Matthew Yglesias (January 17, 2008) - The Nukes (Domestic Policy)

I guess, a neat contrarian conceit but it really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Could you link to some of that scrutiny?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 17, 2008 12:32 PM

It's the environmental version of "the teacher's union is destroying America's public schools". Which is unfortunate, because it makes it even harder to have a reality-based conversation about nuclear power, since even within the left you have contrarians who are mostly out to make a contrarian point.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 17, 2008 12:34 PM

Automobiles are not the biggest factor in carbon emissions.

Posted by mad6798j | January 17, 2008 12:35 PM

"The idea that dastardly anti-nuclear activists are the main thing standing between us and a halt to global warming is, I guess, a neat contrarian conceit but it really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny."

Very well said. I get frustrated with this line of reasoning also. "Go nuclear, or you'll kill BABY SEALS!" It's no more rational or science-based than the irrational arguments of the real loons on the far left end of the environmentalist spectrum.

Posted by Rihilism | January 17, 2008 12:37 PM

It makes sense to some extent to subsidize clean sources of electricity, but we should target subsidies on really, truly clean sources of power -- and nuclear's not that.

As I understand it, "clean" sources of energy--hydro, wind, and solar--are simply not viable replacements for oil--we just use far more energy than those sources can possibly provide.

That doesn't mean clean sources shouldn't be encouraged wherever possible, but until seawater-fueled fusion reactors become a reality, coal and/or nukes are the only realistic-in-terms-of-scale options for the post-oil era.

Posted by James Gary | January 17, 2008 12:40 PM

Could you link to some of that scrutiny?

Here's some I find fairly convincing, anyway.

Now, I'm fairly confident someone will come along and say something like "Well, what about breeder reactors?" That's discussed in the full report. I don't know if it fully holds water, as I'm not an expert, and I, like Matt, would be willing to see more nuclear plants built under an auctioned cap-and-trade or greenhouse-gas-tax regime. I just don't think the federal government should be subsidizing it, any more than it should be subsidizing "clean coal" or ethanol or really anything other than the development of new and/or cheaper energy technology.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2008 12:43 PM

we should target subsidies on really, truly clean sources of power

Which would be... what, exactly? Giving everyone a pony?

Pony power!

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 12:43 PM

James Gary,

I'm not sold on the argument that clean sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and oil and other fossil fuels. The numbers I've seen suggest that, even disregarding possible efficiency, solar could collect enough power for our energy usage. It would take photovoltaic arrays on less than half of all the rooftops in America to collect that sort of juice. Granted, there are some problems with storing energy and releasing it during sunless periods. However, advances in battery technology like hydrogen fuel cells should be sufficient to do such. Do you have any sources demonstrating that common argument of nuclear necessity?

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 12:46 PM

What's more, none of the alternative sources of energy as clean as well, not truly.

They all have carbon costs in manufacturing, and to the extent that energy absorbtion is truly "green", this means that it draws from a shallow pool of energy that the earth just got from the sun. There is no way it can compete with stored energy from millions of years of sunlight, or stored energy from massive supernovas. There just isn't. Therefore, it's quite a bit more preferable to use society and structure to minimize the impact of using such stored energy, and nuclear energy is the best way to increase carbon free baseload energy.

Posted by shah8 | January 17, 2008 12:47 PM

As I understand it, "clean" sources of energy--hydro, wind, and solar--are simply not viable replacements for oil--we just use far more energy than those sources can possibly provide.

We could also reduce our energy use. See this McKinsey report, which concluded:

The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.

Granted, that does include some carbon storage from coal plants, but that's only 11 percent of what they say can be done. Again, no problem with that, if it can be shown to work, but I don't think it should be subsidized beyond developing the technology.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2008 12:49 PM

We'll be weaned off the dastardly power, perhaps, with nuclear powered cars?

Matt, don't play dumb. Plug-in hybrids seem to be the front runner for getting off of gasoline-powered vehicles. Where's the extra electricity going to come from?

Posted by Klug | January 17, 2008 12:49 PM

Sorry, should read "possible efficiency advances".

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 12:50 PM

I agree that subsidies should go to things like R and D and wind and solar and that we should concentrate most of our effort there. But because of the risks involved wiht nuclear power the government does need to have a role if we want new plants. Can we begin to wean ourself of carbon without it? I don't see how--and I am not being a contrarian here. Show me how and I'll happily sign up. As to this question:

"We'll be weaned off the dastardly power, perhaps, with nuclear powered cars?"

No, obviously not, but one way to really decrease carbon emissions would be extensive use of plug-in hybrids that are using power generated by non-carbon emitting sources.

Posted by David | January 17, 2008 12:50 PM

In the quote Blinick seems to be using "environmentally friendly" in the new sense where it is a synonym for "not producing greenhouse gases". There are more aspects of environmental friendliness than just that.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | January 17, 2008 12:52 PM

The current issue of Scientific American has an excellent article that outlines a specific proposal to generate almost 70% of US energy needs with solar cells by 2050. There's no pie-in-the-sky here. The authors do not assume any dramatic breakthroughs in technology; everything is based on current tech plus some very modest efficiency growth over 20 years.

The principle objection to solar to my mind has been storage and transmission to places far from solar-friendly locations. This proposal addresses these as well. They also take a stab at the economics of the deal. Short version: yes, government subsidies would be required in phase 1 (in order to generate sufficient economies of scale) but subsequently private monies would be more prominent.

