[net-gold] Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Other Net-Gold Lists -- Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nabble Groups Net-Gold <ml-node+s3172864n3172864h56@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <NetGold_general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Net-Gold @ Wiggio.com" <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Lists -- Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HEALTH-RECREATION-SPORTS-TOURISM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:56:54 -0500 (EST)
.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:14:05 -0800
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Reich, McKibbon,
& Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues
.
If you reply to this long (106 kB) post please don't hit the reply button
unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down
to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be
needlessly resent to subscribers. The abstract reads:
.
*****************************************************
.
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: Professors We Need You!" [Hake
(2014)] at <http://bit.ly/1hw62E1> regarding Nicholas Kristof's
"Professors, We Need You!" at <http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD> and "Bridging the
Moat Around Universities at <http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi>, Christopher Green of
the TIPS list responded at <http://bit.ly/1dZrWfA> [slightly edited; my
<URLs>]:
.
"Kristof missed the boat on this one. If [Kristof] wants to know why
professors are reluctant to enter public debate, he needs to address the
quality of public debate in the US political arena. Both the governor of
Wisconsin <http://bit.ly/1c5FUrS> and attorney general of Virginia
<http://bit.ly/NftpnE> have recently used the powers of their offices to
investigate and threaten the livelihoods of professors who opposed their
political agendas (labor unions and climate change, respectively).
[Politicians] have essentially demanded that professors NOT bring their
expertise to bear on public debate and professors, understandably, have
mostly complied."
.
Thankfully, not ALL academicians have complied, e.g.:
.
(a) UC-Berkeley's Robert Reich <http://bit.ly/1fga1Tm>, an outspoken
champion of labor unions <http://bit.ly/1c8scER> and tireless critic of
income and wealth inequality – see e.g., "Beyond Outrage"
<http://amzn.to/1ebN6CI>;
.
(b) Middlebury College's Bill McKibbon <http://bit.ly/1fhrKKb> who has
been lobbying for action to deter climate change for over two decades –
see e.g. "The End of Nature" <http://amzn.to/1p1wIgN> and consider his
organization <http://350.org/>;
.
(c) Columbia's James Hansen (2010, 2014) <http://bit.ly/omiMY3> who
alerted the world to anthropogenic global warming in 1981
<http://nyti.ms/1gwHUMm>. In a recent draft "Renewable Energy, Nuclear
Power, and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular
Misconceptions?" <http://bit.ly/1goLfgs>, Hansen rebuffs 4 widespread
misconceptions: human life is endangered by nuclear power; renewable
energy sources alone are sufficient; killing nuclear would make the world
safer; and renewable energy is cheaper and faster than nuclear power.
Below I quote Hansen at some length because: (1) nuclear power is so
controversial; and (2) it allows me to insert references, hot-links, and
comments.
.
*****************************************************
.
The abstract of my post "Re: Professors We Need You!" [Hake (2014)] reads
in part [bracketed by lines "########. . . . . ."
.
#################################################
.
One of the more substantive comments [on Kristof's (2014b) "Bridging the
Moat Around Universities" <http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi>], is by Aaron Barlow,
faculty editor of the AAUP magazine "Academe" who pointed to "Public
Intellectuals and the AAUP" (Schrecker at <http://bit.ly/NZH5E5>, and "The
Case for Academics as Public Intellectuals" (Behm, Rankins-Robertson, &
Roen (BRR) at <http://bit.ly/1dDTZky>.
.
(BRR + commentors on BRR + myself) list about 40 academicians who have
"bridged the moat around universities."
.
But the fact that 40 [out of a total of over a million higher education
faculty] have "bridged the moat" does not negate Kristof's general claim
that "[professors] have marginalized themselves."
.
#################################################
.
But Christopher Green (2014) of the TIPS list responded [bracketed by
lines "GGGG. . . . ."; my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . ."; my
CAPS]:
.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
.
KRISTOF MISSED THE BOAT ON THIS ONE. If he wants to know why professors
are reluctant to enter public debate, he needs to address the quality of
public debate in the US political arena. The governor of Wisconsin. . . .
[[see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry at <http://bit.ly/1c5FUrS>]]. . . . and
attorney general of Virginia . [[see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry at
<http://bit.ly/NftpnE>]] both recently used the powers of their offices to
investigate and threaten the livelihoods of professors who opposed their
political agendas (labor unions and climate change, respectively).
.
Few people are going to tolerate that sort of abuse, and will prefer to
debate with those who are actually interested in debate, not just in
silencing their opposition. In short, PEOPLE much more powerful than
Kristof HAVE ESSENTIALLY DEMANDED THAT PROFESSORS NOT BRING THEIR
EXPERTISE TO BEAR ON PUBLIC DEBATE AND PROFESSORS, UNDERSTANDABLY, HAVE
MOSTLY COMPLIED.
.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
.
Thankfully, not ALL professors have complied. Among academicians who have
"bridged the moat around universities" and spoken out on social issues
are:
.
(a) UC-Berkeley's Robert Reich <http://bit.ly/1fga1Tm>, an outspoken
champion of labor unions - see e.g., "Why We Need Stronger Unions, and How
to Get Them" [Reich (2009)] and tireless critic of income and wealth
inequality: "Beyond Outrage: Expanded Edition: What Has gone Wrong With
Our Economy and Our Democracy, and How To Fix It" [Reich (2012)];
"Aftershock (Inequality for All - Movie Tie-in Edition)" [Reich (2013a)];
and "Inequality For All - Official Trailer"[Reich (2013b)].
