Peter Wadhams warns on collapse of Arctic sea ice by 2015

Climate change expert calls for nuclear power 'binge' to avert global warming

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, warns CO₂ levels are rising at a faster than exponential rate

by Terry Macalister, guardian.co.uk, September 9, 2012

• 
  
  

Professor Peter Wadhams pointed to evidence that Arctic sea ice cover had reached record low this summer. Photograph Christopher Debicki/Getty Images

A leading British academic has called for accelerated research into futuristic geo-engineering and a worldwide nuclear power station "binge" to avoid runaway global warming.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said both potential solutions had inherent dangers but were now vital as time was running out.

"It is very, very depressing that politicians and the public are attuned to the threat of climate change even less than they were 20 years ago when Margaret Thatcher sounded the alarm. CO₂ levels are rising at a faster than exponential rate, and yet politicians only want to take utterly trivial steps such as banning plastic bags and building a few windfarms," he said.

"I am very suspicious of using technology to solve problems created by technology, given that we have messed up so much in the past but having done almost nothing for two decades we need to adopt more desperate measures such as considering geo-engineering techniques as well as conducting a major nuclear programme."

Geo-engineering techniques such as whitening clouds by adding fine sprays of water vapour, or adding aerosols to the upper atmosphere have been ridiculed in some quarters but welcomed elsewhere. Wadhams proposes the use of thorium-fuelled reactors, being tested in India, which are said to be safer because they do not result in a proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium, experts say. Also, under certain circumstances, the waste from thorium reactors is less dangerous and remains radioactive for hundreds rather than thousands of years.

Wadhams, who is also head of the polar ocean physics group at Cambridge and has just returned from a field trip to Greenland, was reacting to evidence that Arctic sea ice cover had reached a record low this summer.

This latest rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by other polar scientists and coincide with alarming new reports about a "vast reservoir" of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, that could be released in Antarctica if the ice melts equally quickly there. Greenpeace said last night that it agreed with the academic's concerns but not with his solutions.

"Professor Wadhams is right that we're in a big hole and the recent record sea ice low in the Arctic is a clear warning that we need to act. But it would be cheaper, safer and easier to stop digging and drilling for more fossil fuels," said Ben Ayliffe, the group's senior polar campaigner.

"We already have the technologies, from ultra-efficient vehicles to state-of-the-art clean energy generation, to make the deep cuts in greenhouse gases that are needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change. Unfortunately, we're still lacking the political and business will to implement them," he added.

Wadhams, who has done pioneering work on polar ice thinning using British naval submarines from 1976 onwards, said these latest satellite findings confirmed his own dire predictions.

And they feed into the alarming scenarios that the Arctic Methane Emergency Group have been warning about.

"What we are now seeing is a fast collapse of the sea ice that means we could see a complete loss during the summer by 2015 -- rather than the 20 to 30 years talked about by the UK Meteorological Office. This would speed up ocean warming and Greenland ice cap melt and increase global ocean levels considerably as well as warming the seabed and releasing more methane."

Asked whether the latest evidence made a ban on drilling for carbon-releasing oil and gas necessary as Greenpeace has contended, Wadhams said "philosophically" such exploration made little sense. "We have been conducting a global experiment with the burning of fossil fuels and the results are already disastrous and this would accelerate them," he argued saying that there were also practical worries because of the enormous difficulty of dealing with any spillage or a blowout under moving ice where oil would get trapped inside the ice in a kind of inaccessible "oil sandwich'.

But he said at least that companies such as Shell had shown some responsibility by carefully planning its expected exploration in the Chukotka Sea off Alaska and had shown a willingness to use ready-made containment domes that could cap off a well if anything went wrong. He was more fearful about drilling methods in the Russian Arctic where environmental concerns were lower down the agenda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/09/climate-change-expert-calls-for-nuclear-power-boost

Duke Energy's Jim Rogers: Why nuclear power will probably trump coal

Duke’s Rogers: Why nuclear power will probably trump coal

by Keith Johnson, environmentalcapital blog at The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2009

Duke Energy boss Jim Rogers is a big voice on energy and climate change for a couple of simple reasons. He runs a big utility, heavily invested in coal power, and he’s an outspoken proponent of climate-change legislation that spooks many of his peers.

Duke’s Jim Rogers: “We could find ourselves in 2050 where coal has a limited role, if any.” (AP photo)

So his take on America’s energy future is usually interesting. No exception in this recent interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, where he makes the case for why nuclear power will likely beat coal in a country still heavily reliant on the black stuff.

Coal has all sorts of issues, he says, not just carbon emissions. Coal plants produce other particulate emissions, create fly-ash dumps, and promote harsh mining practices:

Decarbonization of coal is just on top of that. If you asked me today based on current technologies–and assuming we have no advances in technology with respect to decarbonization of coal–I would say nuclear would trump coal because it produces zero greenhouse gases, it provides power 24/7, and, probably most importantly, it probably produces more jobs than even solar or wind on a per-megawatt basis.

Now, Mr. Rogers has been amping up his support for nuclear power since the summer, including a big op-ed in the WSJ. He’s often mentioned the jobs angle before, but rarely with such detail:

In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.

Ever since last year’s presidential campaign, the energy debate has been largely a jobs debate—for better or for worse. With unemployment still creeping upward, will jobs—not joules—be the crucial element for America’s energy future?