The article is available online:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vygvs

Posted by eSteve | January 17, 2008 12:53 PM

I'm all for a grand bargain: permits for nuclear plants that will last 20-30 years, mass subsidies for solar/whatever and conservation. If you want us and China and India to get off coal and deal with GHG, this is the way to go. Anybody for a deal?

BTW: How many Oregonians looked at that picture and knew, knew, KNEW that was Trojan?

Posted by Klug | January 17, 2008 12:54 PM

Solar energy is not "clean", so we should stop talking like it is. It will destroy thousands and thousands of square miles of habitat. It's about as dirty a technology as you can possibly get.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Yeah, Matt. You don't to have a nuclear reactor in a car for nuclear power to fuel automobiles. Duh.

BTW, props to Obama for being the only candidate the other night to actually tell Americans that maybe their own energy consumption should go DOWN while we argue over how to replace petroleum.

Posted by tinisoli | January 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Blinick may overstate the case for nuclear power. It's not the answer, but it's certainly not something that should be ruled out. It's something we should continue to explore in a rational manner. I think most honest observers of this, including Al Gore, have taken that position.

Posted by Mike | January 17, 2008 12:58 PM

I think oil is already pretty heavily subsidized by the US military. Ad-hoc subsidies are not a great way to go, but we do need to find a way to level the playing field between technologies like nuclear and oil. A carbon tax or at least a cap/trade scheme seems appropriate.

Posted by mpowell | January 17, 2008 1:05 PM

Cost per kilowatt hour: (from NH DES)

Coal - $3.14
Nat. Gas - $4.95
Nuclear - $3.31 + regulatory compliance
Wind - $6-7 + subsidy (approx. $1.5 per kilowatt hour)
Solar - $18.12

Basically, coal and nuclear are the cheapest, with the others trailing off into unfeasibility. So nukes are the most cost effective way to reduce our carbon output.

There are arguments on other grounds against nuclear power, but as an affordable solution to global warming, it wins hands down.

PPT Link:
http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/articles/fuel_cost_comparison_calculator/

Posted by heedless | January 17, 2008 1:07 PM

Part of the reason nuclear is subsidized is that it is so expensive to get through all the associated regulations. In the past, it took 15 years to go from the proposal just to the start of construction. That's a long time to sink your money without any return.

Posted by Scott de B. | January 17, 2008 1:08 PM

Thank you for the link eSteve.

James Gary,

"As I understand it, "clean" sources of energy--hydro, wind, and solar--are simply not viable replacements for oil--we just use far more energy than those sources can possibly provide."

This is old information and is not correct. It's this outdated understanding that plays into the nuclear proponents arguments. "Solar?, oh I hear that's not viable", etc. Not suggesting that you are trying to mislead but merely suggesting that the contrarian viewpoint is often appealing for its apparent non-conventional wisdom. I think it's important for us to continue to follow up on these issues because the playing field is constantly changing and what you "knew" yesterday may not be true anymore...

Posted by Rihilism | January 17, 2008 1:08 PM

Al,

Do you have any sources to suggest that any habitat need be destroyed by solar energy? Because it seems that all the space that is required to generate enough solar energy has already been cleared some time ago. Unless you are referring to something else, all allusions to solar being "dirty" is just plain false.

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 1:09 PM

Nitpick: is that actually a nuclear power plant in the picture? Because after spending some time in the UK, I came to realize that some Americans oddly believe that all cooling towers belong to nuclear power plants and all nuclear power plants have cooling towers. However, since there's no smokestack visible in the picture, I imagine that this one is, in fact, nuclear.

Posted by Marshall | January 17, 2008 1:14 PM

It's something we should continue to explore in a rational manner. I think most honest observers of this, including Al Gore, have taken that position.

The more rational candidates, Obama and Clinton, have also taken that position.

Posted by Jim W | January 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Nitpick: is that actually a nuclear power plant in the picture? Because after spending some time in the UK, I came to realize that some Americans oddly believe that all cooling towers belong to nuclear power plants and all nuclear power plants have cooling towers. However, since there's no smokestack visible in the picture, I imagine that this one is, in fact, nuclear.

Posted by Marshall | January 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Saying that nuclear power is a viable source of "clean" energy while it will take a while to phase in better alternatives is a laughable double standard.

It will take decades to safely build enough nuclear power stations to provide our energy needs at an exorbitant cost. Why not funnel that time and money into truly safe and clean forms of energy?

Posted by Clark | January 17, 2008 1:16 PM

> However, since there's no smokestack visible
> in the picture, I imagine that this one is,
> in fact, nuclear.

Click the picture to go to the Flickr photostream for the amusing answer.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 1:18 PM

If that photo is of, as I believe, the Trojan plant near Rainier, Oregon, I can tell you that it was demolished a couple of years ago. The implosion was spectacular. I could see it from my home in Deer Island, OR.

Posted by Laurie Alexander | January 17, 2008 1:22 PM

If that photo is of, as I believe, the Trojan plant near Rainier, Oregon, I can tell you that it was demolished a couple of years ago. The implosion was spectacular. I could see it from my home in Deer Island, OR.

Posted by Laurie Alexander | January 17, 2008 1:23 PM

Al's thousands and thousands of miles of habitat destruction is a bit disingenuous. A thousand square miles of habitat is a little more than a 30 mile by 33 mile square. We have destroyed many, many, many habitats that size (we call them "cities"), and if all that we needed was to do that a few more times to get onto a solar power economy, well, then, great for us.

