How would you stop global warming?

It's great to be back here at DailyKos -- now in the majority! As we told the country last November, elections have consequences -- and one of those consequences was the change in leadership of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.

I just finished up our first hearing on global warming as the new Democratic Chair of the EPW Committee.  Instead of a Chair who says global warming is a hoax, I said today that global warming is the challenge of our generation, and we must step up and meet it.

To that end, I hope you will help me move forward a bill that will be a meaningful start. We have lost so much time, so we must act quickly.

Many people have already offered suggestions to meet the challenge of global warming, and many other proposals are about to be put on the table. But I'd like to hear your ideas on the best way to move forward as well. What ideas do you think we should pursue? Let me know so that I can share your comments with my colleagues in the Senate at our next hearing.

Please click here to rank your preferred approaches to stop global warming now:  http://ga4.org/...

Eventually, I hope we will be able to put forward legislation that moves to mandatory caps on greenhouse gases and one which moves economy wide, so we can avert the predicted disasters of temperature rise.

I am optimistic because there really seems to be a consensus building -- we heard much of that bipartisan consensus from more than 1/3 of the Senate at today's hearing -- and I'm proud that my home state of California has set the pace. Other jurisdictions across our country have done so as well, including the mayors of many of America's leading cities.

So today, the battle in the Senate to reduce global warming across America has really begun, and I want you to be a part of it. But there's still a lot of work to do. There will be a series of hearings, week after week, where my committee will hear from every part of America on this issue. This is the time I want to hear from you before we sit down and write the legislation we believe will become law this year.

After listening to my colleagues in today's committee hearing, and now gathering your feedback online, I've scheduled another hearing for next Tuesday -- to start putting these ideas into action. I want to share your ideas with the committee next week, to begin acting on them, so please rank your priorities for solving global warming today:

http://ga4.org/...

I sincerely ask that you continue to be a part of the solution -- until we get the job done!

Thanks so much for your input, your vigilance, and your continued support.

-- Barbara

P.S.  I'll be back in about 30 minutes to respond to some of your questions and comments below. But please take a moment to make your views known at http://ga4.org/... as well so I can collect your feedback before next week's hearing. You can read my opening statement from today's hearing here. Thanks!

UPDATE (5:45pm ET):  Thanks for all of your wonderful comments and questions.  I'm impressed and inspired by your ideas and your enthusiasm for this important subject.  I'll be checking back often in these coming weeks.  If you haven't already, please take our quick online survey to let me know what your priorities are -- and share other ideas with me.  Thank you so much!

•  Back around 4:20pm ET

  I'm just leaving the hearing room now, and will be back online in about 30 minutes to answer some of your questions and comments.  Looking forward to our dialogue!

  -- BB

  by Barbara Boxer on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

  •  raise CAFE standards

    immediately and incentivize any employers (toyota, GM etc....) to build more fuel efficient/hybrid cars.

    Edwards/Obama Dream Ticket

    by 50StateStrategy on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

    •  And find a way to popularize safe

      nuclear energy (an oxymoron I know) and close down coal power plants.

      Edwards/Obama Dream Ticket

      by 50StateStrategy on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:05:26 PM PDT

      •  Hear, hear!

        Especially in Texas - Rick Perry is trying to build 11 more coal plants, in a state that can't afford more carbon emissions.   I think Perry just hates Texas, and wants to destroy it.

        by Jensequitur on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:13:00 PM PDT

        •  I know nuclear power is very controversial

          but when it comes to green house gases, after conservation it is probably the most likely impact...

          furthermore, emissions from coal plants in Tenessee drift into NC and pollute our air .. so coal plants affect people outside the state.

          Edwards/Obama Dream Ticket

          by 50StateStrategy on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:19:07 PM PDT

          •  Are you volunteering...

            ...to store the high-level radioactive waste in your state until it's safe?

            If you're not, who do you think should?

            by willy mugobeer on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:26:05 PM PDT

            •  exactly

              Until this is solved it is a foolish thing to build more Nuclear plants.  Attractive, but foolish.  The long-term consequences are too devastating to outweigh the potential good.

              by NearlyNormal on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:46 PM PDT

              •  As for radioactive waste...

                Since we seem to be failing to stop nuclear proliferation, we’re going to learning how to clean this stuff up soon anyway.

                by ethanol on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

                •  We need to deal with the waste we have already

                  Fast-tracking the Yucca mountain and cleaning up the Hanford and Savannah sites (et al.) should be MAJOR priorities.

                  by AshesAllFallDown on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:39:03 PM PDT

                •  I hear and have read that Jimson Weed

                  grown in radioactive soil cleanses it. True?

                  by abbeysbooks on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:52:21 PM PDT

                  •  Yup, and when you smoke it

                    you not only get high but you glow, too :-)  /snark

                    by MarkInSanFran on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:39:55 PM PDT

              •  I think the future is nuclear too;

                And despite the current existing waste, the new technology ready for our next generation of reacotrs  will severely increase safety and reduce waste.

                Jeebus, I sound like a lobbist (swears I'm not) and some 43,000 tons of existing nuclear waste is nothing laugh about, but some articles about the subject in Wired really peaked my interest:

                Reactors Trim Radioactive Waste

                Nuclear Now!

                Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom which is really about China's energy issues, but it does talk about a emerging new reactor: the Pebble Bed Reactor

                Also, we need to kill the tax breaks for SUV's.

                by wiseFool on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

                •  I'm 37 and I have thyroid cancer

                  The doctors say I've had it for five years.  The biggest risk factor by far is exposure to radiation.  After exploring my history with my doctors to determine the origin of the cancer we figured out it probably came from the nuclear power plant in my home town.  

                  I swam in the ocean down current from the plant waste heat outlet.  I had cross country races and practice in the park near the plant.  And, of course, I breathed air everyday that blew by the plant on its way in from the ocean.

                  My roommate in college worked at the plant for a couple of years.  He said it was terrifying, so he quit.  Places that weren't supposed to be hot would peg the Geiger counter just a few feet from the main maintenance paths.  Procedures were lax.  Close calls were supposed to be reported, but weren't.  Inspectors were given the run around.

                  Just like oil, nuclear fuel is a finite resource.  It has to be mined.  Sources are in countries that we're not on friendly terms with, like North Korea.  I would really hope that we can harness the non polluting sources of power that already exist in abundance in our environment: sun, wind, geothermal.

                  I had all the tumors removed last month.  I have to have a radiation treatment next month and I'll find out if I'm cancer free.  I hope that I am.

                  by Arclite on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:48:31 PM PDT

                  •  I had a friend who worked on construction of

                    nuclear power plants. I am certain it affected him. He was macho and used to laugh about going out after work to eat and knowing he was hot from a high geiger reading.

                    And The Lovely Ladies from Luminous Inc  a poem I published about the women who painted the radium dials on watches in the 40's and 50's with little paintbrushes that they would point in their mouths. Their bones are still radio active in their graves. One woman went downstairs in the dark one night and when she passed the mirror her hair was glowing!  They all died cancer related deaths. And young. And had trouble conceiving or had birth defects in their children.

                    The company was Luminous in Illinois. Joliet?

                    by abbeysbooks on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:59:44 PM PDT

              •  Short term consequences of GW are much**10 worse

                (As in 100-500 years) are much much much much much much much worse than radioactive waste from nuclear power.

                It is essential to stop coal burning NOW.  Not when the CO2 sequestration problem will be solved (which is never). NOW.  Yesterday, or the day before would be better.

                We can extremely safely store nuclear fission wastes for 500 years.

                With work, we could have large scale transmutation plants and accelerator based reactors which would greatly reduce the half-lives of the remaining radioactive waste to the range where our storage will be exceedingly secure.  This is compatible with laws of physics and has been demonstrated experimentally, (unlike CO2 sequestration which is an imaginary technology.)  So, there will be no need for long-term storage over aeons.  Fusion is unlikely to work very well or be deployed in large amounts.

                We hence need stable retreivable storage.

                The long term consequences of radioactive waste leakage?  Insignificant next to saving human civilization through the next two or three centuries.   The Chernobyl accident was essentially nearly the worst possible (enormously worse than any leak of engineered storage) and yet as global civilization we survived.  

                GW is bad enough that even "accepting" a Chernobyl per generation (which will by no means happen!) I think would be an acceptable, cruel and necessary trade off to reduce greenhouse emissions.

                Nuclear power is "green with sposts".  But it is the only thing of sufficient scalability and magnitude which could make a major quantitative difference.

                Abandoning nuclear power is surrender.  

                Planting trees does nothing for reducing global warming unless you bury them for geological time.

                Nukes are a pain in the ass and must be managed well, but the laws of physics cannot be repealed.  The high energy density is critical and is why wind and especially solar will not be remotely enough.  Numbers matter.  One nuclear plant's output equals the sum of wind and solar installation combined (number was from fairly recent), but wind is getting better and will grow until it hits 10% or so.  Engineered geothermal (i.e. drilling for steam) has some long term promise and by its continuity would be even better than wind, though its deployment is limited by geology, like hydroelectric.

                In truth the problem of GW when you do quantitative computations of greenhouse emissions is so great that the planet must pursue nuclear, wind and solar and geothermal to their maximum deployment as their critical logistical paths do not interfere.

                Yes, I am a scientist (not in climate) and I've studied issues and looked at the numbers.  It is very worrisome.

                We cannot afford to be emotional on this deadly problem, it is choosing the least bad of undesirable options and sometimes authentically good environmental issues will be in conflict.   It is necessary to prioritize the potentially disasterous huge ones over local ones.

                by mbkennel on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:32:17 PM PDT

                •  I'm a scientist too

                  Physics. I agree completely with your comment. I do hope that facts will outweigh the nonsensical fear that seems to drive people to reject nuclear power.

                  It might have been somewhat rational to oppose nuclear power 30 years ago, give that three mile island made people worry that there might be many more accidents and that some of those accidents might actually hurt people. But after 30 years, these fears have been shown to be baseless - the much-feared accidents have not happened.

                  Some people are scared to death of flying. In that case they can just choose not to fly. In the case of nuclear power, fearful people must also keep the rest of us from employing nuclear power. Global warming makes this an indulgence that we can no longer afford.

                  by MarkInSanFran on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:10:20 PM PDT

            •  we have several nuclear plants in NC

              and the triangle area is only 30 minutes from a nuclear plant..

              so if it's safe I don't mind.  