Link to blog:  http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/dukes-rogers-why-nuclear-power-will-probably-trump-coal/

Reprocessing nuclear waste is the answer by George S. Stanford et al., Bull. Atomic Scientists

Not that I agree 100% with this article, but it bears thinking about:

Reprocessing is the answer

by George S. Stanford, Gerald E. Marsh, and William Hannum, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 31 August 2009

Article Highlights

• Advancements in nuclear power should help the world move beyond fossil fuels.
• In particular, spent fuel recycling with fast reactors would solve some of the most vexing problems facing conventional nuclear power.
• Other benefits include reducing weapons proliferation risks and excess plutonium and uranium stockpiles.

When you combine the country's addiction to oil to its mounting concern over global warming you have a clear-cut case for expanded nuclear power. The issue has been clouded, however, by the recent decision to stop work on the Yucca Mountain permanent spent fuel repository in Nevada, so far the only real solution the United States has for its accumulating spent fuel from its 104 light water reactors (LWR).

Some argue that instead of building more nuclear reactors, the country should invest in renewable energy such as solar or wind power that could provide all of the electricity it needs--but that notion is hopelessly unrealistic. Even the most optimistic projections don't foresee more than a few percent of our electricity generation coming from these sources by 2030. Anyway, neither solar nor wind can eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, since they must be backed up by reliable, rapid-response generators when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Renewables absolutely have a role to play, but only in niche applications for the foreseeable future.

A technology that's much closer to being fully realized is advanced nuclear power. To solve the spent-fuel dilemma, what's needed is to finish the nearly complete fast reactor, which can recycle spent nuclear fuel. (For further information, see "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste PDF".) By the mid-1990s, this work was well advanced and technical feasibility had been demonstrated, but the program was terminated for political reasons. If we're serious about finding a solution to the energy crisis, such research must be continued.

From the very earliest days of nuclear power, we've known that fast reactors in concert with recycling of spent fuel--also known as reprocessing--are the key to efficient utilization of the energy locked inside uranium. Such a system converts the common uranium 238 isotope into plutonium, which can then be recycled to make even more plutonium to fuel additional power plants. The value for long-term energy security is obvious: The current once-through cycle (where spent fuel is removed from reactors for eventual burial) uses less than 1 percent of the energy in the original uranium, but with recycling, utilization exceeds 99 percent. As a result, enough uranium is already mined and in storage—partly as used fuel, but mainly as depleted uranium left over from the enrichment process—to support a massive nuclear power industry for hundreds of years to come. Further mining will be required only to support the current fleet of LWRs over their lifetime, perhaps 100 years, and the known ore reserves are adequate for this task.

For complete use of the uranium, the fuel must be refreshed periodically to replace the built-up fission products with fresh uranium. A reprocessing method called PUREX (for plutonium uranium extraction) was developed early in the Manhattan Project to extract chemically pure plutonium for weapons, and that process was carried over to the civilian power sector. In the 1970s, however, due to proliferation concerns, the broad deployment of PUREX technology was stopped in the United States and put under high security in other countries. In any event, PUREX is very expensive and far from optimal for recycling in fast reactors.

Specifically to address the need to recycle spent fuel without producing weapons-usable plutonium, pyroprocessing was developed in the 1980s and 1990s to recover, recycle, and consume the long-lived hazardous materials. The process is so efficient that the waste becomes essentially harmless within a few hundred years, as opposed to tens of thousands of years as is the case now. The dilemma of what to do with used spent fuel is thus resolved. It's no longer a waste--it's a valuable resource. Freed from the apparently intractable challenge of proving that direct disposal into a permanent repository is safe, the deployment of LWRs would become much more politically tractable.

The new technology provides an even greater proliferation-prevention benefit as well. Consider this: A nuclear weapon can be made either with high-quality plutonium or with enriched uranium. To get the plutonium, one has to irradiate special fuel elements in a reactor and then put them through a complex chemical separation process. For the uranium, one has to separate uranium 235 from the far more common uranium 238. In a mature fast-reactor economy, however, there will be no legitimate reason either to enrich uranium or to use the PUREX-type process that extracts pure, weapons-usable plutonium. Any such effort would be prima facie evidence of an attempt to build nuclear weapons, making it easy to monitor and stop would-be proliferators.

Aggressive governmental implementation of a fast-reactor recycling program, coupled with massive deployment of additional LWRs will put us on the path toward energy independence, while dramatically reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Link: http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reprocessing-the-answer

James Hansen: Strategies to Address Global Warming & Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?

Strategies to Address Global Warming
&
Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?

by Jim Hansen

[Blogger's note -- I couldn't get the figures copied, so you will have to go to the original pdf file to see them -- it is well worth the effort, see at this link:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf ]

In my opinion, it is still feasible to solve the global warming problem before we pass tipping points that would guarantee disastrous irreversible climate change. But urgent strong actions are needed. These actions would have multiple benefits, providing a helpful economic stimulus, improving public health, and increasing energy independence and national security. Assessment of strategic options for solving the problem requires knowledge of geophysical constraints and their implications. The geophysical facts practically dictate the general course of action.

Fortunately, it is clear that the required course is technically feasible, and it would have great benefits to the public in developing and developed countries. Unfortunately, knowledge and understanding of the situation are not widespread. In addition, there is a minority of people, termed fossil interests, who benefit from business as usual.

These fossil interests have enormous influence on governments worldwide, far outside their fair role in democracies. Failure to achieve the actions needed to stabilize global climate will result in great intergenerational injustice. The young and unborn in both developed and developing countries would bear full consequences of actions of prior generations. We need to help young people draw attention to this great injustice.

