I know it’s not very popular, and in some circles it can be politically incorrect. For many people it stirs up bitter memories and feelings of fear and outright hatred. But, times being what they are, I think we need to get it out there and talk about it. So here goes, I’ll say it …
Nuclear
Before you click away or type angry comments, please hear me out. I’ve never been a pro-nuke advocate. I’m a staunch believer in conservation, efficiency and renewable energy sources, and the thought of nuclear power has always sent chills down my green spine. The idealist in me believes that we’ll soon embark upon a massive global effort to green our economy and our personal lives and that in a decade we’ll be powered by 100% carbon-free, renewable energy.
But, more and more this idealistic side of me is engaged in a fierce debate with my inner realist. That side of me is saying, “Wait just a minute - is that really possible?”
Because one thing is sure - we don’t have the luxury of time or the option of making mistakes if we want to leave our children and grandchildren a planet that they can safely inhabit. ...
... From melting icecaps to thawing tundra to the acidification of our oceans and the millions of people in China and India about to become first-time car owners, we are entering dangerous and unknown territory.
When renowned NASA scientist and climate expert James Hansen writes statements like the following, both the realist and the idealist in me pay attention:
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, … CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
And, when he explains his roadmap for how we can reach 350ppm, then my ears really perk up.
Hansen’s Plan - part 1:
In order of priority, here are the first 3 steps he recommends:
- Energy Efficiency
- Renewable Energies
- Electric Grid Improvements
The idealist in me likes what I hear.
For efficiency he believes we need to have strong national building codes along with increased efficiency standards for our appliances and electronics. In addition utilities need to be restructured so they are incentivized to get their customers to use less energy. He believes that renewables can be our future and that electric grid improvements will reduce waste and efficiently transfer our wind, solar and geothermal energy from where they’re created to where people live.
Carbon Tax with Dividend:
Hansen believes that emission reduction goals and “Cap and Trade” policies will not get us where we need to go. As he explains,
These are subterfuges designed to allow business-as-usual to continue, under a pretense of action, a greenwashing… If the United States accedes to the ineffectual ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ approach… it will practically guarantee disastrous climate change.
Instead, he believes we must enact a Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend if we want to achieve the first 3 steps in his plan. This would be a tax on oil, gas and coal - assessed “at the mine or port of entry,” and the proceeds would be given back to the public in the form of a monthly deposit in our bank accounts. The tax would be phased in - meaning it would go up gradually each year so people would know what was coming and would have time to adjust. He believes that this would be a progressive tax because:
A person with several large cars and a large house will have a tax greatly exceeding the dividend. A family reducing its carbon footprint to less than average will make money...The dividend will stimulate the economy, spur innovation, and provide money that allows people to purchase low carbon products.
The hope is that these three steps along with the Carbon Tax could provide all the clean, carbon-free power we need, and Hansen believes that maybe they will. But, then he speaks to my inner realist when he warns:
The greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power
He does not have kind words for coal:
Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Hansen’s Plan - part 2:
Hansen believes we need a back-up plan to ensure that if for any reason steps 1-3 don’t solve our problems, we can still move to a carbon-free energy system.
It would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. … and there is little hope of stabilizing climate unless China and India have low-and no-CO2 energy options.
So, he advocates these final 2 steps:
- Urgent R&D programs in 4th Generation Nuclear Power
- Urgent R&D programs for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Nuclear Power:
Hansen explains that all nuclear power plants today are essentially some form of LWR (Light Water Reactors). Uranium is the fuel source and water slows the neutrons and cools the reactors. The problem is that almost all of the uranium is not fissioned and becomes waste. In addition to uranium, other wastes are created in the process that will remain dangerously radioactive throughout our great great great grandchildren’s lives (and far beyond).
Hansen writes about two possible 4th Generation Nuclear alternatives that he says could be 100-300 times more efficient than LWRs and could also potentially solve most of the waste issues.
- Integral Fast Reactor (IFR): These reactors use liquid sodium metal instead of water to cool the neutrons and this keeps them moving fast. Uranium is still the fuel source, but it is now completely burned in the process. In addition, these plants could burn existing nuclear waste and end up with much smaller amounts of waste with half-lives of several decades - thus reducing long-term storage issues. An IFR prototype has been built at Idaho National Laboratory.
- Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR): These reactors use thorium (an abundant resource) as the fuel source and a fluoride salt as the “medium in which the reactions take place” and have minimal waste problems. There seems to be much interest in this technology. Also see this site.
With enough priority and focus, Hansen believes these technologies could be ready by 2015-2020. And he says that even if the United States does not need it,
4th generation nuclear power is probably essential for China and India to achieve clear skies with carbon-free power.
A Balancing Act
It is clear that there are no easy solutions here. Hansen’s plan makes sense to me as it looks at the big picture and focuses on a wide range of solutions. But, still I have many questions:
The idealist in me wants to know:
Is it possible for the U.S. and the world to get to carbon-free power in the timeframe necessary with just steps 1-3? What are the possibilities for baseload power with renewables?
Is it possible to enact a carbon tax with dividend not only in the U.S. but also worldwide? Could we do it in the midst of our current economic woes, or would we need to wait?
The realist in me wants to know:
Are Hansen’s descriptions of IFR and LFTR reactors accurate? What safety/waste disposal issues are there? Could Thorium reactors be called a renewable power supply? Would CCS actually work?
Both sides of my split personality hope for an open, informed, honest discussion and debate (I'm also hoping that some people who actually understand nuclear power can comment below). There’s too much at stake, and future generations are counting on us to make the right decisions.