Climate Code Red: The Case for a Sustainability Emergency
Posted by Phil Hart on February 11, 2008 - 8:30pm in TOD: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
David Spratt from CarbonEquity and Philip Sutton from Greenleap Strategic Insitute have published a pivotal report in Australia titled "Climate 'code red': The case for a sustainability emergency". This post reproduces the report's discussion of why peak oil and climate change must be treated together.
The full report is available from the Carbon Equity website. The dominant theme of their report, and indeed their purpose behind it, is to: Recognise a climate and sustainability emergency, because we need to move at a pace far beyond business and politics as usual.
The usual approach to an emergency is to direct all available resources to resolving the immediate crisis, and to put non-essential concerns on the back burner for the duration. Many people argue that in today’s world we should focus our attention exclusively on climate because a “single issue” approach is a good way to concentrate people’s minds on action, and cut through the competing, lower-priority issues.
While this is a powerful practical argument, is it the right strategy? To test the approach, we need to ask whether there are issues that:
- will be seen, in retrospect, to have caused major problems if ignored;
- are of great moral significance from a caring/compassionate point of view and therefore should not be ignored;
- should be taken into account in the framing of solutions to issues that are tackled during the period of the emergency, because otherwise serious new problems will be created or existing crises will be worsened; or
- are so compelling (for any reason) in the short term that they threaten to take attention away from climate if a one-issue-at-a-time approach is applied?
When these questions are asked, it is clear there are several issues that simply must be resolved together with the climate crisis. There are those that cannot be ignored because their impacts on all people, including the rich and powerful, are so great: for example peak oil, severe economic recession, warfare and pandemics. And there are ethical issues that we should not ignore such as poverty — including adequacy of food supply at an affordable price — and biodiversity protection.
Some examples might be useful to see how this multiple issues approach might work.
It is increasingly recognised that the discovery of geological reserves of cheap conventional oil cannot keep pace with growing world demand. This problem is often referred to as “peak oil”. Its emergence is reflected, in part, in rising oil prices and the expectation they will go higher as the gap between supply and demand increases in coming years. A recent Queensland Government task force (2007) found “overwhelming evidence” that world oil production would reach an absolute peak in the next 10 years.
So should we postpone dealing with peak oil until we have solved the climate crisis? Given the enormity of the climate problem, we cannot resolve it before peak oil demands our attention in a very practical way. Or should we put off the resolution of the climate issue until we have sorted out the peak oil issue? It will take at least 10 to 20 years to carry out the economic structuring required to solve the peak oil crisis (Hirsch, Bezdek et al., 2005), yet the economic structural changes that need to be made to solve the climate crisis must be completed in the same time period. Clearly the two issues need to be dealt with together and the solutions integrated.
There are two sets of responses to the peak oil problem, focusing on supply and on demand. The supply-side solution is to substitute new sources of energy for the declining conventional oil resource by using:
- non-conventional fossil fuel sources such as shale oil, tar sands or from the conversion of coal or fossil fuel gas to petrol or diesel; or
- renewable sources such as biofuels (e.g. ethanol or methanol petrol extenders or diesel derived from carbohydrate-rich plants) or other renewable energy types such as wind, solar and geothermal to charge electric vehicles.
The demand-side solution is to find ways to reduce the need to use petroleum products and energy in general.
So if we are to solve the peak oil and climate issues together, in a way that takes appropriate account of other issues, how can we decide on the right mix of responses and appropriate solutions? To solve the climate crisis we need to eliminate human greenhouse gas emissions, take massive amounts of excess CO2 out of the air and restore the reflectivity of the Earth surface (with clouds and ice being the strongest influences) while maintaining adequate supplies of affordable food and securing the survival of the world’s biodiversity.
If non-conventional fossil fuels were to be used and emissions released into the air, it would significantly worsen global warming. So if this supply solution is to be used, then CO2 must be 100% captured and permanently stored. But since there is already a substantial excess of CO2 in the air which needs to be removed faster than the natural carbon sinks can do it, we need environmentally safe and economical storage options for sequestering it. So the use of unconventional fossil fuels would either directly increase carbon emissions, or would block the sequestration of the excess atmospheric CO2.