              Edwards/Obama Dream Ticket

              by 50StateStrategy on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:34:07 PM PDT

            •  Nuclear is too controversial in the US

              at this point, IMHO. I know that nuclear PR folks like to recast themselves as the "new green" and carbon friendly, but there are many other options than would be more cost effective.

              Nuclear waste storage is still a completely unsolved problem. Yucca Mountain is about 17 years behind schedule, and mega-bucks in the hole without even being approved. It has been mired in scientific scandal as well.

              Until this problem is solved, really solved, to quote the CEO of Exelon, which runs nuclear plants,

              "Nuclear is not a cause; it is a business," he told shareholders recently. It is precisely for that reason that Rowe says he does not want to build another nuclear plant until the nation's spent-fuel disposal problem is solved. Opponents have stalled the Energy Department's plan to entomb nuclear waste more than 1,000 feet below Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Solving the waste problem is "essential" for good business, says Rowe. "We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a plant, here's where the waste will go.' If we can't answer that question honestly to our neighbors, then we're playing politics too high for us to be playing."

              Quote is from Meet Mr. Nuke in that notorious hippy rag, Fortune.

              by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:36:28 PM PDT

              •  Unless you have a solution for CO2 and SuO2 waste

                which is a much bigger problem, then I think it is time to directly address that issue.

                Generation III/IV Pebble beds are much different than the systems installed in the US.  The time has come for us to revisit the debate.

                by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:39:24 PM PDT

                •  Easy

                  Decentralized power generation using every renewable natural resource available.

                  Every home and business in even half-sunny places has roof tiles to collect solar. Every windy backyard has a wind turbine. And tidal and geothermal are both usable.

                  Couple that with SERIOUS strides in conservation and we'll be fine.

                  I want decentralized power, both for getting off carbon AND for being able to control my own power usage.

                  by lynne1 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:54:32 PM PDT

                  •  Preach it. You are the power utilities'

                    nightmare.

                    Plus, in CA, you can make money feeding energy back into the grid when you're not using it.

                    And see Go Solar California, for a positive look at what's being done.

                    As for baseload solar power, larger plants that use salts to store heat have been and are being constructed. Not in the US, though, IIRC. See, for example Solar Tres. There are others.

                    by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:29 PM PDT

                  •  What's Your Waste-Disposal Plan?

                    Every home and business in even half-sunny places has roof tiles to collect solar.

                    How do you intend to dispose of the high-level chemical wastes (which, unlike nuclear waste, remains toxic indefinitely) produced by large-scale semiconductor processing?
                    

                    by stevemb on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:14:51 PM PDT

                    •  Um, destroying them?

                      How do you intend to dispose of the high-level chemical wastes (which, unlike nuclear waste, remains toxic indefinitely) produced by large-scale semiconductor processing?

                      Chemical wastes can be processed.  Metals can be oxidized or otherwise trapped in less toxic forms.

                      Radioactivity can't be processed away.  That's what's so dangerous about it.

                      by lemming22 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

                  •  And this would force a lifestyle change

                    but then it's coming anyway whether you sell it to the people or not.

                    by abbeysbooks on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:01:08 PM PDT

              •  Besides, it's bogus...

                ...if you don't honestly figure in the costs of waste storage (& protection).  Its longevity while remaining dangerous is up in the 10s of thousands of years.  And there's no human language that's decipherable over even a few thousand years.  So, how the hell are the warnings and instructions supposed to last long enough?

                by Land of Enchantment on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:49:29 PM PDT

                •  I understand they use pictures!

                  bizarre!

                  by dotcommodity on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:49:13 PM PDT

              •  Why solve the waste problem?

                You do not have to solve the waste problem to switch to nuclear.  You merely need to dispassionately analyze the situation.

                We have several options.  One is to burn fossil fuels.  Fossil fuels have what you might call a "completely unsolved" waste problem: CO2. Burning fossil fuels generates hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 waste every year, in addition to large amounts of fly ash and soot which is partly radioactive.  CO2 is stable and will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

                Another option is nuclear power.  Nuclear power generates a few thousands tons of radioactive spent fuel rods, as well as irradiated low-level waste generated in manufacturing and operating the facility.  At the end of the reactor's life, the entire reactor becomes waste.  And remember, there is no such thing as long-lived high-level radioactive waste.  It is either high-level and therefore short lived, or it is low-level and therefore long lived.

                So you have a choice to make today.  You can start generating a small amount of nuclear waste in exchange for vastly lower output of CO2.  That's where you have to make your cost/benefit analysis.

                by jwb on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:39:30 PM PDT

                •  Missing a whole buncha option within reach there

                  There's a whole subset of options in between.

                  by lynne1 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:57:16 PM PDT

                  •  Yes, the Happy Nukes PR crowd always uses the

                    False Dichotomy Approach:

                    --If you're against global warming and love puppies,

                    --Then you therefore must support nuclear power.

