Green Life: Let’s Burn Our “Renewable” Body Oil instead of Fossile Oil to Reduce American Addiction to Petrolium.”

Green life style can:

(A) Reduce American addiction to car driving, petrolium, carbon dioxide emissions;

(B) Reduce health care costs due to high rates of weight-related obessity, heartattacks, strokes, diabeties, or weight-related singlehoods; and

(C) Improve sanity, mental health of people, corporate executives, and politicians.

Global Warming: Nuclear Energy Replacing Coal? – Four Reasons to say “Nay, Not a Good Idea !”

There was a Huffington Post blog by Mr. Steve Kirsch that suggests to focus the available financial resources for reducing emission on replacing coal with nuclear energy source, instead of introducing “Cap and Trade” bill or other alternatives. There are several issues that don’t welcome this idea.

First, my scientist husband says that (A) nuclear energy source is not actually cost-efficient at all. Generating electricity with this energy source alone may be cheap. But dealing with the after mess of nuclear wastes after producing electricity is another costly process, which makes this energy source expensive.

Second, we have witnessed the troubles caused by Iran and North Korea. Iraq was attacked by the Bush administration under the false suspicion of this issue. “Nuclear Weapons!” (B) The proliferation of nuclear energy technologies endangers world peace as these technologies can be easily switched to produce nuclear weapons. When President Obama is endeavoring and having hard time to put Iran and North Korea under control and restrict their development of nuclear weapon, “Why On Earth,” anyone wants to take the risk of distributing, delivering the same dangerous technology worldwide?

Considering above (A) and (B), don’t we think (C) safe and endlessly available wind and solar energy would be better? Until these energy sources can be developed to be mature, consumer market competitive pricewise (which takes time),  the government can subsidize the companies of these renewable energies to let them set their market prices low/competitive, or impose higher taxs on other types of energy products. This kind of government subsidy may be more productive for this country’s economy and future than other types of subsidies.

Third, in terms of reducing emission, exploring multiple methods, including cap and trade, to reduce emission would be better than introducing one or a few methods. So, in case one method doesn’t work, still we can resort to others. There’s no such a thing with 100% certainty !

Fourth, (D) malfunctioning US politics. During the first year of Obama administration, we have seen the chaos and the destruction of special interest politics in sabotaging the health care and financial sector reforms. Under this torturously twisted political system of this country, do you believe a reform in energy sector will be smoothly achievable?

UPDATE Two:

It appears that the administration is going to announce loan guarantees to develop nuclear power industry, in continuation of Congress’s approval of $18.5 billion for nuclear loan guarantees in 2005. Please check below wetsites.

Obama Administration To Announce Loans For Nuclear Power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/obama-administration-to-a_n_405948.html

UPDATE One: There were several comments to my above comment at the Huffington Post Blog by Mr. Steve Kirsch. Some are informative, so I present them here with the commenters’ nicknames.

“sethdayal” comment: Husband didn’t read Steve’s article.

All previous generation nuclear waste is fuel for the IFR. The IFR itself produces a tiny amount of waste so low level that is it really the same as high grade uranium ore. Put it back in the mine.

It would be extremely difficult and far too expensive to make nuclear weapon from a power reactor so nobody ever has. North Korea will sell you a cheapo Chernobyl type reactor design for a few bucks to make a bomb.

99% of the worlds energy comes from countries who already have nuclear weapons or are unlikely to make them (Canada). The rest can buy their reactor fuel from Canada.

Solar/wind costs 10 to 30 times nuclear and generally produces more greenhouse gases than they save. We are as little as ten years from a civilization ending climate/peak/ air pollution crisis. Only nuclear can save us in time.

Nuclear is 100% certain- been using it for 50 years now. Renewables will never be cost effective except in remote applications. Cap n trade is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic – useless.

Republicans love nuclear. Only Democrat politicians like Obama need reeducation.

“The Husband” (my real husband): Show me one IFR that has burned up any nuclear waste yet. There are none. Europe has shipped waste between countries for reprocessing. It created more waste than was there to begin with.

In principle you are right: IFR and other options (Thorium, accelerator driven sub-critical reactors) can solve many of the problems with conventional nuclear energy, including limited fuel, nuclear waste, and to some extent proliferation.

