Labor to debate nuclear? I smell a rat.

Recent news stories have been highlighting some calls from within Labor to debate Australia's potential adoption of nuclear energy.

While this may appear to be delightful news to those who are keen for a nuclear debate. I am reluctant to let my hopes soar.

Nuclear energy lends itself to be a very effective tool of the coal industry when it comes to defending itself from climate change related threats. A price on carbon will - by design - threaten the use of fossil fuels in Australia. Since Australians fear nuclear power even more then escalating electricity prices (something the coal industry would not mind by the way), it's introduction into the national narrative just after government begins making noise about a price on carbon is, to me, too coincidental to be overlooked.

It is too easy for the coal industry and/or the politicians who represent them to stoke national nuclear fears by linking a price on carbon to the deployment of nuclear energy stations 'in your backyard'. But in the end, if there is no price on carbon, all no/low carbon energy sources will continue to suffer deployment delays or significant limitations compared with action required to achieve the emissions reductions deemed necessary by global experts.

Then there's potential political benefits, such as getting the Greens to snuggle up to those in Labor who are 'not quite convinced' of the benefits of nuclear energy.

Whether Labor discusses nuclear energy or not is unimportant. It's being discussed already, albeit not openly. What is critical for Australia's future; including our economic as well as environmental security, is a price on carbon to shift energy production away from the use of carbon emitting energy sources.

Australia's penultimate carbon emissions

It's been over three years and two elections since John Howard pushed for a Nuclear Australia. Since then, we've listened to myriad high profile Australians tell us 'other means' exist to reduce our emissions that are, among other things, every bit as effective and faster than nuclear energy.

A Maplecroft report just released pegs Australia's CO2 emissions due to energy use as an 'Extreme Risk', in the next-to-worst position behind only the UAE. The UAE's recent emission spike due to desalination put them on top; foreshadowing a dire, negative feedback link between climate change and energy demand. Australia's growing reliance on desalination could similarly result in emissions increases from increasing demand.

The UAE is in the process of constructing its first four nuclear energy stations.

Australia, last year’s worst performing nation, remains ahead of USA on per capita emissions with 20.82 tCO2 per person against 19.18 tCO2 per person for the USA. A vast majority of Australia’s electricity is sourced from coal (44.5%), which is a key factor in Australia’s per capita emissions and the carbon intensity of energy in the country, which is 20% higher than the global average. USA (3) and Canada (4) both achieved decreases in emissions per capita of 3.13% and 8.92% respectively, as well as reductions of 1.2% and 7.12% in their annual emissions from energy use. However, both countries remain extreme risk in the index.

Consider nuclear energy.

Comparing emissions performance

I found a detailed statistical report [data up through 2007] that some may find interesting.

Without going too deep into statistics [a topic I enjoy, but understand if others do not]; lets just compare Australia to the USA with respect to emission performance. The report contains data going back to the 1970's; but is framed to compare data from 1990 through 2007 as a measurement against the Kyoto Protocol.

So, where to start? "How can a nation of just over 20 million be compared to another with a population 15 times greater?" One way is to level the data. Comparing emissions per unit GDP [per $ made in our economy], per unit of energy supplied, or per capita [per person] are fair means to level the pitch.

So, just looking at total emissions; how did both nations perform?

In 2007, the USA released 5,769 million tonnes of CO2 to Australia's 396 million tonnes. This doesn't sound too bad for Australia, right? But compared to 1990 data, the USA's emissions increased 18.6% while Australia's leapt by 52.5%; not so respectable.

"But, Australia's economy was booming then, population was growing and, while we were building coal and gas stations during that time, the energy industry told us they were super efficient, designed to reduce emissions, right?" Let's see.

The USA's total primary energy supply in 2007 was 97,969 petajoules, up 22% from 1990. Data for Australia is 5,194 petajoules, up 43.9% from 1990. "So what? Australia's energy demand grew faster, but this was necessary to keep pace with the economy, etc." We must compare emissions per unit of energy supplied to determine if this growth was managed responsibly.

So, the USA cranked out 59 tonnes CO2 per each terajoule of energy supplied in 2007. Australia produced 76 tonnes CO2 per terajoule; not good at all. Looking at performance since 1990, Australia's emissions per unit energy supplied grew by 6%,. The USA beat us here as well, cutting their emissions per unit energy supplied by 3%. This means the USA is installing new capacity that generates less emissions to make the same amount of energy, while Australia headed in the opposite direction, actually getting worse. In my opinion, Australia fails the responsibility test.

"Okay, we've lost the efficiency battle, but what about the growth of our economy?"

The USA's 2007 gross domestic product [GDP] was $11,468 billion while Australia's was $667 billion [US dollars equivalent to the value in 2000 - for data of both countries]. Growth from 1990 was 63% for the USA and 81% for Australia. Looking at emissions per unit GDP is a measure of enviro-economic efficiency, i.e. "Can we make money without generating emissions?" The good news is that both nations improved in this area, the bad news is the USA's emissions per unit GDP fell by 27% while Australia's came down only 16%. Bested again.

The final metric for this post is a simple, man-to-man, toe-to-toe size up. Divided into equal shares for each man, woman and child; what is your share of emissions? Sitting in the USA, you were responsible for 19.1 tonnes of CO2 in 2007 [a large number] - down 1.8% from 1990 [but headed in the right direction at least]. Watching the footy in Australia, you cranked out 18.8 tonnes in 2007, up a whopping 23.9% from 1990. Shameful.

I could have cherry-picked a comparison between heavily nuclear France or Sweden. Had I done so, the results would have been even more embarrassing.

Complete details may be found in the OECD/IEA report - CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion.

Options for Australia's first NPP

Should Australia decide to price carbon emissions at a level where power producers begin to shift significantly away from fossil fuels, nuclear power will become economically competitive in Australia. Assuming this shift begins within the next five years and Australia does opt for nuclear power, we will construct an established Gen-III/III+ design, imported from a long time ally.

Why import?

