Energy Secretary Moniz - Climate change calls for expanded use of nuclear power

[FBaggins]

ON ENERGY

As we approach the upcoming Paris climate negotiations, the threat of climate change calls for expanded use of nuclear power. We are urging for a higher profile for nuclear power as a solution in that meeting.

The U.S. Government has partnered with U.S. industry to support the licensing of SMRs as a key technology innovation.

http://vienna.usmission.gov/150914gc.html

[peacebird]

1. No. It calls for expanded solar and wind power.

[FBaggins]

2. It calls for both

But this was a presentation where Moniz was bringing word from President Obama to the IAEA.

No doubt that had it been to a different audience, renewables would have been included in his statement.

[99th_Monkey]

3. So the more Fukushimas the better apparently? This is alarming, to say the least. -nt-

[FBaggins]

5. It's alarming that that's your response... yes

If the government proposes new interstate bridges to ease traffic congestion and improve our transportation infrastructure... would it make sense to say "So the more I-10 collapses the better apparently?"

Of course not.


Millions die every year from the emissions from coal power plants (and billions will be impacted by the climate change this position hopes to fight), yet not a single person has been killed by radiation from Fukushima, and the expected impact to health is too small to expect it to be identifiable... yet you're alarmed?

Unfortunate.

[99th_Monkey]

6. "expanding nuclear energy" facilities = alarming yes

I live on the West Coast, where the onslaught is just now peaking, but it'll be reaching
pretty much everywhere soon enough. Yes, doubling down on nuclear is insane.

Report: Fukushima fallout detected in U.S. fish — Dose equal to samples caught 100 miles from plant — Persistently high levels detected in marine life offshore “not anticipated… orders of magnitude” more than expected — “Measurements needed… along predicted plume trajectory”
http://enenews.com/report-fallout-japan-reactors-detected-freshwater-fish-radioactive-dose-equivalent-fish-caught-100-miles-fukushima-reactors-ongoing-measurements-needed-along-predicted-plume-trajectory

West Coast of North America to be Slammed by 2016 with 80% As Much Fukushima Radiation As Japan
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/west-coast-of-north-america-to-be-slammed-by-2016-with-80-as-much-fukushima-radiation-as-japan.html

Fallout from radioactive Fukushima rising in west coast waters
http://o.canada.com/news/fallout-from-radioactive-fukushima-rising-in-west-coast-waters

[GliderGuider]

4. To be accurate, climate change calls for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

From what I've seen so far, the use of low carbon energy sources like wind, solar, hydro and nuclear are all additions to the world's current use of fossil fuels. Their addition has generally served to maintain economic growth.

I am very skeptical that current proposals for low carbon energy additions will trigger a reduction in FF use given the required degree and time frame of the reduction (perhaps on the order of an 80% reduction within 20 years). IMO this cannot be done while maintaining, let alone increasing, global economic output.

The whole nuclear vs renewable energy bun-fight is an enormous red herring. But hey, as long as y'all are having fun from now to Götterdämmerung.

[Nihil]

7. Correct response.

So often the actual need (dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption) is being ignored
or masked by the partisan responses (*must* be nuclear, *must* be wind & solar).

The end result of this is, as you stated, fossil fuel consumption will not be reduced
significantly - although occasional cosmetic changes might take place - but it will simply
be supplemented by the low/zero emission fuels in order to maintain that sacred
cow above all other sacred cows: short-term profit (or "growth" as it is sometimes termed).

[kristopher]

8. Actually it's simplistic and almost certainly incorrect.

It is nothing more than "all of the above" and everything we Know about the integration of new technologies tells us we need to build a new energy system, not modify the old one.

The all of the above approach is the view of someone who doesn't understand that the "machine" created when you link variable renewables is incompatible with the existing machine built around large scale centralized thermal generation.

The incompatibilities of these Two Different Machines lie in 1) their internal economic 'circuit-boards' that enable their construction and operations and 2) the demands of physical properties/operating characteristics that govern the economics.

It simply doesn't work; and no matter how much some people think nuclear as part of the solution should work - it doesn't. Over the past 60 years it has been developed specifically as a technology that seamlessly integrates into the economic interests behind the carbon-based system. That alone should give any reasonable person cause to question claims that it is a desirable element of a global decarbonization effort.

The fastest route away from fossil fuels is promoting renewable energy sources with every policy we can muster. We aren't where we were 23 years ago when the world came together at Rio and claims such as you and GG just made are, at best, disingenuous. We've spent that time building a manufacturing base and laying the policy/economic groundwork for deploying renewables at the scale needed to solve the problem. Why don't we now work together to finish the job with what we know will work?