In practice the nuclear monopoly has not delivered, is only interested in maximizing their profits at the expense of public safety and health, and will be the last place I would look for a solution to the climate crisis.

You need to read up on solar, wind, and other renewable energies. Your statements are ridiculously out of date. If you put the same subsidies into renewables that nuclear has enjoyed, they will be cheaper than coal very soon.

Finally, the fact that Republicans love nuclear is a direct consequence of the fact that it is run by a (quasi-)monopoly, not because it helps the climate, which (so far) it does not.

“Sethaday” comment: Actually nuclear waste is burned all the time as MOX in France, the Soviet Union and Canada.

The Idaho IFR burned nuclear waste as part of its thirty years of testing but Clinton shut it down after complaints and campaign donations from Big Oil.

Indian just dropped the dome into place on its version of the IFR.

Any mythical nuclear subsidies have been paid for already, lets enjoy the benefitd.

Lets form a national nuclear public power company and build the plants on the site of existing coal operations. We can save the big profits for ourselves.

Goggle Arcadia solar and Texas wind china and get yourself up to date with the latest real costs of solar and wind power $35B/Gw and $12/Gw respectively + $12/Gw in natural gas plants required to load balance the things. Far more costly than new nuclear.

Wind and solar are already getting hundreds of billions in subsidies wordlwide through massive 2 to 15 times market rate feed in tariffs.

For whatever the reason Republicans love nuclear so if only the much more intelligent Democrats can get educated, a “Nuke the Nation” bill saving the lives of millions of Americans by eliminating coal plants should easily past through congress.

“The Husband” comment: Yes. Twice through is better than once through ‘cycle’. And there are current and former test reactors.
It is all far from being at a scale where it has an impact. (I am not arguing that it is impossible, just saying that clean nuclear technology is not at all widespread whereas dirty nuclear technology is.)

“Lets form a national nuclear public power company and build the plants on the site of existing coal operations. We can save the big profits for ourselves.”
I would like that. But short of a revolution that installs a benevolent dictator, how are we really going to get there?
The Republicans surely will drop their support when you talk about public anything.

I don’t know what your numbers mean for the cost of wind and solar power (installation cost? Operation for a certain number of years? With what assumptions?) It is rather difficult to honestly compare the costs of different technologies. I do think that wind and solar are becoming competitive. The key is to use the right renewable energy for a given purpose in a given area. Not one shoe fits all.

Load balancing is a big deal. But nuclear power can not be ramped up or down quickly either. (Accelerator driven sub-critical systems would be different.)
We have to upgrade the grid to use non-local storage capacity. Pumping water to high lakes, pressurized air in caves, using excess capacity to generate hydrogen for transportation, etc.

“vakibs” comment:

Mikyung Lim, (A) Dealing with nuclear waste is not at all costly. It is only a very tiny fraction of electricity produced by nuclear. Secondly, the kind of nuclear reactors that Steve champions (the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR) produce no long-lived nuclear waste. They eat existing nuclear waste and depleted Uranium to produce power.

(B) Nuclear weapons are proliferating without nuclear power. The newer version of reactors (like the IFR) are more proliferation resistant than the older ones. Secondly, using nuclear power inside the developed countries (which already possess stockpiles of nuclear weapons) is unrelated to the proliferation issue.

(C) Wind and Solar power have serious limitations in the quantity of power they can produce, they are not endless. These limits are dictated by the power-density, and because of the finite amount of land that we possess. They also use a lot more raw material, metals and freshwater than nuclear.

(D) Multiple options should be explored. But cap™ is just a serious delusion with too many loopholes. We need a straight-forward carbon fee÷nd.

“The Husband” comment: (A) The nuclear waste currently in the US is already exceeding the capacity of the only repository that was planned and now has been found to not be feasible. It is eating huge amounts of money and resources.
You are right on the IFR. However, the nuclear power industry is not pushing it. They just want to prolong the profits they make with existing technology.

(B) You are right, but between “more proliferation resistant” (IFR and similar) and “completely unrelated to nuclear technology in any way” (solar, wind, waves, geothermal, etc.) the second category wins.