For the same reason the HIFAR research reactor was imported fifty-some years ago (British DIDO design), the OPAL reactor was imported about ten years ago (INVAP / Argentina) and ANSTO's PETNET design was imported more recently. Australia does not have large-scale nuclear (NSSS, and nuclear A&E) design capability. Such capabilities are developed over decades. It could be done in Australia (or most other countries for that matter), but if energy supply and emissions reductions are the goal - such development is not on the optimised path.

However, Australia has recently and repeatedly demonstrated our ability to manage and implement large-ish nuclear projects with regard to project implementation and independent regulatory oversight. We have also demonstrated our ability to safely, reliably and efficiently operate and maintain nuclear facilities.

Established?

When nuclear power is cost competitive with other generation options, our uniquely Australian political challenges will remain. Opting for a design that has been built and operated several times in different countries provides a necessary degree of assurance against politically motivated claims of unknown costs, safety risks, or questions about operational reliability. Attempting to develop an unproven design here would expose would be investors to the associated unknowns of schedule delays, cost overruns or performance uncertainties. It is for this reason that nuclear design endeavours are usually scaled up through a series of increasingly larger demonstration projects.

An established design also brings with it prior regulatory approvals. This is not to imply a guarantee of Australian approval, but does provide added confidence in the review process.

Why an ally?

Consider the political baggage if Australia selected a Russian reactor design. Add to this the history of Russia using energy security as an instrument of foreign policy (every reactor requires a secure supply of highly technical spare parts for decades).

Furthermore, regulatory review and approval experience with a given design in the USA, Canada, the UK, Japan, Korea, etc. could reassure potential investors of our ability to adequately manage project implementation risks (i.e. schedule and cost control).

Why Gen-III/III+?

First, I've listed it as "III/III+" because the line between the two can be blurred depending on where you look. The designs I refer to include (not meant to be exhaustive and listed alphabetically by company):

• AECL - CANDU-6
• AREVA - EPR
• Atomstroyexport - AES92 (VVER-V392)
• GE-Hitachi-Toshiba - ABWR and ESBWR (without Toshiba)
• KHNP - APR-1400
• MHI - APWR
• Westinghouse - AP-1000.

Some are operating today, others are being built and the rest are being marketed. The list may grow as other companies / countries enter the international nuclear power plant supply market (AECL's ACR-1000, B&W's mPower, China's CAP-1000, etc.); but these GenIII/III+ newcomers will take some time to pass the 'established' test and therefore are beyond the scope of this post.

Next, as I've explained above, the design must be established. I fully support advanced nuclear research and development. I believe Australia should waste no time increasing its involvement in such efforts. However, the scope of this post is directed and the near-term displacement of fossil energy generation. And therefore, established, shovel-ready designs are required.

With respect to fast / Gen-IV reactors; the OECD produced an excellent report - Nuclear Development Strategic and Policy Issues Raised by the Transition from Thermal to Fast Nuclear Systems (88 pages, ISBN 9789264060654). In this report and several others, 2040 is projected as an estimated time frame of fast reactor deployment. The report details other challenges such as prerequisite infrastructure requirements that make Australia seem unlikely as a location for early Gen-IV deployment.

Gen-IV's likely time-line strengthens Australia's case for Gen-III/III+.

Our impressively nuclear neighbours

Last week Reuters reported the start of the 912 megawatt Tomari-3 reactor in Japan's far north. According to the IAEA PRIS database, construction of this reactor began on 18-November-2004. So the duration of this project was roughly 5 years. The reactor went critical back in March and has been in commissioning since that time according to WNN. Different media reports state that this is the first new reactor to come into service in Japan for 3 years, that it will cut Japan's carbon-dioxide emissions by 20% of 1990 levels and that this is the last Gen II reactor planned. All future reactors are to be Gen III or beyond. This plant has received approval to irradiate MOX fuel.

Also in the news is Korea's win of a UAE power reactor project (US $20 bn for 4 reactors, with the possibility for $20 bn more in the future) as well as a US $173 million new research reactor project in Jordan.

Seems as if the nuclear business continues to thrive in Asia - and is quite lucrative at that.

Meanwhile

Australia's total coal exports for 2008-09 were $54.6 bn (~ US $50 bn) according to DFAT. This was an increase of 123.6% from the previous year. [Regarding the politicising of efforts to cut emissions and the impact on Australia's coal industry, I would be thrilled if we could just get to zero growth.]

Our uranium exports totalled $990 million, up 11.6% from the previous year. Ranking number 28 of all Australian exports, uranium sales contribute 0.4% of our total export revenue. [Coal is ranked number 1 and accounts for 23.7% of all exports.]

An endless coal train (~100 tonnes per car)

In 2009, a growing number of high profile media reports highlighted Australia's high per-capita carbon emissions.

Australian emissions were fairly unfazed by the GFC due to increasing demand and the decline in renewables generation with falling Snowy Hydro output (the result of prolonged drought). [The growth in other renewables sectors, efficiency or conservation programmes will have to accelerate to account for the fall in hydro generation before they will displace any emissions from fossil generation.]

4,000 MWe of fossil fuelled generation in being progressed in NSW.

sus·tain·able (sə stān′ə bəl) adjective
1. capable of being sustained
2. a) designating, of, or characterized by a practice that sustains a given condition, as economic growth or a human population, without destroying or depleting natural resources, polluting the environment, etc. sustainable agriculture
2. b) governed or maintained by, or produced as a result of, such practices sustainable growth

Action (and nuclear) still required

As reported by the ABC, a typical Australian emits more carbon than any other person in the developed world. We are setting a very dangerous example and worse providing very low hanging fruit for any country or political leader seeking justification to strive for our comfortable lifestyle via increased emissions. We have a moral and ethical obligation to take significant action to reduce our emissions, in addition to the climate signals repeatedly knocking on our door.

From an April 2007 UN meeting (What's happened since then?)

The ABC report does contain some seemingly good news; that emissions have dipped slightly due to the financial crisis. However, this may provide a false sense of security and is certainly no cause for celebration for anyone expecting serious cuts by 2020, 2030 and/or 2050.