Climate Situation

Our global climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear, and there is a potential for rapid changes with effects that would be irreversible – if we do not promptly slow fossil fuel emissions during the next few decades. Tipping points are fed by amplifying feedbacks. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As tundra melts, methane a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are pressured and exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

We already have caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase from 280 to 387 ppm (parts per million). What science has revealed in the past few years is that the safe level of carbon dioxide in the long run is no more than 350 ppm. The optimum CO2 level to support civilization may be less than 350 ppm, but more precise knowledge is not needed immediately for the purpose of establishing present policies.

The conclusion that CO2 must be reduced to a level <350 ppm was startling at first, but obvious in retrospect. Earth’s history shows that an atmospheric CO2 amount of say 450 ppm eventually would yield dramatic changes, including sea level tens of meters higher than today.

For reference, 450 ppm yields global warming about 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the preindustrial level.
Such a level of atmospheric CO2 and global warming implies that we would hand our children and grandchildren a condition that would run out of their control, a situation that should be unacceptable to humanity.

Figure 1. Fossil fuel and land-use CO2 emissions, and potential fossil fuel emissions. Historical fossil fuel emissions are from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center [CDIAC, S34] and British Petroleum [BP, S35]. Lower limits on oil and gas reserves are from IPCC [S36] and higher limits are from the United States Energy Information Administration [EIA, 80]. Lower limit for coal reserves is from the World Energy Council [WEC, S37] and upper limit from IPCC [S36]. Land use estimate is from integrated emissions of Houghton/2 (Fig. S14) supplemented to include pre-1850 and post-2000 emissions; uncertainty bar is subjective. References are given by Hansen et al. (Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, 2008).

Fossil Fuels

Human-made sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide are summarized in Figure 1. The dark portions of the bars are the portions of the fuels that have been burned with the carbon put into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The size of fossil fuel reserves (the fossil fuel not yet extracted from the ground) has significant uncertainty. An important point is that the size of recoverable reserves depends upon whether drilling is allowed in off-shore regions, public lands,
polar regions, and the deepest ocean. Similarly, the amount of coal reserves that is practically minable is uncertain and depends upon the degree to which ever more destructive mining practices are allowed. Unconventional fossil fuels (tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates), not shown in Figure 1, are similar to coal in their high carbon content. The unconventional fossil fuels have reserves that may be comparable in size to that shown for coal or even larger.

Despite uncertainties in reserve sizes, it is clear that if we burn all the fossil fuels, or even half of remaining reserves, we will send the planet toward the ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher than today. It would take time for complete ice sheet disintegration to occur, but a chaotic situation would be created with changes occurring out of control of future generations. Oil may already be about half depleted, i.e., the world may be close to peak oil production (implying that the IPCC estimate of reserves is closer to the truth than the EIA estimate). In either case, common sense suggests that the largest oil pools will be exploited and the carbon dioxide, which is emitted mainly from tailpipes, will end up in the atmosphere. Gas, the least carbon intensive and cleanest burning fossil fuel, also surely will be exploited.

The obvious conclusion is that the only practical way to avoid climate catastrophe is to terminate emissions from the largest fossil fuel source: coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. If coal emissions are phased out between 2010 and 2030, global fossil fuel emissions would begin to fall rapidly as shown in Figure 2. The rate of emissions (shown in billions of tons of carbon on the left and in percent of 2008 emissions on the right) depends upon how much oil and gas is used. The (red) curve showing larger emissions is based on the assumption that the larger reserve estimates of EIA are valid and all of the CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere.

These emission scenarios have been converted to atmospheric CO2 amounts using a simplified version of the Bern carbon cycle model, as described by Hansen et al. (Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?, Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, 2008). Figure 3 shows that atmospheric CO2 would peak at only ~400 ppm in ~2025, if the IPCC oil and gas reserves are accurate and if coal emissions are phased out uniformly over the period 2010-2030.

If, however, the EIA oil and gas reserves are accurate (and if coal emissions are phased out), atmospheric CO2 will peak early in the second half of this century and atmospheric CO2 will be about 30 ppm higher than with the IPCC reserve estimates.

The EIA reserve estimates may be realistic if we choose to go after every last drop of oil by drilling off-shore, on public lands, in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and in the deepest oceans, for example. With these larger reserves exploited, future generations, including our grandchildren, likely will be forced to seek ways to extract that extra 30 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere. In the referenced paper we discuss the costs of air capture and disposal of CO2, estimating a cost of about $200 per ton of carbon. Thus the cost of removing 30 ppm would be
about $12 trillion dollars, a burden that would be passed to our descendants. In the final section below (Is the Sundance Kid a Criminal?), I discuss the matter of going after every last drop of oil before moving to the energy era beyond fossil fuels.

The primary implication, however, concerns coal. The reason that CO2 peaks at only 400-425 ppm in these scenarios is the assumption that coal emissions will be phased out linearly between 2010 and 2030. Such a scenario is technically possible, but only with policies that lead to availability of appropriate alternative technologies and incentives for using them.

Constraining Fossil Fuel Emissions: Fee & Dividend versus Cap & Trade

Fossil fuel use, except for brief periods during economic recessions, has been increasing for more than a century, because it is our primary source of energy. The fundamental reason that we do not switch to cleaner energies is that fossil fuels remain the cheapest energy source, as long as they do not have to pay for their costs to society. We already should have been making fossil fuels pay for the damage they cause to human health and the environment. But now that we understand the climate implications of fossil fuel use, and recognizing that it is necessary to move beyond fossil fuels at some point anyhow, it is essential that we put a price on carbon emissions to make that transition occur sooner, in an economically efficient way.

There are two competing ways to achieve the needed price on carbon emissions. The first approach is via a direct carbon fee applied uniformly to all oil, gas and coal at the source, that is at the first sale at the mine or port of entry. In my opinion all of the money collected in this fee and dividend approach should be returned to the public on a monthly basis as an electronic deposit in their bank account or applied to their debit card.

The fee needs to increase gradually and be large enough to affect purchasing decisions. By the time the fee reaches a level of $115 per ton of CO2 it will add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline.

Given United States fossil fuel use of 2007, $115 per ton of CO2 would yield $670 billion, enough to provide a dividend (rebate) for each legal adult resident of almost $3000 per year. With half a share per child for a maximum of two children per family, the rebate would be $9000 per year for a family with two or more children. The carbon fee would provide a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It would spur the economy. It would spur innovation.

In this fee and rebate approach, a tipping point would be reached as energy efficiency and carbonfree energies become cheaper than fossil fuels. We would then transition rapidly to the era beyond fossil fuels, leaving most remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to extreme environments to find every drop of oil. We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow. Why not do it sooner, for the benefit of our children?

The fee rate would need to increase in time, but when gas hits $4 per gallon again most of that 4
will stay in the United States, as dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many gallons. We will be well on the way to energy independence.

The alternative approach is Cap & Trade, or perhaps more honestly Tax & Trade, because a ‘cap’ increases the price of energy, as a tax or fee does. Other characteristics of the “cap” approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten “blackout coming” to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.

The biggest problem with this second approach is that it will not solve the problem. It may slow emissions, but because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2, slowing the emissions does little good. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy they will be used eventually. There is no hope that cap and trade can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.

Political Leadership

Political meetings may produce lofty goals for reduced carbon dioxide emissions by some future date. But these are of practically no significance, if the goals and the actions of the nations are inconsistent with geophysical constraints.

For example, I spoke with a German Minister. We found that we were in good agreement with the startling conclusion that we are already moving into dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2. Yet Germany plans to build more coal-fired power plants. His rationalization was that they could “tighten the carbon cap” on cap and trade. I pointed out that, if coal emissions continued, that cap would somehow have to force Russia to leave its oil in the ground. I asked how he would convince Russia to do that. He had no answer.

The overwhelming practical requirement, for the sake of future generations, humanity itself, and the other species on the planet, is phase-out of coal emissions over the next 20 years. Also we cannot heavily exploit unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands, and we should not be pursuing every last drop of oil on the planet.

The correct fundamental approach is a rising price on carbon emissions, as needed to achieve these objectives. The Waxman-Markey bill fails the test in the same way as the German plans: it builds in approval of new coal-fired power plants! There is no need for these plants except to enrich utility and coal special interests – they are included only because the monstrous 1400-page absurdity was hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

Fee-and-rebate, in contrast, spurs innovation and works hand-in-glove with increased building, appliance, and vehicle efficiency standards. A rising carbon fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. A tipping point soon would be reached, with rapid phase-over to future post-fossil energy sources. Tar shale would be dead and there would be no
need to go to the extremes of Earth to find the last drop of oil.

Some environmental leaders have said that I am naïve to think that there is an alternative to cap-and-trade, and they suggest that I should stick to climate modeling. Their contention is that it is better to pass any bill now and improve it later. Their belief that they, as opposed to the fossil interests, have more effect on the bill’s eventual shape seems to be the pinnacle of naïveté.
The proper course of action is clear, from the science and common sense. The geophysical boundary conditions dictate a course that causes coal emissions to be phased out expeditiously, although not necessarily coal use. There should be an immediate halt to construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture all emissions, including carbon dioxide. Mountaintop removal, with its blasphemous environmental damage, should be banned – it provides only seven percent of United States coal, less than our exports.

The truth is, the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless, because it would delay by at least a decade or two the possibility of getting on a path that is fundamentally sound from economic and climate preservation standpoints.

Officials in the Obama administration privately admit that the science demands much more rapid emission cuts than Waxman-Markey would yield, but they say that their hands are tied by a recalcitrant Congress. Is that so? Has President Obama provided direction or guidelines for what he expects from Congress?

This is a problem that demands strong leadership. The only special interest that should be calling the tune is the public’s special interest. Mountaintop removal should be banned. We should move rapidly to terminate coal use except where all emissions are captured.

The truth is that the climate problem cannot be solved without taking on special interests, specifically the coal industry. That is possible. The coal industry is but a fraction of what it once was; alternative industries will be far more beneficial to the nation and provide better jobs.

President Franklin Roosevelt, for the general good, took on more powerful special interests. Margaret Thatcher showed that the coal industry is not omnipotent. This does not mean that coal workers should be abandoned – on the contrary, it would be straightforward to have programs in the affected states that provide support and opportunities for all of today’s coal workers.

President Obama is our best hope, perhaps the only hope, of achieving real change in the near term. But we have to level with him. President Obama recently came out with a fullthroated endorsement of Waxman-Markey. Was he properly advised about its contents? Perhaps so, but he chose to overrule the advice? His Science Adviser, John Holdren, has said that he cannot discuss what he has said to the President.