Practically, I think that there are way bigger problems with solar power generation (and I'm a skeptic about the feasibility of lots of solar power) than habitat destruction.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 17, 2008 1:25 PM

eSteve,

Didn't see your article before I posted. Looks interesting and well thought out. One question though: Won't there be comparable improvements in efficiency in coal, nuclear, and even wind power by 2050? That's 42 years from now, so we can expect as much, if not more change in technology as between 1965 and today.

Posted by heedless | January 17, 2008 1:29 PM

Nuclear energy from existing plants is fairly inexpensive since the plants have already been paid for. The cost of energy from new plants is much harder to estimate as we haven't been building many new plants here in the U.S. for a while. Comparing the cost of energy from long-running nuclear plants to that from newly built gas, wind or solar stations is misleading in the extreme. The cost of building a new nuclear plant in the U.S.--especially one using a next generation design--is not well defined and (for a variety of reasons) is likely to be high.

In the best possible future, there would be a place for nuclear power stations, but the libertarian fantasy of a massive building spree shouldn't happen. Energy from a new wind, geothermal or solar-thermal facility will be cheaper than energy from a newly built nuke, and will be cheaper than coal once a price for carbon emissions is established. Photovoltaics may remain more expensive, but will likely find a profitable application on top of large industrial/retail buildings and over parking lots.

Posted by jlw | January 17, 2008 1:36 PM

Forget waste. What do you do about the inevitability of a mantle-breaching meltdown at a nuclear site? Try to power the world on these reactors, and its going to happen eventually. None us really know what effect that will have, but I'd wager we don't want to risk the worst of what could happen and lose half a continent.

Posted by soullite | January 17, 2008 1:36 PM

eSteve,

There was an article in National Geographic a few years ago that surveyed energy usage and concluded that, although it would take a large area of solar cells to replace fossil fuels with solar energy, there is more than enough vacant real estate to do so without gobbling up land. Simply placing solar cells on empty rooftops of homes, offices, and retail stores is simple enough and wouldn't even require 100% usage. It could be done feasibly within a few years, and though it would require large capital investments up front would pay for itself in a few years. Really the only problem with solar power is storing energy for dark periods. With the large developments in battery technology over the last 10 years, it isn't much of a problem anymore. I've been sold on the idea of storing solar energy in hydrogen fuel cells.

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Here are those NG articles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternative_energy.html

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/NG.htm

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 1:43 PM

Wind ain't all that clean either. In places like Bedford, PA, where this is a serious point of contention, making a windfarm basically entails "shaving" the top off a mountain. Some of the locals aren't so keen on it.

Either way: What do we do with the batteries when we junk the electric cars? I seem to recall some doomsday scenarios stemming from the toxic chemicals pouring into landfills from discarded cell phones.

I am no expert, but I think a battery for an F-150 would pose a bigger conundrum. Multiplied by several million per year. Uh oh.

Posted by Sam M | January 17, 2008 1:46 PM

Soulite, that's dramatic, but more the provenance of science fiction than the real world.

Chernobyl was a clusterf--- with multiple system failures and a botched emergency response. It only managed to contaminate a few square miles around the plant.

Modern pebble-bed reactors aren't even capable of achieving critical mass without deliberate sabotage. So your concerns are overblown.

Posted by heedless | January 17, 2008 1:47 PM

It's absolutely true that Wall St., more than any sort of lefty/pinko/enviro plot, has put the brakes on nuclear power development. The reason is simple: conventional power plants are cheap, compared to nuclear. When I was working as a reporter in New York back in the dark ages before the Internet, New York utilities hatched a complex scheme in which eight separate utilities would pool resources (and rate-making powers) to form a massive consortium. This proved not to be legal, but the very fact that huge utilities like ConEd felt they couldn't afford to build nuclear power plants on their own tells the story. I haven't seen the latest stats, but at that time nuclear power plants were 5-10x as expensive as conventional power.

It's not the enviros who are stopping nuclear power plants: it's the bean-counters.

Posted by Kit Stolz | January 17, 2008 1:49 PM

Do you have any sources to suggest that any habitat need be destroyed by solar energy?

See the article linked above by eSteve, for example. I think the idea that we are going to get every individual home, business and empty lot in America (or even most) to put solar cells on their property is beyond ludicrous (hence the pony reference). Power will continue to be generated, by and large, by large power producers. And for solar, that means huge areas of habitat. You may not care about polluting the desert Southwest with gigantic solar farms, but I do.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 1:50 PM

We'll be weaned off the dastardly power, perhaps, with nuclear powered cars?

Clearly, Matthew is unfamiliar with...

Mr. Fusion

And the technology will be ready by sometime before 2015!

Posted by drjimcooper | January 17, 2008 1:51 PM

I'm not going to claim to be an all out authority on the matter or anything, but there are very good reasons for (probably pretty big) subsidies for a limited number of new power plants in the U.S. assuming you aren't fully opposed to nuclear power. I.E. the first set of new plants will face significantly larger costs and risks than the plants that would theoretically follow them.

These risks/costs include:

1) The U.S. has completely overhauled the regulatory regime since we've last constructed a plant, meaning it is untested and no one is sure how difficult it will be to get through it. Like anything, the first time through will probably be the roughest.

