Critics Blast Climate Scientists Going To Bat for Nuclear Power

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/03-2



Amidst the ongoing Fukushima disaster in Japan and the broader failure of nuclear power, a call by some scientists and others for environmentalists and green groups to embrace the energy source in the name of fighting climate change is being met with a firm rebuke.


Ahead of CNN's airing this week of what critics have described as a misleading and propaganda-laced pro-nuclear film called "Pandora's Promise," four climate scientists on Sunday released a letter of their own calling on "those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power" to change their position.

Though unaffiliated with the controversial film, the pro-nuke letter was signed by James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia. In the letter, the scientists ask individuals and groups concerned about global warming and climate change to demonstrate their commitment to the threat "by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy."

Unconvinced, however, many environmentalists voiced deep concerns about the pro-nuclear pitch and responded with derision, if not disgust.

[Demeter]

1. Thank you, X

Such refutation is sorely needed, especially on DU.

I saw last night's pro-nuke post from our local "glow worm", and didn't have the strength to go to bat.

[oldhippie]

2. But, I thought we liked James Hansen?

What happened? Wasn't he supposed to be on our side?

[PamW]

3. It was only a "marriage of convenience"

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

oldhippie,

I've noted that the core beliefs of some are rooted more in being anti-capitalist, rather than being pro-environment.

The "window dressing" of being pro-environment is just a masquerade to cover up the true motivations.

As long as the message from the scientists could be cast as anti-business, because they're the polluters; the "environmentalists" are fine with the scientists and support them. It's the "tribal response" discussed in Scientific American:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/06/10/will-pandoras-promise-start-a-new-environmental-movement-for-nuclear-power/

However, let the scientists stray from the anti-business path; and the "environmentalists" want nothing to do with them.

Again, it was purely a "marriage of convenience". Environmental issues aren't the true motives. Economic motives are.

PamW

[caraher]

15. What a fun game that anyone can play...

I've noted that the core beliefs of some are rooted more in being pro-industry, rather than being pro-environment.
The "window dressing" of being pro-environment is just a masquerade to cover up the true motivations.

As long as the message from the scientists could be cast as pro-industry, because they're the employers; the "environmentalists" are fine with the scientists and support them.

However, let the scientists stray from the pro-industry path; and the "environmentalists" want nothing to do with them.

Again, it was purely a "marriage of convenience". Environmental issues aren't the true motives. Economic motives are.

[PamW]

21. Example?

caraher states
As long as the message from the scientists could be cast as pro-industry, because they're the employers; the "environmentalists" are fine with the scientists and support them.

Could you give us an example?

When did the scientists deviate from the pro-industry message, and in response, lost the support of the environmentalists?

PamW

[kristopher]

4. We do.

He has a singleminded dedication to his craft and his cause that we sorely need. This isn't breaking any new ground; it has been going on for 5 years now. If you can find anything from Hansen that supports his policy arguments with the level of detail Romm provides, I'd like to read it. What I see from the coverage has some some gaping holes in it - primarily the one about renewables not being an adequate resource. There really is no cogent argument supporting that position.

An open letter to James Hansen on the real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm
BY JOE ROMM ON NOVEMBER 23, 2008 AT 8:24 PM

To James Hansen (and his fellow 350 ppm-ers):
You make a compelling case we must ultimately return atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million to avoid catastrophic climate impacts (see “Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al“).

But you have made an uncompelling case about how President-elect Obama should go about achieving 350 ppm in your new draft essay Tell Barack Obama the Truth — The Whole Truth and in previous essays (see here). You are, for instance, overly dismissive of cap-and-trade and overly enamored of a carbon tax, when, in fact, neither holds any prospect whatsoever of achieving your goal. Your discussion of as-yet non-commercial 4th generation nuclear technologies is equally off the point, as we’ll see.

If the truth is that we must have a target of 350 ppm, then you must be equally truthful in insisting on national and international policies that could achieve that goal. So far, you haven’t. Nobody has.

I have yet to seen anybody lay out just what is required to achieve 350 ppm from an energy technology and policy perspective, so let me do so here using the incredibly demanding carbon targets from your paper...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/23/203377/an-open-letter-to-james-hansen-on-the-real-truth-about-stabilizing-at-350-ppm/

The discussion continues

Hansen mostly recycles myths in his mostly pointless attack on U.S. climate action
BY JOE ROMM ON JULY 9, 2009 AT 8:46 PM

UPDATE: Predictably, Swift Boat smearer Morano has made Hansen’s post his top story at ClimateDepotted, again revealing that Hansen’s recent attacks are helping the deniers and delayers.