So perhaps instead we should use renewable energy feedstocks to replace conventional oil? The easiest way to produce renewable carbon-based fuel is to grow crops for biofuel, but the scale of petroleum use is so huge that enormous areas of arable land would be needed. This clearly competes in many cases with food production and habitat protection or restoration. The conflict with food production is already evident in the rising prices of corn (maize), soy beans and palm oil driven by rising consumption of fuel ethanol and biodiesel, especially in the US and Europe (Vidal, 2007; Sauser, 2007; Styles, 2008; Blanco 2007). And forest clearance to make way for new palm oil trees is accelerating in south-east Asia with serious implications for nature conservation (Butler, 2008).
The other possible class of responses to the peak oil crisis is to actively reduce the demand for energy, for example by replacing current cars with vehicles designed for ultra-efficiency or by enabling a switch from car travel to public transport or walking and bicycles. Another approach is to eliminate the need for mobility by changing land uses to bring destinations together or by making use of electronic “virtual travel” such as video-conferencing.
Another interesting example of the interplay between issues is the connection that now seems to exist between climate, rising oil and food prices, the sub-prime lending crisis and the risk of recession. Since the 1987 Wall Street crash, world monetary authorities have been able to use credit expansion as a tool to stop the economy spiralling into fully-fledged recession. But now that there are strong inflationary pressures driven by rising oil and food prices (and expansionary war expenditure related to Iraq and Afghanistan), monetary authorities are not as free to use credit expansion to increase demand and for the first time in decades there is now a real chance that there will be a global recession (Blas, Giles et al., 2007).
Depending on how authorities respond, the reaction to a recession might either hinder or help effective action on climate change and peak oil. If the recession is allowed to run its course then there could be less money made available for investment in responses to the climate and peak oil crises. Or if governments invest in traditional public infrastructure areas to “prime the economic pump” then we might end up with more roads and freeways which will exacerbate the climate and peak oil problems. Only if pump-priming investment is framed with the climate and peak oil issues in mind will the response to a recession produce a virtuous cycle of change.
Dear Phil
I have downloaded the report to go over it in detail. Thank you for this alert.
I note that this weeks "Good Fruit and Vegetables" Vol 18 No 9 February 2008 has as its cover story "From paddock to pump - Can Horticulture jump on the biofuel bandwagon?" THE LAND of last week also raised the spectre of biofuels. Interestingly both publications are products of Rural Press, I think now Fairfax titles. And both from a first glance are adopting a cautious approach to the question.
Perhaps TODANZ should become engaged in this debate......
Given the above and the wide readership that both THE LAND and GFV have, TODANZ could do worse that ensure the Rural Press folk across the Spratt Sutton report.
The article mentions demand side management. That's a start. But it does not discuss.
DSM is the most important action we can take.
Let's discuss.
In the short term, I think the President of the United States, whoever she may be, should use her bully pulpit to call for a moratorium on driving, to whatever extent it is possible.
In the long term we as a collective species, be it the whole world, the nation, regions, states, counties, municipalities, neighborhoods, friends, families, and individuals should unite in a common purpose to envision and realize a future that is significantly less dependent on automobility. I suggest reducing automotive transport by 80% by 2050.
Let's discuss.
Whoever "she" may be? Being rather presumptuous there, aren't we?
RE: "moratorium on driving", you're kidding, right? What U.S. politician is going to volunteer to be defeated --and then lynched-- by an angry P.O.-ignorant (or denying) mob? Anyone recall what happened to incumbent Democrats back in '94 when they *suggested* applying a means test to Social Security? Banning autos would make that look like a pleasant romp in the park.
The only "moratorium" on driving there will be is when gas hits $20/gallon and poor people can no longer afford to drive. The vast mob will *still* be unaware this has anything to do with P.O. and will seek to locate an appropriate "villain" on whom to visit their wrath.
Cynthia McKinney gets it.
cfm in Gray, ME
Keep the oil in the soil and the coal in the hole.
I'm glad you're watching her campaign. What do you think of the call for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in this report? I've been trying to push the GPUS to take a similar position for a few years now. We've got the timeline right for emissions reductions I think: http://www.gp.org/committees/ecoaction/eco_2006_04_25.shtml
But what to do after that is still not settled.
Chris
Hi Chris,
My limited understanding of sequestration is that it is not really technically and/or economically feasible. I agree with the Green Party that "clean coal" is a contradiction of terms. Again, demand-side management is the key.
I agree whole-heartedly and mindfully with the Ten Key Values of the Green Party. Although I'm not sure that the best strategy is investing time and money into building a new political party, I think that a green socialist one would be the way to go. You (all) might want to check out the principles of the International Cooperative Alliance.