Emissions per unit GDP (carbon intensity) is another relevant metric. According to the US Government, Energy Information Administration, Australia / New Zealand’s carbon intensity ranks third in the OECD (behind Canada and South Korea). One wonders how Australia’s ranking would move if we were judged on our own. Carbon intensity is dropping, but if tangible action is not completed to reduce it further along with emission cuts per capita (i.e. if ‘real’ emissions are not cut considerably), any economic recovery will stress the climate via emissions increases.

If one reviews the two tables within the EIA page linked above, it can be seen that emissions per unit GDP continue to decrease – China and India are the best performers, as one would hope. However, emissions per person actually increase out to 2030 – here China is the worst performer and Australia/New Zealand only drops by 0.2%. However, both GDP and population increase over that time. Therefore, real emissions will increase in Australia and around the world; which in turn will lead to climate disaster according to Hansen, Brook and many, many others.

And there is tangible evidence that our real emissions will indeed rise. It can’t be any clearer than the two large fossil energy projects currently proposed in NSW. If these plants go forward, it will mark a significant failure to seriously cut Australian emissions. Their mere proposal should be a wake up call to anyone genuinely interested in climate change, emission cuts or Australian leadership in the upcoming climate negotiations. Australian energy policy falls short of delivering the energy security our economy requires and emission reductions we are obligated to achieve; for Australians at home and the world at large.

A serious national debate on holistic approaches to significantly cut our emissions is desperately needed. The debate must go beyond the fulfilment of campaign promises and it must recognise and address the risks posed from climate change – particularly for Australia. These risks must be compared in an objective and balanced context against those of nuclear power.

For example, climate scientist and blogger Prof Barry Brook is linking recent weather events to climate change. Consider that just one Australian bushfire resulted in over 3 times the fatalities than the immediate impact of the worst ever nuclear accident at Chernobyl (a flawed design that would never be built today). Furthermore, within a typical 5 year period, deaths from coal mining accidents in China alone exceed the projected long term death count from Chernobyl. One must question the true aim of modern anti-nuclear campaigners who seemingly care about public safety at home or abroad.

Nuclear waste issues are indeed a challenge that must be addressed, but the world has repeatedly demonstrated the ease of storing high level spent waste in interim facilities until permanent solutions can be implemented. The good news here is that there is really no rush, unlike action to curb emissions which is becoming more urgent with the passage of time. There is also the very real possibility that spent nuclear fuel could be consumed as a fuel source in fourth generation reactors.

Certainly, proliferation must be managed. This need has been recognised by both the Rudd and Obama administrations, among others. Collaborative efforts have been stepped up in recent years as has the IAEA budget in line with calls for enhanced nuclear security by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Again, fourth generation reactors include a prerequisite design criteria to mitigate proliferation risk through either the consumption of plutonium or the blending of high radiation fission products into the fuel to make physical protection an inherent property of the fuel.

Economic anti-nuclear arguments (too expensive, too long) often conviently assume nuclear as a stand-alone emissions reduction technology as opposed to one of a suite of technologies deployed in parallel between now and 2050. In Australia, we have been led to believe we are ‘blessed’ with renewable, conservation and efficiency options that are more rapidly and more cost effectively deployed. Great! Then deploy them and let’s get those two fossil projects in NSW cancelled.

Without tangible evidence that non-nuclear actions will achieve the necessary cuts, the allocation of additional resources to the problem is justified. There is evidence from, say large renewable deployment efforts in Europe, to suggest a non-nuclear strategy challenges the ability of a nation to achieve significant emissions cuts (see this story on anti-nuclear Austria’s Kyoto target performance vs. its EU peers).

With respect to the timing, there is additional evidence that nuclear project implementation performance improves with experience. Citing the current projects in Finland and France is counterproductive since they are early implementations of a First-of-a-kind third generation design. As experience is gained, the implementation of this design will improve just as second generation design project performance has over the past few decades, particularly in Korea and Japan. For more details on modern nuclear plant construction – refer to this post.

The justification to keep nuclear power off the table in Australia is simply not there. In fact there is considerable, objective evidence to the contrary.

Fossil fuel waste vs nuclear waste

Joseph Romm's recent post at the Energy Collective references this report from the National Research Council on the impact of fossil fuel use. The report works to monetise the impact and Romm quotes US $120 Billion annual cost from the use of fossil fuel in America. And that does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.

US $120 Billion annual impact - just in the USA. And it's supposed to get much worse by 2030.

Comparing this to - say - the cost of the Yucca Mountain project, or other back-end fuel cycle management options such as the Integral Fast Reactor or other Gen-IV designs being developed to consume rather than sacrifice the energy remaining in nuclear waste - the cost of nuclear waste management appears to be a much easier pill to swallow. This NY Times article quotes the current cost of Yucca Mountain at just over US $10 Billion and the entire nuclear waste fund at US $22 Billion (after 40 years of commercial nuclear power in the USA).

One can imagine the thought of 100% internalisation of waste costs to the fossil fuel energy industry is just a bit unsettling to a fair few boardrooms around Australia and around the World. Perhaps some corporate attention will be (is being?) invested to resist calls to internalise such costs.

4,000 MWe Fossil for NSW

Hat tip to Rising Tide Australia.

Further evidence that saying no to nuclear, results in more fossil fueled power plants. The NSW Planning website contains project concepts for 4,000 MWe of electricity generation capacity in the form of:

2,000 MWe Bayswater B Power Station

2,000 MWe Mount Piper Power Station Extension

The above links will direct you to the online submission web pages. If you've got something to say, submissions close October 26.

Seal the Deal - UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

Seal the Deal - the UN Worldwide Campaign on Climate Change is an online information and petition campaign.

From the webpage:

The UN-led Seal the Deal Campaign aims to galvanize political will and public support for reaching a comprehensive global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December.

Climate change affects us all. Nine out of every ten disasters recorded are now climate related. Rising temperatures and more frequent floods, droughts and storms affect millions of people’s lives. This is set against a backdrop of financial and food insecurity.

On December 7, governments will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to respond to one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. The main question will be how protect the planet and create a green economy that will lead to long-term prosperity.