.
(b) Middlebury College's Bill McKibbon <http://bit.ly/1fhrKKb> who, for
over two decades, has been lobbying for action to deter climate change:
"The End of Nature" [McKibbon (1989, 2006)]; "EAARTH: Making a Life on a
Tough New Planet" [McKibbon (2011)]; "McKibben vs. Epstein Debate on
Fossil Fuel [McKibben & Epstein (2012); "Oil and Honey: The Education of
an Unlikely Activist"[McKibbon (2013)].
.
(c) Columbia's James Hansen <http://bit.ly/omiMY3>, who alerted the world
to anthropogenic global in 1981 – see e.g., "Study Finds Warming Trend
That Could Raise Sea Levels" [Sullivan (1981)] - and again sounded an
alarm in "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate
Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" [Hansen (2010)]. Hansen
has recently summarized his advocacy of a carbon tax and increased
utilization of nuclear power in an important draft "Renewable Energy,
Nuclear Power, and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular
Misconceptions?" [Hansen (2014)]. Therein Hansen suggests (slightly
edited):
.
A. That the public: (a) "Support <http://citizensclimatelobby.org/> . . .
. [It] is growing rapidly and exists now in most states in the U.S. and
several other countries. Their objective is to persuade legislators to
support fee-and-dividend, i.e., a rising carbon fee collected from fossil
fuel companies and distributed 100% to the public, equal amounts to all
legal residents"; and (b) "Stop providing funds to antinuke environmental
groups. . . . . If they are allowed to continue to spread misinformation
about nuclear power, it is unlikely that we can stop expanded
hydro-fracking, continued destructive coal mining, and irreversible
climate change."
.
B. That scientists: "when queried about nuclear power point the public
toward valid scientific information, such as (a) 'Radiation 101' written
by Bob Hargraves (2014) as part of his 'Radiation: The Facts'; and (b)
'Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air' by David MacKay (2013) [which]
help the public to choose between renewables and nuclear power in any
given situation – there is a role for both." . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[ On
"Fast breeder reactors, using uranium from the ground" MacKay (2013, p.
163) writes: "Uranium can be used 60 times more efficiently in fast
breeder reactors,
which burn up all the uranium – both the U238 and the
U235 (in contrast to
the once-through reactors, which burn mainly U235).
As long as we don’t
chuck away the spent fuel that is spat out by
once-through reactors, this
source of depleted uranium could be used too,
so uranium that is put in
once-through reactors need not be wasted. If we
used all the mineable
uranium (plus the depleted uranium stockpiles) in
60-times-more efficient
fast breeder reactors, the power would be 33 kWh
per day per person.
Attitudes to fast breeder reactors range from 'this
is a dangerous failed
experimental technology whereof one should not
speak' to 'we can and
should start building breeder reactors right away.'
I am not competent
to comment on the risks of breeder technology, and I
don't want to mix
ethical assertions with factual assertions. My aim is
just to help understand
the numbers. The one ethical position I wish to
push is 'we should have a
plan that adds up.' "]]. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[On "Fast
breeder reactors, using uranium from the oceans" MacKay (2013, p. 164)
writes: "If fast reactors are 60 times more efficient, the same extraction
of ocean
uranium could deliver 420 kWh per day per person. At last, a
sustainable
figure that beats current consumption! – but only with the
joint help of two technologies that are respectively scarcely-developed
and unfashionable:
ocean extraction of uranium, and fast breeder
reactors."]]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[On
thorium MacKay (2013, p. 166) writes [my CAPS]: "Thorium is a radioactive
element similar to uranium. Formerly used to make gas mantles, it is about
three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium. Soil commonly
contains around 6 parts per million of thorium, and some minerals contain
12% thorium oxide. Seawater contains little thorium, because thorium oxide
is insoluble. THORIUM CAN BE COMPLETELY BURNED UP IN SIMPLE REACTORS (in
contrast to standard uranium reactors which use only about 1% of natural
uranium). Thorium is used in nuclear reactors in India. If uranium ore
runs low, thorium will probably become the dominant nuclear fuel. Thorium
reactors deliver 3.6 billion kWh of heat per ton of thorium, which implies
that a 1GW reactor requires about 6 tons of thorium per year, assuming its
generators are 40% efficient. Worldwide thorium resources are estimated to
total about 6 million tons, four times more than the known reserves shown
in table 24.7. As with the uranium resources, it seems plausible that
these thorium resources are an underestimate, since thorium prospecting is
not highly valued today. If we assume, as with uranium, that these
resources are used up over 1000 years and shared equally among 6 billion
people, we find that the 'sustainable' power thus generated is 4 kWh/d per
person." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . [[On renewables MacKay (2013, p. 112) writes in
Chapter 18 "Can we live on renwables" ["We" meaning the British]:
concludes [EMPHASIS in the original]: "To sustain Britain’s lifestyle on
its renewables alone would be very difficult. A renewable-based energy
solution will necessarily be large and intrusive. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE
EASY to make a plan that adds up using renewables alone." Since the
average energy consumption per year per person is higher in the U.S.
