The State of the Union on Energy

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush called for an energy agenda having these main points. The complete text of his six paragraphs on energy policy are found in the continuation.

1) Greater use of coal, solar, wind and nuclear
2) Battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles
3) Expand the use of clean diesel vehicles
4) Greater emphasis on cellulosic ethanol
5) Reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years by
     5a) Setting a mandatory Fuels Standard of 35 billion
           gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017
     5b) Adopting fuel economy standards for cars to conserve
           eight and a half billion gallons of gasoline by 2017

I don't really have any objection to these points, except to say that I think we could reduce gasoline consumption by more than 20% by having even higher economy standards for cars and a really good push on batteries and plug-ins, electric cars ought to be included, we ought to include butanol and geothermal in our stable of renewable fuels, we need an a greater effort on more efficient power transmission technologies if we are going to take full advantage of renewable energy sources and we should place a high priority on energy storage technologies.

The best way to encourage better batteries would be to require the post office to replace its fleet with electric vans and require the other government agencies to use efficient hybrids. By the time laws were enacted and RFP's written a couple of years would pass by and the technology would be even better.

The only money we need to spend on coal technology is to encourage IGCC plants and carbon capture technologies, this program is pretty well in place, if more money would speed it up all the better. Getting the money that has been authorized into the budget and released is probable all that is needed.

I know that increased use of coal and nuclear will be controversial among many of my readers, but I don't see any way other technologies can take their place in the next 25 to 50 years. I am sure there are those of you that think that government spending for energy technologies is not necessary, that market forces would provide all the incentives that are needed.  This is too much of a risk. The cost of our liquid fuels are increasing at too high a rate, despite the recent lull, and if we are not to have drastic economic effects we must push on with alternative energy sources before this happens. All the money we need for these programs could come from reducing the subsidies on hydrogen, fuel cells and the oil industry.

"Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists - who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply - and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power - by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol - using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years - thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 - this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks - and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

The complete text of the speech can be found here.

Comments

[Javier]

35bn in capacity for renewables? 5x the current target? I just don't know how they are going to achieve that without cellulosic ethanol, plus from where are they going to get the amount of raw materials?

[Ender]

I see nothing about energy conservation except a small decrease in vehicle fuel consumption.

I can't see how substituting food for fuel will really help. How much cellulostic waste is there really - is there enough?

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

I agree with you James on the >20% by having even higher economy standards for cars. I am hopeful that "globally" - the fuel efficiency improvement variable will be one that will "pull" the US car market along - if there continues to be no further movement by the GOP on this (whilst they remain in power).
I also note that this is the first time "climate" has ever been mentioned by the Republicans in a major speech - that implied an admission that negative changes actually could exist.

A reporter over here correctly pointed out Dick Cheney's "self-comforting action" in his body language at the mention by GWB of the "C" word. I've been wondering over the GOP and Exxon's leadership's psychology of late regarding all this actually... on if they are inherently incapable of "lateral thinking and innovation"? I realise their ideology of "conservatism" sort of rules this out - but I wonder if this is also apparent in their private character also? (when they're not in the public eye)...

Either way - hopeful about this movement - and I don't think the way the US congress is acting that this will be the final move towards better and more sustainable policies that will be seen this year...

Even if Bush vetoes every bill passed by congress till the end of his presidency - doing so will only harm the republicans further - since most of the policies as of yet have been technology and reasonable consumption/efficiency measures - as to probably IMPROVE the US economy! Being mirrored in the EU, China and others

ENDER: There's potentially a 1 Billion ton annual supply of Biomass in the US produced each year - if you want a relevant NREL report let me know...

[Ty Coon]

Javier, The short answer is no. 35 bil gallons of alcohol is not possible without cellulosic production. with it 35bil is just a drop in the bucket. We need to replace ALL 140 billion gallons of gasoline eventually. Why not shoot for that now? Remember we do not have to produce 140X.3=42+140=182 bil gallons of alcohol. If we reduce comsumption that would be great but for right now we can use that as a benchmark for where we need to get to. The battery developments are most exciting to me. Pure EVs will be practical, but they do not fullfil every need. Better batteries make the serial hybrid a viable configuration. We can then choose a number of power sources to turn the gen set. Alcohol, ethanol, butinal, diesel, bio-diesel, straight veggie oil, hydrogen, Steam?( some of the new steam engines are really facinating AND efficient) and maybe some others I've missed. Main point is that we as a nation need to think in terms other than OIL. No amount of domestic drilling is going to make that happen. It might delay oil replacement, but will only hurt us in the long run. That's why Bush's comment about domestic drilling was silly.
I wish people would stop dissing corn alcohol. It may not be the answer, but it's a start and will be PART of the answer. I don't know who said it but "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Let's make as much corn alcohol as possible. Use Cleantech's tech to get the corn oil out of it too. Then lets put up lots of windmills and wave generators. Use any excess power to make hydrogen. Lets build a better electrical grid. put up sunflower crushing plants. Push battery development. AND MUZZLE OIL. If oil companies can't get it though thier thick skulls that they are ENERGY companies and not OIL companies then I say tax them out of existance. Chevron 'looks' like they may have figured that out with thier investment in Cobysis. Maybe not. One thing I do know. The STATUS QUO just won't do.

[barry hanson]

TyCoon:
Why do we need to replace 143 billion gallons of gasoline? That may be what we now use..but that is not what we need, the fact is that we waste 90% of it. That 16 Q can be reduced to less than three Qs OF LIQUID FUEL by using PHEVs. If SOFCs were used for the vehicle energy source the liquid fuel component could be reduced to less than one Q.

[amazingdrx]

Yep Barry, how long can this administration keep PHEVs from being mass produced?