Reaching a deal by the time the meeting ends on December 18 will depend not only on complex political negotiations, but also on public pressure from around the globe.

The United Nations has launched “Seal the Deal” campaign that encourages users to sign an online, global petition which will be presented by civil society to governments of the world.

The petition will serve as a reminder that our leaders must negotiate a fair, balanced and effective agreement in Copenhagen, and that they must seal a deal to power green growth, protect our planet and build a more sustainable, prosperous global economy that will benefit all nations and people.

THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE: STAMP YOUR VOTE AND SEAL THE DEAL!

Yesterday was the last day of Global Climate Week. With just over 70 days remaining, various organisations are working to build support through momentum and demonstrated consensus. If you have not done so already, please consider taking one minute to add your voice to the 65,000 plus who have done so already.

Want to do a bit more still?

Take a few more short minutes to forward the link to contacts, add it to your webpage, blog, or social network account.

Reports, critiques and expertise

Over the past few days, I noticed another article from Leslie Kemeny in the Canberra Times. It was filled with more arguments in favour of Australia considering the introduction of nuclear power. While I agree with the article, I didn't notice too many new arguments and would not have normally mentioned it here.

Not long thereafter, Geoff Davies submitted a reply in the Canberra Times as well as in his recently initiated Blog, Better Nature. I posted comments to both, but in addition to those, I'd like to take an opportunity to look at the McKinsey Australia report referenced by Davies.

First, I'd like to point out the McKinsey Global report: The carbon productivity challenge, Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth. It was a precursor to the McKiney Australia report and seems to be considerably more robust - albeit not specific to Australia's chellenges and options. It is interesting to compare the two together as well as with the comments of Davies.

Davies points to the Australia study as reason for why nuclear is [economically] unnecessary. He also blasts Kemeny's claims about nuclear's economics stating, "Most energy experts agree nuclear power will be Expensive."

Davies also references nuclear power's timeline, "We may have only a few years in which to get our emissions down."

Finally, he summarises nuclear's potential impact, "Nuclear power would be Insufficient because it generates electricity only, which accounts for around a third of energy use."

First some general comments on the Australian McKinsey report.

Unlike the Global report [which specifically states two goals of reducing emissions as well as sustaining economic growth] the Australian report does not appear to encompass the same scope. For example, abatement technologies are deployed by cost only, without regard to supply reliability or energy quality. This seems to ignor the intermitancy of wind and solar which will impact grid stability as their contributions continue to increase. This is stated on page 19 where the authors clarify

"Note that we have not investigated whether the resulting power mix match energy demand profiles, nor the question of whether the location of renewable sources can be aligned with energy demands of the different states."

Next, regarding the scope of the Australian McKinsey report:

"The scope of the measures considered were those requiring deployment of present-day technologies. Speculative technologies or those requiring significant future breakthroughs were not included in the scope..."

Interesting how CCS has been included, but advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including a closed fuel cycle - which eliminates deep geological repository stability for hundreds of thousands of years, but instead require storage for several hundreds of years - have been excluded. Multiple fast reactors and fuel reprocessing facilities exist. Even as I type, a shipment of MOX fuel is being prepared to ship to Japan where a power reactor [or reactors] will relieve the world of some of its plutonium - forever. The introduction of fast reactors, with integrated fuel processing facilities will further improve waste issues and - by breeding fuel - massively extend the viability of nuclear power technologies. The use of alternative fuels such as thorium could achieve similar results. The point being that many of these alternative nuclear options are significantly further developed than CCS and are yet [unfortunately] out of scope. I understand why CCS is in scope, just not why advanced nuclear fuel cycles are out.

On page 17, the report speaks of nuclear power's environmental viability. I am unable to comprehend this concern. Fuel from existing power reactors is either being safely reprocessed or stored on existing reactor sites. No industry has a footprint of zero, but I do not see the evidence of nuclear power's impact. Regarding the need for a geologic repository for the storage of processing products for a few hundred years - my understanding is that few geologies are superior to Australia. Australia's low population density only strengthens this argument.

The costs presented for participation in the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism [CDM] - allowing Australia to claim an equivalent emission reduction credit in exchange for money we provide to developing countries to deploy their own low emission technologies - appear so low, I can't understand why Australia would consider any other option. I have assumed [and will continue to assume] that Australians are serious about cutting Australia's emissions - above and beyond any 'good' we do via the CDM.

The report analyses various alternative scenarios: first, adding nuclear; next, unlimited CDM credits and finally no CCS [all replaced by renewables]. It would have been interesting to analyse the scenario where the absence of CCS was replaced with nuclear or perhaps a mix of nuclear and additional renewables.

Back to Davies' claims.

Regarding the economics of nuclear, in both the Australian [nuclear scenario] and Global reports, nuclear is among the cheapest energy production technologies to deploy. Nuclear is even cheaper than Australia's least expensive renewable, onshore wind [Australia report, Exhibit 7 - you have to compare closely with Exhibit 5]. Globally, nuclear is the only cost neutral abatement technology [Global report, Exhibits 5 and 10].

Regarding the timeline to reduce emissions, the goals and scenarios reported and studied are out to 2020 and 2030 as well as out to 2050 for the two reports. It is unreasonable to claim that Australia is not capable of deploying nuclear power plants over a 21 to 41 year period. Even the Australia report considers nuclear in only the 2030 scenario. I have no argument with that based on my own personal experience [meaning I would not suggest nuclear be included in the 2020 study].

On nuclear's potential impact, the Australian McKinsey report [p.11] states that the power sector is Australia's greatest opportunity for future abatement [39% of the total]. Therefore any technology to help achieve this, would seem to be very attractive. Also in both reports, nuclear power's impact is among the most significant [the bar is among the widest on the graphs].

Finally, the Global McKinsey report contains some information and recommendations which I believe are relevant. Their descriptions of the magnitude of the effort are worth consideration [comparison of 10 fold increase of carbon productivity now to the 10 fold increase in labour productivity during the industrial revolution - in one third the time: 41 vs 125 years [Exhibits 2, and 4]].

But, the world has done it before [see Exhibit 7 and related discussion on CFCs and SO-2].

James Hansen sends the Obamas a personal appeal

Back in March 2008, Professor [and chief NASA scientist] James Hansen sent a letter to Kevin Rudd asking for Australia's leadership in the fight against climate change. The June 5 reply may be found here.

The below correspondence is being transmitted to Barack and Michelle Obama. Much of its contents are relevant to Australia, our economy and our own struggles with respect to emissions control and climate change.

Everything has been copied below. The relevant links are here and here. [The enclosure may be found at the second link.]

Note to Jim Hansen's peers who commented on his draft letter

Thanks to the people on my e-mail list for all the suggestions (more than 100!) about my draft “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth”. Most frequent criticism: the need for an executive summary. Two people suggested: put a summary in the form of a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama. I like that idea. They are equally smart lawyers, and if we can get either of them to really focus on the actions that are needed, the planet has a chance.

The letter turned out to be four pages. Sorry. But I wrote a note to John Holdren, which can serve as an executive summary. John has promised to deliver the letter, but cannot do so prior to the inauguration. That delay is a problem for one of the three recommendations: tax and dividend. Thus I am making the letter available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
and the revised “Tell Barack Obama the Truth” at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
in hopes of getting the information to people who continue to push for “goals” and “caps”.

“Goals” for percentage CO₂ emission reductions and “cap & trade & dividend” are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO₂ back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes’ idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a ‘gas tax’ suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) “Cap & trade & dividend” creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the postfossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply ‘caps’ cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: ‘shortages’. All a utility has to say is ‘blackout coming’ and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate? Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.

(5) Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.

Some of you suggested that I should only explain the urgency of the climate crisis, the need to get back to 350 ppm CO₂ and less. Politicians are happy if scientists provide information and then go away and shut up. But science and policy cannot be divorced. What I learned in the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts.

Jim Hansen

The referenced note to John Holdren

Dear John,

A few weeks ago in London, where Anniek was running after me from one meeting to another, she had a heart attack (fortunately we were near a very good hospital -- the problem should be permanently fixed via the stent they inserted plus a better diet). As we waited a week for her to be able to fly I wrote the attached letter to the Obamas. Could you possibly forward this letter to them?

I realize that it is a long letter (4 pages + a page of footnotes). But global warming likely will be, eventually, the problem of their lifetime. His presidency may be judged in good part on whether he was able to turn the tide -- more important, the futures of young people and other life will depend on that. So four pages may not be intolerably long.

My hope is that he (even better they) will want to understand the matter, not just rely on advisers. I refer not to the details of climate science, but rather what needs to be done. The danger is that the compromises and special interests inherent in Kyoto-style targets and cap-and-trade will be accepted because of bureaucratic momentum. Other intolerable aspects of current approaches are the escape hatches (plant a tree somewhere, reduce some other gas, etc.). Carbon dioxide is special because of its strange lifetime (eventually exceedingly long) and the fact that it acidifies the ocean. Also it needs to be recognized that forestation can not be traded for more fossil fuels because the forests are needed to help bring down the current amount of CO₂.

The three points that I raise concern: (1) coal, (2) carbon tax, and (3) nuclear power.

(1) The critical need to cut off the coal source soon must be recognized. I was surprised that in 90 minutes I could not get the German Environmental Minister to understand that their proposed "carbon cap" would not allow them to build 20 more coal-fired power plants. I kept saying "if you burn more coal you must convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground" and he would say "we will tighten the carbon cap". Japan thinks that it did fine in meeting its Kyoto obligations, even though its coal use and CO₂ emissions increased. [Japan used Kyoto allowed escape hatches. The Earth has no escape hatch.]

(2) A carbon tax (across all fossil fuels at their source) is essential, I believe, for effectiveness. Any less comprehensive cap will reduce the price of the fuel for any other uses.

A rising tax (with all the other needed measures such as building codes, vehicle efficiencies, renewable energies...) will help constrain demand for the fuel. When gasoline hits $4 - 5/gallon again, most of that should be tax staying in the country and returned as dividend, providing the consumer the means to purchase more efficient products and incentive for entrepreneurs to develop them. A rising tax will help keep the price paid for the oil itself (or other fossil fuel) lower, thus making it unprofitable to go to the most extreme places on the planet to extract the last drop of oil. Instead we can move on sooner to the energies of the post-fossil-fuel-era.

A carbon cap that makes one more stinking millionaire on the backs of the public is going to infuriate the public. Me too. There is no need to support lobbyists, traders, and special interests. The tax should be proportional to the carbon amount and the dividend calculation will only require long division, which even a civil servant can do.

100% of the tax should go into the dividends. However, if some countries do not apply an equivalent tax, a duty should be collected on fossil-fuel dependent products imported from that country. Such import duties might be used, in part, to finance reforestation, climate adaptation, or other climate or energy related needs.

(3) Nuclear power: it would be great if energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved ("smart") electric grid could satisfy all energy needs. However, the future of our children should not rest on that gamble. The danger is that the minority of vehement antinuclear "environmentalists" could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the lights on. That is a prescription for disaster.

There is no need for a decision to deploy nuclear power on a large scale. What is needed is rapid development of the potential, including prototypes, so that options are available. We have to avoid a "FutureGen" sort of drag-out. It seems to me that it is time to get fed-up with those people who think they can impose their will on everybody, and all the consequences that might imply for the planet, by putting this R&D on a slow boat to nowhere instead of on the fast-track that it deserves.

I hope that you will be willing to forward this to the Obamas. Wishing you the best for the holiday season, and especially success in your new job!

Best regards,
Jim Hansen

Letter to Michelle and Barack Obama

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on ‘goals’ for emission reduction and ‘cap and trade’, have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth” was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential requestⁱ. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO₂.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits.

Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: “it cannot be ready before 2030.” However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

In our opinion, 4th GNPⁱⁱ deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive materialⁱⁱⁱ. Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can “burn” that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.

The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor.

Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric’s design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP (see enclosure). I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States.

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary

An urgent^iv geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.

Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be done^v. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO₂ emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.^vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.^vii

A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.