2) The new regulatory system is meant to be expedited compared to our previous system because it allows developers to point to previously approved applications and say they're doing exactly that and to get much faster approval of that part of the application. The first few, however, don't get this advantage.

3) The new set of plants are using new technology that's supposed to be more efficient and safer, but does not have the long operational track record, meaning additional risk.

4) There is no significant first-to-market incentive, since at the end of the day a lot of the knowledge learned by going through the regulatory system will be open to the public.

Posted by AE | January 17, 2008 1:51 PM

BTW - hydroelectric is not clean either. The giant hydroelectric projects in this country - places like Glen Canyon Dam - are utter environmental travesties. We need to be destroying hydroelectric plants, not creating them.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 1:54 PM

I'm with Klug on this one. I understand your point, but your reasoning seems a little weak in this case.

We'll be weaned off the dastardly power, perhaps, with nuclear powered cars?

Electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles will all rely on the electric power grid for energy. The necessary infrastructure required for the success of these next generation vehicles aren't in pace yet, but we're getting there. We need to use stepping stones, like Gas/Hybrid, eventually plugin hybrids, and eventually completely electric vehicles (hydrogen vehicles seem unfeasible any time in the near future). Likewise, nuclear energy is one of those stepping stones towards reducing carbon emissions generated by our power plants, which provides a clean infrastructure for those electric vehicles. Nuclear is the only clean-air energy alternative available right now. Nuclear should be considered a stop-gap measure, a useful tool for transitioning to renewable, but not a permanent solution.

I think we could easily argue the considerable burden of nuclear waste -- even considered over decades -- is an insignificant problem alongside the burdens resulting from our reliance on foreign oil. Besides carbon emissions and the very real threat of climate change, oil is responsible for decades and decades of violent global conflict, directly impacting and destroying literally hundreds and thousands of lives. Nuclear waste is a difficult problem, and one that's especially unsettling for its relative permanence. Still, I'm certain we can work out a sol

Posted by seanh | January 17, 2008 2:00 PM

Matt,

Solar is not a viable power source and will not be for at least decades, if you are optimistic enough to believe it ever will be. Beyond that, it doesn't provide power at night.

Wind is being built very rapidly right now, but has limited capacity that will only be able to supply a fraction of the base load, let alone peak use (although it does provide more power during daylight, because it is windier).

The biggest obstacle to nuclear is political NIMBYism. Nuclear has huge upfront capital costs, which are all wasted if the next city council decides to rezone the area and stop construction on the plant.

At this point in time, Nuclear truly is the only option we have that could conceivably supplant coal. The two of them supply virtually all of our base load (with nuclear actually being prioritized because it is both cheaper and harder to turn off). We are either going to have to produce a lot more nuclear or make some major advances in carbon sequestration if we want to deal with emissions while continuing at current energy levels.

I do agree that a 100% auctioned cap and trade system could take care of this basically on its own. I just think it is foolish to deny nuclear subsidies while subsidizing other power, since nuclear is likely to be the most important part of a carbon-limited energy infrastructure.

(Now, if you want to direct those subsidies towards a space elevator to fling all that nuclear waste into the sun, I am 100% on board!)

Posted by Anonymous | January 17, 2008 2:04 PM

France gets something like 80% of its power from nuclear, and - last time I looked - they weren't drowning in waste products. Nuclear could also power cars (indirectly), if battery technology improves enough to make electric cars with decent range possible.

But sure, let's use bio-fuels instead, and contribute to rain forest clearing and a reduction of food supplies for the poor. That's much, much friendlier.

Posted by James Robertson | January 17, 2008 2:05 PM

You may not care about polluting the desert Southwest with gigantic solar farms, but I do.

I don't believe you.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 17, 2008 2:16 PM

Maybe it's just time to give up the ghost.

Posted by Jason C. | January 17, 2008 2:18 PM

Orbital Solar Power! So awesome in concept, so impractical in execution. Ah well. I'd like a space elevator, too, while I'm dreaming.

Al is right that hydroelectric power is pretty environmentally harmful, but, then, I haven't seen anyone on this thread advocating it.

From the people arguing against up-front costs for nuclear, I'd like to see a comparison to up-front costs of solar. That's where solar gets hurt, I think: not that thousands of square miles of photovoltaic cells will kill the environment, but just the kind of massive undertaking necessary to get thousands of square miles of photovoltaic cells (and to maintain them, for that matter -- solar is pretty low-maintenance, but we're talking about a hell of a lot of cells).

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 17, 2008 2:19 PM

Al,

Why do you think "the idea that we are going to get every individual home, business and empty lot in America (or even most) to put solar cells on their property is beyond ludicrous (hence the pony reference)"? It seems no more ludicrous to think that homes and business will install solar cells on their rooftops than to think that they will allow nuclear plants in their backyards. It would be pretty easy to make it happen with a tax cut for homeowners who install one and a HUD home improvement loan program for photovoltaic array installation.

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Michael B Sullivan,

From my perspective it seems that the costs of going solar are fairly low. Could we agree that 2.5 trillion dollars would be more than sufficient? Say 50k per unit and 50000000 units in the US would only cost then 2,500,000,000,000. Considering our worthless war in Iraq has cost 1.5 trillion, if we would have spent those Iraq costs on a new national energy grid incorporating solar cells on rooftops, we are over halfway there. And there would actually be a ROI to boot!

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 2:26 PM

And for solar, that means huge areas of habitat. You may not care about polluting the desert Southwest with gigantic solar farms, but I do.

Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining. Studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., show that more than enough land in the Southwest is available without requiring use of environmentally sensitive areas, population centers or difficult terrain. Jack Lavelle, a spokesperson for Arizona’s Department of Water Conservation, has noted that more than 80 percent of his state’s land is not privately owned and that Arizona is very interested in developing its solar potential. The benign nature of photovoltaic plants (including no water consumption) should keep environmental concerns to a minimum.

I'm surprised to see Al wearing the environmentalist's hat, but from the description above, "habitat" seems like an awfully generous term. It's the desert, for crying out loud.

I think the idea that we are going to get every individual home, business and empty lot in America (or even most) to put solar cells on their property is beyond ludicrous (hence the pony reference).

This needs further explanation. Is it ludicrous because we don't adopt new technologies widely, if there is a perceived advantage? (See: washing machines, refrigerators, cars, telephones, cable/satellite, home computing, broadband access). Or is it because the technology is currently too expensive, and could never possibly be brought in line with (or below) the costs of other energy consumption?

Posted by Brad L | January 17, 2008 2:28 PM

Daniel Davies' posts addressing what he regards as the biggest problem with the nuclear industry -- the nukemen -- are worth a read:

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 17, 2008 2:31 PM

Nuclear power plants use a lot of water for cooling the fuel rods. It was especially problematic during the heatwave in 2003 when there wasn't enough water to keep the plants operational.

Posted by D. | January 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Nuclear vs. Oil is a bit of a red herring. There are pretty damn few oil powered electrical plants in North America. What nukes would be replacing is coal (very dirty) and gas (not so dirty, but getting increasingly more expensive, and there's just not much left).

I think Clark, above, has hit the nail on the head. Even assuming a massive new investment in nukes, it will be literally decades to get it up and running. So those proposing nukes as a "clean" new alternative are essentially content with the status quo for another decade or two.

The more reasonable and obvious answer is conservation. There is ginormous waste and inefficiency in energy use in the US, so that the potential for savings there is huge.

And, getting back to Clark's point, *if* we are going to compare apples to apples (ie. the true cost of *new* (not pre-existing, already massively subsidized) nukes vs. solar/wind/other alternative energies), the logic for the massive investment in new energy sources comes down squarely on the side of alternatives (eg. solar).

Posted by McKingford | January 17, 2008 2:46 PM

> but just the kind of massive undertaking
> necessary to get thousands of square miles
> of photovoltaic cells

Which require very large amounts of toxic material for manufacturing (and that toxic material has to be mined from somewhere).

I would say this discussion is a bit fruitless though. What will happen is that we will keep on mostly ignoring the peak oil and climate change problems as long as we can put gas in the SUVs (say below $10/gal). Then at the last minute we will realize that there is a problem and, having no option, will start a rush to build more nuclear fission plants. Which may or may not arrive in time.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Solar is not a good choice for single site generation like a coal or nuclear power plant or a dam. So, ramping up solar isn't going to destroy thousands of miles of habitat. Most solar that gets deployed will be real close to where its energy is consumed.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Re: nuclear powered cars

Electricity from nuclear power plants can be used to power plug-in hybrids. It can also be used to create hydrogen fuel cells.

Posted by Frank Bruno | January 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Human population is the gorilla in the room that no one seems to see, much less mention.

All these problems (carbon, pollution, energy) would be far easier to manage if there were less people.

In most cases, societies seem to grow less quickly when women are educated and have control over their own lives; most of the fastest-growing populations have strongly patriarchal cultures in which men effectively determine fertility.

Posted by joel hanes | January 17, 2008 3:03 PM

I'm with Cranky. Nothing much will get done until the economics force change.

And he's right about the nuclear plants. If people think we'll be able to keep the lights on in a decade without new nuclear power, they're mistaken. It may have taken 15 years to get a nuclear plant online 3 or 4 decades ago, but if getting that plant online is necessary to keep lights on for cities, it will take much less time in the future.

If Obama said that, he just got my vote. Energy is the most important issue facing this country by an order of magnitude at least. Anyone who is willing to tell the American people they need to use less energy is doing more than anyone with a sound foreign and economic policy.

Posted by blah2 | January 17, 2008 3:09 PM

Molten salt single-site solar is looking better these days. See this recent article from Scientific American, f'rinstance. This technology is considerably less eco-unfriendly in manufacturing than solar cells.

That said, a large plant will consume a bunch of desert landscaep.

Posted by joel hanes | January 17, 2008 3:10 PM

Why do you think "the idea that we are going to get every individual home, business and empty lot in America (or even most) to put solar cells on their property is beyond ludicrous (hence the pony reference)"?

We can't even get most homeowners to take even the most basic, cost-effective, energy-reducing steps - things that aren't constrained by other issues, like changing regular light bulbs to CF. You are talking about a massive undertaking involving things like thousands of individual community zoning laws. Even if you were to give away the equipment, rather than just subsidize it, I doubt you could convince a lot of people to use them. Moreover, it may not even be practicable in many places. Seattle ain't the same as Phoenix.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 3:18 PM

> It may have taken 15 years to get a nuclear
> plant online 3 or 4 decades ago, but if
> getting that plant online is necessary to keep
> lights on for cities, it will take much less time
> in the future.

