Hansen misguided about value of nuclear

[kristopher]

Comment on “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power”
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401667h | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6715−6717
© 2013 American Chemical Society

Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen have made a contribution in their article about the benefits of nuclear power.1 However, issues of technology systems integration deserve added attention as well as addressing a few errors. Though there is some logic underpinning the notion that nuclear power can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as a “stabilization wedge”,2 we argue that (a) its near-term potential is significantly limited compared to energy efficiency and renewable energy; (b) it displaces emissions and saves lives only at high cost and at the enhanced risk of nuclear weapons proliferation; (c) it is unsuitable for expanding access to modern energy services in developing countries; and (d) the authors’ estimates of cancer risks from exposure to radiation are flawed.

First, nuclear power reactors are less effective at displacing greenhouse gas emissions than energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy technologies. According to one early study, each dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces nearly 7 times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power.3 McKinsey & Company’s cost abatement curves have repeatedly affirmed this point, concluding that nuclear power is a significantly more expensive mitigation option than investments in efficiency, waste recycling, geothermal, and small hydro- electric dams, among others.4

<snip>

In sum, Kharecha and Hansen’s article is incomplete and misleading. Energy efficiency and renewable energy should be front and center in any campaign to address environmental pollution and climate change - they should not appear, as Kharecha and Hansen treat them, as an afterthought. If wind energy is truly 96 times as effective as nuclear power at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, then it may have saved - and can save - 96 times as many lives. Renewables and efficiency also get you faster climate protection as well as more carbon displaced per dollar expended.
The urgency of world hunger does not require us to fight it with caviar, no matter how nourishing fish eggs might be. In the end, buying the most expensive remedies first will only diminish what we can - and must - spend on more promising approaches.25 Given the opportunity costs involved, nuclear power could reduce and retard the climate protection the authors so rightly seek.

http://www.nirs.org/climate/sovacool-et-al-hansen.pdf

[Demeter]

1. Nuclear enthusiasts always ignore the "fallout"

on every front. We can live with using less energy, truly we can. We just have to stop doing some of the stupid stuff, by law, if necessary. Like storing brazillions of phone calls in secret computer stockades for decades....the electricity for that alone would run a small state.

[GliderGuider]

2. Do energy efficiency initiatives really displace GHG emissions?

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

On a global level? I'd need some proof to buy that one. They certainly let the global economy expand faster, but as long as the carbon intensity of the global energy mix remains unchanged, improved efficiency doesn't help the emission problem. It s the same concern I have about touting renewables for being displacive rather than additive. According to the CO2 emission records they are not displacing carbon.



The best one can say is that with efficiency improvements we can get more economic activity out of the same amount of energy (which is what's happening) but until the carbon intensity of the energy mix begins to decline, we aren't addressing the actual problem. the actual problem is the rising absolute levels of carbon being pumped into a finite atmosphere.

Just as renewables aren't solving the real problem, neither will nuclear power. In global terms, nuclear power seems a very poor choice because of issues with safety, cost, technological complexity and applicability.

As far as I can see, the only thing that will solve the emissions problem within the time window of the next two or three decades is the involuntary reduction of global economic activity, due to hitting some kind of a limit.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Do we have efficiency initiatives on a global level?

Because, if we don’t your measure isn’t terribly helpful.

Try looking at “carbon intensity" somewhere where efficiency initiatives are in place.



Here is the “Reference Case” projection for the US.




And here we have a range of cases, including [font color="purple"]high economic growth[/font], [font color="green"]low economic growth[/font], [font color="blue"]high oil prices[/font] and [font color="red"]low oil prices[/font].

[GliderGuider]

4. Efficiency initiatives are both local and global

The local ones are obvious, but the global ones would include the diffusion of higher-efficiency technologies through market forces - higher-efficiency automotive designs are an example.

But the "global level" I was talking about is actually the fact that CO2 is a global crisis. Having one nation reduce its emissions while another increases three times as much due to economic growth and the relocation/offshoring of high-emission production doesn't help the global picture - CO2 doesn't respect national boundaries. If the world's aggregate CO2 emissions go up, the fact that American emissions are down is cold comfort to Botswana.

[kristopher]

5. That has nothing to do with the OP

And your perception of the benefits of energy efficiency is as much a scientific outlier as the perception of those who think global warming is caused by sunspots.

You've taken the minor rebound effect that is an actual facet of energy efficiency and with no evidence made it into the absurd claim you've stated above. I've seen you perform this same funky, inbred analysis on other topics and you've yet to be correct even once.

Of course, it does serve the interests of the nuclear energy industry to pretend that energy efficiency isn't effective, so I don't expect you'll be entering the mainstream any time soon.