                    Riiiiiiight......

                    by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:10:22 PM PDT

                  •  No

                    I didn't propose a dichotomy.  I proposed accounting for nuclear waste on a net basis, balanced with the benefit of reduced carbon.

                    by jwb on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:13:50 PM PDT

                    •  Some numbers to consider

                      To solidify my proposal a bit, consider this.  For every 1TW of nuclear fission generating capacity you build, you reduce CO2 emissions by one million pounds per hour or four million tons annually.  Over the 30-year life of the reactor you save 131 million tons of CO2 emissions.  You generate about 1000 tons of "spent" fuel rods (actually 95% reusable fuel), plus the reactor itself.

                      I think it's a decent trade.

                      by jwb on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:26:42 PM PDT

              •  Nuclear Waste Is A Solved Problem

                The technology of vitrification (sealing the stuff into ceramic/glass blocks that will last far longer than the half-lives of the high-level waste) is (literally) as simple as a hot torch.

                The only obstacle is peasant superstitions about "nucular" stuff, which deserve as much respect in the public policy arena as the notion that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
                

                by stevemb on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:13:08 PM PDT

                •  Nonsense. If this were the magic bullet

                  it would have been adopted worldwide  by the scientific community by now.

                  I see an article here announcing this as "new" technology back in 1998. It would have been universally hailed, but when I see discussions of waste storage, there are always numerous different approaches discussed.

                  From Scientific American, 1996:

                  The vitrification method involves the mixing of weapons-grade plutonium with radioactive waste from civilian reactors and placing this mixture in borosilicate glass logs.  The logs would then be buried in a deep borehole that is at least 4 kilometers deep (Bullen and McCormick 690).  The idea here is that the plutonium could be suitably encased and isolated to the extent that its decay process may occur without polluting the environment, or being utilized in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.  But unfortunately, the only way to know for sure if the encasement will not leak is to try it.  This means that it is possible for leakage to pollute the water table also the plutonium could still be mined in the future and used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

                  Again, I have seen various new technologies hailed as the new answer to everything nuclear for over 50 years. Somehow, it never is.

                  Perhaps this is a promising approach. However, I will believe that "Waste Storage is a Solved Problem" when there is a wide consensus.

                  I really don't think it's the peasants and hippies with torches and pitchforks that is impeding the technology.

                  by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:41:33 PM PDT

                  •  Incorrect attribution of quote above.

                    For which I apologize. It was not Scientific American.

                    by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:45:36 PM PDT

                    •  Scientific discussion of drawbacks of

                      vitrification of nuclear waste found:

                      High level waste can boil at extremely high temp's for many years after its fission activation, and needs to be "stirred" at regular intervals to prevent critical temperatures affecting the storage-containers, hence the need for waste-pools.

                      This basically means only low-level waste is viable for vitrification.

                      Even then, materials such as thorium will continue to undergo nucleic-decay, decomposing into materials such as lead.
                      Exothermic reactions such as these can easily crack and fracture glass, as glass has no finite ionic-bound, or crystalline lattice structure.

                      This is still leading to problems in storing radioactive materials in vitric suspension.

                      Found the discussion here and I am not qualified to discuss the validity of the points brought up. I would welcome the input of those with experience in using this method, should they choose to comment.

                      by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:57:43 PM PDT

                      •  I really do fear

                        that you will never be satisfied, because your fear level exceeds you rtionality level on this subject.

                        The post you referenced, and most of the other posts on the forum the post came from, is completely without foundtion. From a scientific perspective it is actually silly - High-level waste does not "boil", unless you put in water and then only under the right conditions.

                        Trust me, you will always be able to find posts like that one, no matter what the actual truth of the matter is. Just like you can still find many people who believe that cold fusion actually works, or that the WMD's in Iraq are now hidden in Syria. Fear and hope are powerful motivators.

                        by MarkInSanFran on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:24:20 PM PDT

                        •  I appreciate the feedback, but could do without

                          your condescension.

                          I put the info out, knowing that I could not make any judgement about what was said.  It didn't make sense to me; apparently not to you, either. I wasn't yelling "scarey, scarey", and in fact I find the idea of vitrification intriguing.

                          There are plenty of facts already out there about high-level toxic waste, and plenty of problems with storage--witness the Yucca Mountain debacle--that I trust that I am not the only rational person with reasonable concerns in this area.

                          And what's that you say about cold fusion? Damn, I thought all our problems were miraculously solved!?! Enough energy to run a city from a mayonnaise jar, right? Damn!

                          by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 09:09:47 PM PDT

                          •  Very sorry for double post. First post

                            showed as failed and then disappeared. Weird.

                            by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 09:17:34 PM PDT

                        •  I appreciate the feedback, but not the

                          condescension.

                          Frankly, vitrification sounds intriguing. And it sounds like the post makes no more sense to you than it did to me. Fair enough.

                          I wasn't yelling, "scarey, scarey", I just was curious for an informed opinion.

                          There are enough concerns about high-level toxic waste--witness the ongoing Yucca Mountain debacle--that I trust I am not the only reasonable person in this world with rational concerns about the matter.

                          And damn! I thought cold fusion was gonna power the world out of a mayonnaise jar! All my hopes are dashed......not.

                          by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 09:15:51 PM PDT

            •  With a Pebble-bed reactor,

              you actually store it on site until it is refined.

              So, the short answer is YES.

              Also, there is less waste, and we get to burn much more of the fuel at higher efficiency.

              The best part is that IT CANNOT GO CRITICAL, unlike the previous generation of nuclear plants.