I'd like to hear more from others that agree that demand side management is of paramount importance.
How can we educate?
How can we organize?
To me, sequestration is a tenth key value issue. We need to unmake our waste. I think that you are thinking perhaps of sequestration after burning fossil fuels, or perhaps like Hansen, sequestration after burning biomass, as a sort of sticking of CO2 in the ground or in the oceans. This is not what the report is discussing. It focuses on storing carbon in elemental form for the most part. Their focus is on biochar. One of the co-chairs of the GPUS EcoAction committee is working on this directly in Georgia right now. I've also been interested in the potential of estuaries to mineralize carbon as calcium carbonate: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/06/tabby.html
We are surely better than plants or oysters at gathering carbon from the atmosphere. I give a calculation of what it would take to derive hyrdrocarbon fuels directly from the air here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/12/jet-fuel.html
Getting the CO2 and H2O feedstocks is the easy part. Since mineralization from silicate rocks is exothermic, the energy inputs are pretty small. So, viewed as a clean up, the cost is not all that high. The question is, could we do everything we need to do just assisting the ecosphere to sequester carbon (biochar, restored estuaries, reforestation....) or do we need to intervene technologically. I don't know the answer yet, but some of the references in this report should help.
Agreed that rapid reductions in fossil fuel use is the first step: http://www.gp.org/committees/ecoaction/eco_2006_04_25.shtml
Chris
I came across an article on farming carbon as a cash crop that seems to mesh (albeit less technically) with your comments here.
All this points to a well established industry that has since been in decline in instustrial nations...agriculture. It's re-emergence as permaculture has also been with an eye to healing our effects on the planet.
Combining these approaches with what exists with an emphasis on sequestering carbon sounds promising. Referred to as "not just organic, but carbon-conscious organic" it would appear agriculture/permaculture offers the mental shift needed in the public and policy domain to reduce our increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Thus even land not in use could be used to sequester carbon and not necessarily be needed for food production right away.
It would be fitting that a 'technology' that's been around for thousands of years may be the means of fixing the climate. As well, renewed appreciation of the faceless industry back into a local agriculture/permaculture would make sure it continues.
Might it be enough to consider agriculture/permaculture the answer to our emission goals? Maybe not, but if it can handle 50% why not do it? With the added benefit of local food, and increased topsoil, it sounds very positive.
http://www.thestar.com/article/302308
"Farming carbon as a cash crop"
There's a lot to take in there Chris - a bit much for my poor old brain, so I will bookmark it and come back!
I wonder if you could indicate what degree of confidence you have that GW is man-made?
The IPCC put it at 90%, which seems high to me for a system so complex with such a lot of poorly understood feedback mechanisms - don't get me wrong, I think that it is the most probable cause, but ama bit more doubtful than the IPCC.
Also there has been some talk that we are now entering a period of reduced solar activity, which will result in cooler conditions for around 100 years, and so GW could be overrode by this effect.
Since you are the astronomer, perhaps you would share your lights on this!
It is pretty difficult for those of us without the requisite training to evaluate at all realistically - it would be easy to take one course of action and then find out that someone has dropped a decimal point!
Actually, it seems to me that the practical difference is slight, as even if GW were hooey, we would still need to move from FF, but your assessment would be appreciated.
I guess as an astronomer I can say that the Sun's luminosity is not changing at the level that greenhouse gas forcing is changing owing the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, land use changes, and the beginning of saturation of some carbon dioxide uptake mechanisims as a result of warming. Theories to do with the solar cycle are not so much about a change in the energy input from the Sun but rather the effect of the Sun's magnetic field on the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate into the inner solar system, the effect of those cosmic rays on cloud formation and a consequent change in the Earth's albedo. Since the amplitude of the solar cycle has not changed during the recent warming, this is not explanatory for the recent warming. The Sun seems to be doing what it does still: http://www.ias.u-psud.fr/website/modules/news2/article.php?storyid=34
The recent warming is best explained by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is not a complicated thing as you seem to think but rather pretty straight forward radiative transfer. This sort of thing explains pulsations in stars, the effects of abundances on the colors and luminosities of stars, the warmth of the surfaces of planets with atmospheres an the like. Changing the opacity changes the energy balance. This can have a big effect. I even got away with using and exclamation point in a recent scientific paper because the effect can be so large: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666
I think you can have very strong confidence that the recent warming is real and pretty strong confidence that we are causing it. If we are not the cause, then the excursion in temperature over several decades is a bigger fluke than credulity would normally tolerate. With a fundemental physical explanation at hand, doubt would seem to be less and less productive at this point.