Al Gore probably has the strongest voice that the President would listen to, so assessment on that front is useful. Last year Al called for rewiring America within 10 years – a national electric grid with renewable energies and energy efficiency replacing 100% of coal use. Now he supports Waxman-Markey, which locks in negligible movement in that direction – indeed, the progress in that direction might be greater without Waxman-Markey, and surely would be greater with a rising carbon price. Perhaps “100% carbon-free in 10 years” was only meant as an idealistic goal to be abandoned. But the climate problem demands an actual solution – we must move rapidly toward carbon-free electric energy. Such a result can never be achieved by a top-down, 1400-page, special-interest-driven, coal-fired, prescription.

The route to success is a rising carbon price, with rebate of the money to the public. That is what is needed to allow energy efficiency, renewables, and other carbon-free energy to compete most efficiently against fossil fuels. The rate at which the carbon price increases can be debated. Also it could be argued that some of the money collected should go to energy R&D rather than rebate – I favor 100% rebate because of the economic stimulus it provides and because the size of the rebate would make most people supporters of a rising carbon price. [I have received notes from conservatives who say that they would support a carbon price, rather than Waxman-Markey, but they want me to drop the uniform rebate, which they say is income redistribution. That may be so, but it seems to me that the amount of carbon “tax” that would be paid by wealthy people, even if they have multiple houses and cars, is still small to them – indeed, the fact that personal energy costs are modest is the reason we still need efficiency standards in addition to a rising carbon price.]

India, China and Nuclear Power

The fact that China has passed the United States in current CO2 emissions should not cause us to forget that of the excess 107 ppm of CO2 in the air today, the United States is responsible for three times more than China, so 10 times as much on a per capita basis. Compared to India, we are 25 times more responsible. What is the connection to nuclear power?

In all countries first priority should be energy efficiency, which has tremendous potential. After that comes renewable energies and improved low-loss smart electric grids. Everybody hopes that will be enough, but I cannot find real world energy experts who believe that is likely in the foreseeable future, even in the United States. This is all the more true in India and China, which are even more dependent on coal and have faster growing energy demands.

The current fleet of (2nd generation) nuclear power plants is aging. The 3rd generation plants that are likely to gain construction approval soon have some significant improvements over the 2nd generation, using less than 1% of the nuclear fuel, leaving the rest in long-lived (>10,000 years) wastes. If that were the end of the story, I would not have any enthusiasm for nuclear power. However, it is clear that 4th generation nuclear power can be ready in the medium-term, within about 20 years. Some people argue that it could be much sooner – however, the time required for its implementation is of little importance.

The reason that 4th generation nuclear power is a game-changer is that it can solve two of the biggest problems that have beset nuclear power. 4th generation uses almost all of the energy in the uranium (or thorium), thus decreasing fuel requirements by two orders of magnitude. It practically removes concern about fuel supply or energy used in mining – we already have fuel enough for centuries. Best of all, 4th generation reactors can “burn” nuclear waste, thus turning the biggest headache into an asset. The much smaller volume of waste from 4th generation reactors has lifetime of a few centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years. The fact that 4th generation reactors will be able to use the waste from 3rd generation plants changes the nuclear story fundamentally – making the combination of 3rd and 4th generation plants a much more attractive energy option than 3rd generation by itself would have been.

Of course, nuclear power poses dangers, but that is going to be true in any case – nuclear power is not going to disappear from the planet. The United States will be far safer if it takes a leadership role in helping assure international standards and controls on the nuclear industry. The reason that I bring up this topic again, especially in connection with India and China, is continued over-emphasis on “clean coal,” i.e., carbon capture and sequestration. That technology should be given a chance, but it is doubtful, even if it worked, that India and China will be willing to go to the enormous costs of implementation. On the other hand, they are choking in air pollution. Standardized, replicable nuclear power stations seem a more plausible bet than “clean coal.”

I always make clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy should have first priority, and if they can do everything, great. But we would be foolish to take that as a presumption or to remove options for our descendants. It was a mistake to terminate the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power at Argonne Laboratory in 1994, but we still have the best expertise in the world. They deserve much more support, and we should be working in full cooperation with China, India, and other countries.

Civil Resistance: Is the Sundance Kid a Criminal?

Another truth that has become apparent: our climate/environment leaders are not people located in Washington. The leaders are members of the public who understand the situation and have the courage to act on it. I met a couple of them recently:

Tim DeChristopher, the University of Utah student, who, realizing that it makes no sense to be going after the last drop of oil on pristine public lands, outbid the oil companies for drilling rights. He has been charged with two felonies (because he had no money to pay for the drilling rights) and is threatened with 10 years in prison (he is facing about $100,000 in legal costs -- you can contribute to his defense at http://www.peacefuluprising.org/).

You can see a rationale for Tim’s defense in the above charts. The efforts of fossil interests to go after every last drop of oil may leave his generation with a $12 trillion cleanup bill – that’s just for restoring the air (removing 30 ppm of CO2), without consideration of payment for damage due to rising seas – and what is the price of species exterminated?

Larry Gibson is the Mountain Man near Coal River Mountain who refuses to let Massey Energy blow up the mountain where he lives and his relatives are buried. In my last post http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090625_CoalRiverMountain.pdf
I mentioned Gibson, a target of drive-by shootings. These are the people with real courage – it made me nervous just to ride in Gibson’s pickup in hostile territory. Larry and I both have pleaded not guilty to charges of obstruction during the protest on 23 June 2009 and are requesting a trial.