              So, I'm very much in favor of nuclear power.

              by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:37:09 PM PDT

              •  Oh please That's a false dichotomy.

                If I'm against CO2, It doesn't follow that I must jump on the New Happy Nukes  PR program.As the daughter of a nuclear physicist, I've been hearing about the new, wonderful nuclear technology that's just around the corner for over 50 years now. Let's get real.

                by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:49:10 PM PDT

              •  The problem is...

                ...it doesn't matter if nuclear power plants could be made perfectly safe, and without much waste, because the Republicans will grab at every chance they get to frighten the American public.  And just tell me the average American will be smart enough to see through all the TeeVee ads saying "Democrats want to put a terrorist target in your neighborhood!" with cute little blond kids playing in a field with daisies and puppies and then a huge mushroom cloud.

                Until the American public gets a grip on their fears and start using logic instead of reacting like emotional sheep, there's no chance in hell of them even facing the reality of Global Warming, much less allowing a nuclear powerplant anywhere near them.

                by zeta on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:53:56 PM PDT

                •  So the answer is education

                  because there are not that many options and time is of the essence.

                  by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:58:52 PM PDT

                  •  Spend that time and money

                    decentralizing power to renewable individual generation, and you even get rid of the *&^@# corporations that have held our energy production hostage since...god, time immemorial.

                    With nuclear, we have the same old energy monopolies, just a different source of energy. No thanks.

                    by lynne1 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:59:48 PM PDT

                    •  Decentralized power is great!

                      Of course, there is no decentralized technology which can actually do the job.  It's great to talk about solar and wind, but they simply do not generate the kilowatts that you need to maintain a modern lifestyle.  And with electric cars coming back with the pluggable hybrid, we need to get even more power.

                      By all means, improve and use solar to the fullest extent (there is a waste disposal issue).  Also use wind, geothermal, and every other mechanism we have to limit fossil fuel consumption.  But you will not get the job done that way.  You will still need additional power.  Nuclear is non-polluting.  It has worked for decades and, considering the health effects of coal and oil power plants, has killed fewer people even including Chernobyl.  And we can and have done so much better than that.

                      It is utter arrogance to assume that we have the wisdom to solve the waste disposal issue for the next 10,000 years.  We are only a hundred years from horses and buggies.  Captain Kirk is due in another 400 years, don't you think the technologies of 2107 will have new ideas, and 2207 and 2307.  We need a good 500 years solution.  But we shouldn't bury it too deep because by then they'll probably consider it a resource.

                      by william shipley on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:43:58 PM PDT

                      •  You know ...

                        It is utter arrogance to assume that we have the wisdom to solve the waste disposal issue for the next 10,000 years.

                        A hundred years ago, I'm sure they would've said the same thing about CO2.

                        by lemming22 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:34:43 PM PDT

                        •  If CO2 wasn't going to cause problems

                          For the next thousand years I doubt anyone would be having much concern.  The concern is that CO2 will affect the climate in the next few decades and is, in fact, already doing so.

                          The technological problem of sequestering radioactive waste for 500 years is far easier to solve than the 10,000 year one.  If we adopt a reversable mechanism so that we can use a better one when it comes up, then we can either use it as a resource or do something better later.

                          by william shipley on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:54:00 PM PDT

                          •  I hate it when people do that.

                            Antibiotic resistance?  Oh, we'll solve that later.  Running out of oil?  No problem -- the future will work it out.  National debt?  Not our problem.  Leave it for our kids to work out.

                            We currently have a hundred ticking time bombs we're going to have to deal with, and I really dislike the idea of creating another one.

                            We don't know what'll happen in 500 years.  Maybe we'll have flying cars and spaceships.  And maybe we'll have run out of oil, and have been resigned to a perminant existance as subsistence farmers.

                            by lemming22 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:08:44 PM PDT

                            •  Bet on progress

                              The difference is that the issues you are talking about are present.  We do have antibiotic resistance, we do have oil becoming short (hence the conversation) the National Debt is a serious problem.

                              But when it comes to storing waste we know how to do it for at least 500 years, probably longer.  The discussion has gotten sidetracked into what do we do if no one knows english and can read the signs anymore or, how do we know this is stable for 10,000 years?

                              The reality is that projecting a future world with this high a population in 1907 would have generated serious concern.  They would have wondered how we could manage all the horse shit.  With a horse drawn card economy, imagining how to handle this volume of people and transportation would have resulted in calculations involving vast amounts of horse shit.  But, of course, that's not how it worked out.

                              The thing is, we are killing people today.  Pollution in the air, geopolitical adventures, etc. because we are using a fossil fuel economy.  Nuclear power represents a solution and holding back on some very theoretical concerns is perpetuating the very real problems.  I grew up 9 miles from the first U.S. commercial nuclear power plant.  I will happily live near one, or even near waste storage -- although that really should be off in the desert.  What I don't want to live near is a properly functioning coal or oil fired plant.

                              by william shipley on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:54:15 PM PDT

                              •  The issues that I'm talking about

                                are present today.

                                Fifteen years ago, global warming was in the distant future.  Ten years ago, it was worth a few discussions, but was still mostly the focus of science fiction.  It's not until Katrina and An Inconvenient Truth that people seem to have accepted that global warming is today.