The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack’s leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America

ⁱ Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology…) discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack’s first year or two in office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.

ⁱⁱ I am not referring to the DOE’s “Generation-4” nuclear program, which is a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy systems as rapidly as practical.

ⁱⁱⁱ 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.

^iv Urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity’s control. Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of ‘frozen’ methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate forcing mechanisms.

What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees. A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more desolate planet than the one we knew.

^v Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity’s control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels.

Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

^vi Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes $4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there is 100% dividend.

^vii A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to their products at ports of entry.

Obama aims at the climate

During a video message to the bipartisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, California, Barack Obama looks to turn the US tide on emissions.

“Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious."

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” Mr. Obama said. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

Mr. Obama promised to set “strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050.”

This goes beyond even the planned EU reductions.

Mr. Obama vowed to invest $15 billion a year to support private clean-energy initiatives in solar and wind power, biofuels, clean coal technologies and nuclear power.

“When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

More analysis from the New York Times.

Nuclear Australia and the WEO-2008

The International Energy Agency has published this year's World Energy Outlook. Similar to the 2007 version [which contained a feature section on China], this year's edition includes a dedicated, in-depth analysis of climate policy strategies to achieve both 550 and 450 ppm carbon-dioxide equivalent targets [atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently 388 ppm according to NOAA]. These targets are consistent with those from the recently issued Garnaut review.

The 569 page document is detailed to say the least. The report is divided into three principal sections:

• Global Energy Trends to 2030
• Oil & Gas Production Prospects
• The Role of Energy in Climate Policy

The 550 Policy Scenario equates to an increase in global temperature of approximately 3°C, the 450 Policy Scenario to a rise of around 2°C. The 550 Policy Scenario involves a plateauing of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and reductions soon after. The 450 Policy Scenarios involves much more substantial reductions after 2020. Even then, emissions overshoot the trajectory needed to meet the 450 ppm CO2-eq target, requiring greater emissions reductions after 2030 [to achieve long term stability at 450 ppm]. In both scenarios, total emissions are significantly lower in 2030 in all major emitting countries. To reach either of these outcomes, hundreds of millions of households and businesses around the world would need to be encouraged to change the way they use energy. This will require innovative policies, an appropriate regulatory framework, the rapid development of a global carbon market and increased investment in energy research, development and demonstration.

The report explains that energy demand was increasing faster than emissions until the recarbonisation of the global energy supply market resumed after nuclear power fell out of favour in many countries in the 1990's.

Looking forward, the report explains how the most significant projected increases in emissions come from developing countries [China, India, etc.] as they strive to satisfy their increasing demand. To meet the goals of either scenario above, emissions from these energy expansion programmes must be pro-actively managed. In addition, the report also shows the bulk of emission cuts - form current levels - coming from OECD countries. Neither task will be easy, but all technologies have a role to play.

The 550 Scenario

The share in the world primary energy mix of low-carbon energy, such as hydropower, nuclear, biomass and renewables, increases from 19% in 2006 to 25% in 2030. Hydropower demand increases in the 550 Policy Scenario to reach 456 Mtoe [metric tonnes oil equivalent] in 2030, compared with 414 Mtoe in the Reference Scenario. Other renewables, such as wind and solar, receive a much bigger boost, rising seven-fold from just 66 Mtoe in 2006 to the same level as hydro in 2030. Modern biomass use also increases — both in power generation and in decentralised heat production for residential, commercial and industry needs — to around 1 200 Mtoe in 2030. Nuclear grows twice as fast as in the Reference Scenario to reach nearly 1 100 Mtoe in 2030.

All have a role to play. Coal miners may be pleased to see the industry continues to grow; albeit at a much slower pace than in the reference scenario. While Luke's analyses [first & second] don't give me a lot of confidence, achieving the relevant emission reduction goals relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration [CCS]. Those who back renewables will also be busy for some time. Averaging 8.6% growth per year is ambitious, but this is without hydro and biomass which themselves must also expand considerably over the time of interest. One also notes a drop of -9% in world energy demand with respect to the reference scenario. This is due mainly to conservation and efficiency improvements.

Nuclear expansion - beyond the reference scenario - will happen mostly in the OECD. The goals are assumed to be partially achieved through license extensions of existing plants as well as the accelerated construction of new plants. The second figure below reflects a significant nuclear expansion already included in the reference scenario within other major [non-OECD] economies.

The 2006 value of just under 2,500 TWh equates to roughly 370 GWe of installed capacity operated for about 7000 hours - or roughly 80% of the year. A single 1000 MWe plant will add about 7 TWh more to the 2006 data. Therefore the equivalent of 70 new 1000 MWe nuclear power plants are assumed to come into service by 2030 in the above figure - just in the OECD. The equivalent of over 100 more plants are assumed to come on line in non-OECD countries.

The big picture from the report:

In order to reduce CO2 emissions by 7.6 Gt [7,600,000,000 tonnes], the 550 Policy Scenario requires development — on a significant scale — of less CO2-intensive technologies (Figure 18.4). In 2030, 4.8 Gt of avoided CO2 emissions — 63% of total CO2 emissions reductions compared to the Reference Scenario — stem from efficiency improvements in the end-use sector and in power generation. A further 0.6 Gt of CO2 savings come from the operation of an additional 86 GW of nuclear capacity, beyond that built in the Reference Scenario. The large-scale deployment of renewable and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in the power sector gives rise to 1.2 and 0.8 Gt of CO2 savings, respectively. The decarbonisation of the power sector alone involves notably the construction every year to 2030 of an additional 7 [800 MWe] coal-fired plants and 3 [500 MWe] gasfired plants with CCS, 11 new [1000 MWe] nuclear plants and almost 12 000 [3 MWe] wind turbines, while hydropower is expanded every two years by 64 GW — the equivalent of three dams of the capacity of China’s Three Gorges Dam.

The 450 Scenario

Although the reduction in global electricity demand in 2030 is only 4% compared with the 550 Policy Scenario, the fuel mix changes significantly as a result of the wider use of nuclear and renewables. The share of coal and gas as fuel for power and heat plants in the 450 Policy Scenario in 2030 declines to 47%. This contributes to the security of the electricity sector, making the sector in many countries less import-dependent.