(C) No, you are wrong here. The solar power input to the earth surface is on average 1000 W per square meter. This is a _huge_ amount. It means: If we would cover just a tiny fraction of the Arizona desert (or, equivalently, suitable roofs in every city), we could easily generate more energy than the entire United States is using. With existing technology, with all the losses and the current level of efficiency.
While some early solar cells were fabricated by using harmful chemicals, there is now a multitude of technologies for both wind and solar using friendly materials and processes. To argue that wind and solar are environmentally harmful is plain silly.

(D) Yes. I agree 100% with the statement that multiple options need to be part of the solution. No single technology has the potential to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions singlehandedly.

Reference: ”The Most Important Investment that We Aren’t Making to Mitigate the Climate Crisis” by

Steve Kirsch, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/the-most-important-invest_b_402685.html

Copenhagen: Clash between Developing and Developed Countries in Reducing Emission Levels

There appears to be conflicts between developing and developed countries in Copenhagen Climate Summit. The Obama administration and developed nations try to make China, India, and other developing countries commit to significant, binding actions of reducing carbon emission as fututhey are expected to be the major polluters of the world (accounting for 97 percent of the future growth in emissions). Developing countries insist that, because developed countries caused the current conditions of global warming via their industrial activities throughout history, they have to take more aggressive actions of cutting emissions and provide financial/technical support (i.e., $10 billion per year) of clean energy technologies to developing nations (Reference: “Copenhagen Explained: A Game of Double jeopardy “ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/copenhagen-explained-a-ga_n_388790.html).

At this point, I would like to get into an “Essential”, potentially useful, side track of experimenting with multilateral negotiations of climate change in conjunction with the mechanism of world trade, “Cooperation of Global Climate and Trade Regimes” ! (at least, it sounds eloquent !). If the current Copenhagen Summit does not deliver desirable agreement of cutting emission levels, what about working with the World Trade Organization (WTO) to further facilitate climate negotiations and obtain developing countries’ (expecially China and India) strong commitments to this global cause?

What is the merit of involving WTO in climate talks? Developing countries, such as China and India, have achieved their economic growth that have been mainly fed by exports. Therefore, their need to meet WTO conditions to maintain, secure their favorable trade positions may provide vital negotiation / bargaining leverage in maneuvering climate talks if they are tied to WTO talks. In this way, WTO may provide strong, additional bargaining power to Climate Deals. Does this sound convincing?

I talked about the potential WTO effect on Climate negotiations on my Apr 26th, 2009 blog at mybarackobama.com website.

http://mikyunglim.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/thoughts-of-connecting-energy-climate-issues-with-the-commercial-trade-rules-of-wto-as-fair-conditions-for-global-trade-and-industrial-competitiveness/

Thoughts of Connecting Energy, Climate Issues with the Commercial, Trade Rules of WTO as Fair Conditions for Global Trade and Industrial Competitiveness

-This blog was posted on mybarackobama.com website on Apr 26th, 2009.-

There has been news about Republicans and some Democrats’ skepticism about current Energy Proposal that emphasizes the increasing supply of renewable energy and “cap-and-trade” measure to control CO2 emission. Their claim of opposition is that these measures “increase costs for consumers, send jobs overseas, and hurt businesses.”

I also read, the administration reportedly intends that the energy bill does not conflict with international trade rules to prevent any disruption on US exports. And there has been the suggestion of negotiating a new “international climate change agreement” to obtain nations’ long term commitment to control emission. As President is scheduled to meet the world leaders of major economies to discuss the energy crisis, “EU calls on US to help lead global fight for climate change”, and small nations ask for more drastic measure from industrialized economies to control extreme weather changes including flood, rising sea levels, and extreme weather changes, there seems to be a increasingly better chance to get international agreements and support on energy and climate issues.

As I observe the changing international and domestic politics, and as the current opposition to the energy legislation is labeling this bill as a potential source of increasing energy costs and taxes, and weakening US industrial and trade competitiveness of, I would say, “tradable goods” in both world and domestic markets along with domestic jobs, I would like to discuss the alternative ways of dealing with these problems.