[Nihil]

9. It's a correct statement of what *is* happening, not what *should* happen.

I completely agree with you that nuclear only works with the existing centralised power
generation system and that it *shouldn't* be deployed in favour of renewable energy
sources on the same scale.

I also agree with you that "we need to build a new energy system, not modify the old one".

Furthermore, I agree with you about "the incompatibilities of the two different machines"
(as you term it), that the longer that centralised power plants are being built (regardless
of technology), the slower the actual decarbonisation movement will progress and that
"the fastest route away from fossil fuels is promoting renewable energy sources with every
policy we can muster".

In other words, I totally agree with you on what should happen.

That is not incompatible with agreeing with GG on what is happening.

The point that "we need to build a new energy system, not modify the old one" is valid
but sadly lacking in implementation, even after all the years of "agreement" that it is
"the right thing to do". Consequently, a lot of the renewable resource that has been
developed & deployed over that time is still maintaining the old (pro-fossil-fuel-model)
energy system, even to the extent that the concept of the "large solar/wind farm" is
seen as the go-to renewable generation source rather than the distributed generation
model: it is seen as a profit centre for a business and so is aimed/directed to use the
least disruptive (hence least expensive) way of fitting into the model of the funders.
Unfortunately, the funders are usually the same people who are making shit-tons of
profit from large dirty fossil fuel plants so that is exactly how they weight the playing
field for any additions. A new model is needed. The old model is here, now.

Yes, community level renewable deployments *are* increasing - especially in the more
remote communities that have the least reliable mainstream power feeds - and that is
brilliant. We need more of it - much more.

Yes, a couple of the oldest coal plants *have* been retired (usually at excessive cost
to the taxpayer & consumer - no different from the old nuclear plants there either).

Yes, some of the oldest nuclear plants *have* been retired.

We need more - much more - of both of the above.

My agreement with GG is that we are not getting anything like the amount of FF/NP reduction
that we need in order to have a fighting chance at reducing CO2 output significantly.

And the elephant in the room is the large increase in natural gas generation: more
fossil fuel extraction (in wasteful & horribly polluting ways), transportation & combustion.

Most sensible, forward-thinking & concerned people agree that renewables are the only
path that will allow a future for any form of our civilisation in the future. Unfortunately,
the people who are making the decisions, (most of) the people who advise them and
(many of) the people who vote for them do not fit into the former category.

Hence we are stuck in extreme slow motion: knowing where *we* want to be, knowing
*how* to get there and looking around to see everyone else merrily plowing along in
the same old business as usual manner as for the last few centuries. That applies in
both the over-consumptive West and the over-populous East. The result is what has
been stated.

[kristopher]

10. No, it isn't.

To be in the state you describe would take us back to about 1990.

It is no a secret that the roll out, on a global scale, of these new technologies and their integration into all their varying application systems is going to require a well understood process to occur. We are well into that process. We know the problem. We know the solution. That by itself is a hugely consequential and time consuming part of the process.

Not only do we know the technical solutions, we also know the policy solutions and who is the opposition to the implementation of those solutions and what their tools and strategies are.

Those politically and economically powerful opponents are (and have long been) frightened. While it is true that they bought themselves some time with various strategies and ploys that time has run out. There are no more pockets of power for them to tap into that can stop their extinction.

They are obsolete. They have some existing influence, but there is no growth for them. From here on out the trajectory of growth in political and economic influence VASTLY favors the technologies that are replacing the present system. This point where the new winners within a new system are a sum force greater than what is present from the obsolete system marks the lynchpin of the effort to decarbonize. It is inevitably a point that must be achieved before any meaningful cultural change is possible.

To ignore that progress and what it signifies about the actual future rate of change is so fundamentally wrong of an act that it leaves your comments in the category of "'incessant defeatist'. The unremitting defeatism and naysaying is truly detached from reality. At every step of the way since I've been here the group whose opinions you typify have been wrong to the same degree that those who championed the Iraq War were wrong.
According to the DUEE realist party -(whose members consider any optimism regarding renewable energy, no matter how grounded in reality, to be equivalent to and I quote "unicorn farts&quot - right now we should be in the midst of a strong successful effort to expand nuclear globally.

The reasons people believed it are irrelevant - they believed it and spoke positively about it in relation to climate change. They were wrong.

Similar mistakes are present regarding the pace of deployment and cost trajectories for renewables.
Wrong, and wrong for precisely the same reason they were wrong about nuclear.

Forgive me please, it is not my intention to be rude, only honest when I say that the impact of consistent errors in analysis comes with a price. And that price is weighted against your current view of the state of progress in the battle.