Leadership and an "unpleasant talk"

This entry was posted on 5/28/2008 10:42 PM and is filed under Energy Policy,OIL,Communication,Leadership,Elected representatives.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 5/30/2008 11:54 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  I would think that any rational person who sees what's going on today would admit that Carter was right -- at least as his policies pertained to energy -- even if the man himself won't proclaim it.
  
  Mark
  Reply to this
• 5/30/2008 10:16 PM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Carter didn't grasp the CO2 climate link even though he was trained in science, and it was well known ever since the 1890's, from the publications of Arrhenius and Thomas Chamberlin. Jimmy should have sat in on some of my lectures at Milton College during the 1960's .
  
  "Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power."---JC
  &
  "--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year."---JC
  
  We did go the coal route, in part because of his ban on the reprocessing of "spent" nuclear fuel rods.
  
  "We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants"---JC
  
  On this he was wrong. We chose coal instead. Too bad
  Reply to this
• 5/31/2008 8:22 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Energy subsidies?
  
  Government money for various forms of energy research, development, or production is usually described as being a subsidy, unless directed to wind or solar, in which case it becomes an investment. A May 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal editorial summarizes the results of a US Energy Information Administration report which looks at government spending on energy from a different perspective: what do we get for what we pay?
  
  The report lists the amount of energy generated per dollar of federal money spent. The EIA concludes that solar has cost $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37, and (so called) Clean Coal $29.81. By contrast, normal coal has cost 44 cents, natural gas 25 cents, and nuclear power $1.59, all per MWhr. Clearly normal coal and natural gas are the least expensive ways to generate power. But that neglects to include the climate impact of the CO2 released. If we limit the choices to those that don’t release green house gases, the money spent to subsidize nuclear looks like a bargain.
  Reply to this
  1. 5/31/2008 9:12 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     
     Since we still don't have long-term storage for nuclear waste from this electricity we've already used, we don't know how much long-term storage will cost.
     
     The $1.59 for nuclear is therefore a complete joke (and a very embarrassing one at that).
     Reply to this
• 6/1/2008 8:24 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  << Since we still don't have long-term storage for nuclear waste from this electricity we've already used, we don't know how much long-term storage will cost. >>
  
  Not only are the long-term storage costs unaccounted-for, but the part of the DOE budget that supports nuclear power also does not get counted as a direct subsidy. And as far as fossil fuels go, such numbers do not count the indirect subsidies engendered in pollution and health problems caused by fossil-fuel pollution. Those costs aren't counted in the solar and wind numbers either, but the pollution negatives with those technologies are much, much lower.
  
  Even though the evidence on global warming is very clear now, back in the 1970s, NO ONE was sure about it (even though the evidence already suggested it). Still, Carter is not blameless for the country's dumb energy situation---after all, the "Carter Doctrine" established the concept of power projection in the Middle East to ensure access to the oil supply, a concept in which we have now invested all our chips. That was a realistic move at the time, but rather than being viewed as a mandate, it should have been viewed as a warning of the dangers of reliance on other countries for energy.
  
  The fossil-fuel era should have been used aggressively as a stepping stone to sustainable energy technologies, where "sustainable" means they can be used essentially forever. A century from now, we will not be using fossil fuel in abundance. Nuclear MIGHT last that long, but in the end, nuclear too is based on a "fossil" fuel that even reprocessing cannot make last forever.
  
  So, even if solar, wind, wave, etc. give you less bang for the subsidy buck, 200 years from now, they are what we will be using by necessity, assuming we are still around. We HAVE TO make the investment in them.
  
  Mark J.
  Reply to this
• 6/6/2008 10:53 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Why is the objection always stated as the cost of "long term storage" of nuclear "waste" when the real issue is the cost of reprocessing fuel rods into additional mixed oxide fuel? And one way to estimate that cost is to ask those who are currently doing it on a large scale.
  
  I recently read that the Russians are providing nuclear fuel to reactors in various countries with the condition that after the first pass the rods be returned to Russia for reprocessing. Probably so they can resell the same fuel many times, and I bet they do so at a profit. Looks like we let that market go to them because of our hostility towards nuclear energy
  
  You say that during the 1970's NO ONE was sure that CO2 absorbed the earth's blackbody radiation? That fact was "known" since the 1890's. And that since the Industrial Revolution humans have been increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere? That was measured during the 1950's (the famous rising sawtooth graph from measurements taken in Hawaii). I did know these things. I didn't link the two facts until I was teaching chemistry and physics at Milton College in 1965, and discovered the Arrhenius paper. But I then included them in the courses I taught.
  
  Far from being "not blameless", Carter is one of those most responsible for our current contributions to climate change. By banning reprocessing, and stressing coal and oil (Mid-East oil!) for our energy.
  
  Nuclear is a known energy source with a long track record. Wind and solar are the ones with unknown long term costs. How long do the turbines and solar collectors last? What is the upkeep and repair cost per Kw hr? How long does it take to generate enough energy to offset that used to produce transport and install them? And how to safely dispose of worn out solar collectors, etc.
  
  Remember all those solar panels put on houses during the 1970's when people got tax credits for installing them? Where are they now?
  
  You say don't replace coal power plants with nukes because with reprocessing we might run low on fuel in 100 years? Hydro dams typically silt up in a century, so don't use hydro power?
  
  But maybe in 2108 hydrogen fusion will be practical.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment