Japan’s nuclear crisis makes it harder to prevent climate instability

[wtmusic]

"The short-term human and economic costs of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami are staggering.

The long-term repercussions could be worse.

That’s because, even if the situation does not deteriorate any further, the fires, explosions, radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will lead to greater scrutiny–and higher costs–for new nuclear plants.

That will make it harder to develop low carbon energy to replace fossil fuels and avert potentially catastrophic climate change."

http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/53741/japan-s-nuclear-crisis-makes-it-harder-prevent-climate-instability?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[Wilms]

1. *cough*

How does it make it harder to to develop renewable energy? Something tells me it just got a whole lot easier.

The spin is glowing.

[jpak]

2. Nonsense

yup

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Yeah, it's a shame alright

Now, no one will want, "to develop low carbon energy to replace fossil fuels."

“Don’t you go building that wind farm here. I saw what happened in Japan.”

[wtmusic]

4. What happens with wind farms isn't an issue

It's what doesn't happen.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Right!

Hopefully, it means we will waste less time futzing around building new nuclear fission reactors

[FBaggins]

14. You're right.

Oh wait... you meant "like, produce steady reliable power" didn't you?

[wtmusic]

20. Yes. nt

[GliderGuider]

6. What exactly has nuclear power done to prevent climate change so far?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the 6% of global primary energy we get from nuclear power has done anything at all to mitigate AGW. With the tide of public opinion now running solidly against nuclear, it's time to stop tilting at that windmill.

• In 2009 our CO2 output fell by 422 million tonnes, the second greatest drop in the last 45 years. The only other times it fell in that period were in 1973, 1974, 1980, 1981 and 1982. You probably remember what was going on then. In all cases, nuclear power had nothing to do with the reductions, which were due entirely to a drop in oil and coal use due to recessions.
  
• We are now in a recession that is reducing our FF use, and we have hit peak oil which will reduce our use even further as prices escalate. The combination is likely to reduce our CO2 emissions beyond anything nuclear power advocates have dreamed of.
  
• Nuclear power is a complex technology that provides just 6% of the planet's primary energy, needs constant babysitting, and turns quite hazardous if it's left unattended.
  
• Our civilization is quite arguably on the brink of decline, which makes it more likely that FF use will continue to go down, and less likely that we'll be able to babysit nuclear reactors adequately over the long haul.
  
• World public opinion has turned solidly against nuclear power.

Those truly concerned about climate change should build some more wind farms, and perhaps say a prayer of thanks for Peak Oil and the coming stairstep depression that's going put a rather largeish dent in our reckless burning of fossil fuels.

[phantom power]

7. It's 6% that would have otherwise been generated by burning coal.

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Would it? (Who can say?)

Perhaps, if following Three-Mile-Island we had decided that nuclear fission was just too damned dangerous, and we'd made it a priority to shut down the nuclear reactors as fast as we could, then the Reagan administration would have made R&D of alternative sources of energy as high a priority as the Carter administration had.

Perhaps, without nuclear power, by now we'd be burning even less coal than we are today (and not more.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/

…

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

…

[GliderGuider]

9. Since 1965

Nuclear power has potentially spared 2.7% of our CO2 production - less than a year's worth. However, that has been more than offset by indirect CO2 production caused by the economic expansion it permitted. Further, it has not prevented us from burning all the FF we could dig or suck out of the earth, it has merely enabled an extra year's worth of economic expansion over the last 45 years. How important is that dribble of global economic growth, when it was accompanied by its own flood of CO2 anyway?

And now we have all this shit to babysit for the next few hundred years...

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Re: And now we have all this shit to babysit for the next few hundred years...

That would be irresponsible. We should babysit it longer than that.

[phantom power]

12. I'd say the time has never been more perfect to get busy with the renewables and prove me wrong.

It's very very obvious that the already-dubious public opinion on nukes has just taken an enormous blow. This should be a slam dunk, considering how frequently I am assured on this forum that renewables are now more economical than both fossil fuels and nuclear.

I agree with your assessment that continued economic collapse is going to contribute more to reductions in CO2 emissions than anything else.

[GliderGuider]

19. Yes, it's put-up-or-shut-up time for the renewables industry.

:popcorn:

[wtmusic]

11. It's responsible for about 14% of worldwide electricity generation

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/

and we're on the cusp of being able to use electricity practically in transportation, which could mean a quantum step in CO2 reductions. And it's pretty obvious that preventing close to six percent more CO2 is a huge contribution.

Beyond global warming there's a humanitarian issue. There are hundreds of thousands of Africans who die annually from cooking over cookstoves. Tens of thousands of Americans die annually from the impacts of coal. These deaths are very real and far outweigh - on an annual basis - the total number of historical casualties from nuclear power.

I have no doubt that public opinion has turned against nuclear power since Fukushima, but there's no evidence whatsoever that Fukushima didn't perform 100% to specs in an earthquake that was roughly fifty times stronger than for what it was designed. It is pretty clear that if we're going to have thousands of these things in operation the specs have to be revised. Public opinion is reacting predictably, but much for the same reason that might make us want to run out and buy a lottery ticket if our neighbor won the Powerball - it's not rational. They blame regulators, corporations, technology - anything but a once-in-a-millenium earthquake.

[FBaggins]

15. Revisit that post for a moment.

and we're on the cusp of being able to use electricity practically in transportation, which could mean a quantum step in CO2 reductions

Right... but that helps cut down the need for gasoline. It doesn't reduce the need for the generation of electricity. In fact, it increases it signficantly.

So now you're not just replacing 14% of generation... you're boosting demand by another big chunk.

[wtmusic]

18. We would be changing a significantly-CO2-positive source of energy

to a CO2-neutral source.

IMO there's no doubt the cost of nuclear energy will go up, but just like high gas prices that ultimately is a good thing too.

[GliderGuider]

21. How do you distinguish between reducing CO2 emissions and enabling more economic growth?

We may have gotten a smidgen more economic growth out of our CO2 emissions by adding some nuclear capacity, but there's no way to say that we we prevented any emissions. As I said before, the indirect emissions from the extra growth would have wiped out a chunk of even that minor benefit.

Given the risks posed by improperly maintained nukes (even mothballed ones) in a context of declining technological capability, there is no conceivable reason to build any more of the damn things. Build windmills and solar panels if you want to keep on driving to Denny's.

[wtmusic]

22. I refuse to let my GrandSlam™ be a bargaining chip in these discussions.

Make electricity even less accessible, in essence "starve the beast"?

When most of the starvation and suffering will be experienced by other people far away from me, a get a nagging feeling I should be taking their (nameless) concerns into account as well. It's a short jump from there to realizing that starving off populations also means less CO2 output, but we're going downhill fast.

I agree with your basically pessimistic outlook GG, but sometimes it seems inconsistent - rays of hope appear in unlikely contexts. If it was up to me? I'd do my damndest to prolong life on earth as much as possible while minimizing suffering and trying to keep a lid on population growth. IMO nuclear power can help achieve that.

[FBaggins]

13. What's the photo in your OP?

We need to cut back on whatever THAT is.

[wtmusic]

16. Heh, good question.

It was in the OpEd I linked to, but it looks suspiciously like a refinery fire. :shrug:

[FBaggins]

17. Wonder what the health impact of that is on the surrounding population.

Sure looks like a ton of micromorts to me.