Less than 2 more years! Same time frame as the continuation of the Iraq war. The end of the war will bring an economic boom as confidence returns, consumer, business, and investor confidence.

The factor that fear, the main political tactic of this administration, robs US of.

[Paul Dietz]

Yep Barry, how long can this administration keep PHEVs from being mass produced?

I wasn't aware they were trying to keep it from being mass produced.

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Tycoon, you're neglecting the need to replace 2 million tonnes plus per year of ethylene (via crude refining / cracking / reforming) and about the same amount of proplyene.

This 1 billion tonnes biomass (US figure - probably double including the EU) can give us all the feed for chemicals and commodities we can get out of it
*(if we can get materials economically using clean technology) - then use any of lower value -stuffs (mainly inerts like cellulose) for biofuel production.

This is something I'm involved in...

For a bit of discussion on these - parallel technologies to Alt-energy - have a look at my blog.

The Green Chemistry Technical Blog

If we can get value added chemicals from the biomass efficiently - this will improve the economy of fuels from biomass also... AND AID THE NEXT GEN of BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT!

It's all new chemistry!

[Paul Dietz]

Tycoon, you're neglecting the need to replace 2 million tonnes plus per year of ethylene (via crude refining / cracking / reforming) and about the same amount of proplyene.

xTL would naturally address this. A FT reactor will produce a low-value naphtha side stream that can be used for olefin production.

[jcwinnie]

Where are the GHG emissions standards?

[Harvey D.]

Mass production of affordable PHEVs capable of 80 to 100 mpg (Toyota Prius III - Chevrolet Volts etc) could reduce gasoline-ethanol-butanol consumption from 120 - 140 bilion gallons to 30 - 35 billion gallons per year.

USA can very easily produce enough grain + cellulosic feedstock without overly affecting food supply if gasoline-ethanol-butanol consumption is progressively reduced fourfolds.

Extended use of future EVs should future reduce liquid fuel consumption for personnal transportation.

We have to stop buying over-sized gas guzzlers and buy Hybrids - PHEVs and EVs.

[amazingdrx]

The beauty of PHEVs Harvey, at least the serial version, is that merely by adding batteries the mileage increases even way beyond 100 mpg.

At roughly 200 mpg they have the potential to reduce liquid fuel use to the point where no fuel farming is needed. That point coincides with about a 20 mile plugin range, fairly inexpensive in terms of batteries even before mass production cost efficiencies.

At 400 mpg and 5 dollar per gallon gas, like they have in the rest of the world, the payback on the extra cost of PHEVs would be very fast. Once mass production takes hold pHEVs would actually be cheaper than internal combustion vehicles, due to fewer computer chips, fewer moving parts and less complexity.

Forget fuel farming, it is worse for the environment than oil.

[jcwinnie]

The European Commission has delayed action on a legislative plan to mandate the reduction of CO2 from new cars to 120g/km by 2012 due to internal dissension.

A senior German source in Brussels highlighted the rifts, saying: “If we force a target of 120g per kilometre on each new car we would have to close DaimlerChrysler, Audi, BMW and Porsche and that’s not possible. We have to make Europe the leader in green technology while boosting output and jobs.”

So it's bidness as usual and above all else and we really should do something about that Global Heating some day, but at least Big Oil is sharing the pie with Big Sugar and Big Farm, eh?

[amazingdrx]

Well jc, with high gas prices in europe, PHEVs will sell like hotcakes. Without the benefit of government caps even!

Porsche Sr. invented serial plugin hybrids, maybe the present leadership forgot that. A Tesla beats a Porsche too!

[amazingdrx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_car

"In 1898 Ferdinand Porsche designed the Lohner-Porsche carriage, a series-hybrid vehicle that broke several Austrian speed records, and also won the Exelberg Rally in 1901 with Porsche himself driving. Over 300 of the Lohner-Porsche carriages were sold to the public."

[Bear]

If we are to use grasses as bio-fuels then we need to use the best .Arundo is the very best all around .I ask that you visit our site and see why Arundo is the king of grasses for bio-fuels and beyond.
You only plant it one in our life times .
We can get two cuttings a year in USA southren states at 20 plus tons an acre TWICE A YEAR!
Once cut and made into pellets it can make many items
It makes the cleanest paper it needs no chemicals to bleach it for whiteness
Leafs alone can be used for cattle and deer feed !
You can produce bio plastics as well
Dry wall can be made from it have you priced drywall today ?
As a co-fire product when charred into a cake becomes the cleanest buring fuel at ovar 8000 kelvin
www.IPEnergy.net

[PO'd Patriot]

Answer: Fusion!

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/49

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/billion_degree_suppression/

[Lawren Markle]

I'm glad to see a mention of battery research because that will help EVs perform better at a lower cost, and thereby gain wider acceptance. There are some promising new technologies like lead graphite foam (e.g. www.fireflyenergy.com) that are good alternatives to exotic metals. I'm excited to hear about their work and I'm trying to get the word out.

[mtburr]

The ethanol piece of Bush's proposal looks like a smoke screen to me. If you read into the proposal, it includes a "safety valve" that would allow the energy secretary to reduce the 20 percent target if biofuel or feedstock prices rise too high. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy: as the demand for corn increases from rising ethanol production, corn prices will rise, and the DOE will cut the goal accordingly.

I discuss this at some length, with references, in a recent blog entry here:
MTBlog: Ethanol's Poison Pill

In short, I suspect the Bush plan is really just more greenwashing intended to marginalize renewable fuels, sustain petroleum demand and delay the development of electric transportation.

[Jim from The Energy Blog]

I must admit I rushed a bit to get this post out in a timely manner. I could have gone on for a couple of pages explaing all of my views, so here are a few.