In the more-stringent 450 Policy Scenario, a deeper transformation of energy supply and an even wider adoption of CO2-mitigation options occurs (Figure 18.4). In order to achieve the necessary additional reduction between the 550 and 450 Policy Scenarios, further end-use efficiency improvements are assumed. Renewable energy is developed considerably further, to realise a further 25% CO2-emissions reduction compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. CCS technologies are applied more widely in power generation, but are also introduced in the industry sector. Thirteen additional nuclear power plants have to be built yearly, compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. Biofuels penetrate the transportation sector more deeply.

The data is impressively cross-cut and impossible to capture in one blog post. The economic impacts of different technologies are discussed - nuclear is the cheapest option in the EU with carbon pricing via an emissions trading scheme. It is second only to on-shore wind in the USA under the same conditions. There are detailed breakdowns of specific renewable technologies [on-shore wind, biomass, solar PV, solar thermal, off-shore wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.]...

This is an excellent reference. Anyone arguing that reasonable emissions reduction goals can be achieved without the expansion of nuclear energy production is clearly refuted by this report. Similarly, nuclear advocates who criticise other low-carbon options such as wind or solar should consider the information in this report. All technologies have a significant role to play. Champions of different technologies should welcome objective and constructive critiques. However, the more pedantic arguments, usually accompanied by not-so-hidden agendas, between those who otherwise agree on the requirement to reduce emissions, undercut the very milestones they are all working to progress.

The irresistible force vs. the immovable object

Australia's role in future energy policies and economies is complicated. The economy is closely linked to fuel exports and domestic energy supply is almost entirely carbon based. These dependencies will complicate the transition to a low carbon economy in a country significantly threatened by the impacts of climate change and ironically one the world's highest per-capita carbon emitters.

Nearly two years ago, the UMPNER report analysed the potential role for nuclear power in Australia. A growing community of concerned individuals, companies and organisations - including UMPNER chief, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, are working to resume a discussion regarding nuclear technology's role in Australia's energy future. Meanwhile nations around the world are expanding existing nuclear programmes or initiating new ones.

The World Energy Outlook report concludes:

For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we can be certain that the energy world will look a lot different in 2030 than it does today. The world energy system will be transformed, but not necessarily in the way we would like to see. We can be confident of some of the trends highlighted in this report: the growing weight of China, India, the Middle East and other non-OECD regions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; the rapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies; and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies. And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy drivers (not to mention other, external factors) remain in doubt. It is within the power of all governments, of producing and consuming countries alike, acting alone or together, to steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system. Time is running out and the time to act is now.

Ziggy Switkowski's statements today

In Adelaide today at the 34th annual Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture.

"I am concerned that the exclusion of nuclear power from our national conversation and energy debate represents a triumph of political pragmatism over good policy."

"When it comes to the generation of base-load electricity - the 80 per cent of electricity that must be available round the clock to power our refrigerators, washing machines, plasma TVs, traffic lights, air conditioners, etc. - the options in front of us include the use of coal, gas, oil, hydroelectricity and nuclear energy."

"If fossil fuels are excluded because they are dirty and the risks to hydroelectricity from water scarcity are considered, then the only presently available clean option for
base-load electricity is nuclear power."

"Significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would almost certainly prove beyond the capability of existing technologies, while renewable energy platforms will fail to deliver the cuts in the time allowed."

"Our lights will start to go out as investment in clean, base-load energy generation stalls in an uncertain regulatory environment and the nuclear alternative is not validated."

"In a carbon-constrained future, nuclear-powered economies will exploit their cost advantages for clean energy in competing with Australian products newly burdened by embedded carbon costs."

"31 countries currently used nuclear power to generate 15 per cent of the world's electricity."

"An increasing number of countries around the world are turning to nuclear power to meet growing demand for energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify their energy mix from a single platform or dominant fuel supplier."

"Why not Australia?"

News from Japan

Japan's carbon emissions are fairly high [number 4 in the world in total emissions, but number 23 in per capita emissions per the NationMaster database]. Japan is in the news because their carbon emission have increased over the last year by 2.6 percent.

Japan's emission rose due to the shutdown of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, which was damaged by an earthquake on July 16, 2007. The site is home to seven large nuclear power reactors [nearly 8,000 MWe capacity]. There age ranges from 12 to 23 years old. Three of the reactors were operating during the earthquake and the other four were shutdown for routine inspections. The operating reactors were safely shutdown and none of the seven units has operated since that time.

But this will not be the case for long. The IAEA is returning to reinspect the plant and operators have begun loading fuel into Unit 7. Fuel loading is expected to be complete by 16-November and related tests sometime in December.

Meanwhile in Australia the coal industry is looking for love... via a $1.5 million ad campaign and $1 million website aimed at educating the Australian public on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies.

Some exerpts from the linked report:

Back in Hugh Morgan's day, the coal industry's global warming strategy was to fund denialist groups. Not now: Mr Hillman said the industry saw climate change as real, and the association's main goal was to drive the adoption of CCS to tackle it.

The Federal Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has criticised the industry's effort as inadequate. In his final report last month, Professor Garnaut contrasted its research and development spending with the amounts paid by farmers out of a much lower revenue base. He said coalminers should beef up their R&D levies to $250 million a year to accelerate the adoption of CCS.

The International Energy Agency warned last month that CCS now costs between $US60 ($A90) and $US75 per tonne of emissions saved, way above the price of wind power or nuclear — and unless R&D efforts were radically stepped up, it might not be commercially viable until 2030.

The latest from Ziggy Switkowski

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski has written an article on a nuclear Australia in the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering's (ATSE) Focus Magazine.

It has also been re-posted at ScienceAlert.

It is a very objective piece that highlights both the specific advantages nuclear power technology offers Australia as well as the specific challenges faced here.

I encourage anyone interested in either nuclear power or Australia's approach to climate change mitigating technologies to read Dr. Switkowski's article.