(MacKay gives 250 kWh per day) than in Britain (MacKay gives 125 kWh/d per
person), a similar conclusion seems probable for the U.S.
.
Because utilization of nuclear power is so controversial – see e.g.,
"Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer" [Caldicott (2006)], "Why Nuclear Power
Doesn't Make Sense" [Sierra Club (undated)]; and "Nuclear Power: Safety
First. Now" [UCS (2013a)] – I have quoted from "Renewable Energy, Nuclear
Power, and Galileo" [Hansen (2014)] at some length, thus also giving me
the opportunity to insert a number of references, hot-links, and comments.
On his webpage <http://bit.ly/16eDDNU>, Hansen states that "Renewable
Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo" is a "Draft Opinion Piece, Criticisms
Welcome." So readers of the present post may wish to post criticisms.
.
Under "Energy Misconceptions" Hansen (2014) rebuffs what he regards as 4
widespread misconceptions:
.
A. Human life is endangered by nuclear power.
.
B. Renewable energy sources alone are sufficient.
.
C. Killing nuclear would make the world safer.
.
D. Renewable energy is cheaper and faster than nuclear power.
.
Considering each of the above in order:
.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
.
A. Hansen (2014, p. 10) wrote [my inserts at ". . . . .[[insert]. . . .
"]:
.
HUMAN LIVES
.
It is worth watching a 3-minute clip <http://bit.ly/1hlTISj> of an
"anti-nuke" concert held in New York City in 1979 after the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. Participants yearn for the warm
glow of a wood fire, even coal, but insist that nuclear power be
terminated.
.
Indoor wood, coal and biofuel fires kill more than 1,000,000 people per
year. The Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, which exposed
nearby Pennsylvania residents to a level of radiation less than the
natural annual background level, will cause few if any deaths.
.
There have been two much more serious nuclear accidents, at Chernobyl and
Fukushima. Deaths caused by Fukushima radiation will be few, but the
radiation release was a catastrophe for 300,000 people forced to leave
their homes. Unfortunately the Japanese government forced many more people
to evacuate than necessary. Please check out the brief, readable,
"Radiation: The Facts" by Robert Hargraves (2014). Start with the
Radiation 101 side of the page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[[cf. the
Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS's) "Nuclear Power 101" at
<http://bit.ly/1bwUAFB>]]. .
.
Are those accidents sufficient reason to abandon nuclear power? We must
compare the alternatives. Aircraft provide a relevant analogy. Early
airliners had many accidents that killed hundreds of people, but we did
not abandon the technology. Instead we improved both the technology and
the safety of operations via pilot training, aircraft control systems, and
safety protocols and culture. Airlines are now one of the safest modes of
travel. Similarly, improved nuclear technologies and operations have the
potential to make nuclear power the safest of all energy systems.
.
In "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and
Projected Nuclear Power" [Kharecha & Hansen (2013)], Pushker Kharecha and
I showed that nuclear power, in supplanting fossil fuels otherwise
employed, has saved 1.8 million lives and 64 GtCO2-equivalent carbon
emissions and could save millions more lives and billions more tons of
emissions. These results were for 1960s-1970s nuclear technology. Advanced
nuclear technology has the potential for greater savings.
.
Public misperceptions about nuclear power were thrust on me after I gave a
talk in Australia in which I noted that nuclear power probably was needed
to help phase out fossil fuels. My next talk was picketed by people
asserting that nuclear power was killing a huge number of people and
causing birth defects. When I queried them regarding the sources for these
incredible assertions, I was told that Helen Caldicott (2006) was the
source.
.
One problem we sometimes have in communicating global warming science to
the public is a misperception that the science is based on "beliefs"
rather than evidence. That allows deniers to counter it with their own
"belief." Caldicott's assertions were nothing more than her belief. George
Monbiot (2011), a respected British journalist, explored in detail the
sources of Caldicott’s assertions. The resulting article that he wrote
begins:
.
"Over the past fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The
anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about
the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are
ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong. We
have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice."
.
Monbiot’s 2-page article, "Evidence Meltdown," is well worth reading. The
extent to which the public has been misled is, indeed, deeply troubling.
.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
.
B. Hansen (2014, p. 11,12) wrote [my CAPS]:
.
RENEWABLES CAN DO IT.
.
People who entreat the government to solve global warming but offer
support only for renewable energies will be rewarded with the certainty
that the U.S. and most of the world will be fracked-over, the dirtiest
fossil fuels will be mined, mountaintop removal and mechanized long-wall
coal mining will continue, the Arctic, Amazon and other pristine public
lands will be violated, and the deepest oceans will be ploughed for fossil
fuels. Politicians are not going to let the lights go out or stop economic
growth. Don’t blame Obama or other politicians. If we give them no viable
option, we will be fracked and mined to death, and have no one to blame
but ourselves.
.