On the other hand, I obviously approach the issue from a philisophical point of view: we should unmake our waste as a matter of principle. That we happen to be in the midst of an emergency on account of that waste does focus my attention on it, but I feel the same about trash on the side of the road or plutonium. In fact, I don't think we should be making waste at all. If you get a chance today, you might want to listen to William McDonough to get more of a sense of where I'm coming from on that: http://www.newdimensions.org/ndir.php
Chris
Chris,my understanding was that the rise in temperature could not be explained directly by the rise in GW gasses, as they were far too small to do the job directly.
I thought that it was assumed that there were very large multiplier effects through feed-back mechanisms causing the present rise in temperature, and it is only then that you get this best fit to climate data.
Greenhouse gasses remain the best explanation for rises, but I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that it was a much more remote argument than a straight forward one-for-one correlation, and hence a weaker case and one more prone to error?
As regards cleaning up, I'd like to make two points, the first is that nature in fact is inherently messy, and often acts with vast apparent inefficiencies, salmon spawning and most of the off-spring dying and so on, and as a matter of pure engineering 100% solutions are not cost effective - 80% or so are effective, you pick the low hanging fruit.
Many advocates of renewables seem to have got themselves into a bind over this, and end up calling for vastly complicated, costly and in my view wholly impractical schemes such as the one Stuart suggested here recently for a world grid, simply because they are refusing to use nuclear where for all but some very theoretical considerations it is the best engineering option.
The second point would be that further development of the nuclear program should enable with some small technical progress the elimination of darn near all of the perceived problem with nuclear waste and safety.
I think that many have ended up for reasons of philosophy in an untenable position from an engineering POV.
If one wants to look at things philosophically, it is perhaps difficult to see, as Fred Hoyle argued, how a advanced technological society can be maintained without access to highly concentrated forms of energy such as nuclear.
On top of that, I want it for spaceships! :-)
When the concentration of carbon dioxide is raise in the atmosphere, that altitude at which the Earth radiates energy from the Sun back to space is increased. The temperature of this layer is fixed by the distance of the Earth from the Sun. All the temperature profile below this layer is determined by hydrostatic equilibrum plus the energy inputs all the way down. When you lift up the top, this essentially raises the bottom as well so that a profile that terminates at the bottom of Death Valley now terminates above the valley. It is true that there are follow-on effects. Warm air also hold more moisture which means that the tropsphere can hold heat closer to the surface These kinds of effect are called feedbacks and the debate now is centering on the feedback response rate and what the ultimate climate sensitivity is. For a doubling of carbon dioxide it could be 3, 6 or 10 C. Some of that debate is reviewed in the Climate Code Red report.
It is too bad you couldn't listen to William McDonough yesterday. The program schedule has moved on now. In ecosystems there is no waste. Every output is also an input. Salmon spawn are food. The carbon dioxide salmon emit feeds plankton. Your picture of nature is too narrow just now to see this I think.
I also think you have a misconception about engineering. Engineering is done to tolerances so it is alway over 100% during the design lifetime. If a bridge fails before it is old, this is considered a grave engineering error. Oft times it is not the engineering but coruption that causes the failure. A part is certified to meet spec by someone who knows that it does not for personal gain. We can see this happening now with relicencing of nuclear power plants in the US. The plants were designed with a safety factor and the corrupt NRC is now eating into that safety factor with relicencing. The regulators know they won't keep their jobs if they don't because accommodating the industry is required owing to the campaign contributions that got their bosses elected. What McDonough is advocating is essentially an extention of the concept of design lifetime. When designing, one should know how the materials will be food for new design once they have served their intended purpose. This is most of the cradle-to-cradle concept. Another part is that the process of manufacturing should include such considerations. In the case of a nuclear reactor core, we can see that there nothing that a used core can feed into so nuclear power is fundementally bad design. It turns out that McDonough's approach is very cost effective and he is quite successful in his endevours.