My most serious omission was not to comment on the 35 billion gallon (per year I assume) renewable and alternate fuel production by 2017. Frankly I don't think it is possible. We (the US) cannot produce more than 10-12 bgy of corn ethanol, doing business as usual, without compromising our food supply. Pehaps this could be stretched a little by putting some land back into production that is now idle. The price of corn has already risen to near record levels, but as it goes higher I am sure that farmers will find a way to produce more, but this will be a marginal amount. The price of corn has very little impact on the price of food. So where could we get the rest?

Butanol production from cellulosic feedstocks is as far along or further than ethanol. Dupont should start introducing production into the US within a few years and Green Biologics, with an advanced process, is not too many years behind. How much by 2017? at most six bgy. I have recently been convinced that butanol is a better route than cellulosic ethanol if the price is right.

Right now the state of cellulosic ethanol production is in limbo. The government hasn't come through on funding any demonstration plants, they say they will this year. Meanwile projects like the ones that SunOpta are involved in (earlier post today) are typical of what is going on. So it looks like to me that another six bgy, at most, could be produced from this source.

Biodiesel is off to a slow start, but should be contributing more by 2017 -but only one bgy. Production of biodiesel from canola (rapeseed) is very small and no production from algae is anticipated. If these feedstocks could be advanced, even more biodiesel could be made.

My outlook on FT fuels from biomass is pretty bleak - I don't think that these projects will go foreward untill the price of oil is sustained at a very high price, perhaps $70/bbl.

As far as alternate fuels, coal liquefaction will play a small role in this time period, perhaps another bgy.

So my scenario comes up at 26-28 bgy, ~ 25% less than, the Bush proposal of 35 bgy, if everything goes right. But all is not that bleak. More plug-in and electric cars and higher economy standards could easily make up that difference by 2027 if not by 2017. By 2027 these fuels could be really moving along at a very good pace if needed.

I blame the speech writers for not including a sentence or two in their plea for more clean coal and battery powered vehicles to make the case for reduced carbon emissions. Instead of just throwing in the phrase "confront the serious challenge of global climate change" at the end of his comments on energy. The cynic in me thinks this was necessary in the speech even if Bush still does not really believe in global warming - after all this is a speech to increase his image.

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Paul Dietz:"xTL would naturally address this. A FT reactor will produce a low-value naphtha side stream that can be used for olefin production."

Paul I'm very familiar with Arno De Clerk's work at Sasol (SA) on FT.

Thing is - what feed are you quoting? If it's biomass - on economy of scale issue alone - FT maybe uneconomical due to the high primary energy requirement. Not that it's not part of the solution - but 2 million ethylene tonnes per year? - NO. ENERGY BALANCE NOT RIGHT - unless using CTL... which is unsustainable...

Indeed, the future - novel aqueous-phase chemistry of biomass!

FT is for nieche applications!

[Brian Wang]

So if part of the plan is for more coal for more decades and most people doubt that even a 20% reduction in oil usage can be achieved then do I see anyone

1) who was against nuclear power
2) but who also admits that nuclear power is better than coal power
3) did not support nuclear because they thought solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, biofuels could handle the job alone

Change their mind and recognize that even more nuclear power needs to be part of the solution to get rid of coal and oil use ASAP ?

ASAP would still be decades cause it is a big problem but it would drop from hundreds of years or maybe never.

reminder:
long-lived radioactive waste from a modern 1000-MW electrical coal plant:

Coal heat content = 33649 kJ/kg
Tons of coal burned per year = 2.46 million
Carbon fraction = 81.9%
Ash fraction = 7.8%
Sulfur fraction = 0.8%
Fly ash emitted per year = 957 tons
Uranium emitted per year = 950 kg
Fraction of uranium in fly ash = 25%
Fraction of uranium in bottom ash = 75%

Of course the uranium is almost entirely U-238, with a half-life of 4.51 billion years. that uranium is accompanied by the entire decay chain of daughter radionuclides, including Radium, Polonium, Bismuth, Radon gas, etc.

similar amounts of radioactive thorium as well in the coal.

other waste: mercury, arsenic, toxic metals, NOx, SOx, etc...

3 million deaths per year from air pollution worldwide (figure from World Health Organization). Over 1 million deaths attributable to coal. Mining deaths 6,000 to 10,000 per year. Transportation deaths. Rail costs. Higher healthcare costs.

[Ender]

Brian - I see a lot of we need nuclear talk here however the glaring thing missing from the SOTU as I said before is energy efficiency and carbon taxes. Mind you our Australian government is just as bad with not even a SOTU to tell us of its dearth of ideas.

One way to do it is to tax and then give subsidies. A carbon tax placed on coal could be compensated with welfare payments like our family tax benefit for people that would be disadvantaged most by higher energy prices. Similarly a large tax on gasoline, again like we have here, would encourage smaller, more fuel efficient cars and reduce car travel and save much more than the 20%. This huge revenue scheme could also be funneled back to poorer people with another larger raise in the minimum wage or oblique welfare like a pharmacutical benefits scheme to give very low cost medicines to people.

As far as I can see you seem to want to supply your way out of trouble. There is no large raise in mandatory vehicle fuel consumption standards only replacing the amount of fuel you are using now with biofuels.

It is the same with electricity - the solution is supply not demand management first. Again we in Australia are just a guilty of this as you are in the US. I do agree that nuclear is better than coal however it is a bit like choosing your method of dying, gun or knife. Granted a quick shot to the head might be quicker and more painless however my answer to the question "how do you want to be killed?" is "can you not kill me please"

You will see the analogy (I hope) the non killing answer is neither coal or nuclear but a combination of energy efficiency, renewables with storage and gasified coal/gasified biomass at a level that will stabilise CO2 emissions. Renewables can include geothermal. It is 24X7 power and could form the basis of a power system that has no coal or nuclear pretty easily. I like the idea of a RTG a couple of kilometers under the ground - no waste disposal here.