Most scientists analyzing global and U.S. energy, summarized in Figs. 1
and 8, conclude that rapid global decarbonization requires contributions
from all major available avenues: energy efficiency, renewable energies,
nuclear power, and perhaps even carbon capture and storage. THERE IS ALSO
BROAD AGREEMENT THAT THE BEST WAY TO FIND BALANCE AMONG THESE AVENUES IS
HONEST COMPETITION SPURRED BY A RISING ACROSS-THE-BOARD FEE OR TAX ON
CARBON EMISSIONS. The carbon fee can be chosen and adjusted to minimize
overall economic dislocation, but the longer we wait to initiate the
carbon fee, the greater will be the unrequited losses from climate
disruption and the greater will be the ultimate economic, physical and
spiritual sacrifices.
.
However, there is an asymmetry in how alternative energies are presented
to the public, and I believe this asymmetry is having a large impact on
prospects for stabilizing climate. Asymmetry first became obvious to me
when I pointed out to a friend some of the limitations of one of the
renewable energies. He said "Jim, don’t criticize renewable energies! It
is o.k. to advocate nuclear power, but don't do it by criticizing
renewables!"
.
I appreciate the rationale, so I always emphasize that we need
contributions of all the capable energies (and I point out that I have
spent a lot of money on solar panels for our and our children’s homes).
However, it is now clear that there is no reciprocity, and the lack of
uniform objectivity presents the public with a distorted picture of
alternative energy choices.
.
The asymmetry finally hit me over the head when a renewable energy
advocate told me that the main purpose of renewable portfolio standards
(RPS) was to "kill nuclear". I had naively thought that the purpose was
simply to kick-start renewables. Instead, I was told, because utilities
were required to accept intermittent renewable energies, nuclear power
would become less economic, because it works best if it runs flat out.
What to do when the wind is not blowing? The answer was: have a gas plant
ready as back-up. In other words, REPLACE CARBON-FREE NUCLEAR POWER WITH A
DUAL SYSTEM, RENEWABLES PLUS GAS. WITH THIS APPROACH CO2 EMISSIONS WILL
INCREASE AND IT IS CERTAIN THAT FRACKING WILL CONTINUE AND EXPAND INTO
LARGER REGIONS.
.
If we care about climate, a "carbon-free portfolio standard” would make
more sense than RPS. However, THE BEST APPROACH IS A RISING CARBON FEE
THAT ALLOWS EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES, NUCLEAR POWER, AND CARBON CAPTURE TO
COMPETE FAIRLY.
.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
.
C. Hansen (2014, p. 12) wrote [my inserts at ". . . . . . .[[insert]]. . .
. . . . "]:
.
NUCLEAR WASTE AND NUCLEAR SAFETY: Killing Nuclear In The U.S. Would Make A
Safer World
.
Conventional nuclear reactors fission only about 0.6% of the mined nuclear
fuel. The rest remains as very long-lived radioactive "waste". In fact
this waste can be used as fuel for "fast" reactors. . . . . [[See e.g.,
the Wikipedia entry at <http://bit.ly/1cdsJoM> and "Fast Neutron Reactors"
[WNA (2014)]]. . . . which combined with recycling facilities can raise
this figure up to about 99%. Fast reactors have the potential to leave a
significantly smaller amount of waste which is dangerous for a few hundred
years rather than tens of thousands of years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . [[see e.g., "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste: Fast-neutron reactors
could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the
risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste
must be isolated" (Hannum, Marsh & Stanford, 2005)]]. . . . . . . . . . .
.
Once fast reactors enter the mix of nuclear power plants, our nuclear fuel
is inexhaustible on time scales of billions of years, putting nuclear
power in the same category as solar power and wind power: the fuel will
last as long as the sun shines. Japan and the United States have both
demonstrated that uranium can be "sieved" from the ocean, so uranium
mining on land can be terminated once it is decided to do so. In the
near-term, ample inexpensive uranium deposits on land will be utilized.
.
The United States terminated R&D on fast reactors in 1993, indeed
practically eliminated any investment in nuclear technology. A rationale
for this policy was an assertion that fast reactors make it more difficult
to assure that nuclear material is not diverted to bomb-making. However,
nuclear experts point out that there is no inherent reason that fast
reactors cannot be as resistant to weapons proliferation as conventional
nuclear power technology, which is now widespread, in more than 30
nations.
.
The stronger drive for terminating nuclear R&D was the fact that the
Democratic Party in the United States had embraced the anti-nuke agenda.
Indeed, leaders of the Democratic Party seemed enchanted by a fantastical
vision [see Fig. 2 of Hansen (2010, p.21), and its update at
<http://bit.ly/1fdsM3V>] that fossil fuels, nuclear power, and large hydro
power would all be phased out early in the 21st century. . . . . . . .
.
Many Democrats have told me that their hope had been that the U.S. would
not build more nuclear power plants. They hoped that the U.S. would
abandon nuclear power when the current nuclear plants reached their
end-of-life, and they hoped that the rest of the world would follow suit.
Many of those Democrats, indeed, I believe a large majority of those who
understand the climate threat, are now open-minded about advanced safer
nuclear technology.
.
A safer world requires that the United States recognize the fact that
nuclear technology is widespread and is not going away. Fast reactors are
being developed in several countries. Russia has agreed to sell fast
reactors to China. . . . . [[see e.g., "Fast Neutron Reactors" (WNA,
2014.)]]. . . . A safer world is dependent on the United States staying
in the nuclear technology game.
.