You might want to think a little harder about the cost of what Stuart is looking at. 30 GW capacity transmission lines are a bit more robust that 3 GW capacity lines. Their design lifetimes will likely be set to centuries rather than decades. So, you would want to look closely at the prorated cost. It seems clear that transmission lines in the GW capacity range are considered cost effective so the same may be true of higher capacity lines. The stumbling block seems to me more that our finacial instruments do not extend over century time-scales except for accumulation such as university endowments. Taking out a 200 year loan to finance a Sahara to New York transmission line which might substantially reduce the cost of energy for North America, Europe and Africa over that period seems a little hard to concieve. But, there are physical reasons to think that scale in transmission brings cost savings: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/03/coast-to-coast.html
Fission for space seems like a loser to me. Matter-anti-matter has a much better power to weight ratio and, with a renewable grid, would be much less expensive. For the inner solar system, solar power seems cheaper still. Fred Hoyle has argued quite a lot of things and I have to admit that I've gotten quite a lot of milage out of the 3.4 um absorption feature. But, I doubt it is biological in orgin. UV treated ice residues seem to capture much of its shape. The universe is not always according to Hoyle....
Chris
I understand what you are saying about carbon dioxide, but that just means that the situation is by no means as straightforward as a one-for-one mechanical link against carbon dioxide, but is instead dependent on complex feedback mechanisms to multiply the strength many times.
Most of those links are hypothesised to be positive, and so you end up with the current levels they are projecting for GW.
However, at any level other forces could come into play, on the downside leading to some of the 'trigger points' hypothesised by many, which would lead to much more severe, sudden effects, and on the upside to negative feedbacks which might counteract some or all of the results.
I would agree that man-made anthropogenic warming is the best hypothesis we have, but the whole subject seems to me to have been over-simplified, and some of the pronouncements of certainty(on both sides) seem at best premature.
Of course I am aware that nature often uses resources which would otherwise go to waste.
However this is often on such a vast time-scale that the statement becomes meaningless.
You could just litter everywhere, including dropping plutonium about, and for those who choose to anthromorphosise then bountiful nature in its all seeing wisdom, or some such, will ensure that it does not go to waste, just as the photons from a sun somewhere far away with no planets revolving around it do not go to waste - but of course in any human sense they do.
I am also of course aware that engineering is done allowing safety margins.
It sounds as though McDonough has interesting and often applicable ideas, but they are not the only ones about and should not be used as holy writ.
However, the critique of reactor core design is a good one and one I will study further.
If that is the only major problem it might be worth putting up with though - regardless of what some think, life is not perfect.
The suggestion that power lines should be amortised over a period of centuries sounds incredible stretched to me - anything looks good if you squint hard enough.
It's not really necessary when we have alternatives which will do the job just fine at a tiny fraction of the cost - although of course if you applied the same criteria to nuclear and wanted your pay-back over the full 60 years lifetime not 20 you would find that it was vastly cheaper than any fossil fuel alternative.
Your last comment on fission for space suffers from the weakness that we have fission power, we don't have an anti-matter drive.
I think it really comes back to the subject of philosophy - supposing that your point about reactor cores could be answered, not perfectly but well, would that satisfy you, or is this essentially a cover, as your objections go deeper and under no circumstances would you consider it?
Anyway, a stimulating discussion, for which I thank you!
Your suggestion to have a pay-back time for power grids of 200 years merits further discussion.
Of course, the answer from classical economics would be to compare that to investing the same money in the market, and give that a growth rate, of, say 2%, and add that up over the 200 years.
The figure you would come out with then would be vastly more than the already high cost of financing in the normal way, and your original costing, which for the sake of argument is $1,000 trillion (figures by K. Levin, not disputed by Stuart, but anyways the sum is big) would increase to an even more fantastic amount.
Of course, the counter argument is that this is based on an economy which is growing, and does not apply to a static economy.
On the contrary, what those figures really show even in a static economy is that the money could be better spent, so lets look at real physical alternatives, and leave out nuclear as clearly on any rational costings this would out-perform this by a factor of twenty or so, but try to make the harder case to show that you could do better even without nuclear.
One alternative might be to put your $1,000 trn into developing lift systems for the exploitation of space resources, and also mining the moon or asteroids to build space mirror systems to provide power on earth.
The same kind of money spent that way would then not only provide energy but would provide a huge range of additional capabilities, including the ability to deliver rare minerals back to earth, overcoming shortages of indium and so on.
If you didn't fancy that, you could develop hot-rock geothermal energy, and I would guess still have plenty of change.
