James Hansen: "Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term"

[bananas]

"and they both have serious issues even over the longer term."

James Hansen writes to Duke Energy on coal: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/1/16055/76057
Response from CEO Jim Rogers: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/2/91122/03696

I'll just quote this one paragraph from Jim Hansen:
"Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term. But Massachusetts and California have demonstrated the tremendous potential of efficiency aided by appropriate incentives."

[JohnyCanuck]

1. The Paradox of Production

The Paradox of Production

By John Michael Greer.

One of the things that makes the challenge of peak oil so insidious, and so resistant to quick fixes, is the way in which many things that seem like ingredients of a solution are actually part of the problem. Petroleum provides so much of the energy and so many of the raw materials we take for granted today that the impacts of declining oil production extend much further than a first glance would suggest.

Read through discussions of the energy future of industrial society from a few years back, for example, and you’ll find that many of them treat the price of coal and the price of oil as independent variables, linked only by the market forces that turn price increases in one into an excuse for bidding up the price of the other. What these analyses missed, of course, is that the machinery used to mine coal and the trains used to transport it are powered by diesel oil. When the price of diesel goes up, the cost of coal mining goes up; when supplies of diesel run short in coal-producing countries – as they have in China in recent months – the supply of coal runs into unexpected hiccups as well.

I’ve pointed out in previous posts here that every other energy source currently used in modern societies gets a substantial “energy subsidy” from oil. Thus, to continue the example, oil contains about three times as much useful energy per unit weight as coal does, and oil also takes a lot less energy to extract from the ground, process, and transport to the end user than coal does. Modern coal production benefits from these efficiencies. If coal had to be mined, processed, and shipped using coal-burning equipment, those efficiencies would be lost, and a sizeable fraction of total coal production would have to go to meet the energy costs of the coal industry.

The same thing, of course, is true of every other alternative energy source to a greater or lesser degree: the energy used in uranium mining and reactor construction, for example, comes from diesel rather than nuclear power, just as sunlight doesn’t make solar panels. What rarely seems to have been noticed, however, is the way these “energy subsidies” intersect with the challenges of declining petroleum production to boobytrap the future of energy production in industrial societies. The boobytrap in question is an effect I’ve named the paradox of production.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/paradox-of-production.html

[TheMadMonk]

2. There is a way.

Locomotives, Draglines, Big tiptrucks, ships, and other equipment of comparable size could all conceivably be powered by small scale nuclear reactors. There are no real technical hurdles to making such power plants. And the means to manage the waste in better ways than simply burying it are now matters of engineering.

Furthermore, small plants could be built to power smaller towns as well as industrial complexes, which would eliminate transmission losses.

With the right will, nuclear power could make huge inroads into primary industry energy consumption a very short time.

[NNadir]

3. Really?

How come efficiency and so called "renewable energy" haven't done doodly squat for the last 50 years, despite all sorts of dumb cheering?

If we build one nuclear plant in this country, we can easily outstrip all of the production from all of the solar facilities in the United States.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

If the world's nuclear plants shut tomorrow, everybody would notice. If the world's renewable energy plants shut tomorrow, nobody would notice - except for hydroelectric.

Hansen is apparently talking about a subject he knows nothing about. He's an expert on the atmosphere, not energy production.