                                According to your logic, we shouldn't have worried about it then, because we could deal with global warming today.

                                by lemming22 on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:38:49 AM PDT

                                •  Not the same thing

                                  I am suggesting that a nuclear waste storage solution good for at least 500 years should be our current target.  We really will know more in a couple hundred years.  I'm not suggesting we leave the stuff spread all over -- which is what we are doing in our indecisiveness -- just put it in a safe place.

                                  Now that doesn't mean that it still won't be a good place 500 years from now, just that we know it's not a problem within time frames that we can reasonably plan for.

                                  Talking about global warming when the science was unclear was -- unclear.  Of course, we could have approached the problem from another perspective and eliminated fossil fuels not because of the Co2 issue but from a simple pollution and resource management issue.  We know it was a problem.  But instead of moving into nuclear/electric power as was planned in the 50's and 60's we became paralyzed and accepted the burning of oil and coal to produce our power not because it was safest or cleanest, but because we were used to it and had accepted the death rate from the pollutants.

                                  by william shipley on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 03:35:15 PM PDT

                •  What? Repubs *love* nuclear energy!

                  They are salivating at all the potential government subsidy money they are looking to wring from our taxpayer pot of gold. They are railing against those silly government regulations, and the dirty Greenpeace hippies that are standing in the way of their profitable new boondoggle.

                  It's big corporations that are behind the PR push right now. Repubs never saw a nuclear plant they didn't love. Why, they're very casual about them, and the NRC  just said that nuclear plant's current defenses against terrorist airliner crashes are just fine as they are; no new post-9/11 rethinking required.

                  Nuclear plant security is not their job in that department, but is up to the military and the feds.

                  As I said, Repubs are quite, shall we say, comfortable with the nuclear industry and its money.

                  by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

              •  Yes, pebble-bed seems the way to go...

                ...and I think that it will have to be in the mix, until fusion matures into a usable technology.

                I wish biodiesel could solve all our problems, but the amount we'd need to sustain current world population levels would severely cut into our agricultural food-production capacity.

                by lev36 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:03:21 PM PDT

            •  yes; and are YOU volunteering...?

              I'll volunteer to take a lifetime's worth of nuclear waste (the amount that would be created from the amount of energy it would take to run my entire household plus transportation requirements) and store it in my basement.  

              Now how'bout you volunteer to take even a couple of years' worth of your CO2 emissions and store them, either in gaseous form (hah) or as sequestered carbon, in your basement?  

              By the way did you know that the release of radionuclides from the burning of coal far exceeds the release from the entire nuclear fuel cycle for the comparable amount of energy generated via nuclear fission?  

              Sure, go ahead and oppose those new reactors, and build coal plants insteaad.  Even with the latest scrubbers you'll be inhaling plenty more radioactivity than if you lived downwind from a uranium mine, a nuclear reactor, and a nuclear waste disposal site all rolled into one.  

              by G2geek on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:27:23 PM PDT

              •  What I won't take

                is the suggestion that the only choices are coal or nuclear - that proposition is called a 'false choice'. It seems to be about the only way people can sell nuclear - by refusing to admit there are other alternatives to both coal and nuclear.

                by badger on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:50:43 PM PDT

                •  Amen!

                  by lynne1 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:00:24 PM PDT

                •  There are many choices...

                  But the resolution of the problem will likely require using many of them.  As unfortunate as it may be, we can't afford to take nuclear off the table, IMHO....

                  by beemerr90s on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:04:57 PM PDT

                •  dude, I worked on designing

                  utility-scale wind farms.  Total of about 300 MW.   That's about 150 large wind turbines or about 1/3 of the capacity of an average nuclear reactor.  

                  I've also designed telecommuter functions for PBX (office telephone system) products whose manufacturer is a household name.  And I've installed same for a number of companies throughout my region, some of whom are also household names or close.  If I wanted to do the exercise, I could literally count the number of cars I've taken off the road that way.  

                  Also, at present, in addition to my job as a PBX engineer, I'm running an R&D project in my spare time designing high-efficiency appliances.  It would appear we've got power consumption for refrigeration down by 30% from current best-practice standard commercial units.  As of last year, laundry is solved, dishes are solved, graywater recycling is solved, and after the fridges (approx. this spring) the next project is the vacuum cleaner.  

                  I know this stuff in detail and I've spent much of my professional life and "spare time" developing and/or implementing sustainable technologies.  

                  Bottom line is, there are upper limits on wind on the grid, there are upper limits to what can be achieved with conservation, and although we are far from reaching either set of limits, there is still a need for some kind of baseload capacity.  Of the options for the latter, nuclear is the cleanest.  

                  by G2geek on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:10:28 PM PDT

                  •  Nuclear generation

                    may be the cleanest - that doesn't change the fact that there are other choices beyond nuclear and coal, and while your opinion may favor nuclear, other people may have other opinions.

                    Even granting that nuclear generation is clean (ignoring all of the waste generated) and safe (not quite the established fact advocates believe it to be), there are still significant problems with mining and processing nuclear fuels, which are neither clean nor safe, plus the investment in energy and CO2 production necessary to construct nuclear plants.

                    None of which is to rule out nuclear, or rule it in. It suggessts instead that (and as an engineer, you should know this) all alternatives should be evaluated on a total system basis, mine to facility to dump, and the optimum mix implemented.