[Jeremy]

Why does every conversation about energy always begin with the premise of "If we just did XYZ" we'd be ok? People have their favorite horses..

The simple solution is:
1. End all subsidies of ALL forms of energy (probably phased)
2. Create taxes on each form of energy that completely accounts for all of the externalities associated with the production and use that aren't captured in the market price.
3. Tax energy imports from unfriendly or geopolitically unstable countries.
4. Fund research for the most promising forms of energy, based on the scientific merits of each form.
5. Get the hell out of the way of the free market.

[Ender]

Jeremy - "5. Get the hell out of the way of the free market."

How is the previous market you have created with taxes etc free?

[Bill Hannahan]

Talk is cheap.

No big R&D increase + no carbon tax = no change.

I like Jeremy’s plan.

[Brian Wang]

Supply does need to be increased. Carbon taxes and properly pricing in externalities is good to. Increasing efficiency is good too. But it is unrealistic to not increase supply.

Plus I want all of those things working as fast as we can get them (which is not very fast).

I do not want to depend on carbon taxes and other things taking their time.

Coal is a gun that is firing and killing 1 million per year every year.

Nuclear power has been a sheathed knife that has hardly killed anyone. Three mile island. No deaths. Chernobyl 50. Looser connection to some other deaths. All far less than one week of coal.

Even throw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,the number is still less than one year of coal deaths after adding everything for the last 63 years.

Do you recognize the magnitude difference ?

I understand that you fear more deaths from nuclear, but it is not actual deaths. And nuclear weapons and nuclear power are not the same.

It is the difference between containable and controllable solutions versus constant actual deaths

[Jeremy]

Jeremy - "5. Get the hell out of the way of the free market."

How is the previous market you have created with taxes etc free?

The job of the government is to act in the public interest. There are some things (i.e. carbon dioxide, importing from unfriendly countries) that are potentially damaging to our welfare and that are not accounted for properly in the market price of the product. The government should penalize the market to account for this.

So no, it is not a true free market, but a market that once properly constrained to act in the public interest will do what it needs to do to achieve the ends it needs.

For example, it's a waste of time to promote conservation. Why, you may ask? Because if every solution has a 20 year payback, no one will do it. But if energy prices are allowed to go up to account for all of the externalities, then people would conserve.

[Ender]

Jeremy - I guess you are correct however I am in favour, as you seem to be, of government directed free markets where the government does provide the public good part and leaves the rest to the market.

[Brian Wang]

If space aliens were killing 27,000 americans per year and were killing 1 million humans per year plus poisoning our environment with mercury and arsenic and 20,000 tons of uranium and thorium per year and sprinkling a billion tons of particulates into our atmosphere every year The aliens provide some low cost energy and the killing will continue and in proportion to the low cost energy of theirs that we use. America uses over 50% of its electricity from the aliens and plan to use more.

They are a tough opponent it will take a concerted effort over decades to stop them.

Would following response be sufficient. End the tax subsidies we are providing the aliens and tax them for the cost of the killing, health and environmental damage.
Let the market determine how to replace the alien low cost energy and at the pace the market decides.

Or we could up-power existing nuclear plants by 50% and start mass production of nuclear power plants that already supply 20% of america's electricity and get up to 60% in about 20 years. Plus increase solar and wind and everything not supplied by the aliens.

Why would it be a bad idea to spend money to stop the killing ?

Is it better to spend 1.2 trillion and counting for an oil related war that had a loose connection to 3000 american deaths 5 years ago? Why do the 27,000 american deaths and the 1 million globally matter less ? Why is it not urgent? It happens every year. This week 500 americans and 40,000 people around the world.

The advantage of the nuclear power plan is that you can get some big companies like GE and Westinghouse behind it. They can pay off politicians and counter balance opposition from coal companies and maybe oil companies. Switching to nuclear power fits the way the system work with regional pork, political campaign money and corporate payoffs. There is already some momentum rebuilding for it. 31 applications for nuclear plants expected this year in the US. Various bills and political support laying the groundwork.

Jeremy - i would also like to see your proposals pass. But where do you think you can get the political support for the action? Would you expect to convince the US electorate ?

[Ender]

Brian - "Let the market determine how to replace the alien low cost energy and at the pace the market decides."

You seem to forget that this energy solution, the one that kills all these people, IS the one that the market, in its infinite wisdom, decided on.

What makes you think we should let it have another go and replace it with a solution that perhaps does not kill as many people right now but has the potential to kill and maim millions of people down the track for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Perhaps this time we should direct the market to do a proper job of it and set up a energy system that neither kills people now or later on.

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Jeremy,

But what about the Environmental externalities ?
That the free market system has not taken into consideration q.v. Stern review's comments about the market failure.

You start talking abit more sense on the following:

"There are some things (i.e. carbon dioxide, importing from unfriendly countries) that are potentially damaging to our welfare and that are not accounted for properly in the market price of the product. The government should penalize the market to account for this.

So no, it is not a true free market, but a market that once properly constrained to act in the public interest will do what it needs to do to achieve the ends it needs.

For example, it's a waste of time to promote conservation. Why, you may ask? Because if every solution has a 20 year payback, no one will do it. But if energy prices are allowed to go up to account for all of the externalities, then people would conserve".

But the timeframe for bringing in these externalities needs to be careful - to prevent the markets crashing.

I think this is what Bush+Cheney are desperately trying to stave off - with what appears to be somewhat something of a smokescreen...

i.e. them appearing to be pro-alt-energy but not actually following through... unless the markets force them too...

I just hope people like you say start seeing the bigger picture soon...