Much as I am happy to devote many Climate Progress posts to publicizing Hansen’s leading edge climate science analysis (see links below), I am unhappy to have to waste any time at all debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis (see “Memo to Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn’t going to be a carbon tax nor should there be. Get over it and move on” and “Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country’s top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?“).

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing — and with the country’s top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people. Hansen has just written, “G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change” for The Huffington Post.

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the “counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey,” which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths — and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Hansen claims “For all its ‘green’ aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/07/09/204353/nasas-james-hansen-pushes-false-misleading-and-pointless-attack-on-u-s-climate-action/


Other contemporaneous coverage of Dr. Hansen.

Phase out coal and burn trees instead, urges leading scientist
Current targets on emissions are 'a recipe for global disaster, not salvation'

BY GEOFFREY LEAN , ENVIRONMENT EDITOR SUNDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2008

Humanity must urgently embark on a massive programme to power civilisation from wood to stave off catastrophic climate change, one of the world's top scientists has told The Independent on Sunday.

Twenty years ago, Professor James Hansen was the first leading scientist to announce that global warming was taking place. Now he has issued a warning that a back-to-the-future return to one of the oldest fuels is imperative because the world has exceeded the danger level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Growing trees, which absorb the gas from the air as they grow, burning them instead of fossil fuels to generate electricity, and capturing and storing the carbon produced in the process is needed to get the greenhouse effect down to safe levels, he says.

Professor Hansen's assertion that there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will alarm governments and environmentalists, who are concentrating on the already daunting task of limiting its build-up, while allowing it to rise well above present levels. However, his views will command respect because, as director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for the past 27 years, he has been one of the few climate scientists ready to risk his reputation by openly stating what many suspect to be true.

In 1988 Professor Hansen ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/phase-out-coal-and-burn-trees-instead-urges-leading-scientist-929889.html

I know your nuclear loving heart is having palpitations over the kind words of support Dr. Hansen has expressed for your cause, but that aspect isn't actually what has captured my attention.

You can see by the final snip above the level of desperation that Dr. Hansen is experiencing and that, in turn is affecting the nature of his decision-making regarding solutions to the problem.

So his long string of indefensible policy proposals are understandable to me. But, also creeping out of that same set of facts is the one showing us one of the most knowledgeable men in the world on the subject of climate change is literally scared out of his senses.

That is a potent thought for me that has nothing to do with nuclear.

[oldhippie]

5. So what I get from your post, especially the end ......

You can see by the final snip above the level of desperation that Dr. Hansen is experiencing and that, in turn is affecting the nature of his decision-making regarding solutions to the problem.

So his long string of indefensible policy proposals are understandable to me. But, also creeping out of that same set of facts is the one showing us one of the most knowledgeable men in the world on the subject of climate change is literally scared out of his senses.

.... is that anyone who disagrees with your thinking on this must be somewhat mentally deficient.

[kristopher]

6. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

...but not their own facts; and the claim about the capabilities of renewables is simply untrue.
Also, I wouldn't consider "mentally deficient"to be a proper or accurate characterization of the effects of desperation.

Are you saying the recommendation that we should start using wood and CCS is a well thought out policy proposal? He developed that at about the same time he became infatuated with LFTRs.

[oldhippie]

7. "Are you saying ... ?"

Uh, no. But thank you for the splendid example of your technique of changing subjects and deflecting discussion of the actual subjects of posts.

[NickB79]

9. You have a problem with wood biomass as well?

I recall jpak used to trumpet here how his home state (Maine or Vermont, I forget) was going into woody biomass in a big way.

For example: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/new-england-cranks-its-wood-burning-stoves

“The city of Montpelier is laying a grid of hot water delivery systems to the downtown, tying off of a wood chip heating plant. That’s a very innovative project that we’ll see more of.”

Right now, the Northeast only gets four percent of its heat from wood. But an industry study say that share could increase to almost 20 percent if projects like the one in Montpelier catch on.

[kristopher]

12. Biomass is an important part of a renewable solution

But it is, ultimately, a small part. As a mainstay of the global effort to sustainably wean us off the carbon teat, it doesn't take a great deal of research to understand that biomass simply wouldn't work. It's role as a dispatchable complement to wind and solar, however, will in some regions be critical.

Nuclear is even more obviously a flawed strategy if someone has actually done their homework.

And that is sort of the point.

[NickB79]

11. What I get out of that exerpt is this

Dr. Hansen, the man with probably the most "inside knowledge" of what's REALLY going on with the climate, is scared shitless by what he sees coming down the pipeline. He's willing to throw caution to the wind, because the alternative is LITERALLY the death of billions by the end of the century due to climate change.

Yet all around him, people are mindlessly going about their business like nothings happening or like they have plenty of time to fix the problem, blithely making plans about "by 2050 blah blah blah", etc, etc. They're fucking zombies, shambling towards a cliff they can see but unwilling to turn away from.