To go back to the nuclear alternative, you could use the price difference to perhaps provide sanitation and clean drinking water to everyone on earth, or maybe to greatly extend lifespans.
A few radioactive cores which are resistant to re-cycling seems a manageable problem when you look at the benefits you could get.
The basic point is that in the process of trying to weight things to favour the preferred alternative, you have lost any rational method of comparing benefits.
Stuart has done a very valuable service by showing that we aren't going to run out of energy, and that at costs which are still only a fraction of production you can adequately provide energy.
In my view though he has equally conclusively proved that the means chosen are vastly more expensive than alternatives.
Regarding McDonough, I am afraid I don't really 'do' philosophy, or more accurately am firmly in the tradition of British empiricism, and certainly would not use his ideas or anyone else's to evaluate and discard an alternative if it was cost effective and relatively benign.
When the application of his ideas leads to good cost effective solutions, fine, but as metaphysics it would leave me cold!
Dave,
I think you mean reductionism rather than empiricism. As C. S. Lewis has so gently shown in his character MacPhee, empiricism leads to very strong ethical convictions. Empericist would, for example, be able to recognize the Yes Men's Vivloeum presentation as a satire. I think that if you look more closely at what McDonough is saying you'll find it quite empirically based. Where you are having difficulty is more in the level of (non-Hegelian) synthesis you are willing to appreciate. Reductionism, lacking synthesis, leads to a view of nature that holds the observer separate. I think you will find as you explore McDonough's work more thoroughly that while he relies on inspiration to move forward, his empirical groundwork is extremely sound.
The subject of Climate Code Red pretty much shows that unsynthesized reductionism leads to catastrophe. The observer, being biological, is not separate from nature and may not act as though that were the case without extreme consequences. The core problem with reductionism is that it attempts to legislate the value of pi. It attempts to take an intellectual stance that is useful for the purpose of study, a fictional stance, and act as though it were reality. Empericism does not attempt such foolishness.
Chris
Philosophy is a method for very clever people to end up in very stupid positions.
It's application in this particular instance seems to have resulted in a preference for a solution costing around 20 times more than a viable alternative.
That is plain silly.
We can see this happening now with relicencing of nuclear power plants in the US. The plants were designed with a safety factor and the corrupt NRC is now eating into that safety factor with relicencing. The regulators know they won't keep their jobs if they don't because accommodating the industry is required owing to the campaign contributions that got their bosses elected. What McDonough is advocating is essentially an extention of the concept of design lifetime. When designing, one should know how the materials will be food for new design once they have served their intended purpose. This is most of the cradle-to-cradle concept. Another part is that the process of manufacturing should include such considerations. In the case of a nuclear reactor core, we can see that there nothing that a used core can feed into so nuclear power is fundementally bad design. - Chris
Chris, This is absurd. You make the most wild eyed hysterical allegations about the NRC and its employees, without the slightest shred of proof. Where is your evidence that the NRC compromises of safety? Where is your proof? What you have written here appears to be the ravings of a Green fanatic.
William McDonough appears to not understand materials use in modern society, which is not analogous to organic processes in nature. The problem of disposal is endemic to modern industrial society, and not just characteristic of reactors. Most of our machines are not designed for post use use, but parts get recycled. They get taken apart. Metals are are usually sorted out and recycled in one way or another.
Nuclear cores can be reconditioned or rebuilt. The Canadians are rebuilding the cores of old CANDU reactors. Plans are now being developed to extend the life of American LWRs to 80 years. After a reactor is retired its fuel is removed. It then begins to loose its residual radioactivity. Most of the radioactive materials associated with reactor cores are either short lived or low level. Low level radioactive materials are easily disposed of. Short lived materials quickly loose their radioactivity. Once the reactor core has reached a safe radiation level, it can be disassembled. Since it is mostly metal, the metals can be separated and reused. Why complain about reactors when the computer you write with poses a disposal problem.
I think that Vermont Yankee is presently showing that, despite protestations on the part of the NRC, the lessons of Maine Yankee have not been learnded except in a very negative sense. The solution for safety issues is not to terminate operations at the end of a plant's design lifetime but rather to sit idly by while the industry attempts to use PR firms to counter legitimate concerns. Even the concerns of Sandia, Idaho and the DHS go unadressed because the NRC does not want to burden licencees: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/12nuclear.html
Who is telling them not to burden licencees? The nuclear power industry, through its huge campaign contributions. This is corrupt.
