produce some power when there are clouds. Wind power systems generally have a higher capacity factor than solar system, but sometimes the wind remains inadequate for days or even weeks at a time, depending on location.
Some problems which seem simple are actually quite difficult. For example, it took the railroads several years of very careful evaluation to determine that Diesel locomotives were more economical to operate than steam locomotives. And yet, without a careful evaluation, people assume that solving the intermittency problems of wind and solar systems is simple.
A proper evaluation would require installing sensing instruments at many of the places where installing wind farms and solar systems would be practical. Then, the data collected would have to be analyzed over a period of years to determine how much power would be available, how much over-building would have to be done, and how much storage would be required. So far as I have been able to determine, that has never been done. Instead, decisions are made on assumptions.
It is not unusual for projects to proceed even when the available information indicates that they will fail. The best example I can think of is the Edsel. There had been marketing surveys which indicated that the styling would not be accepted by the public and that the name was not helpful. However, the project went forward anyway as an investment in management ego. The car failed miserably, a failure which could have been prevented if the available marketing studies had not been ignored.
Before I retired, I saw disasters occur because of inadequate planning. The worst one I saw resulted in wasting millions of dollars. In 1978, I was hired to work on NCRs proposed modular lodging system. It was supposed to handle all the accounting for hotels and motels, including registration, meals, etc. etc. It was a totally unqualified disaster and the project was scrapped after about five years. No deadlines had been met. They figured that they could speed up the effort by putting more people on it; that simply caused more delays. Computer code was written even when there was no way to test it, and much of the code was rewritten several times from scratch as specifications changed. At least three project managers quit when they realized that the project was hopeless.
The above are much more common than one might suppose. I see the same sort of thing happening with renewable energy.
Intermittent renewables have important niche applications. But there is no evaluation that indicates that they can be practical as a major source of power for most large countries.
Hi Frank,
When my mention of “2nd use battery applications” prompted your comment “using an EV for storage would void the warranty” it seemed to me you were unaware of the 2nd use play. I’m pleased to know the impression you gave was inaccurate.
Technology in this space is obviously evolving rapidly, and as more people realize and feel the externalized costs of the presently dominant energy forms – and the impact of those costs deepens and widens – more and more pressure will fall on market players and governments alike to implement and facilitate sustainable solutions with increasing speed.
Bottom line, time will tell how this will fall into place, and whether the best decisions were/will be made at the best time.
Regrettably, the learning curves weren’t launched into with any great weight when the data on some of the major externalized costs first became clear. The window of opportunity then was wide open, and the exponential curve of externalized costs was still fairly flat.
Now the curve is approaching vertical and the window is rapidly narrowing. Some tough decisions will have to be made, some discomfort endured, certainly often with something less than outcome certainty, and a few significant failures suffered along the way.
My hope is that the people making the decisions use the best data and operate from a place of compassionate integrity – it’s a fond hope, but I cling to it.
Observing an exchange between Frank and Cameron is very instructive and illustrative of the contrast in thinking between the two sides in the energy debate.
Frank’s analysis is logical and rational. He methodically identifies the problem, then impartially and objectively gathers all available scientific, economic and logistical information available to form the basis of an hypothesis from which to formulate a solution.
Frank doesn’t require “heroes” or impassioned advocates to plead his case, instead he relies upon objectively collected dispassionate information.
His calm and moderate analysis, along with well reasoned and well researched information commands the readers respect, even from those who may not agree.
In contrast, Cameron starts with an hypothesis formulated from a ideological/political/philosophic agenda then seeks to justify a proposed solution with only facts favorable to his agenda.
Unfortunately, this sort of debate has greatly reduced the effectiveness of environmental credibility and awareness.
Which of the data in this presentation would you dispute, marcopolo?
https://youtu.be/P6ag3b1WCYc
Cameron,
I’m sitting here trying to think of a method of communicating with a person of such fixed opinions and beliefs.
Joe Romm Phd, is an interesting and thought provoking advocate. However, he’s not an oracle, prophet or messiah. (I don’t think he pretends to be).