[GliderGuider]

8. I'm not talking about a minor rebound effect

I'm talking about the growth of the global economy, ad driven in part by increased energy supplies, and in part by increased energy efficiency.

It was really a peripheral point about the validity of the perception that efficiency helps reduce CO2 emissions. It may look look it does, but only if you draw the system boundaries in unrealistically close.

That cavil aside, there's no question that Hansen is wrong about the value of nuclear power - even more wrong, in fact than the boosters on here and at places like RMI are about renewables..

[kristopher]

12. What evidence do you have that a lack of energy has curtailed development?

Global energy resources are very, very abundant. The problem isn't, except in some very narrowly defined cases, a shortage of energy resources.

The problems with global development (poverty, hunger, disease etc) are far more complex than that and are rooted in cultural structures that fail to adequately distribute resources. Like food, there is plenty of energy, it simply doesn't get to the right people.

Your theory lack any sort of logical consistency with any evidence that exists outside of a few poorly correlated charts you've built.

What do you actually know about energy usage by individuals?

What prompts high individual consumption, how does it develop?

How does the individual's relationship with the source of energy supply factor into their energy usage habits?

What changes result in decreased consumption?

How, according to your theory, does that decreased individual energy consumption result in creating local conditions for increased energy usage by an individual living in an extremely impoverished region of the world?

Is the path that you posit unalterable?

[GliderGuider]

14. ??? I never said a lack of energy has curtailed development.

I maintain that energy and other goods get to the "right" people as defined by our economic distribution system - not necessarily those who need it, but those who can pay for it.

IMO high individual consumption accrues to those higher up the energy/power utilization hierarchy, both as individuals and as societies. A lot of that has to do with the luck of the draw, like the USA and MENA having high amounts of fossil fuels on their territories, just as Britain did before them with coal.

What reduces individual consumption? Usually a change in financial circumstances. It might saturate at some point, but for most of us there's always a bigger yacht to buy, or another safari to go on to see/kill the remaining wildlife. With adequate money, consumption is a devilishly hard thing to saturate. The old want/need conundrum.

[kristopher]

15. that's what I thought

You really haven't got a handle on the existing body of knowledge on this topic, GG.

When I was 10 I spent the summer with an Aunt that was a herbalist. She shared some of her knowledge with me and I was fascinated. My cousin and I spent a great deal of our time that summer "finding" plants that we just knew were going to help cure some ailment or another.

Of course, that was literally child's play, but that is exactly the pattern of behavior I see in your various efforts to 'discover' some meaningful knowledge that will make fulfill you.

Can I recommend that you at some point stop the childish approach of trying to find grand solutions to problems you don't understand? Bite the bullet. go to the library and start doing some reading to learn the body of knowledge that forms the basis for our present understanding of how things work.

THEN, you will be in a position to improve on that knowledge. The idea that you are going to make some momentous discovery coming at it from the outside is suited to a 10 year old on summer vacation, but ill suited to a man of your advancing years.

[GliderGuider]

16. Mmmm. Gee thanx.

Go read something, eh? What a mensch.

[oldhippie]

17. Silly GliderGuider .....

Nobody here is as smart as Kristopher. He has read all the experts in the field (the ones from his acceptable sources, anyway.)

[GliderGuider]

18. Not the first time I've been criticized for colouring outside the lines.

Though rarely in such a condescending tone.

[kristopher]

19. Whatever - I thought i was suggesting the most basic rule of authorship...

...write about what you Know.

Instead you continue to act like that 10 y/o who wants the glory without the work. It's is a solid pattern with you GG. Maybe it's time you tried something new.

[GliderGuider]

22. Unsolicited personal advice from a stranger on the internet

is rarely welcome. Especially when it's couched in derogatory language, and comes from someone that one has an adversarial relationship with. I'm not sure why this is a surprise to you.

[kristopher]

24. Hardly a stranger.

We've been having this same discussion for 5 years - I probably interact more frequently with you than I do with my children.

Grow up.

[GliderGuider]

27. What's your name?

I know nothing about you beyond the adversarial relationship we've had from the beginning. That began with your objections to my position and my unwillingness to alter that position as a result.

I will discuss energy matters with you, but your personal comments are out of line.

[kristopher]

28. Grow up.

[GliderGuider]

29. So I don't get to know your name?

I guess a hug is out of the question too, then. This does not bode well for our long-term friendship, Mr./Ms. X...

[oldhippie]

35. Nor his qualifications ......

... whatever they may be.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. OK, so is it your contention that Botswana would be better off if US emissions were going up!?

Or is it your contention that Chinese emissions are going up, because US emissions are going down?

US emissions are going down. That’s a start.