                    Wind farms aren't the only wind alternative, photo-voltaics aren't the only solar alternative, there are a number of carbon neutral alternatives involving biomass, as well as a variety of nuclear options, and other less likely candidates. To suggest only one of those categories is a viable alternative to coal, or that only one technology can be the solution simply isn't reasonable.

                    by badger on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:29:46 PM PDT

                    •  comparing nuclear and coal...

                      The entire nuclear fuel cycle dumps less radioactive stuff into the air than the burning of coal at coal plants (not to mention the entire coal fuel cycle).  

                      Yes, I know about a wide range of energy options.  I know about wind and tidal designs that haven't even been publicly released yet and some that are still pending commercialization.  I've written reports on biofuels, specifically butyl alcohol (great fuel, nasty side-effects of the production process).  I've even designed solid waste recycling technologies (@ 25 years ago; oh but for lack of a patent lawyer..!:-).  

                      As for the safety track record, zero deaths in nuclear plant operations in over 20 years.  Zero.  Safest industrial technology on earth.  

                      As for the waste issue, Scientific American, 2005 December, new methods enable recycling nuclear waste into new fuel with 95% efficiency.  France also has 20 years of track record in this area using existing technologies, also with zero deaths.  

                      As for the CO2 issues in nuclear plant construction: no more or less than for other equivalent scale civil engineering works.  Most of it is related to the large volumes of concrete involved.  To which I would reply, cut back on building freeways for commuter automobiles.  And if you compare the cradle-to-grave CO2 releases, the CO2 released during reactor construction is a drop in the bucket considering zero releases during plant operation and compared to anything in the fossil fuel universe.  

                      Last but not least, if you're that concerned about people dying, please do something about the automobile.  50,000 direct fatalities per year in the US alone, not even counting the respiratory effects of localized pollution, plus GHG emissions that make nuclear waste look like cotton candy by comparison.  

                      by G2geek on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:35:15 PM PDT

                      •  Hi G2G. Let me ask you a question

                        to take advantage of your expertise.

                        How much would it cost to build enough of an oversupply of wind farms (and solar, and geothermal drilling for both heating/cooling and power production, if you know those figures) so that we would realistically not have to worry about brownouts (or at least so that peak capacity could be addressed with some reliance of fossil fuels, hydrogen storage, etc.)  Would it be $1 trillion?  $10 trillion?  $100 trillion?  It would be good to have a baseline against which to compare nuclear power.

                        by Major Danby on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:06:17 PM PDT

                        •  $10 trillion to build a

                          100 square mile solar collector in the Mojave Desert which would supply all the electrical needs of the US.

                          by Winnie on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:02:26 PM PDT

                          •  Great. Now how much to invade, occupy and control

                            the Middle East so as to guarantee another few decades of our present lifestyle and the enmity of the world that also wants that oil?

                            More than $10 trillion, I'll bet.

                            by Major Danby on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:43:28 PM PDT

                        •  cost of wind...

                          $1 million per megawatt, or $1 billion per gigawatt.  About the same as nuclear.  The major advantage of wind over nuclear is that the build time is very fast indeed (we used to say, "dig hole, plant pole, repeat!"), and there is no refueling cost or future decommissioning cost.  

                          However, the places where the wind is, are not often the places where the major transmission lines are.  So at that point we have to build transmission line, and the cost of that is variable depending on terrain.  

                          If someone wants to pay me reasonable dough I'd be glad to work out all the design considerations and write a paper spelling out the results in as much detail as they can afford.  

                          by G2geek on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 07:42:15 AM PDT

                          •  I was hoping that someone might have

                            already written such a paper -- and I'm aghast if no one has!  Thanks.

                            by Major Danby on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

              •  If you got all your electricity from nuclear

                power for your entire lifetime, the waste would fit into a single coffee mug.

                At present we only send uranium fuel through a power reactor once in this country.  If you reprocess it and burn the 98% of energy it contains instead of 2%, then you have about a half a teaspoon of residue.

                A single 500-megawatt coal-fired plant puts about 17,000 tons of solid waste into the environment every year.  That does not include the gaseous waste which is   trapping solar radiation.  The spent fuel from all the nuclear plants in the US comes to 2,000 tons per year and it would fit into a suburban livingroom and dining room.

                by Plan9 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:30:23 PM PDT

            •  Bring it to Texas

              Put it all right on Bush's ranch in Crawford. Bush won't care, he's already radioactive.

              Seriously, I think global warming might force us to consider new nukes, AFTER all the other options are explored and the true costs are calculated.

              by racerx on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:37:05 PM PDT

              •  Problem is he is selling that ranch

                and moving to the one he just bought in Paraguay.

                by SarahLee on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

                •  For real? Is he moving next week?

                  by Arclite on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:33:30 PM PDT

                  •  I read somewhere that Laura

                    can't wait to sell the Crawford Ranch.  I understand that she wants to move to Dallas, but we all know that  he bought the land in Paraguay...

                    Whenever they go, it won't be soon enough.

                    by SarahLee on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:34:39 PM PDT

            •  sure. I volunteer.

              happy?

              by Cheez Whiz on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:42:08 PM PDT

            •  Waste *Reprocessing* is key...