Actually the first set of practically-sized nuclear plants (200 MW) took about 2 years to build, with many previously unknown design and construction problems being solved during that period. The second set, around 900 MW in size, took 4 years to build. The third set of 1200 MW-class units was expected to take 4-5 years but most of them got caught up in the industry and regulatory changes caused by the Three Mile Island incident and ended up taking 10-15 years. The new standardized 1250 MW units could probably be built in 3-4 years (after the first few) IF all regulatory approvals were available at project start.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 3:24 PM

from the description above, "habitat" seems like an awfully generous term. It's the desert, for crying out loud

Why would you think that the desert is not a habitat? Deserts not only most certainly are habitats for a wide range of plants and animals, but they are also the most fragile habitats. Unlike many habitats that can be repaired in a matter of decades, damage we do to desert habitats will take centuries to repair, if they can be repaired at all.

My initial point, in my very first comment on the thread, was to dispute Matthew's assertion that we should subsidize "really, truly clean sources of power". There are no such things. Geothermal comes closest, I think. But there are gigantic environmental problems with other supposedly "clean" sources of energy that a carbon tax will not address.

My personal, ideosyncratic belief is that our greatest enviromental problem is habitat destruction. I'm probably more sensitve to that than to other issues. But even if you don't think that it is our most important problem, you still need to acknowledge that it is a problem, making "clean" sources of energy not so clean.

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 3:39 PM

joel hanes has one big part of the answer: solar thermal (not silicon-based PV) can produce steam to turn a generator as well as provide power for electrolysis -- getting hydrogen from water, which provides an economical store for excess daytime energy production (and thus provide nighttime power along with the retained heat in molten salts).

Note to solar PV lovers: silicon makers are having severe capacity constraints and silicon wafer prices have skyrocketed and probably won't get substantial new capacity for another few years == higher solar PV costs.

I think the answer won't be a single source but a suite of technologies that fit the local climate and geography (wind, tide, geothermal, solar thermal and PV, nuke etc.). Somehow we gotta get off of the magic bullet one-size-fits-all solution.

Of course, less use of energy often costs much less...

anyone want to talk about fresh water?

Posted by mike c | January 17, 2008 3:39 PM

Al,

As others have noted, homeowners have readily installed new appliances in their homes. How different are solar cells from refridgerators? I find your assertion to be based on a false premise. The evidence suggests that traditional lightbulbs will be completely phased out soon. Heck in 2005 Walmart alone sold 40 million of them. And to assert that you can't "convince a lot of people to use them" I also find baseless. You are suggesting that people wouldn't use a device that would reduce their energy bills significantly, or even wipe them out altogether. I find that implausible. Frankly, I see little behind your rejection of solar power besides personal intransigence.

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 3:44 PM

"Then at the last minute we will realize that there is a problem and, having no option, will start a rush to build more nuclear fission plants. Which may or may not arrive in time."

"It may have taken 15 years to get a nuclear plant online 3 or 4 decades ago, but if getting that plant online is necessary to keep lights on for cities, it will take much less time in the future."

Sorry, guys, but pure bunk. The main reason I reject nuclear as a response to global warming and as a means to achieve energy independence is because it would require the same investment and time period to achieve the same results as the alternatives. Therefore, nuclear presents us with no significant advantages over the other methods. Ideally, the first response to keep the lights on will be conservation. Considering the levels of waste in our lives and economy, significant return can be achieved without even turning to alternatives. When further gains in conservation become cost prohibitive, there's NO reason to turn to nuclear first.

Posted by Rihilism | January 17, 2008 3:46 PM

> The evidence suggests that traditional
> lightbulbs will be completely phased out soon

Traditional light bulbs are being phased out because California banned them by fiat, and with the California market gone the light bulb makers decided it wasn't worth staying in the business.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 3:47 PM

Cranky,

Interesting note. It sort of proves the point that the government can easily coerce the market to do something, like adopt energy saving technology. The stick and the carrot, or taxes and subsidies, are all that is needed really.

Posted by freddiemac | January 17, 2008 3:49 PM

Some thoughts from the American nuclear industry:

http://tinyurl.com/ywywe3

Posted by Eric McErlain | January 17, 2008 4:01 PM

Another problem with a massive expansion of nuclear power is that we don't have the expertise (at present) to run them. After the nuclear industry stopped growing in the 1980s, there was little need to train young nuclear engineers--the baby boomers who entered the field were sufficient to run the 400-odd plants we had. Those guys are starting to retire now, and training their replacements will be a big enough chore. Ramping up the education system to provide highest quality engineers to operate a fleet twice or three times as large will be difficult. (The petroleum industry is having a similar problem due to the oil bust of the 1980s and 1990s.)

Due to the more forgiving nature of the technology, the human capital needed to run a concentrating solar power plant is not nearly as great. Ditto wind. Photovoltaics have been somewhat labor-intensive to produce, but it's expected that newer technology will use more automated manufacturing techniques; once built, PVs don't require much expertise.

Similarly, nuclear power plants require very high grade material machined to the tiniest of tolerances; CSP and wind, not so much. PV right now has some issues with materials and might be bottlenecked until (or unless) there's a big breakthrough in making PV cells from common--and cheap--stuff.

The simpler you can make a system, the more robust and sustainable it will be. Wind, solar-thermal and waste/biomass score very high on simplicity, and it might be best to see how much of that we can harness and lower our consumption to match the resource.