Earlier in the month Dr. Switkowski went back-and-forth with Climate minister Penny Wong in this report.

Obviously, I believe Switkowski's arguments are valid, are put forward objectively and contain abundant facts and examples. But what impresses me most is his political courage. Australia could use a lot more of that.

Garnaut submits final report

The final report may be found here.

I don't have much to add from previous posts on Targets and Trajectories, another here and again here.

Nuclear power is mentioned in a similar fashion as it was in the draft reports. Public opinion remains the principal hurdle and Garnaut includes it as a later, if not last, resort. I note the cost scenario in the report [Chapter 20] was only for the 550 ppm carbon-dioxide scenario and not the 450 ppm scenario. I would like to have seen the later as well.

The report includes recommendations regarding nuclear research - basically that Australia is not a global research leader in any nuclear power technology field and its resources would be better served elsewhere. Personally, I think we could develop some helpful waste mitigation, permanent isolation and storage technologies for deployment, but other countries are far in the led as the report points out.

The report goes 'all-in' for coal, gas and carbon capture; betting the proverbial farm on the development effort recently launched by Government's announcement of a $100 million carbon capture research initiative. The case made for this approach is an economic one: why wouldn't Australia pursue a solution which is also in its own best interest? The success of carbon capture development would bring with it, tremendous political and economic advantage within Australia and beyond. However, there is one warning that comes in the form of a firm recommendation:

Priority should be given to the resolution of whether a near-zero coal future is even feasible, either partially or in total. If it is not, then Australia needs to know as soon as possible, so that all who depend on the coal industry can begin the process of adjustment, and so that adequate and timely investments are made in other industries.

This gives an indication of the both the current state of carbon capture technology development as well as the liberty taken with respect to the resulting assumptions. In the end, it may not work at all. That risk may need some serious mitigating actions and attention.

If one examines the projected contributions of renewables, it appears that significant technology development assumptions have been made in this area as well. The projections are ambitious and will also require aggressive technology development and deployment.

My concern is when these assumptions come face to face with the more pragmatic world of engineering technology deployment - complete with budget constraints, schedule pressure and resource limitations - Australia will be looking at a very high emissions future.

Copy this path in a significant number of countries around the world [If Australia can bet the farm on carbon capture, why can't everyone else??]. If carbon capture fails to materialise, the world will need a fallback plan.

Coincidentally, I find I have some company. Ziggy Switkowski submitted this report, where he advocates the allocation of at least some resources to climate change adaptation.

This requires planning for extreme weather events and natural disasters, inadequate rainfall and water shortages, higher utility and food prices and insurance costs, drought-proofing, better health services for the vulnerable, and so on. And, of course, the responsible management of finite resources and fragile environments.

Solutions to these issues do not require international accords and are largely within our control and budgets. And their relevance is independent of the accuracy of climate forecasts or one's position in the climate change debate.

Business group calls for nuclear

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in a recent submission to the government's green paper on climate change.

The report in the Australian notes Australia's high per-capita emissions, our elevated reliance on coal and the role nuclear power can play to address both in the context anticipated emission reduction goals.

Many of the 350,000 businesses represented by the ACCI are small to medium sized enterprises. They will not be able to relocate off-shore, are not able to invest in low carbon technologies, can not pass on higher prices to consumers, but face the simple threat of going bust.

In the report, the opposition's position is that they would like nuclear power to be considered, but add any consideration must be bipartisan.

Garnaut - Targets and Trajectories

The report may be found here.

There are two references to nuclear power, copied below.

What the rest of the world notices most about Australian emissions is that ours are the highest per capita in the OECD; that over the past several decades they have been growing faster than those in other OECD countries; and that while in 1971 the emissions intensity of Australian primary energy supply was similar to the OECD as a whole, in recent years it has been more than one-third higher (Draft Report, Chapter 8, Figure 8.6). There are good reasons why Australia became relatively more dependent on a high-emissions source of energy, coal, while the remainder of the OECD was reducing the proportionate role of coal and increasing the contributions of low-emissions energy, including nuclear. But whatever the reasons, they are not easily reconciled with the idea that Australia is leading the world in emissions reduction.

It is often said in Australia that developing countries are strongly resistant to reductions in emissions, and that it is unrealistic to expect them to participate in global constraints on emissions. This is too simple. China’s selective withdrawal of export rebates within its value added tax, the export taxes on a range of energy-intensive products, its discouragement of expansion of energy-intensive industries and its specific regulatory constraints on investment in steel, aluminium and cement production add up to more substantial constraints on the most emissions-intensive industries than would occur in Australia in the early years of an emissions trading system. China’s active encouragement of low-emission sources of power (hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, biomass, biofuels) goes beyond current Australian efforts. These measures stand alongside a domestic policy commitment to reduce the energy intensity of economic activity by four percentage points per annum until 2020. Data released in August 2008 show the energy intensity of Chinese GDP falling by 3.7 per cent in 2007—the first sign of good intentions on energy intensity being reflected in policy outcomes.

In the two country examples above Australia's rejection of nuclear power compared to the OECD is linked to our current emissions reduction challenges. China, on the other hand, through its deployment of nuclear power - in concert with the parallel deployment of other technologies and strategies - has already achieved tangible evidence of their 'good intentions'.

There is a special section devoted to the future use of coal [heavily dependent on near zero leakage CCS technology]. The report remains technology-neutral beyond these statements, referring only to 'low-emissions technologies'.

Section 6 of the report addresses the fact that despite Australia's contribution of only 1.5% of total global emissions - 'Australia matters'. Garnaut concludes:

Australia matters. What we do matters. When we do it matters. It would be really silly to take action with costs to ourselves meant to assist the emergence of a good international agreement, but to do it too late to have a chance of avoiding high risks of dangerous climate change. What we do now, in time to influence the global mitigation regime from the end of the Kyoto period, is of high importance. What we do later runs the risk of being inconsequential in avoiding dangerous climate change.

There are already reports in the media calling the proposed trajectories inadequate. Calls for greater reductions within the context of a sustainable Australian economy will continue to increase the attractiveness of nuclear power.