If anything, I'd say that makes those who disagree with Dr. Hansen the mentally deficient ones.

[kristopher]

13. Being scared doesn't qualify me to attempt to solve the problem by...

... becoming a climate denier. And that is roughly equivalent to what Hansen is doing on the solution front. His appreciation of the risk should be a wake up call, but it doesn't magically transform the characteristics of nuclear power into a good solution for climate carbon. It is too costly, too slow to deploy, it comes with risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and meltdowns that are fraught with the potential for causing us to abandon huge amounts of precious low carbon infrastructure.

I've asked this a number of times and always get nothing but crickets in response - what do you think the public reaction will be globally if/when another meltdown occurs that doesn't get wondrously blown out to sea and instead takes with it a major population/economic center?

What will happen then to all of the investment of low carbon dollars in nuclear?

[Nihil]

14. "... by becoming a climate denier. And that is roughly equivalent to what Hansen is doing ..."???

Your wording could be improved as - even with his apparently pro-nuclear views - there
is no way that the words "climate denier" should be used anywhere in conjunction with
Hansen. (And yes, I did read it correctly hence am not accusing you of "calling" him one.)



I agree with major points of your post:
> it doesn't magically transform the characteristics of nuclear power into a good
> solution for climate carbon.
> (nuclear power) is too costly, too slow to deploy, it comes with risks of nuclear weapons
> proliferation and meltdowns

Above that, it neither could nor should be grown as human society (if not human nature)
is most definitely NOT in a suitable state to be trusted with such a technology.


In order to drown out your "crickets":
> what do you think the public reaction will be globally if/when another meltdown occurs
> that doesn't get wondrously blown out to sea and instead takes with it a major
> population/economic center?

Blind ignorant panic. Screaming headlines and overpaid irrelevant commentators. Again.


> What will happen then to all of the investment of low carbon dollars in nuclear?

Even more of it will be wasted in knee-jerk responses that will do nothing to make
the world safer. Still, I suppose someone will get votes (and that means pocket money kids!)
for "forcing through" policy changes that will benefit the coal & gas industries far
more than the renewable energy ones.

The silver lining for this would be that no new nuclear power stations would be built
in an even wider segment of the world but the cloud overwhelming it would be dirty,
black & deadly - both in the short term (particulate & heavy metal pollution will kill
more than radiation) and the long term (the pulse of CO2/NOx/CH4 that warms the
atmosphere & the oceans will cause the deaths of millions and will not be as easy
to remediate as simply putting a "Closed" sign on the front of a power station).


Still, I suppose a cynic would say that the cloud itself is really a silver lining as it
will bring forward the events that are currently being brushed under the carpet by
all of the usual liars at the moment in order to preserve their profits ... that can only
be a good thing as it will put more focus on fixing the problem (and, hopefully, the
painful punishment of those in charge of causing it).

[kristopher]

17. That is an astounding reply

I asked what do you think the public reaction will be globally if/when another meltdown occurs
that doesn't get wondrously blown out to sea and instead takes with it a major population/economic center?

And you think the response to the loss of a major city, like Tokyo, is best characterized as "Blind ignorant panic" And that the global reaction amounts to, "Screaming headlines and overpaid irrelevant commentators. Again. Even more (or our investment) will be wasted in knee-jerk responses that will do nothing to make the world safer."

You certainly are channeling a lot of your inner Nnads lately.

[Nihil]

18. Only when you cherry pick to support your long-term prejudice (and predictable smears).

You ask ridiculous questions and act surprised if the reply that you get ridicules the
attitude consistently being demonstrated even today, years after the Fukushima event.

You ignored my supportive agreement for the sensible side of your question and
latched onto my dismissal of the media's distortions of any fact combined with
the guaranteed response from the drooling herd of morons who lap it all up.

Will this "meltdown" do a Gundersen and magically blow up in the mushroom cloud
to end all mushroom clouds? Or kill all of the fish in the sea? Or heat up the nearby
ocean (somehow)?

Or will it simply drive the final nail into the coffin of the nuclear industry?

By "merely" spreading even more toxic pollution across the planet, will it cause people
to realise that the slugs they've voted/appointed to make important decisions have
(yet again) abrogated their responsibility for the sake of personal gain? Or will they
go back to their zombie-like apathy after they've had their little 5-minute hate?

Will it finally promote a move away from toxic methods of fueling mindless consumerism?

Will it lead to some form of Utopian global civilisation that doesn't promote the vampiric
practices where a tiny, tiny fraction of the population not only has the literal power of
life & death but daily exercises that power on a whim?