Or we can start developing even better technologies... to force the issue

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: the non killing answer is neither coal or nuclear but a combination of energy efficiency, renewables with storage and

The science of risk management is more complex than that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

The "Precautionary Principle" has been put forth as an "alternative to risk assessment".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The geometry of "Precaution" assumes that it is possible to "do no harm".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Do_no_harm

Are you, Ender, meaning to imply that it is possible to "do no harm"?

[mtburr]

The notion of internalizing external costs is a great idea. The problem, however, is the U.S. political system is designed to keep that from happening.

Our winner-take-all election process favors the candidates who can raise the most money, and that favors a two-party system that responds most directly to the biggest donors -- i.e., wealthy businesspeople whose primary interests are, by definition, opposed to internalizing external costs.

The First Amendment strongly protects the right of rich businesspeople to "speak" with their money, so I don't think campaign finance reform is the answer. One possible answer, however, is proportional voting -- i.e., the instant run-off. This could allow more independent voices to get into the mix, and would force major-party candidates to be more accountable to the public interest.

If you want policy reform in any area, including national energy strategy, then you should favor proportional voting.

In the meantime I think the best we can do is to draw attention to perverse incentives in our energy policies and try to encourage rational decisions by elected officials who, after all, still respond to public pressure.

[amazingdrx]

How much to add to gas prices to pay as we go for wars over it? And pay to move cities back from flooded coastlines? And drought, floods, storms all those costs?

Maybe 20 bucks per gallon? Hehey. Internalize that!

[Brian Wang]

The pricing in of externalities does not have to be perfect. It just has to be better than it is now. That should be the goal, better than it is now. We do not have to wait for perfect if perfect is going to take too long.

Coal externalities that should be easy to price in. Mercury pollution, arsenic pollution, healthcare cost impact of particulates, 40% of railroad maintenance,

NOx, SOx and smog shares, healthcare costs from air pollution, air traffic delays from reduced visibility could be shared between coal and oil polluters based on amounts generated.

Get the airlines, fisheries, farmers and other firms on board with going against coal.

Oil externalities: The case here might be less a cost issue and more related to winning the current war with Iraq and the next war with Iran. Get off foreign oil and the middle east becomes Africa. A murderous but unimportant place. We do it to take away the enemies leverage and "cash crop". It would be promoted more like paying and buying war bonds.

Ender: I did not think that the free market would work. I was stating the problem of coal deaths in terms of alien killing and indicating that even if the free market solution might work it would take too long. My solution is to actively push all the non-coal energy solutions including conservation and nuclear with the motivation of limiting the real and horrendous costs in lives and economic damage.

By themselves none of the solutions work fast enough. Ender: Your non-killing solution is slower and is still a killing solution. By taking longer more people die until it starts to work. Remember 500 americans and 40000 people worldwide died this week and will die next week and the week after until positive change happens.

Also, how much more incremental risk is added by adding more nuclear power. Proliferation is already out there. Nuclear bombs are already out there. Not building more nuclear reactors does not take those threats away or really reduce those threats. Terrorist risks are also broad spectrum against any power source and non-power targets. They can blow up oil refineries and hydro dams too.

The nuclear power risk that does scale with more reactors is nuclear meltdown risk and nuclear waste. Those risks are and have been manageable (the two big ones three mile and chernobyl over 60 years). New reactors have reduced risks. Thorium reactors can help with the waste.

I also believe that nuclear power can be made a lot safer and more effective with Thorium liquid flouride molten salt reactors. However since I want action right away. The next 10 years is about safely up powering existing reactors and 5-15 years building more of the reactors that we have with new better reactors that help clean up/burn the long term waste in 10-20 years.

mtburr: are you suggesting waiting to change the political system to enable a more responsible energy policy to be passed? Replace one political impossible thing with another first?

the political systems are what the system are (multiple systems for different countries). You can try to argue for change in parallel but proposals that are going to provide timely solutions should have the corporate money winners and regional political winners that are needed to get through the systems.

Risks: do not forget that the do nothing or do nothing effective for a long time means that this year and next year and the following years you have a 100% risk of 1,000,000 deaths worldwide from coal pollution, and 100% risk of 27,000 deaths in american from coal pollution. Actually those risks and deaths are going up because the current trajectory is to almost double coal use in 20 years.

[Andreas Kay]

Each square kilometre of desert receives sunlight equivalent to 1,500,000 barrels of oil annually, corresponding to a layer of oil 9 inch deep. Solar energy can be converted to electricity with 13 % efficiency by concentrating solar power plants (CSP) at a cost of $ 3-5 per Watt. CSP plants in California have been working reliably for 20 years and produced more electricity than all photovoltaic panels combined.

With the amount of money spent in the “2nd oil war” (some $ 378 billion) one could trigger the construction of some 300 GW of CSP plants, assuming $ 2 invested by private companies for each $ injected by the government. On a desert area of 7500 km2 (1.5% of the Great Basin) these would generate clean electricity equivalent to 3,000,000 barrels of oil per day, more than imported from the entire Persian Gulf region!

This would not only make us independent from Iraqi oil, but also save us and our children from climate disaster and radioactive waste as long as sun shines on earth. As a valuable by-product concentrated solar power can provide desalinated water to desert regions. Last, not least the construction or millions of mirrors from glass and steel would create countless jobs e.g. in the suffering automobile industry.

To fight global warming we need a new Apollo program, not half-hearted “Twenty in Ten” approaches!

How mirrors can light up the world
Wikipedia article on CSP

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Hey you guys (and gals).

Might want to take a look at this out today, A report by the German Aerospace Center, that was commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe's Renewable Energy Council (courtesy of the BBC):

Energy [r]evolution report

It has some alternative scenarios - and economics and descriptions of technologies etc:

"Energy roadmap backs renewables" Original article on BBC

[amazingdrx]

Cool Mark, thanks. The chairman's hair is longer than mine. A good sign.