On the subject of civil resistance (Mahatma Gandhi explains why civil resistance, as opposed to civil disobedience, is a better philosophy; “The Essential Gandhi,” L. Fischer, Vintage Classics), a recent note from Damian Carrington of The Guardian and Observer reads:

Given your involvement in the Kingsnorth trial, I thought you would be interested to know the result of the trial of the 29 people that stopped a coal train going to Drax. They were found guilty of the main charge after the judge ruled out the necessity defence. We have covered the trial extensively (unlike our competitors) and you can if you wish read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/activism

Their closing statement is quite something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/02/drax-protesters-defence-sum-up

I would very much like to include your reaction to the verdict. Could you send me a line or two? I responded that they are right to keep the focus on the necessity defence. Civil resistance is not easy, but if governments continue to abdicate their responsibility to citizens, in favor of special interests, it seems essential. Strength comes from realization of rightness of course, and should be increased, not diminished, by temporary setbacks.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf

Idaho National Laboratory: Fourth-generation nuclear power technologies

[BLOGGER'S NOTE: OK, you all know that normally I do not post anything at all commercial, but I thought the information about 4th-generation nuclear power on the webpage below might be of interest to some of you.]

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

Nuclear Advances We are coordinating the Generation IV Nuclear Systems Initiative - an international effort to develop the next generation of nuclear power reactors. Home Newsroom About INL INL Distinctive Signatures Research Programs Energy and Environment National and Homeland Security Nuclear Energy Other Programs Facilities Research Library Education Community Outreach Visitor Information Technology Transfer Working with INL Careers Environment, Safety & Health Calendar of Events ATR National Scientific User Facility Center for Advanced Energy Studies Next Generation Nuclear Plant Operated by BEA for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy

Next Generation of Reactors The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) is part of the federal government's effort to advance commercial nuclear reactor designs beyond the current generation that is being deployed around the world. Additionally, the NGNP is a key component in the Administration's plans to develop the hydrogen economy. Another important purpose of the advanced nuclear demonstration plant is to produce hydrogen on a large scale. The technology involved in the NGNP is sometimes referred to as the very-high temperature reactor and is one of six concepts selected in 2002 by a group of countries who joined together to form the Generation IV International Forum. The Generation IV Systems selected in 2002 are: Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR): a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with a once-through uranium fuel cycle Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR): a high-temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactor that operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR): features a fast-neutron-spectrum, helium-cooled reactor and closed fuel cycle Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR): features a fast-spectrum lead of lead/bismuth eutectic liquid metal-cooled reactor and a closed fuel cycle for efficient conversion of fertile uranium and management of actinides Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR): features a fast-spectrum, sodium-cooled reactor and closed fuel cycle for efficient management of actinides and conversion of fertile uranium Molten Salt Reactor (MSR): produces fission power in a circulating molten salt fuel mixture with an epithermal-spectrum reactor and a full actinide recycle fuel cycle View the Gen IV and NGNP Deliverables. View the Industry Consortia and Collaboration Information. Page Contact Information: Teri Ehresman (208) 526-7785 Email Contact

Link to the above webpage: https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1361&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=2&mode=2

James Hansen to Barack Obama: Profound disconnect between public policy and the magnitude of the climate change problem

NASA climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama

by James Randerson, science correspondent, The Guardian, January 2, 2009

One of the world's top climate scientists has written a personal new year appeal to Barack and Michelle Obama, warning of the "profound disconnect" between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the problem.

With less than three weeks to go until Obama's inauguration, Professor James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asked the recently appointed White House science adviser Professor John Holdren to pass the missive directly to the president-elect.

In it, he praises Obama's campaign rhetoric about "a planet in peril," but says that how the new president acts in office will be crucial. Hansen lambasts the current international approach of setting targets through "cap and trade" schemes as not up to the task. "This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity," the letter from Hansen and his wife, Anniek, reads.

The letter will make uncomfortable reading for officials in 10 US states whose cap and trade mechanism -- the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative -- got under way yesterday. The scheme is the first mandatory, market-based greenhouse gas reduction program in the U.S.

Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem. First, he wants a phasing out of coal-fired power stations -- which he calls "factories of death" -- that do not incorporate carbon capture. "Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen -- caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source," the Hansens wrote.

Second, he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend." This is a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so that high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.

Finally, he urges a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel.

Hansen argues that the current emphasis on reduction targets combined with carbon trading schemes make it too easy for countries to wriggle out of their commitments. He cites the example of Japan's increasing coal use, which it has offset by buying credits from China through the clean development mechanism -- an instrument set up by the Kyoto protocol -- yet China's emissions have continued to increase rapidly. China has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest polluter in the world.

Hansen has been one of the most prominent advocates of action to tackle climate change since he first spoke on the issue in the 1980s. His testimony to the Senate featured in Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," and he has received numerous honours for his work on the issue, including the WWF's top conservation award.

Professor's wish list

• Moratorium on and phasing out of coal power stations without carbon capture, what Hansen calls the "sine qua non for solving the climate problem." Coal CO2 emissions are the same as those of other fossil fuels combined.

• Raising the price of emissions via a "carbon tax and 100% dividend." This is a tax mechanism to "decarbonise" the economy without a net take from taxpayers. Low carbon users are rewarded while high users are punished.

• Urgent research on "fourth generation" nuclear power with international co-operation. This offers one of the best options for nearly carbon-free power, according to Hansen. It would also help to solve the nuclear waste problem by using that material as fuel.