Or will such lofty goals be drowned out by the sensationalistic blather of the irrational
media companies so that the end result is circumvented in order to preserve the blessed
Business As Usual?

What do *you* think Kristopher?

[kristopher]

19. I think...

...we are all humans and that you have little capacity for dealing with reality or feeling actual empathy for those in the midst of it.

I didn't pick your expressions here, you did.

I asked what do you think the public reaction will be globally if/when another meltdown occurs that doesn't get wondrously blown out to sea and instead takes with it a major population/economic center?

And you think the response to the loss of a major city, like Tokyo, is best characterized as "Blind ignorant panic" And that the global reaction amounts to, "Screaming headlines and overpaid irrelevant commentators. Again. Even more (or our investment) will be wasted in knee-jerk responses that will do nothing to make the world safer."

Prime Minister Kan has shared this concerns that Tokyo would need to be evacuated and perhaps abandoned. The winds during the crisis phase were largely out of the West and blew by far the largest percentage of the contamination out to sea. Had those same winds been from the ENE/NE his fears would have been realized.

Forgetting the human toll, simply the financial toll would probably be more than a trillion dollars. And when you add in the jolt to a nation that such an event would cause, the cost is incalculable.

The fact that you fail to see that as an monumental 'bad' and the reaction from the lay public as a reasonable and inevitable part of the human landscape that hosts the problem we are trying to solve is, as I wrote, "astounding".

So, I did not cherry pick, act out of irrational prejudice, nor "smear" anyone. You however, have been steadily escalating with a series of what can only be described as malice-laden, anti-social carping aimed at me personally. I get it, you don't like me - now please take a hike, it will be better for your blood pressure.

[Nihil]

20. Nice try.

>> You certainly are channeling a lot of your inner Nnads lately.

> ... you have little capacity for dealing with reality or feeling actual empathy for those in the midst of it.

> ... malice-laden, anti-social carping ...

No, no smearing going on anywhere around here.


> You however, have been steadily escalating with a series of what can only be described
> as malice-laden, anti-social carping aimed at me personally.

You are imagining things again - both for the content and the idea that it is "aimed" at you "personally".


> I get it, you don't like me

If you'd actually read the posts rather than made so many snap responses to what your prejudice
suggested you'd read, you'd know better. As stated (several times) before, I appreciate most of
your posts. It's a shame that the few where I dare to disagree with your opinion have apparently
given you the opposite idea (or was that just an attempt to sway a jury?).


> - now please take a hike, it will be better for your blood pressure.

My blood pressure is fine thanks but it's kind of you to think of it!

[GliderGuider]

8. I sympathize with Hansen.

I even tried out that position myself last year. Then I thought about it a little more, and recanted.

He seems to be teetering on the edge of saying we can't fix it, but perhaps because he has children he can't bring himself to take that final step. The resulting combination of frustration and cognitive dissonance may be causing him to clutch at straws. And make no mistake, that's what this is - a very thin straw indeed.

[NickB79]

10. Under the bus with you, Hansen!

Who didn't see this coming, really?

[kristopher]

16. Joe Romm responds to Hansen etal

To Those Who Want To See Nuclear Power Play A Bigger Role In Climate Action
BY JOE ROMM ON NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AT 5:41 PM

<snip>

As a practical matter, environmental groups have had little impact on the collapse of nuclear power in America. The countries where nuclear has dead-ended are market-based economies where the nuclear industry has simply been unable to deliver a competitive product (see “Two Years After $500 Billion Fukushima Disaster, Nuclear Power Remains Staggeringly Expensive”). Indeed, despite having U.S. taxpayers swallow most of the risk for the high-cost of new nukes through the loan guarantee program and most of the risk of a major nuke disaster through the Price Anderson act, the industry has been unable to provide a competitive product.

Objectively, then, the groups who have been most successful in thwarting the much-hyped nuclear renaissance are those who blocked efforts to make nuclear power more cost-competitive. And the best, most market-based way to make nukes more cost competitive is to put a serious and rising price on carbon pollution that starts to reflect the harm it does to public health and a livable climate.

So those like Hansen, Emanuel, Wigley and Caldeira who want nuclear power to be a major contributor to solving the climate problem should be addressing themselves to those who are blocking serious climate action, not those who have been devoting vast resources to trying to put a price on carbon.

<snip>

(regarding LFTR technology - k) It would be astounding if a technology that exists only in PowerPoint presentations — magical small, cost-effective, fail-safe nuclear reactors — could possibly be researched, developed, demonstrated, and then scaled up faster than a host of carbon-free technologies that are already commercial today. And remember, most of those technologies, like solar and wind, have actually demonstrated a positive learning curve, unlike nuclear reactors!

...

More at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/04/2882671/nuclear-power-climate/