Posted by jlw | January 17, 2008 4:03 PM

The funny thing here is that mortgage companies might actually be one of the biggest forces pushing solar power, bicycles for transportation, and smart growth or new urbanism.

As some of you may know, a mortgage company compares your earning power with your costs to determine what size loan you can pay off. If you have a good job with multiple possible employers nearby, maybe you don't have car payments- thus increasing your disposable income. If you have solar power on your roof, maybe you don't have utility payments- thus increasing your disposable income.

Who could make everyone put solar panels on their roof? Lenders, in pretty much the same way that insurance companies "force" us to have building codes and fire hydrants.

In my county a man built a solar-powered house that can feed energy back into the grid (the utility pays him when this happens) and the lender was happy to finance the extra costs, because they could see it saved money over-all.

As for building a new generation of nukes, well, the best idea we have so far about dealing with the waste is to send it to Japan to be made into potentially weapons-grade concentrates. Enthusiasts here are suggesting that, with the new rules created during the Bush administration by the nuclear power industry, we can safely and cheaply build dozens, possibly hundreds, of new reactors. All of this progress, however, will come to a screeching halt unless we give the industry a one-size-fits-all get-out-of-jail-free card.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. I've heard a duck fart underwater before.

Posted by serial catowner | January 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Why would you think that the desert is not a habitat? Deserts not only most certainly are habitats for a wide range of plants and animals, but they are also the most fragile habitats.

Ok, now I am curious. In terms of biomass, how does a square mile of desert compare to a similar patch of other types of terrain?

It would seem common sense to me that if you "use" a square mile of desert, you are doing less damage to flora and fauna than if you were to, say, mine coal over a similar square footage.

Posted by Brad L | January 17, 2008 4:07 PM

Natasha argues that these issues are urgent -- indeed, that it may already be too late to prevent a very unpleasant future.

Posted by joel hanes | January 17, 2008 4:08 PM

The evidence suggests that traditional lightbulbs will be completely phased out soon.

CFLs were first available in the 1980s. Incandescents will be banned in 2014. So it will take around 30 years just to make what should be the most innocuous change going - changing from a more expensive, less efficient bulb to a less expensive, more efficient bulb. 30 years. For a change in lightbulbs! Even though the new bulb is cheaper. How long will it take to get everyone to add a completely new form of energy provision equipment to their homes and businesses?

Posted by Al | January 17, 2008 4:14 PM

> It would seem common sense to me that if
> you "use" a square mile of desert, you are doing
> less damage to flora and fauna than if you were
> to, say, mine coal over a similar square footage.

I hate to agree with the Al persona on anything, but he is 100% correct about the desert issue. If your outdoor life has been spent primarily in woodlands and grasslands east of the Mississippi, as mine has, visiting desert environments for a few weeks is a transformational experience. Yes, there are more species and more growth in rain forests but there is far more life and diversity than you would think in the desert and it is much more fragile than more intense biomes.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 4:15 PM

Brad L,

Just in case you thought objections to using the desert was concern trolling, google the "Sunrise Powerlink" in San Diego County. This is a powerline attempting to tap into Arizona's power grid. It's come under a lot of fire for going through the desert wilderness rather than going along the Interstate. Mind you, this is a power line.

While I agree that "well, it's just the desert", building a solar farm in the desert would obliterate its immediate footprint.

Posted by Klug | January 17, 2008 4:23 PM

Al is not being completely straight with us -- (sorry I actually agree with your conclusion). The upfront cost of the CFL bulb, to the consumer, is much higher. Assuming the lifetime of energy cost savings and multiple bulb replacements, the CFL bulb IS cheaper on a net present value basis. The problem is the initial investment (short-termism thinking by the average consumer) and the fact that many CFL bulbs put out a different kind of light or have "quality" problems (different color/brightness, lack of dimability, and start-up delay). CFL bulbs that address these problems haven't been really available until this past year.

Also, where do you throw the mercury left in these bulbs when they do quit?

Posted by mike c | January 17, 2008 4:26 PM

It must be very tempting for terrorists to get themselves hired as a janitor or something at one of these plants - considering the fact that US chemical plants are about as secure as your local drugstore there is good reason to assume that nuclear plants don't and won't fare much better in this regard. This opens up a very convenient and efficient way of killing lots of US citizens.

Posted by novakant | January 17, 2008 4:52 PM

"Amount of biomass" is an absolutely moronic proxy for importance of a habitat, whether the importance being measured is ecological, aesthetic, or spiritual. To see the idiocy of such a metric, note that I could grow a big tank of algae that would have an extremely dense biomass. Is that good compensation for blowing up your favorite wilderness? Of course not.

Continuing the agreeing with Al notes: I'm as much of a fan of micro-power generation as the next guy, and I think it'll end up serving a lot of needs, but it's not going to replace centralized power any time soon. If you think it'd be expensive (and probably ecologically harmful, hat tip Cranky) to generate a few hundred million square meters of photovoltaic cells, emplace them, and maintain them in one or a few bigs farms, imagine how much you lose by doing that piecemeal. It's a huge enough proposition without throwing out every economy of scale that you could hope to get.

Rihilism's objections to the "pure bunk" would be rather more convincing if he suggested any reason why we might believe that this is "pure bunk."

Jlw's concerns about expertise aren't terribly problematic. Issue H1B visas to nuclear engineers from France or other nuclear-heavy states, and you're done. If we had to create expertise out of nothing, that would be one thing, but there are large populations that use nuclear power more extensively than we do, and the US is rich and a desireable emigration destination. We can tap into other countries if we're willing to pay enough (and the amount we'd be paying would be a tiny, insignificant component of the total cost of ramping up nuclear power production).