Link to article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen

James Hansen to Obama on 4th generation, integral fast (IFR) and liquid-fluoride thorium nuclear reactors (LFTR)

From the Brave New Climate blog:

Hansen to Obama Pt III - Fast nuclear reactors are integral

Posted by Barry Brook on 28 November 2008

Nuclear energy? Pah! Too dangerous (risk of meltdown or weapons proliferation), too expensive, too slow to come on line, insufficient uranium reserves to power more than a small fraction of the world’s energy demand, blah di blah blah blah blah. There is certainly plenty of opposition out there to nuclear energy in any way, shape or form. Nuclear is bad news, it’s a distraction, it’s a carry over from the cold war, it’s old school thinking. And so on.

Well, the above is what the majority of environmentalists and pacifists would tell you. And there is some very solid reason for scepticism about the widespread use of nuclear power, especially Generation II nuclear fission reactors (I suggest we keep the ones we’ve got, but don’t bother with any more of them). But in the brave new world of the Sustainability Emergency (climate crisis + energy crisis + water crisis + mineral crisis + biodiversity crisis, etc.), we simply haven’t got time or scope for such hard-line negativity. We need every solution we can lay our hands on — and more for good measure.

Hansen is willing to talk about nuclear energy. I am too — given chronic intermittency issues with large-scale renewables and the need for plenty of extra energy to fix huge looming problems with hanging together a sophisticated civilisation on a habitable planet, it’s got to be in the mix. Indeed, in the long run, it, in the form of fusion power, could well be the only form of energy that matters to humanity (if we manage to get through the post-industrial crunch, that is). There are plenty of tantilising prospects for safe, effective, long-term baseload power from 4th+ generation nuclear fission power. But for now, there is just nowhere near enough action ($$ and willpower) on the R&D and roll out front.

Hansen explains this in part III. He also goes into more detail on this issue in his earlier Trip Report, which I also quote below…

————————————————————–

Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth (Part III of IV)

Dr James E. Hansen

Nuclear Power. Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.

There is about a million times more energy available in the nucleus, compared with the chemical energy of molecules exploited in fossil fuel burning. In today’s nuclear (fission) reactors neutrons cause a nucleus to fission, releasing energy as well as additional neutrons that sustain the reaction. The additional neutrons are ‘born’ with a great deal of energy and are called ‘fast’ neutrons. Further reactions are more likely if these neutrons are slowed by collisions with non-absorbing materials, thus becoming ‘thermal’ or slow neutrons.

All nuclear plants in the United States today are Light Water Reactors (LWRs), using ordinary water (as opposed to ‘heavy water’) to slow the neutrons and cool the reactor. Uranium is the fuel in all of these power plants. One basic problem with this approach is that more than 99% of the uranium fuel ends up ‘unburned’ (not fissioned). In addition to ‘throwing away’ most of the potential energy, the long-lived nuclear wastes (plutonium, americium, curium, etc.) require geologic isolation in repositories such as Yucca Mountain.

There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons ‘fast’ during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely burn the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only sever decades, thus largely solving the nuclear waste problem. The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors. Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate buildup of long-lived nuclear waste.

The United States chose the LWR development path in the 1950s for civilian nuclear power because research and development had already been done by the Navy, and it thus presented the shortest time-to-market of reactor concepts then under consideration. Little emphasis was given to the issues of nuclear waste. The situation today is very different. If nuclear energy is to be used widely to replace coal, in the United States and/or the developing world, issues of waste, safety, and proliferation become paramount.

Nuclear power plants being built today, or in advanced stages of planning, in the United States, Europe, China and other places, are just improved LWRs. They have simplified operations and added safety features, but they are still fundamentally the same type, produce copious nuclear waste, and continue to be costly. It seems likely that they will only permit nuclear power to continue to play a role comparable to that which it plays now.

Both fast and thorium reactors were discussed at our 3 November workshop. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at the Argonne National Laboratory, and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFR keeps neutrons “fast” by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. It also makes fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFR can burn existing nuclear waste, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name “integral”) and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shutdown safely under even severe accident scenarios.

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWR’s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100–300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

The common presumption that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready until 2030 is based on assumption of "business-as-usual.” Given high priority, this technology could be ready for deployment in the 2015–2020 time frame, thus contributing to the phase-out of coal plants. Even if the United States finds that it can satisfy its electrical energy needs via efficiency and renewable energies, 4th generation nuclear power is probably essential for China and India to achieve clear skies with carbon-free power.

————————————————————–

MORE by Hansen on the same topic, with some extra details and a book recommendation for further reading…

Trip Report - Nuclear Power

On one of my trips I read a draft of “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees, which I highly recommend. Let me note two of its topics that are especially relevant to global warming. Blees makes a powerful case for 4th generation nuclear power, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). IFR reactors (a.k.a. fast or breeder reactors) eliminate moderating materials used in thermal reactors, allowing the neutrons to move faster. More energetic splitting of nuclei releases more neutrons. Instead of using up less than 1% of the fissionable material in the ore, a fast reactor burns practically all of the uranium. Primary claimed advantages are:

(a) The fuel is recycled on-site, incorporating radioactive elements into new fuel rods. The eventual ‘ashes’ are not usable as fuel or weapons. The radioactive half-life of the ashes is short, their radioactivity becoming less than that of naturally occurring ore within a few hundred years. The volume of this waste is relatively small and can be stored easily either on-site or off-site.

(b) The IFR can burn the nuclear ‘waste’ of current thermal reactors. So we have a supply of fuel that is better than free – we have been struggling with what to do with that ‘waste’ for years. We have enough fuel for IFR reactors to last several centuries without further uranium mining. So the argument that nuclear power uses a lot of fossil fuels during uranium mining becomes moot.