All impassioned advocates, (even Craig)lose a degree of objectivity when presenting what they believe to be of public benefit. This is unavoidable since the rhetoric of advocacy is weakened by uncertainty.
A mild example is Craig’s claim, “The U.S. has the power to de-escalate tensions and offer incentive for all nations with nuclear weapons to retire these systems on a mutual basis “.
In that claim there is the assumption that a US President really does possess the power to influence countries like Israel, Pakistan, India and the PRC, to disarm.
Sadly, a US President has very little influence over these nations, and possesses no meaningful “incentive ” to offer.
It’s a nice sort of thing to say, but when challenged proves vapid.
Dr Romm raises some interesting points, but like all advocates he cherry picks data to support his predictions.
Dr Romm has a determined concept of how “climate Change” will affect the planet over next 25 years.
Dr Romm has changed some of his predictions. A few years ago he was a strong “peak oil” advocate, claiming oil scarcity and high prices would lead to the demise of oil by 2030.
Lately, he’s modified this prediction by now claiming “peak oil” will occur because of a lack of demand !
Okay, it’s only a minor issue, but it illustrates that Joe Romm’s advocacy, while perfectly sincere, is based on belief, not objective analysis.
He fails to discuss the methodology of his claims, instead relies on the assumption that something presented as graph or pie chart, magically gains authenticity and gravitas.
The most telling thing about Joe Romm’s presentation is his desire to have his ideas accepted and implemented by an authoritarian State like the PRC.
Dr Romm argues to solve the climate crisis a ” WW 2-style approach” is required. He’s not shy about suggesting that “climate denial” or similar dissension should be actively suppressed. Dr Romm believes the press should advocate only government action will solve the global warming “crisis”.
Dr Romm also advocates governments should require the press to propagandize news stories relating to hurricanes, droughts, insect infestations, power shortages etc, to increase public awareness of global warming.
These are not the ambitions of an objective scientist.
The world is littered with failed centrally planned projects implemented by authoritarian regimes. But his desire is understandable. Large scale schemes can be self-fulfilling. Once the commitment is made and no deviation tolerated, the original premise is “proven”. As long as no alternative exists to compare, the original theory seems correct!
Dr Romm’s predictions are based on assumptions. Assumptions he selects to support his theorizing. He assumes Nuclear power technology, regulatory regimes etc, will remain frozen in the 1950’s. He assumes advances in battery technologies not yet invented.
His illustrations are grand and sweeping, yet lack any detail of how such projects could be actually implemented on a global scale.
His vision of global, and even local, economics is vague and simplistic.
Having said all that, it certainly doesn’t diminish my respect for Joe Romm . Dr Romm is certainly a brilliant scientist, authour and advocate. His contributions to the green energy debate have been invaluable.
But it’s also fair to assess Dr Romm as a politically motivated advocate.
Cameron, I’ll bet if you could clear your mind of all ideological, political and philosophic considerations, and just analyze objectively the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternate power generation technologies being developed, you would agree with Frank’s assessment.
Re: nuclear disarmament, we won’t know until we try.
Cameron,
I have twice attempted to make a post in response to one of yours. Both times the post failed to get into this thread. The post contains a link to one of Dr. Romm’s dissertations in addition to a position statement by Dr. Hansen.
I have my post in a .doc file since I used my word processor to create it. Why it keeps disappearing I don’t know. I shall try again after this post.
Cameron,
I just re-posted the missing post. The following message came up:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
I don’t know what the problem is or what to do about it.
Sometimes these get caught in my spam filter and I have to approve them. I don’t know why.
That’s a nice long response, marcopolo, but doesn’t answer my specific question.
Allow me to pose the question again: Which of the data in Romm’s presentation would you dispute?
As you your statement, “I’m sitting here trying to think of a method of communicating with a person of such fixed opinions and beliefs.”
Allow me to inform your opinion – my perceptions on many subjects have changed radically with new and credible data. As one example, when I was a young man, I believed that Republicans were usually correct and honorable in their statements, analyses and beliefs.
However, decades ago, I realized the folly of the mere concept of political party.