I like the title "(r)evoltion" matches my "re-evolution". Did they tout plugin serial hybrids?

[RammsteinRocks]

Whole lot of socialism/marxism being foisted
on this thread. Whole lot of people with their
feet firmly rooted in the clouds.
Thank goodness the level-headed members of
the illuminati realize the folly of many of
these proposals. KEEP YOUR GRUBBY TAXING
HANDS OUT OF MY WALLET.

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Mr Rammstein,

I'm confident most of these Alt-energy technologies will be profitable regardless of taxation, and are more than capable of competing / with "the illuminati's" - business as usual approach.

When your old or dead and your kids are paying 20% of their income remediating your (own) folly...

You'll be wondering why you didn't just spend 1% of your income on R&D and mitigation projects...

I'm not a "socialist" (I'm a "centralist")and even I can see the folly of an unguided-capitalist-free market system
- that Stern (a capitalist) admits they failed to account for the climate change problem - the greatest mistake of the markets in the history of mankind!

So open the wallet a little bit now - or before long the cash machine won't be able to pay out! Then your wallet will be empty anyway...

OR invest now - and then your wallet will be fine - if not fuller for the future

...with jobs to go round!

*(Speaking in metaphors - don't you just love the english language!!!)

[tompaine]

Here's what should be happening in the free market today:

One of the DYING big three US automakers should be reinventing themselves as the "alternative" car company, with full production, cutting edge electric or hybrid design(s) ala Tesla Motors.

Why aren't one of these fools working on a ~$50K sporty electric with 150 mile range?

That would cover 95% of the population to and from work, and you'd only have to plug it in at night.

[Mark C R (Chemist) UK]

Tompaine: with reference to your previous comment - check out (yet another) article on the BBC regarding this subject:

Ford hit by record $12.7bn loss

"Ford has reported a loss of $12.7bn (£6.5bn) for 2006 - the biggest annual loss in the embattled US carmaker's 103-year history. A slump in sales, combined with major restructuring costs, saw the firm lose $5.8bn in the final three months of the year alone.

The iconic US carmaker has been struggling in the face of competition from Japanese rivals such as Toyota.

Ford has plans to close 16 factories in North America and cut 45,000 jobs.

The company, which is currently the second-biggest carmaker in the US, may be overtaken by Toyota in its domestic market later this year, reports have suggested. ...

We fully recognize our business reality and are dealing with it," said Ford chief executive Alan Mulally.

"We have a plan and are on track to deliver. We began aggressive actions in 2006 to restructure our automotive business."

Ford had previously put much weight on sales of pick-up trucks and SUVs, or sport utility vehicles, to generate profits.

But a peak in the price of oil last year, which pushed US petrol prices up to $3 a gallon, saw customers abandon gas-guzzling vehicles in favour of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Mr Mulally said Ford planned to "operate profitably at lower volumes and with a product mix that better reflects consumer demand for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles".

Ford, the world's third-biggest motor company, made a net profit of $1.44bn in 2005."

It seems to me that the US is now learning the hard way...

But I suggest once the US starts moving properly on "sustainable business and R&D policies" as the Congress looks likely on ensuring - things will improve both economically AND environmentally. Thats in the US AND GLOBAL economies - wealth creation and redistribution - is supported by all the models for alt-energy/clean-tech I've read about.

Due to the fact this will encourage innovation in energy and all related industries - it will also encourage global sustainable developemt as a great spin off.

[Brian Wang]

Mark the energy revolution plan still has coal use in 2050. the page 15,16 against nuclear power has three issues (threats).

Proliferation of nuke weapons: the main problem countries have already been proliferated too. more nuclear reactors does not change the risk profile of proliferation. Plus we can reduce the risk of proliferation with thorium plants and mixing in certain hard radiation materials in with the waste to make it hard to use for weapons.

Nuke waste: It is incorrect in stating that there are no ways or plans for how to deal with the waste. Thorium reactors and other ways to process. Plus the waste can be stored. It is a manageable issue.

Safety risk of meltdown and leaks. Very few actual cases for hundreds of plants worldwide for decades.

the actual threats are manageable.
the actual deaths have been tiny.
It is hundreds of times better than coal power. Any plan that keeps coal power instead of nuclear power is wrong.

Are you saying that a plan to keep coal power instead of nuclear power is better? How do you justify actual deaths over your own fears and almost no actual deaths?

[Brian Wang]

An interesting point from the thorium energy discussion forum from Stewart Peterson.

1. There's enough unused energy in nuclear waste to provide all of the US's electricity for the next 500 years. It's not going anywhere and we're going to have to do something with it. Even if we discover a magical new perfect source of energy tomorrow, we're locked into nuclear power for the next 500 years for this reason only, since half-used fuel (a popularization of "transuranics") is more dangerous than either fresh fuel or the waste itself. It's sometimes also useful to point out that the system was originally designed (to the extent that it was designed) around the full use of nuclear fuel--and the current system, developed by playing off anti-nuclear activists against industry self-interest without the input of independent advocates, results in a mine-to-cask fuel cycle efficiency of about 1%. This screwy system has been codified by the US government in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.
2. There is a demonstrated technology available today that can use this "waste" as fuel. It's called a CANDU reactor (Canadian), and there are 34 sites available in the United States next to existing nuclear power plants. For example, if we as a country wanted to, the US government could order 34 ACR-1000 reactors from AECL today and have them running on nuclear waste in four to eight years--and the US government then could make a fortune by selling nuclear electricity, without making any more nuclear waste. Realistically, given the red tape involved, it wouldn't happen for twelve to fifteen years, but if Congress modified the relevant statutes, it's not impossible if a private investor with deep enough pockets was willing to go for it. It's also important that we explain, if pressed, that a CANDU doubles the overall mine-to-cask efficiency from 1% to 2%, but other technologies are available to increase that number to 99% (IFR (integral fast reactor) and MSR (molten salt reactor )

In short: the waste problem is the US government's red tape.

