Now regarding investing now in nuclear, I demand a new thread !!!

Especially a differenciation between countries with respect to the available potential for low CO2 energy other than nuclear is necessary. But basically, if we talk about nuclear now and look at the learning curve of CSP and PV the conclusion is pretty clear.

Now you start mentioning an alternative power plant technology we can finally make the discussion complete.

We don’t need nuclear power.
We need to apply fusion energy, from the fusion reactor 8 light minutes away.
Solar power, especially Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), is already mature.
420 MW of CSP plants are already producing electricity in the USA.
Many gigawatts of CSP plants are under construction or in the planning in the USA, Spain, and a few other countries.
Investment costs, now still at the 3-4 $/W level, will reduce fast according to the learning curve effect, as happened with wind energy, see: Report to Congress on Assessment of Potential Impact of Concentrating Solar Power for Electricity
Generation, 2007, see: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/41233.pdf

We need a WW2 approach: car factories, plane factories, ship yards, etc. should be forced by law to produce solar mirrors, support structures, tanks for thermal energy storage using liquid K/NaNO3, steam turbines, electric generators, High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transforming stations, HVDC cables and lines, and of course also: wind turbines, PV solar panels, Solar boilers, etc.
Such production should be ordered by the government, as weapons in the war against climate change. This would boost the declining economy, it is the New Green Deal.

If the USA starts doing this, Europe will follow soon (with most investments in North Africa as Europe has not sufficient space on its own deserts, and finally also China, India, Brazil.

Al Gore made a call for massive CSP investments in the USA. He also made a call for massive CSP investments in North Africa to supply Europe.

No developing country will impose a voluntary cap. Neither would the oil-rich middle-east, Russia or Venezuela agree to a voluntary moratorium on the use of their oil & gas reserves. Cap & Trade, in the words of Dr. Hansen, is a “a very costly delusion”.

If you agree with him, please take Mr. Obama to task for not looking beyond Cap & Trade as the answer to global warming woes. The word I would like to hear is “moratorium on coal”.

There is a mighty difference between the carbon trading approach that you favor, and the coal moratorium + carbon tax approach that Dr Hansen favors. The latter works, and the former is a joke.

[JR: You don't actually read this blog, do you? I don't "favor" a carbon trading approach.]

What we need is spirited investment in energy technologies that are completely devoid of fossil fuel emissions. (not technologies that “reduce” them per se). We should lay the framework for a global conversion to these new energy technologies.

The approach of Dr Hansen precipitates in such a revolution. Your ideas will not.

These new energy technologies will definitely have to include 4th generation nuclear power – a highly advanced technology that results in reactors with simplified designs and passive safety features, which are 100 times more fuel efficient than the current ones. We can provide reliable energy to all the planet for several hundred years without having to do any further Uranium mining, or without having to worry about nuclear waste (the new reactors will produce no long-term waste).

4th generation nuclear power also happens to be the cheapest, with the best hopes of replacing coal plants. It is by far the power choice with the least environmental impact – due to its minimal land, water and mineral use.

It is no wonder that Dr Hansen considers 4th generation nuclear power in exceedingly good terms, along with solar, wind technologies and energy efficiency measures.

If you get to be the part of DOE in a future Obama administration, please speak for the sake of sanity, and please listen to the voice of scientists – either in nuclear power or in climate change. The book of Tom Blees will make a very good recommendation, please read it.

ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/ pub/ posters/ 2008/ Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf
http://www.ecn.nl/ docs/ library/ report/ 2003/ c03016.pdf

I don’t see any adverse effects (other than mining gigatonnes of olivine). The goal is to speed up a natural process.

I think our goal has to be 280 ppm, that anything over that is excess CO2 to be removed by new carbon sinks.

When the cost of banning coal world wide sinks in, public patience will end. The search for solutions needs to recognize that as reality.

I tend to think that people talking about geo-engineering also do not have an intuitive sense of how big the world is.

Imagine also the public disillusionment when the truth about electric cars becomes apparent, especially those who spent a lot of money thinking they were making a big impact. I am referring to the fact that making a car “electric” or “plug-in” while failing to seriously reduce the energy demand of that car, will not do much for global warming. It will help to reduce use of oil, and that gain will be wildly cheered, with many people thinking it also means reduction of CO2.

Joe’s emphasis on energy efficiency should be pressed hard. He also is enthusiastic about cogeneration of electricity. These measures seem more palatable to the general public since there are ways to do such things without significant impact on people’s life style. We do not need to chase science fiction solutions. There is plenty of room for creativity in more mundane kinds of engineering.

A carbon price over $70 does not make a lot of sense for the power sector as it removes the economic viability of coal power plants and should effectively phase them out and have them replaced by other technologies. However, there would still be companies trying to plan new coal power plants under the assumption that they will be able to stop cap and trade efforts through lobbying. I have observed this in Germany where companies assume no or little climate regime past 2020 for their planning !!!

I truly think here that we have to proceed like Joe said with a strong regulatory approach. I propose therefore:

- to ban the construction of new coal power plants.
- to cap the quantity of coal, coke and petcoke produced and imported in developed countries. Ultimately, this cap should fall to 10% the present value by 2020 (2030 for developing countries)
- to impose a similar cap to fossil fuel oil with 5% the present amount by 2025 (2035 for developing countries).

Basically a shortage in the supply should have the same effect with the exception that it is easier to monitor and verify.

What is extremely important is to show to the business world what the path is going to be and be strong enough to make them understand that resisting is useless.

Perhaps resisting climate efforts should be highly penalized (criminalized?) for large companies and groups of interest, just like plots of assassinations. Otherwise, you will never get rid of this morbid planning.

Off course I understand the economic implications such a course of actions would have. In turn, it could only be implemented under specific curcumstances which fall under the case of an “extreme hardship” under the WTO rules.

I would by the way really like to read about the conclusion for China and India as I am very interested about what will happen with the massive build up in their heavy industry production capacity (steel, cement, glass, etc.).
I want btw to mention that we do not have yet any magic solution to produce low CO2 primary steel or cement. We need therefore some CCS for these industries, otherwise we might find little public acceptance as infrastructures made from these materials basically fuel the economic growth of most developing countries.

I also firmly believe in very strong energy efficiency standards which will be very cost effective under a strong carbon constraint.

I basically also agree about your visions about the NACR (Net Atmospheric Carbon Removal). Forestry is a great way, however there CCS+biomass can also be used as a sub-optimal solution for the transition.