I think you need to pay closer attention to what McDonough is saying. He has a very clear understanding of how materials are used. It is just his critique that failing to emulate nature leads to severe difficulties which he is able to demostrate owing to a rather deep expertise on these matters.
I would note that the efforts of Greenpeace to make consumer electronics more and more recyclable are meeting with success because the problem is tractable. This is not the case for nuclear power.
Chris
You don't seem to have addressed the key point of Charles' critique.
You can indeed recycle reactor cores.
Your point that recycling cannot be done for nuclear power is entirely unsubstantiated.
I am not really interested in studying deeply a philosophy which leads to a preference for ridiculously expensive solutions.
Systems of metaphysics are of interest only to those who hold them, and the application of normal rational criteria is quite sufficient in this case.
If you want to take part in debate then instead of requiring others to study some abstract thesis, rather as the Marxists demanded before their theories blew up in their faces, then perhaps you could translate however you see things through the goggles you have chosen to more normal terms.
In essence, you appear to be concerned with recycling, and yet appear to be completely disinterested when it is pointed out that it may be possible to recycle more of nuclear reactors than you had assumed.
I can only conclude that in fact your objections, as we discussed up thread, are in fact red herrings, and no conceivable answer would satisfy you as you have prejudged the issue.
You have also been cherry-picking your responses, and not dealing with substantial objections, such as how weak your proposal for 200year amortisation is.
This is not the technique of someone who is seeking to clarify, and in a meeting with others sort out which bits all our ideas are right, but of someone who is seeking to obfusticate.
I think you have already decided that you don't like nuclear power, and will sort out any grounds convenient later.
This is not rational debate, but a religious conviction.
I don't mean in any way to be rude to you, but I do think you should recognise that you are rationalising rather than being rational on this issue - in fact I am sorry to say that it rather reminds me of the creationists, using selected bits of science fact to bolster an entirely emotional and irrational assumption.
Dave,
In the US, reactor cores are quite hot and are put in long term storage, not recycled.
You should remember that I have not said that a worldwide grid should be built. I think that storage is going to be largely free and we may never need the transmission. But, I think that your discounting argument is more a part of the problem that leads to short-termism and poor decision making. You can read more here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/11/reprise.html
Chris
Chris, if we are to have any sort of a rational discussion you really need to address the points that are raised, as they are raised.
I have attempted to address the issues you have raised, but you go off tangentally.
I do not want to 'read more here' I want you to answer the criticisms that have been made of what you have to say.
Recently I accepted that some of the critiques I made of wind-power in the UK were overdrawn, as new data of load following came to light.
I was able to do so because I had an essentially rational position, which was dependent on the information I had, and if the information I had changed, my position did.
It seems to me that you have created a position which is not falsifiable, dependent on some weird set of assumptions.
I knew you were an astronomer, but it seems to me you have already left planet earth, and are in danger of ending up as an astrologer! :-)
So answer the criticisms you have received of the points you raised if you are genuinely interested in rational discussion.
Actually, thinking about it, I would ask you to be really specific in justifying what you are talking about:
You said:
Charles called you on that, and you answered with something wholly irrelevant about allegations of malfeasance in research reactors.
So can you substantiate the specific allegations you have made, or not?
You said:
Charles answered that cores were indeed recyclable. You did not reply. Do you wish to rebut?
In fact, I am sorry to say that you have evaded every challenge to your position.
Can you substantiate anything at all?
Start with those two points, if you would, then we will work down the list.
Dave,
I think I have been specific. Publically funded election is the US would end the relicensing of nuclear power plants.
Charles is proposing recycling metal from reactor cores. This is not done. The are simply stored.
Chris
You made allegations of corruption in the licensing process, and have still provided no evidence.
Your critique of re-cycling was surely based on potential, rather than actual rates as many things are not re-cycled enough now.
In the particular case of reactor cores though, Charles has already indicated that some of the CANDU ones have been recycled.
Therefore it is clear that the two issues we are discussing have not been adequately addressed by yourself.
I really don't wish to upset you Chris, but if discussions are to have any meaning they absolutely have to have clarity and precision, it is no use skipping on from argument to argument.
I think you need to reread what Charles wrote. He said refurbished I think. That is not recycled. You can rebiuld an engine, but eventually the block is going to crack. When this happens to a reactor you are left with a hot hunk of metal that cannot be reused.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept of systemic corruption. This is actually the most pernicious kind. Everyone feels they are just doing their job but in fact they are doing much more damage than a single intentionally corrupt official could do alone. In the case of Vermont Yankee, we are hearing that there is no need for an independent safety review from both Entergy and the NRC, on the same script, because the leasons have been learned from the review of Maine Yankee. At the same time the NRC is defending their staff for cutting and pasting material from relicensing applications into their reviews saying that their staff are not "creative writers." There has been no independent varification of safety if the NRC is just repeating what Entergy is saying. No leason has been learned. The NRC is incapable of regulating. They may feel that they are doing their job with integrity, but it is obvious that they are not. Things are entirely too cosy between the industry and the regualtor. Does a $96,000 fine for losing three 18 inch sections of spent fuel rods really count as regualtion or is this just a fig leaf? That is enough material for a dirty bomb that could put billions of dollars of real estate out of service for decades. Not wanting to burden licensees is not regulation. It is the precursor to a major disaster.
Chris
Chris, You have referred me to a New York time article about a dispute concerning the safety of small research reactors. The article talks about a dispute, but does not offer a convincing case that the NRC was wrong. Since the vase involved research reactors, it does not support the you contintion that the NRC has compromised safety on civilian reactors, Indeed the so called "experts" who the NRC disagreed with apear to have argued a very impobably case about the theft of enriched uranium from inside highly radioactive reactors.
The story mentioned only the licenses of research reactors. You comment:
Who is telling them not to burden licencees? The nuclear power industry, through its huge campaign contributions. This is corrupt.
There is in fact no evidence in the story of nuclear power industry involvement in the dispute, no mention of campaign contributions, and no suggestion of any corruption on the part of the NRC, all of this exist only in your mind.
Although you tell me how deep McDonoug is, you have yet to provide any links to his deep thoughts. Mo own attempt to Google him brought no insights. I wonder though if he picked out nuclear power for special attention, since recycling waste goods from our society as a whole is cery problematic, and fat mor plastic bags than reactore cores get thrown in the dump.
Did you not notice the whiny tone about not sharing intelligence? If they were sincere in their efforts to see to the safety of reactors they would surely not have said such a thing since it is no secret that reactors are targets: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/15/europe/EU-GEN-France-Terror-Tr...
Chris
Chris, as usual you raise interesting issues.
Although you don't explicitly say so here I take it that your objection to nuclear power is also philosophical rather than a matter of engineering.
This is a interesting distinction, if I am correct as it simplifies the debate considerably.
One of our frustrations on the pro-nuclear side of the debate is that we have to deal with a lot of essentially disingenuous arguments.
Someone raises, say, the issue of waste disposal, and we answer it, setting out what measures are currently being taken and how that can be improved in the future. Presumably this is a successful rebuttal, as the dialogue normally stops at that point or changes to some other issue.
There is one other response though, which is relevant, and that is the demand for 100% engineering - ie that there should not remain any risk or any waste whatsoever.
The weakness of this position is that of course we can't engineer anything at all to 100% standards, and that certainly includes renewables - people will always die mining the ore for windmills, and so on.
I think that what these people have done is revealed that their concern is at root not about waste, but is philosophical, and that there is no argument at all which will give them a satisfactory reply, as their objection lies deeper.
So if I have read you correctly the distinction into philosophical objection is a useful one, as it saves everyone time.
I have no objection at all to someone questioning, for instance, the cost of nuclear power, or to looking at it's costs relative to renewables, or discussing how a carbon tax would alter it's competitiveness relative to fossil fuels.
There is no point though if the objection is essentially a red herring, and there is no possibility that any answer will be deemed satisfactory.
Chris, why don't you present your idea for aviation fuel to Richard Branson?
The upside is you might win the £25 million prize he is offering, plus solve aviations' fuel problems, the downside is.....
can't think of one!
The prize Branson is offering is for sequestration rather than carbon neutrality. Also, I don't think the aviation sector is large enough to meet the scale he has in mind. I've outlined a possible entry on slashdot and more recently here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/commercial-ocean-fertilizat...
but I think that the work on terra preta probably has more potential though it is unlikely to come together under one corperate structure required to win the prize. Brason has caught on to some aspects of the solution but his talk of "War Rooms" and monolithic operations show that his approach is colored by thinking that probably holds him up from making more practical contributions.
Chris