[Ender]

Brian - "By themselves none of the solutions work fast enough. Ender: Your non-killing solution is slower and is still a killing solution"

Nuclear is the slowest of the lot. Apart from a 10-15 year lead time for construction there is a shortage on nuclear engineers, skilled construction workers like welders and large bottlenecks for components. A large ramp up would only make this situation worse.

Renewables are by contrast very quick to commission and could be offsetting greenhouse emissions before even the planning permissions for a reactor is completed. For quick results nuclear is by far the worst.

Energy conservation though a bit slower as large capital intensive equipment needs to be replaced is still much faster than nuclear.

"Nuke waste: It is incorrect in stating that there are no ways or plans for how to deal with the waste. Thorium reactors and other ways to process. Plus the waste can be stored. It is a manageable issue."

How long have nukes been around? 50 years? If the waste problem is so manageable how come in this time not 1 kilo of waste has been properly 'managed'. It is still all sitting around in temporary storage that is fast running out of space until the 'permenant' solution is open in 2017. Then to cope with the waste from your desired ramp up of nuclear power you would have to build 1 or 2 Yucca mountain's a year. Doesn't sound managed to me.

Ramsteinrocks - "Whole lot of socialism/marxism being foisted
on this thread."

Well sometimes a little socialism is needed to offset some of the harshest stupidities of free market libertarians. I am also a centrist and in practice neither extreme libertarian or extreme marxist ideas work. Most successful societies settle on a working mixture of both - ie: find the centre.

[Brian Wang]

Ender

You are quoting construction times based on screwed up US bureaucracy. A lot of it introduced in the 1970s.
Uprating the power can be done faster.
It is not either /or. I am agreeing on building renewable power. As much of it and as fast as you can. It is separate and independent to get the nuclear power increased. If startup companies like nanosys or whatever make solar power that does not interfere with GE making nuclear reactors.

I am not saying only make nuclear power. I am saying make everything including nuclear but not coal.

thus however much nuclear is made is in addition to all of the renewable and conservation.

Nuclear waste is at least managed to point currently that it is not actively killing people now. Stored nuclear waste is not killing anyone. the lack of space for storage is not a physical limitation, but a political not in my backyard limitation. a selfish reason that causes more coal deaths. Relative to coal pollution it is managed. Can you prove this wrong? Can you show the situation where nuclear waste handling has killed one hundred people per year. It has not so it is 10,000 times better or more better than coal.

It clearly should be managed better. But it is a bureaucratic issue not a technical impossibility.

The US chooses not to buy CANDU reactors to use up more of the fuel in the waste. The "waste" can be burned it is partially used nuclear fuel.

Why has it not been managed right and burned? Because we have millions of people like you who are stopping the new reactors from being built that could burn the waste. You help cause the mismanagement then you ask why can't they do it right even when I am part of the group stopping the right things from happening.

The bureaucracy is made worse by people like yourself who campaigned for the rules out of misplaced fear. This has resulted in more coal power or the non-replacement of coal. Which has resulted in thousands of deaths every year. If the US had followed France to 80% nuclear power. We could have reduced pollution deaths by 10,000-20,000 per year in the USA.

So you want to keep a mistake going from 1970. In those 30 some years, over 800,000 premature deaths in the USA from coal pollution. How many more before you want to get serious about stopping coal power ?

[Ender]

Brian - "I am not saying only make nuclear power. I am saying make everything including nuclear but not coal."

All I am saying is that make everything with conservation at the top so you don't need either coal or nuclear.

"Nuclear waste is at least managed to point currently that it is not actively killing people now. Stored nuclear waste is not killing anyone"

No not now however you have no way of predicting what will happen to this waste in 500 years. 500 years ago sailors from Europe were just discovering your country. Can you be sure that even in 500 years all the nuclear waste that we are storing will be as well cared for as today. The USA may not even exist in 500 years - who is going to look after the dry storage then. 500 years is only the minimum time some of the radionucleides that are soluble in water will be dangerous for thousands of years. Can you guarantee that the risk that these will not enter the biosphere is acceptable?

"The bureaucracy is made worse by people like yourself who campaigned for the rules out of misplaced fear."

So what you are saying here is that we all should have let the nuclear industry dig a bit of a hole, dump the waste in it, cover it up and forget about it. Shame on these people who want proper, safe standards getting in the way.

Again shame on us for getting in the way of burning nuclear waste and creating more and more dangerous fissionables as residue.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=134362007
"GEORGIAN special services have foiled an attempt by a Russian citizen to sell weapons-grade uranium for £506,000 to agents he believed were radical Islamists, a senior interior ministry official said yesterday.

The official said Oleg Khintsagov, a resident of Russia's North Ossetia region, was arrested on 1 February, 2006, and a closed court soon after sentenced him to eight and a half years in prison.
Living.scotsman.com MPU

Khintsagov was detained as he tried to sell uranium-235 to an undercover Georgian agent posing as a member of a radical Islamist group, said Shota Utiashvili, who heads the ministry's information and analytical department. The Georgian agents were working with assistance from the CIA.

"He was demanding $1 million for 100g of enriched weapons-grade uranium," Mr Utiashvili said. "This sort of uranium could be used to make a nuclear bomb but 100g is not enough." "

This is happening NOW without the massive increase in available fissionables with a large breeder reactor program. They caught this one however how many did they not catch?