(c) IFR design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem. The terrorist threat can be minimized by building the reactor below grade and covering it with reinforced concrete and earth.

Wait a minute! If it’s that good, why aren’t we doing it? Well, according to Blees, it’s because, in 1994, just when we were ready to build a demonstration plant, the Clinton Administration cancelled the IFR program. Blees offers a partial explanation, noting that Clinton had used the phrase “You’re pro-nuclear!” to demonize rivals during his campaign, suggesting that Clinton had a debt to the anti-nuclear people. Hmm. The matter warrants further investigation and discussion. It’s not as if we didn’t know about global warming in 1994.

Even more curious is the assertion that Argonne scientists, distraught about the cancellation, were told they could not talk about it (why do I find this easy to believe?). Here too there is no explanation in depth, although Blees notes that the Secretary of Energy, Hazel O. Leary, was previously a lobbyist for fossil fuel companies (my gosh, is everybody in Washington an ex-lobbyist – alligators will go extinct!).

I have always been agnostic on nuclear power. I like to hope that, if our next President gives high priority to a low-loss national electric grid, renewables will be able to take over most of the power generation load4. Wind and solar–thermal are poised to become big players. IEA’s estimate that renewables will only grow from 1% to 2% (by 2030!) can be dismissed due to IEA’s incestuous relation with fossil industries – nevertheless, one must have healthy skepticism about whether renewables can take over completely. Maybe an understatement – I’m not certain.

Blees argues that it made no sense to terminate research and development of 4th generation nuclear power. Was it thought that nuclear technology would be eliminated from Earth, and thus the world would become a safer place?? Not very plausible – as Blees points out, several other countries are building or making plans to build fast reactors. By opting out of the technology, the U.S. loses the ability to influence IFR standards and controls, with no realistic hope of getting the rest of the world to eschew breeder reactors. Blees suggests, probably rightly, that this was a political calculation for domestic purposes, a case of dangerous self-deception.

Bottom line: I can’t seem to agree fully with either the anti-nukes or Blees. Some of the anti-nukes are friends, concerned about climate change, and clearly good people. Yet I suspect that their ‘success’ (in blocking nuclear R&D) is actually making things more dangerous for all of us and for the planet. It seems that, instead of knee-jerk reaction against anything nuclear, we need hard-headed evaluation of how to get rid of long-lived nuclear waste and minimize dangers of proliferation and nuclear accidents. Fourth generation nuclear power seems to have the potential to solve the waste problem and minimize the others. In any case, we should not have bailed out of research on fast reactors. (BTW, Blees points out that coal-fired power plants are exposing the population to more than 100 times more radioactive material than nuclear power plants – some of it spewed out the smokestacks, but much of it in slag heaps of coal ash. See http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3614/dirty_smoke_signals/ re the effect of this waste on Native Americans in the Southwest, as well as ‘Burning the Future,’ above, re the Appalachians.)

I don’t agree with Blees’ dismissal of the conclusion of most energy experts that there is no ‘silver bullet’; they argue that we need a mix of technologies. Blees sees a ‘depleted uranium bullet’ that could easily provide all of our needs for electrical energy for hundreds of years. His argument is fine for pointing out that existing nuclear material contains an enormous amount of energy (if we extract it all, rather than leaving >99% in a very long-lived waste heap), but I still think that we need a range of energy sources. Renewable energies and nuclear power are compatible: they both need, or benefit from, a low-loss grid, as it is more acceptable to site nuclear plants away from population centers, and nuclear energy provides base-load power, complementing intermittent renewables.

BTW, nuclear plants being proposed for construction now in the U.S. are 3rd generation (the ones in operation are mostly 2nd generation). The 3rd generation reactors are simplified (fewer valves, pumps and tanks), but they are still thermal pressurized reactors that require (multiple) emergency cooling systems. France is about to replace its aging 2nd generation reactors with the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR); a prototype is now being built in Finland. According to Blees, OECD ranks EPR as the cheapest electric energy source, cheaper than pulverized coal – that evaluation doubtless presumes use of a standard design, a la the French procedure for its 2nd generation reactors. The prototype in Finland, according to reports, is running behind schedule and over budget – that was also true in the prior generation, yet the eventual standard French reactors have been economical. Current efforts to start construction of 3rd generation nuclear plants in the U.S., so far, do not seem to have achieved a standard design or to have avoided project delays (partly due to public opposition) that drive up costs.

Blees argues that the 4th generation technology basically exists, that the design will be simplified, especially due to the absence of a need for emergency cooling systems. He foresees a standard modular construction of the reactor per se, smaller than earlier generations, which can be built at the factory, shipped to the site, and dropped in the prepared excavation. His cost estimates have this nuclear power yielding cheaper electricity than any of the competition. The system is designed to eliminate long-lived nuclear ‘waste’ and minimize proliferation dangers. There is enough fuel available without further uranium mining to handle electricity needs for several centuries, for whatever fraction of electricity needs cannot be covered by renewable energies. If these claims are anywhere close to being correct, we could phase out use of fossil fuels for electricity generation over the next few decades.

I do not have the expertise or insight to evaluate the cost and technology readiness estimates. The overwhelming impression that I get, reinforced by the ‘boron’ topic below, is that Blees is a great optimist. But we need some good ideas and optimism. The book contains a lot of interesting insights and tidbits, e.g., there is more energy available in the nuclear material spewn out as waste by coal plants than the amount of energy produced by the coal burning. The book will be available in about a month; see his web site www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com

Link to Brave New Climate blog post: http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/