U.S. government labs have deteriorated, thanks to the neglect, but they
still have potential. However, our crown jewels are our universities and
our free enterprise system, which stimulate innovations (if the government
does not hamstring the process). They have enormous potential to help
solve our energy and climate problem if we use them wisely. More on that
later. . . . . . [[On p. 14 Hansen (2014) wrote: "Rapidity required for
deployment of large scale baseload electric power in China requires
initial focus on nuclear power.** A substantial role for U.S. universities
would be mutually beneficial, invigorating nuclear R&D in the U.S. and
training the large number of engineers required for power plant
development and operation in China."
.
*With regard to Fig.2, Hansen (2010, p. 21-22) wrote: "[Fig. 2] contrasts
two energy paths for the United States that were proposed in the
mid-1970s. The Energy Department projected the need for strong energy
growth rates. It said the U.S. energy consumption of 70 quadrillion BTU
annually in 1975 would need to increase to 200 quadrillion BTU annually
forty years later, a growth rate of about 3 percent per year. An extreme
alternative to the Energy Department scenario was provided by Amory B.
Lovins . . . . .[[see Lovins (1997) and Lovins & RMI (2011)]]. . . . . ,
an idealist and a renowned visionary. His scenario has continual
improvements in energy efficiency, so energy use grows only slightly and
then begins to decline. In addition, more and more of that energy is
produced by what Lovins describes as 'soft technologies,' ones that do not
include nuclear power or big hydroelectric plants – energy sources that
are the banes of some environmentalists. CO2 emissions (from coal, oil,
and gas) in Lovens's scenario decline dramatically, almost disappearing in
2025. . . . . . . The real world data for energy use in the United States
[the EIA curve in Fig. 2] show that Lovins was a least half right. The
U.S. energy use grew only slowly, about 1 per cent per year, after 1975.
But the data also show that Lovens's scenario, if taken as prediction, was
half wrong, at least so far. Use of renewable energies such as the sun
and wind is still so small that it barely show up on the graph."
.
**With regard to nuclear power in China, Hansen (2014, footnote, p. 14)
wrote: "Quasi-baseload renewables such as concentrating solar are not cost
competitive. For example, the $2.2B Ivanpah solar power plant
<http://ivanpahsolar.com/> near the Mojave National Preserve in California
has max output 377 MW. With a capacity factor of 20%, its estimated annual
output is ~0.66 TWh. General Electric's . . . . . [[correction
"Westinghouse's" - see <http://bit.ly/1dmB8Xf>]]. . . . . . AP-1000, a
Generation III+ nuclear power plant with passive nuclear safety features,
at 90% estimated capacity factor yields 8.8 TWh per year, more than 13
times Ivanpah. The AP-1000 cost for the first two under construction in
China is estimated as $3.3B per unit, i.e., per 8.8 TWh/year. Construction
time for the first AP-1000, expected to be operational by 2015 will have
been 5-6 years. Westinghouse expects construction time to decrease to 36
months after a number of units have been completed, with a moderate
reduction in cost. A major advantage of AP-1000 over the solar polar plant
is the 0.5 square mile bootprint of AP-1000 facility, which compares with
5 square miles for Ivanpah or 65 square miles for 13 Ivanpahs. Also the
Ivanpah power is intermittent, which will require energy storage if solar
power is to assume a larger role."
.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
.
D. Hansen (2014, p. 12,13) wrote [my inserts at ". . . . . . .[[insert]].
. . . . . . "; my CAPS]:
.
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN NUCLEAR POWER.
.
Of course it is faster to install a solar panel or build a windmill than
to build a nuclear power plant. However, the question is how fast and at
what cost these energy systems can be brought to scale such that they
provide a large fraction of our electricity.
.
Nuclear power was used to quickly (within 10-15 years) and economically
decarbonize electricity grids of France (see Fig. 4 and discussion) and
Sweden. Sweden added about 0.6 MWh/year/person of emissions-free nuclear
energy in 1970-1986 (including construction time of all reactors), and at
peak the rate was 1.4 MWh/year/person. Given the current electricity
consumption in China (5.3 PWh/year) and population (approaching 1.4
billion), the 0.6 MWh/year/person rate of nuclear construction would
replace China’s current demand in 6.5 years. I am not proposing that as a
plan, but rather as an indication of what is feasible. . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[Hansen's 5.3
PWh/yr is close to the 4.7 x 10^9MWh = 4.7x10^15Wh = 4.7PWh consumed by
China in 2011 according to the Wikipedia entry "List of countries by
electricity consumption" at <http://bit.ly/1fCs8l8>. (Here "P"= "Peta" =
10^15)]]. . . . . . . . . .
.
In the United States bringing sun and wind to large scale requires time to
get public approval (around the entire nation) and time to build new
electric grids to take the power from its hotspots to where it is needed.
It also requires development of energy storage technologies to deal with
intermittent energy sources. WITHOUT ENERGY STORAGE, IT IS LIKELY THAT
RENEWABLES WILL BE COMBINED WITH GAS BURNING, WHICH HELPS ASSURE THAT OUR
CHILDREN WILL BE FRACKED THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES AND THAT FOSSIL FUEL
BURNING WILL PUSH THE PLANET FAR INTO THE DANGEROUS ZONE.
.