[Brian Wang]

the market share of energy efficient light bulbs is 2.6%. See page 10.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/CFL_PRG_FINAL.pdf

they save $200 over the life of the bulb and still people cannot be troubled to buy them and install them. (Easy as changing a light bulb.)

So explain to me how conservation will eliminate coal?

The Revolutionary energy report still has coal power in their plan past 2050. they are clearly optimistic about conservation and renewables.

so 43+ years of more coal. Over 1 million more americans dead. 40+ million more around the world.

Nuclear waste:
As I said before CANDU doubles the overall mine-to-cask efficiency from 1% to 2%, but other technologies are available to increase that number to 99% (MSR (molten salt reactor ).
Use 99% of the long lived nuclear waste which is partially burned fuel and burn it the rest of the way. You only store it until you use it.

For the rest: The decay is exponential--most of the waste has decayed to stability in a year. The mention of 300 years is driven by the two most active decay products after the first decade or so--strontium-90 and cesium-137. They each have 30 year half-lives, and a good rule of thumb is after ten half-lives, something's essentially gone.

See the diagram at this link
www.energyfromthorium.com/images/FPIngestionToxicity_sm.gif

In 40 years it is 99.9% less radioactive.

What is the halflife of mercury, arsenic, NOx, SOx, carbon particulates, Uranium, Thorium that are released into the air and environment from coal power. that Uranium (238) has a 4 billion year half-life, Thorium 14 billion years. The rest has no half life. They will be around until the Sun expands over the earth.

russians selling weapons grade uranium not related to nuclear waste. That uranium did not come from nuclear waste. the russians have 16000 warheads, 5800 active. They have 30 nuclear power reactors. france has 59 reactors and 350 nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Where is the correlation between number of nuclear plants and number of weapons. Number of plants and the number of incidents of sales or attempted sales of nuclear weapons or materials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

So how are things made safer and how do fewer people die by not building more nuclear reactors ? They are not.
How does adding bureaucracy to delay nuclear plant construction from 4 years to 10-15 years increase safety? It does not. We can build reactors faster and things can still be safe. Delays do not equal safe.

Scared of the waste. Then make the reactors to use it to generate electricity.

[Ender]

Brian - "the market share of energy efficient light bulbs is 2.6%. See page 10.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/CFL_PRG_FINAL.pdf

they save $200 over the life of the bulb and still people cannot be troubled to buy them and install them. (Easy as changing a light bulb.)"

So where is the incentive? You are proposing to supply our way out of trouble so why should anyone replace light bulbs - nuclear power can continue the party.

Part and parcel of a renewable energy solution is conservation. Making higher consumers pay more along with subsidies for CFLs, if not banning outright incandescent globes, can make a big difference.

"The Revolutionary energy report still has coal power in their plan past 2050. they are clearly optimistic about conservation and renewables.

so 43+ years of more coal. Over 1 million more americans dead. 40+ million more around the world."

Up until now we have managed to ignore it so why now are you kicking up such a stink? Coal electricity allows us to fill our houses with plasma TVs and dishwashers so we conveniently ignore the problems with coal.
Just like we ignore road deaths because cars are convenient.

You are presenting here a false dichotomy. You are saying that coal is bad so therefore nuclear is OK because it is the only alternative. We just have to ignore the problems like we do with coal. This is what nuclear waste is:

http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm
"Spent fuel from nuclear reactors still contains considerable amounts of 235 U but now has generated significant 239Pu. After 3 years in a reactor, 1,000 lbs. of 3.3-percent-enriched uranium (967 lbs. 238 U and 33 lbs. 235U) contain 8 lbs. of 235U and 8.9 lbs. of plutonium isotopes along with 943 lbs. of 238U and assorted fission products. "

If the plutonium is seperated then there will be more opportunity for it to go missing. Also nations can and will reprocess it into weapons if the threat is great enough. Israel, India, Pakistan, all the nuclear powers, and North Korea developed nuclear weapons under threat of war. Iran is possibly doing the same thing. All the countries that do not have nukes but do have nuke power like Canada have never been threatened. Nuclear power plus threat of war equals nuclear weapons in almost all occasions - the temptation is too strong.

Perhaps you should have read one of the links in your reference:
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2004/02/najam.shtml
"International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei understands this reality. He recently wrote: "We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use."

We must insist on a nuclear-free world. We must make a sincere commitment to it at home and demand it abroad. Rather than better mousetraps for proliferating nations, we need an approach to eliminate nuclear weapons. Some may argue this is unrealistic. But no more so than the misguided, even naive, hope that a feel-good Band-Aid called PSI will make the world a safer place."

An even better idea is to get rid of all nuclear weapons AND all nuclear power to remove the possibility of making more.

"How does adding bureaucracy to delay nuclear plant construction from 4 years to 10-15 years increase safety? "

http://more.tedankrum.com/comanchepeak
"Texas Utilities says the inspectors were fired either for poor job performance or for failure to follow orders. But evidence gathered by the federal government suggests that they may have been doing their jobs all too well. The inspectors maintain that they were discharged after resisting orders from supervisors to overlook flaws in the plant."

and this:

" The Slammer worm penetrated a private computer network at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January and disabled a safety monitoring system for nearly five hours, despite a belief by plant personnel that the network was protected by a firewall, SecurityFocus has learned.
Click here for Core!!
The breach did not pose a safety hazard. The troubled plant had been offline since February, 2002, when workers discovered a 6-by-5-inch hole in the plant's reactor head. Moreover, the monitoring system, called a Safety Parameter Display System, had a redundant analog backup that was unaffected by the worm. But at least one expert says the case illustrates a growing cybersecurity problem in the nuclear power industry, where interconnection between plant and corporate networks is becoming more common, and is permitted by federal safety regulations."