I am not certain about the practicability of this suggestion, and I don’t have specific information on how costly or cheap these new energy sources from wind, sun, waves or other renewable sources can be, especially in the beginning stages of their industrial or commercial applications. Common knowledge has been that new technologies, inventions, developments, and prototypes of newly developed products usually tend to be relatively expensive in their initial stages of development and introduction to market / commercial usages. It usually takes time for industries and markets to get accustomed to new types of technologies and products and refine / reshape their production methods / technologies into commercially cheaper and cost efficient mass production system.

Assuming that these renewable energy sources and technologies may need a bit of transitional period to mature and become mass, standardized, cost-effective energy sources to consumers and industries, and to reduce the possible disadvantage of US manufacturing of tradable goods in the initial stages of switching to these new energy sources if the administration governmental consumption of renewable energy sources, the administration may continues to pursue US consumer, industries, and government to switch to renewable energy sources, I would like to suggest the followings:

1.      In the beginning stage of pushing the consumption of renewable energy to consumer, industrial, and federal and state governments, it may be useful to differentiate and wisely choose the proper target groups with different time schedule of adopting renewable energy sources. In the beginning stage of implementing this energy legislation, the administration may choose individual consumer, industries of non-tradable-goods (such as retailing, medical industry, tourism, other service industries), and federate and state governments as the primary target groups to switch from traditional energy sources to renewable energies. And it would be less hurtful for US manufacturing if the administration provides longer, gradual, flexible time schedules for US industries of tradable goods to switch to renewable energy sources so that they gradually adapt to new energy sources. This flexible adjustment period will reduce the chance that the shift to renewable energy sources partially contributes to deteriorating weakening the global and domestic competitiveness of industries of tradable goods.

2.       During the process of implementing (1) as mentioned above, it would be productive to seek international agreements on harmonizing, equalizing global industrial and trade competitive conditions. This effort may include the phased time schedule of incorporating renewable energy sources and emission control worldwide. Requiring these conditions as the prerequisites or fair conditions for global industrial and trade competitions, negotiating memberships, rules, or terms of World Trade Organization (WTO), regional / multilateral trade agreements, foreign market access / investments / bidding for foreign government contracts or procurements, and serving global common cause of fighting climate crisis could prevent from penalizing the manufacturing competitiveness of countries, who actively pursue the fight for global climate crises, because they adopt these measures to protect environments. It is critical to make nations face the same sets of underlying rules and conditions of international industrial and trade competition including energy and pollution issues, and to prevent from disadvantaging, penalizing specific nations’ manufacturing that adopt climate-friendly production methods are critical.

According to political history of negating regional and/or multilateral trade agreements, dealing with labor or environmental standards have proven to be difficult issues as imposing these standards to economies of different GDP sizes have been tough challenges. And multilateral negotiations have been inefficient, time consuming, and often difficult to reach resolutions / agreements. However, recent international political scenes have shown some positive signs regarding climate issues. For example, there have been news reports such as

“European Union environment ministers called on the United States to help the EU lead and finance the battle against climate change.”

“The EU has been the leader of the international debate. We want to keep on and to offer a co-leadership to the US.”

“We need to build a coalition. It cannot be done unilaterally on the EU side,” “It is not only an obligation of the EU to come with fundings and figures… the United States, Japan and all the developed countries should contribute.”

Although EU showed passive attitude toward the “Global Fight with Terrorism” at NATO meeting, the bloc is showing a positive attitude toward dealing with Global Climate Crisis. When both the US and EU, the largest world markets and have strong leverages in world politics and commerce, are so enthusiastic on working together on climate issues, and many small nations are anxious about taking drastic measures to tame climate crisis as natural disasters such as flood, rising sea level, and drought are threatening their nations’ survival, I believe there is better than ever favorable chance of getting international cooperation on adopting renewable energies and emission issues, along with other environmental issues, to their economies and manufacturing.

I also believe, it would be more effective to get international agreements on climate issues if these issues are negotiated along with commercial / trade issues, later of which have been regulated by WTO and regional trade negotiations and have been major economic concerns to both developed and developing countries. I expect that this combination of issues is more likely to motivate both developed and developing countries whose economies are keenly related to exports. Although current global economic downturn may have negative effects on this endeavor and consensus is often tough to reach, the timing and international political environments for negotiating energy / climate issue are more favorable than before.