The largest portion of renewable energy cost is often hidden, e.g. by RPS
and feed-in tariffs, in which the costs are passed on to all utility
customers. Such added costs are bearable if the renewable portion of
electricity is small, but, as in a Ponzi scheme, there is danger that the
system won’t work as the subsidized portion of the scheme grows larger.
.
The best evaluation of costs will come via large-scale implementation.
Germany and California are making serious efforts to implement renewable
energy systems, and their public seems willing to bear higher electricity
costs. Hopefully, they will be successful in showing that a renewable
electric system is feasible and economic, in which case they will
justifiably be ahead of the curve and in a position to reap rewards of
success.
.
In the meantime, no approach should be forced on other states or nations.
WE SHOULD NOT GAMBLE THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET ON A SINGLE UNPROVEN
APPROACH.
.
.
.
Richard Hake,
Emeritus Professor of Physics,
Indiana University;
LINKS TO: Academia
<http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>;
Articles
<http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>; Blog
<http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>;
Facebook
<http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>;
GooglePlus
<http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>;
Google Scholar
<http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3>;
Linked In
<http://linkd.in/14uycpW>;
Research Gate
<http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB>;
Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs
<http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>;
Twitter
<http://bit.ly/juvd52>.
.
.
.
"Yes, a few scientists assert that renewables alone are sufficient, a
position that gets applause. As for me, I would prefer to stick to science
and tend my orchard. Unfortunately, the situation is different than it was
in the 1600s, when religion pressured science. The urgency of now steals
the luxury of silence. Galileo knew that the truth would come out
eventually and no one would be harmed. So he could just mutter under his
breath 'and yet it moves!' That, I cannot do." - James Hansen (2014, p.
15)
.
.
.
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 25 Feb
2014.]
.
.
.
Caldicott, H. 2006. "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer." New Press,
publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/1jVKGgB>. Author's information
at <http://bit.ly/1mA1tuO>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/1nWvobG>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature. For
adverse criticism see "Evidence Meltdown" [Manbiot (2011)].
.
Fleming, J.R. 2005. "Historical Perspectives on Climate Change." Oxford
University Press, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/1h6FTsL>.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1lfKvjz>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. The 1998 edition is online as a 11.7 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/1o16NCA> and an expurgated Google book preview is online at
<http://bit.ly/1juxFLf>.
.
Green, C. 2014. "Re: Professors We Need You!" online on the OPEN! TIPS
archives at <http://bit.ly/1dZrWfA>. Post of 20 Feb 2014 05:55:50-0800
to TIPS.
.
Hake, R.R. 2013a. "Re: Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Disaster," online on
the OPEN AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1fpLlYT>. Post of 05 April
16:37-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete
post were transmitted to several discussion lists and are on my blog
"Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/10DV42q> with a provision for comments.
.
Hake, R.R. 2013b. "Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on Planet Earth?
Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed." Online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1haQqTc>. Post of 27 Jun 2013
14:55:33-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the
complete post were distributed to various discussion lists and are also on
my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/19zyUHo> with a provision for
comments.
.
Hake, R.R. 2014. "Re: Professors We Need You!" online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1hw62E1>. The abstract and link to the
complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on
my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/1oThbQl>.
.
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G.
Russell, 1981: "Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,"
Science 213: 957-966; online as a 2.8MB pdf at <http://1.usa.gov/1e8WMCu>.
See also the NYT report <http://nyti.ms/1gwHUMm>. For the history of
climate change concern and research see e.g.: "Historical Perspectives on
Climate Change" [Fleming (1998, 2005)] and "The discovery of the risk of
global warming" [Weart (1997)].
.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, and V. Oinas. 2000. "Global
warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario," Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (18) 9875–9880; online at
<http://bit.ly/1ppI1zM>. Hansen has evidently modified his orientation
somewhat, since he now stresses the overriding importance of a carbon
tax.
.
Hansen, J.E. 2010. "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the
Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity."
Bloomsbury, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/1dTZyvu>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/1bPXW78>, note the searchable "Look Inside"
feature. For a review see Reynolds (2009). Book webpage at
<http://bit.ly/LfiwzY>. See also Hansen's webpage at
<http://bit.ly/16eDDNU>, especially the list of publications at
<http://bit.ly/1h5G9aP>. See also: (a) the updates at "Updating the
Climate Science" [Sato & Hansen (2014)] and (b) "Earth's Climate History:
Implications for Tomorrow" [Hansen & Sato (2011)].
.
Hansen, J.E. & M. Sato. 2011. "Earth's Climate History: Implications for
Tomorrow." NASA. online at <http://1.usa.gov/1gSh1or>.
.
Hansen, J.E. 2012. "Climate Change a Scientific, Moral and Legal Issue,"
You Tube video; online at <http://bit.ly/1cI1NBc>. Viewed 2195 times as of
24 Feb 2014.
.
Hansen, J. & J. Romm. 2013. "The Courage to Fight Climate Change: James
Hansen bravely told the truth even when the Bush administration tried to
silence and penalize him," The Nation, 27 May; online at
<http://bit.ly/12djtSf>. Note the video at that location "We Are Only
Beginning to Feel Climate Change's Impact"[Hansen (2013a)]. See also the
(a) the precursor article "Thoreau's Radicalism and the Fight Against the
Fossil-Fuel Industry" [Stephenson (2013)], (b) "Storms of My
Grandchildren" [Hansen (2010)]; (c) "Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on
Planet Earth? Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed"[Hake
(2013)]; (d) "Keystone XL: The pipeline to disaster" [Hansen (2013d).