              Decomissioned fissile material is still 95% usable. It need to be reprocessed and recycled, not stuck in a can in a hole in the ground.

              by Riddle on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:40:12 PM PDT

            •  I think there's a ranch in Crawford Texas where

              all radioactive waste should be dumped.lol

              by zorba on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:05:32 PM PDT

          •  Nukes??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

            Seriously - where would you store the waste?

            That stuff has a half life of what - 90,000 years?  And it's lethal as hell.  Imagine trying to guard that against all the nutters out there not to mention the facilities themselves.

            No effin' way.  We can't possibly consider going back to the nuke plants.  Not after FERMI I and TMI.

            For my money, my top pick among the choices was to have the Feds sponsor and develop alternative sources of fuel.  Then grants to "green cities", developers who go green, that sort of thing.

            by Alegre on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:29:18 PM PDT

            •  Europeans use nuclear power

              at least the western ones.

              Edwards/Obama Dream Ticket

              by 50StateStrategy on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:34:45 PM PDT

              •  So?

                They'll wise up some day.

                Two wrongs DON'T make it right.

                by Alegre on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:40:25 PM PDT

                •  How can you say "So"?

                  They are Europeans....they are perfect. </snark>

                  by coigue on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:41:49 PM PDT

              •  and have the Europeans solved...?

                the storage problem?  I don't think so!

                by profmom on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:41:40 PM PDT

                •  Well, actually

                  The French reprocess their waste which leads to a 97% reduction in volume. So they've powered most of their grid on nuclear for about a generation now and store all their waste in one locked room. We could do that too, but we closed our reprocessing facility in the '70s as a non-proliferation gesture.

                  I love America. As the world's largest carbon emitter, we'll be ultimately responsible for turning the Amazon into a desert, the Midwest into a desert, most of Africa into a desert, for thawing Greenland, for putting Bangladesh under water, and we wring our hands about burying our nuclear waste in at a nuclear test site in Nevada that will never again be fit for human habitation whether we store our waste there or not.

                  The problem is that we have to replace our base-load coal-fired power plants right now. No scalable renewable is capable of providing base-load quality power.

                  by acb15 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:54:11 PM PDT

              •  Yes. However, France, for instance

                has a very professional, trusted science based program in place that has justly earned the trust of its people, with the best and brightest working well in a well=managed system.

                Our current government is scientifically illiterate, and contests evolution, geology, and global warming, to name but a few scientific "controversies" going on in political America right now.

                Do I trust this gov't to boil water in a safe and scientific manner, without screwing up and/or letting political and money interests to compromise its proper implementation? No, I do not. And I am not alone.

                by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:42:16 PM PDT

              •  By the Way

                As far as I know, Ireland doesn't use nukes.

                They're green in more ways than one - the hillsides and mountains are becoming covered by wind generators.  It's truly a beautiful site to see.

                So tell us then... which European countries rely heavily on nukes?

                by Alegre on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:54:38 PM PDT

            •  Nukes??? YES!!!!!!!!

              Where do you plan to store the CO2 waste from the coal plants?

              And, the waste doesn't have to be that big of an issue:

              Scientific American Article [PDF]

              The alternative to not using it is much worse.  And, pebble bed reactors cannot go critical.  No TMI problems.  No CO2.  No SuO2.  No NOx.

              And, a lot of radiation comes out of that coal, buddy.

              by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:43:51 PM PDT

              •  No, Coal fly ash is not especially radioactive.

                I have debunked this over and over. Check the radical gov't USGS on coal fly ash.

                See my response re the false dichotomy above.

                Given the reactions above, I rest my case that nuclear power is currently too controversial to be viable in the US.

                Also, I am a female, rather than a buddy.

                by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:53:41 PM PDT

                •  re: Female. Good for you. Hard to tell online.

                  Have you even read the article?

                  by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:57:14 PM PDT

                  •  Many times, as this comes up in discussion

                    with the pro-nuke folks. They try to scare people with it constantly, which is quite disingenuous. Link to my comment about this very fact, made last night is here

                    by means are the ends on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:02:05 PM PDT

                    •  I stand corrected

                      I will do my research before making a comment like that again.

                      BTW, I thought we were having a (semi-) reasonable discussion and "Old Gardener" came along and twice TR'd me.  What's with that?

                      re: Ash -- it isn't the amount of radioactivity compared to rocks/soil, but rather the QUANTITY of it.  But, I live right next to a state-of-the-art clean coal plant with scrubbers and all that so I'm sure most of the ash and other material is being removed.  All except for the CO2 which is the real argument.  Sorry about popping that one in there.

                      Also, we really need to do a pros vs. cons on Nuclear power.  On the science, the implementation (e.g. the actual plants), and the public perception.

                      by polecat on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:42:20 PM PDT

                      •  Appreciate your reply.

                        You might find looking up some of the nuclear power diaries here on DK of interest, and a good place to start. The diaries on Energize America also often have such huge discussion of nuclear power. They are usually quite, um, lively.

                        I have spent days of my life having these pro and con discussions re nuclear power with posters here. It is a hugely important topic.

                        Also, I agree with you, of course, that CO2 is a real problem. And glad to hear that there are actually coal plants that use the best scrubbers and such; the fact that most plants don't is criminal, in my opinion.