[GliderGuider]

7. My contention is that the USA has outsourced its manufacuring

If you buy Chinese products, you own part of Chinese emissions. Reducing your direct emissions while not counting the indirect ones is an illegitimate shell game. It's not a start until you're consuming less.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. I don’t believe that is a sufficient explanation

[caraher]

11. It's also worth considering why emissions went down in that graph

The last 4 points are 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Looks like an economic crash followed by a wobbly recovery, rather than a fundamental change from "business as usual" with respect to climate.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. What does the EIA have to say?

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_carbonemiss.cfm

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…


The projected growth rate for U.S. energy-related CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions has declined successively in each Annual Energy Outlook since AEO2005 (see Figure 13, which shows projections starting with AEO2009), reflecting both market and policy drivers. Using 2030 as a common year, the AEO2006 projection for total energy-related CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions was 8,114 million metric tons, with coal accounting for 3,226 million metric tons (40 percent) and natural gas 1,452 million metric tons (18 percent). In AEO2010, total energy-related CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions had dropped to 6,176 million metric tons in 2030, with 2,296 million metric tons (37 percent) coming from coal and 1,315 million metric tons (21 percent) from natural gas. In AEO2013, the 2030 values have fallen to 5,523 million metric tons for total energy-related CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions, with 1,874 million metric tons (34 percent) coming from coal and 1,468 metric tons (27 percent) from natural gas. The change reflects both market and policy factors, including the adoption of tighter economy fuel standards, the implementation of efficiency standards, and a continued shift to less carbon-intensive fuels.[/font][/font]

[caraher]

10. Yes, that is the problem with most accounting schemes for greenhouse gases

Surely it's escaped nobody's attention that manufacturing is in a decades-long decline in the US, but not consumption. And places like China are "booming." Declining US emissions are scant cause for celebration if we've merely exported manufacturing elsewhere.

And even more challenging, we've exported our appetite for overconsumption as well.

[kristopher]

13. That really isn't relevant to the OP.

Energy efficiency is a part of an approach to energy provision and use. The economics of large scale centralized thermal systems is such that overbuilding energy production is a way of driving the type of 'overconsumption' you are referencing.

When energy efficiency is spoken of in contexts such as the OP the reference is to an energy system where usage is closely much more linked to an awareness of the full costs of production - a situation brought on by distributed generation by local microgrids that are locally owned and networked over large regions in a highly redundant fashion.

There is a distinct, well documented change in behavior regarding energy usage that accompanies this change in systems.

[joshcryer]

21. Earlier post where we discuss "energy efficiency."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112734326

[joshcryer]

20. They don't dispute the 64 gt saved by nuclear power.

They don't dispute the deaths caused by GHGs.

All they do is say that Hansen used a lower bound for Chernobyl. And of course they cite Jacobson's numbers on nuclear power (which never use Gen IV reactors in the calculations).

Naturally, they chastize Hansen for not counting renewables or energy efficiency in a nuclear power related article, when he has put those two things at the top of his list of things to mitigate AGW. It's a really low blow, to be sure.

Priorities, in order, for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy are steps to: (1) improve energy efficiency, (2) develop and deploy renewable energies, (3) modernize and expand a ‘smart’ electric grid, (4) develop 4th generation nuclear power, (5) develop carbon capture and sequestration capability.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

The authors of the article are clearly not versed in Hansen's actual position on nuclear power when all he was doing was effectively a paper napkin calculation on it.

[kristopher]

25. They are dealing specifically with what he signed his name to in that paper.

If he doesn't agree with the content of the paper he should have not signed onto it as an author.

[joshcryer]

30. No, they are deflecting.

Would you expect a paper on the extinction of the Pyrenean Ibex to discuss the Passenger Pigeon? Indeed, would you discredit a paper on the Pyrenean Ibex extinction simply because it did not discuss the Passenger Pigeon?

Because that's basically what these idiots did. They dismissed Hansen when his own policy position agrees with them.

[kristopher]

31. Then Hansen doesn't agree with Hansen.

What he wrote in the paper is clear - and wrong.

Suggest you go back to your comic books, reality is a bit too much for you.

[joshcryer]

32. They did not say his methods were wrong.

They pointed out (their own biased and misguided) flaws in the methods, and then deflected, completely and utterly, on policy positions that Hansen agrees with them on.

[kristopher]

33. I think I'm corresponding with...

...a random word generator.

I should know better.

[joshcryer]

34. Oops, I forgot, you're the guy who bought Nordell's nonsense.

Why would I expect you to understand a comment on a paper...

[WovenGems]

26. Until a

A permanent fix for the glowing shit problem or no more nuclear power sites. As it is we are gonna have a SuperFund nightmare on our hands as these sites age out.