.
Hansen, J.E. 2013a. "We Are Only Beginning to Feel Climate Change's
Impact," You Tube video; online at <http://bit.ly/1mD7LJU>. Viewed 7714
times as of 24 Feb 2014. See also the videos at Hansen (2012; 2013b,c).
.
Hansen, J.E. 2013b. "Climate One," You Tube video; online at
<http://bit.ly/MoCwBC>. Viewed 3073 times as of 24 Feb 2014.
.
Hansen, J.E. 2013c. " Half the Planet Doomed -- If We Don't Act -
Scientist Says" You Tube video; online at <http://bit.ly/1hvekaR>. Viewed
1515 times as of 25 Feb 2014.
.
Hansen, J. 2013d. "Keystone XL: The pipeline to disaster: If Obama OKs the
Keystone XL, it will exacerbate global warming and put the U.S. on the
hook for spills and environmental degradation, all in service to one of
the planet's dirtiest fuels," Los Angeles Times, OpEd, 04 April; online at
<http://lat.ms/16zLDF0>. See also: "Re: Keystone XL: The pipeline to
disaster" [Hake (2013a)] and another hot-button issue: "Supreme Court
Climate Case Looks At EPA's Power" Sherman (2014).
.
Hansen, J.E. 2014. "Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo: Do
Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?" online as a 541
kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/1goLfgs>.
.
Hannum, W.H., G.E. Marsh & G.S. Stanford. 2005. "Smarter Use of Nuclear
Waste: Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled
nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly
reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated," Scientific American,
December; online as a 590 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/1hlDw3t>.
.
Hargraves, R. & R. Moir. 2010. "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old
idea in nuclear power gets reexamined " American Scientist 98:304-313;
online as a 647 kB pdf at <http://xfin.tv/1nYLQsd>. They wrote: "An
increasingly popular vision of the future sees liquid-fuel reactors
playing a central role in the energy economy, utilizing relatively
abundant thorium instead of uranium, mass producible, free of carbon
emissions, inherently safe, and generating a trifling amount of waste."
.
Hargraves, R. 2012a. "Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal," You Tube video
online at <http://bit.ly/1bZcLUT>. As of 23 Feb 2014 this had been viewed
9,031times.
.
Hargraves, R. 2012b. "THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal." CreateSpace.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1e1p8ia>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. Book website <http://bit.ly/1efcQ14>.
.
Hargraves, R. 2014. "Radiation: The Facts," online as a 2.5 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/1jWhJ7c>. See also Hargraves & Moir (2010) and Hargraves
(2012a,b).
.
Kharecha, P.A. & J.E. Hansen, 2013: "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power," Environ. Sci.
Technol. 47: 4889-4895; online at <http://bit.ly/1djSbJx>.
.
Kristof, N. 2014a. "Professors, We Need You!" NYT Opinion Pages, 15 Feb;
online at <http://nyti.ms/1oIs7jD>.
.
Kristof, N. 2014b. "Bridging the Moat Around Universities." NYT Opinion
Pages, 15 Feb; online at <http://nyti.ms/1kOp8Wi>.
.
Lovins, A.B. 1977. "Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace." Penguin
Books,. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1fKRFVu>.See also the
more recent Lovins & RMI (2011).
.
Lovins, A.B. & Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). 2011. "Reinventing Fire:
Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era." Foreword by Marvin Odum.
Chelsea Green, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/NpyPwj>.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1lcU4Qg>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. RMI book page at <http://bit.ly/1nZ7Kvb>.
.
MacKay, D. 2013. "Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air" online at
<http://www.withouthotair.com/>. This important book can be downloaded for
FREE as a 14.6 MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/ZcghlW>. Zoologist Robert Hinde
<http://bit.ly/1lm2B3y> wrote: "The need to reduce our dependence on
fossil fuels and to find sustainable sources of energy is desperate. But
much of the discussion has not been based on data on how energy is
consumed and how it is produced. This book fills that need in an
accessible form, and a copy should be in every household." I agree!
.
McKibbon, B. 2006. "The End of Nature." Random House, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/1daCFjd>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/1p1wIgN>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature. First
published in 1989.
.
McKibbon, B. 2011. "EAARTH: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet," St.
Martin's, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/NihK7z>. Amazon.com
information at <http://amzn.to/1l5KWNl>, note the searchable "Look Inside"
feature. The chapter "A New World" is online as a 1.9 MB pdf
at <http://bit.ly/1daGPYe>.
.
McKibben, B. & A. Epstein. 2012. "McKibben vs. Epstein Debate on Fossil
Fuels," You Tube video; online at <http://bit.ly/MZAKI4>.
Viewed 11,376 times as of 25 Feb 2014.
.
McKibbon, B. 2013. "Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely
Activistl" Times Books, publisher's information at <http://bit.ly/NihpBC>.
Amazon.com information at<http://amzn.to/1h5yppj>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. See also McKibbon's website at
<http://bit.ly/1mi3FmY> and his organization 350.org at <http://350.org/>.