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 17, 2008 5:01 PM

Incandescent bulbs have not, in fact, been banned as of 2014. What's been done is that bulbs have to hit a new efficiency level by then, and current incandescent bulbs can't hit that requirement.

However, current CFLs are no panacea - there are mercury issues, there's the fact that they don't (yet) work well with dimmer switches, there's the problem of cold weather.... what Mat demonstrates here is that his part of the left is susceptible to the same problem he often accuses the right of: believing in simplistic answers to complex problems.

As to some of the posters who suggested that we use less energy: not going to happen. The track record for all of human existence has been increased usage, and that's not going to change. Any candidate who actually pushes such an idea as policy will lose, badly. It's a dumb idea.

Posted by James Robertson | January 17, 2008 5:11 PM

"Amount of biomass" is an absolutely moronic proxy for importance of a habitat, whether the importance being measured is ecological, aesthetic, or spiritual.

So suggest one (for ecological concerns -- I'm personally not terribly concerned about the "spiritual" or "aesthetic" concerns here), instead of simply being an ass.

I'm admittedly grappling with the preconceived notion that a desert has less life in it than other terrain, so less "environmental harm" is being done. It was suggested that deserts are both more various and more delicate than I realized, but I am still at a loss for some sort of metric that compares a desert to the terrain that I am familiar with. How do you propose we measure the environmental damage here?

Is that good compensation for blowing up your favorite wilderness?

Algae, no. Lasting, renewable power that "blows up" one type of wilderness instead of another? Maybe. And I didn't know there were going to be explosions. That just makes it seem all the cooler.

I'm as much of a fan of micro-power generation as the next guy, and I think it'll end up serving a lot of needs, but it's not going to replace centralized power any time soon.

I agree with this, but I think full replacement isn't the proper standard to use. I think its perfectly appropriate to talk in terms of percentage gains, and I suspect these could be major.

Posted by Brad L | January 17, 2008 5:27 PM

Re James Robertson

I am afraid that Mr. Robertson is seriously in error relative to the potential of conservation efforts. Attached is a link to a presentation by one Amory Lovins to TED in which he claims that improvements in fuel efficiency of 100% or more are possible with todays technology. In fact, he claims that it is technically possible to improve energy efficiency to the extent that the US would be completely independent of oil imports.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51

Posted by SLC | January 17, 2008 5:38 PM

BTW, props to Obama for being the only candidate the other night to actually tell Americans that maybe their own energy consumption should go DOWN while we argue over how to replace petroleum.
Posted by tinisoli

How is net energy use in the USA going to go down when Obama is pro-amnesty, pro family reunifiation for illegal aliens and a supporter of more African and Muslim refugees, millions more, being allowed in the USA.

Like with ACLU civil liberties for terrorists, energy policy is another area where Democrats are spectacularly wrong and determined not to let facts get in the way of their ideology.

1. Most Dems support illegal immigration and family reunification which will drive US population to 340 million by 2030, 363 million in 2050 while the world goes from 6.5 billion to 9.
Which negates all conservation savings that Global Warming activists say will help reduce coal use. Instead, existing growth is driving the need to be building a new coal-fired plant every 5 days. And Dems and the Davos crowd and environmentalists have refused for the most part to discuss the population growth that drives CO2 addition - not greedy Americans and their SUVs - but 8 times the number of Americans that existed 150 years ago and SUVs that contribute less than 0.5% of the global warming problem.
30 years of energy conservation and oil conservation in America after the great oil crisis of 1973? All the savings were wiped away with just 5 years of illegals invading and by their descendents.

2. The only reliable 24/7 CO2-free power is nuclear. Physics says that the most economical and efficient fusion plants, if the bugs are ever worked out, will be fusion plants that use the tritium-deuterium reaction's fast neutron to make fuel - plutonium and U-233 from thorium, plus tritium. So even if we transition to fusion, fission will come along with it. As is, nuclear is the only power industry where environmentalists and democrats oppose any recycling and reuse of wastes (98% of high level nuke waste is reusable in a reactor) and treatment of remaining nuke waste (burned out in fast flux reactors) with near-hysterical opposition.

3. Even in the most Green-delerious countries with most of their free energy sector investment resources going to subsidize and develop "exciting alternates" like wind and solar, no country deep into it is finding that alternates are performing anywhere near as advertised, will not amount to more than 15% of net energy use. They proceed on the theory that every little bit helps and by keeping birthrate down and 3rd Worlders immigrants out more and more - they may reach their Kyoto goals and feel virtuous for it - even as global CO2 generation continues to ramp up.

( But all Democrats oppose oil exploration off the coasts, in many Federal lands, and in Alaska on grounds that it ALONE can't solve our oil crisis and for that reason must be opposed. Edwards used that same logic opposing all nuclear power - "Why, even if we double our nuclear plants tomorrow it will only cut America's CO2 generation by 1/7th, so it isn't THE Answer." And what would his poor mill worker Daddy do? But Edwards would love to tout biodiesel from used restaurant grease in N Carolina that could power 3,000 cars a year as exciting and worth doing because every little bit of renewable power helps! Except nuclear. That is a bad, CO2-free renewable! Bad!)

Pos

The Nukes

Comments (113)