Cameron, A slight error on my previous post. The missing one was addressed to Silent. Here it is again:
Silent,
Coal burning plants need to be replaced. Some are on large expanses of land where there is more than sufficient room to build a nuclear power plant. Also, there has been some consideration about keeping the steam turbines and generators from coal burning plants and replacing the coal fired boiler with a nuclear powered steam generator. Although because of various technical considerations I have doubts about how practical that would be, it has been proposed. Using either approach, the power generated could be fed into the grid where the grid is designed to accept power. That would be less likely to be practical with a solar system in which case new power lines would have to be constructed.
I am not the only one who sees advantages in locating nuclear plants where the grid is designed to accept the power. Very good arguments have been made to support that idea so it should not be dismissed out of hand.
From attending meetings at New Mexico Power, I have learned that constructing power lines is exceedingly costly. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the figures. Another problem with building power lines is acquiring the right of way and getting licenses to build the lines; that can take many years. In fact, some of the environmental organizations which most strongly oppose nuclear power also fight to prevent new power lines from being constructed. They may not succeeded in preventing power lines from being constructed, but their legal tactics can cause multi-year delays.
Moreover, it is by no means assured that adequate and practical means to store energy will be developed and without them, intermittent sources of power cannot do the job.
It may be that nuclear power will not be greatly expanded here in the U.S. until valiant attempts to get CO2 emissions down to near zero with intermittent sources of power fail.
In the following link, Dr. James Hansen, a highly respected climate scientist, asserts that, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.”:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
In the following link, Joe Romm strongly disagrees with Dr. Hansen:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-44b486ed8a72#.55znqpu5o
I have studied far more viewpoints than the above two and, as a result, I agree with Dr. Hansen. But let us examine a quotation by Joe Romm from his link:
“Hansen and a handful of other climate scientists I also greatly respect — Ken Caldeira, Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel — present a mostly handwaving argument in which new nuclear power achieves and sustains an unprecedented growth rate for decades. The one quantitative “illustrative scenario” they propose — “a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system” — is far beyond what the world ever sustained during the nuclear heyday of the 1970s, and far beyond what the overwhelming majority of energy experts, including those sympathetic to the industry, think is plausible.”
But that statement by Romm seems very questionable when one compares the material inputs of concrete and steel required by wind and solar system with the amounts required by nuclear plants. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I have seen them and the results are astoundingly lopsided. With some searching I’m sure you can find the figures. From them, it seems clear that power generating capacity could be much more quickly expanded by building nuclear plants than by building wind and or solar systems. Expanding wind and solar systems as fast as required would be even more unprecedented than expanding nuclear systems that fast.
Romm also goes into costs. But earlier in this thread, I included a quotation from a site that explains the rising, and apparently at least partly unwarranted, increased costs of nuclear plants. I also included a link to the site. Although the site is several years old, it looks as though the data are just as valid today as when the material was published. Although my link is to a particular page of the site, I doubt that you’d have difficulty navigating to the first page and reading all of the material.
So, along with many respected scientists (and I am not a scientist), I agree that our best hope to prevent or mitigate a climate disaster is to expanded nuclear power at a very unprecedented rate.
Perhaps it will be helpful to post an observation I made a few years ago.
I was told about a UC Davis professor who asserted that interconnecting renewable energy systems over a wide area would result in reliable power. With some google searches, I found a lecture of his on youtube. Before delivering his lecture, a written survey was taken of all the people in the auditorium; the survey was repeated after the lecture.
During his lecture, which included charts and graphs, the professor asserted that even in California, interconnecting wind and solar systems would result in reliable power. However, although he asserted that, he did not present any proof; it was nothing more than an assertion.
The survey results following the lecture indicated that many people in the audience who had previously seen renewables as being incapable of providing reliable power had changed their viewpoint and begun to see renewables as capable of providing reliable power.
The point is that repeated assertions, without quantifiable proof, will cause people to change their positions. I’d swear that if it were repeated with sufficient frequency that the moon is made of green cheese, many people would believe it. Other people seem to believe that truth can be changed by endless repetition.
Making decisions based on unsupported assumptions makes me very uneasy.