.
Monbiot, G. 2011. "Evidence Meltdown: The green movement has misled the
world about the dangers of radiation," The Guardian, 5 April online as a
29 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/NlRvgx>.
.
NRC. 2010. "Advancing the Science of Climate Change." National Academy
Press: online at <http://bit.ly/1gohi01>. The "Summary," p. 2, states:
"Overall, the report concludes that (a) Climate change is occurring, is
caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a
broad range of human and natural systems; and (b) The nation needs a
comprehensive and integrated climate change science enterprise, one that
not only contributes to our fundamental understanding of climate change
but also informs and expands America's climate choices." Other NAP books
related to climate change are listed at <http://bit.ly/1jVjPnS>.
.
Reich, R.B. 2009. "Why We Need Stronger Unions, and How to Get Them," blog
entry of 27 Jan; online at <http://bit.ly/1c8scER>.
.
Reich, R.B. 2012. "Beyond Outrage: Expanded Edition: What Has gone Wrong
With Our Economy and Our Democracy, and How To Fix It." Vintage.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1ebN6CI>, note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. See also Reich's website at
<http://robertreich.org/>.
.
Reich, R.B. 2013a. "Aftershock (Inequality for All - Movie Tie-in
Edition)" Vintage. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/1eZTYTU>.
.
Reich, R.B. 2013b. "Inequality For All - Official Trailer," You Tube
video; online at <http://bit.ly/1hfwPQx>; viewed 307,570 times as of 21
Feb 2014 14:21-0800.
.
Reynolds, S.S. 2009. Review of "Storms of My Grandchildren" [Hansen
(2010)], L.A. Times, 27 Dec; online at <http://lat.ms/Ms8uwI>: "The father
of global warming has been sounding the alarm for more than 30 years. He
is more discouraged than ever." Reynolds wrote: "Perhaps the most
frightening part of 'Storms of My Grandchildren' involves Hansen's take on
the personalities and power trips that all too often get in the way of
real movement. He is alarmed by the contrarians, such as MIT's Richard
Lindzen,. . . . .[[<http://bit.ly/1fpJcMG>]]]. . . . and annoyed by the
bureaucrats, such as former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe. . . . .[[
<http://bit.ly/1gAxnQd>]]. . . . ., who firmly requested that Hansen
remove the word 'danger' from discussions of global warming. He finds
himself increasingly marginalized as positions on global warming and
appropriate actions polarize. 'Of course,' he notes, 'by 2005 I was well
aware that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had become an office of
propaganda.' "
.
Sato, M, & J. Hansen. 2014. "Updating the Climate Science: What Path is
the Real World Following?" Online at <http://bit.ly/1mG2j9i>.
.
Shabecoff, P. 1988. "Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate," NYT,
24 June; online at <http://nyti.ms/1cyoR59>.
.
Sherman, M. 2014. "Supreme Court Climate Case Looks At EPA's Power,"
Huffington Post, 23 Feb; online at <http://huff.to/1nYnONT>.
.
Sierra Club. Undated. "Why Nuclear Power Doesn't Make Sense" online
at <http://bit.ly/1e3Gs5W>.
.
Stephenson, W. 2013. "Thoreau's Radicalism and the Fight Against the
Fossil-Fuel Industry: What would it mean if we were to walk in his
footsteps?" The Nation, 27 May; online at <http://bit.ly/170Ji91>.
.
Sullivan, W. 1981. "Study Finds Warming Trend That Could Raise Sea
Levels," NYT, 21 Aug., online at <http://nyti.ms/1gwHUMm>. This is a
report on "Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
[Hansen et al. (1981)]. For 1998 climate-change alert by Hansen see
"Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate" [Shabecoff (1988)].
.
UCS. 2013a. "Nuclear Power: Safety First. Now." Union of Concerned
Scientists, online at <http://bit.ly/1aPNSrO>. In "Storms of My
Grandchildren" [Hansen 2010, p. 203, 204] wrote: "[The UCS] seems to me to
be a lobbying organization. It lobbied hard for the Kyoto Protocol. When I
published the 'alternative scenario' paper . . . . . . [["Global warming
in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" (Hansen et al.,
2000)]]. . . . .which the organization considered to be critical of the
Kyoto Protocol it encouraged the writing of a paper criticizing and
mischaracterizing our paper. [In response I wrote an open letter published
on the naturalScience website, to correct misimpressions. . . . . . .I
agree with most of what [the UCS] proposes, but people should understand
that this is not a group of scientists in lab coats sending our their most
recent scientific analysis."
.
UCS. 2013b. " Nuclear Power 101." Union of Concerned Scientists, online
at <http://bit.ly/1bwUAFB>.
.
Weart, S.R., 1997. "The discovery of the risk of global warming: An
accidental confluence of old interests and new techniques led a few
scientists in the 1950s to realize that human activity might be changing
the world's climate. " Phys. Today 50(1): 34-40; online to subscribers at
. <http://bit.ly/1hi2pOR>.
WNA. 2014. "Fast Neutron Reactors," World Nuclear Association, January;
online at <http://bit.ly/1cEz9Rk>
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Reich, McKibbon, & Hansen: Three Academicians Who Have Spoken Out on Social Issues - David P. Dillard
