Apparently this has come from the efforts of -- you guessed it -- Bill McKibben, bad math and all.
Actually I think this not a bad idea, but I also don't think it will work.
In short: it's easy to protest against things that don't cost you anything.
--
When I was in college, there was an effort among college organizations for their universities to divest from companies who did business in South Africa. I wasn't part of these efforts, mind you -- I was too busy with a double major in physics and mathematics. And I've never been able to be part of that kind of crowd anyway.
But the protest worked, and it helped end apartheid there, in its way.
Apartheid -- the segregation and disestablishment of blacks in South Africa (as if it needs explaining, but these days it might) was a hideous moral crime. It followed the struggle of blacks in the U.S. in the 1960s, and so was easy for my generation to identify with -- we grew up (barely) cognizant of that struggle, with the moral ground already well plowed.
And violations of basic humans rights are easy to understand anyway.
Not so much with climate change. Every college student out there today is highly dependent on a vast energy infrastructure that runs almost entirely on fossil fuels. (At last count, only 9% of US energy came from renewable sources, over the last 12 months.)
Turn all that off? No way -- of course. (How would McKibben get to his next protest?)
Use all renewables? Watch the students complain when their tuition goes up to cover the increased cost of renewable energy.
It all comes down to what Roger Pielke Jr calls the Iron Law of Climate Policy:
When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.That's it. That's the bottom line, every time, all the time.
Until noncarbon energy is cheaper than, or at least equal to, the price of fossil fuels, there will be no cutbacks. Period.
So, in my opinion, what these students ought to be protesting for is (at the least) a carbon tax, to incentivize R&D into non-C energy. Better yet (IMO) is a serious federal research program -- $10-20 billion/yr -- into technologies like nuclear fusion and air capture and carbon sequestration. Continued tax breaks for solar and wind. Credits for home-based solar panels. Drive up the demand for solar panels, and (unexpectedly) you will help drive down the price.
We can't stop using energy, and that's the difference from South Africa
7 comments:
"Until noncarbon energy is cheaper than, or at least equal to, the price of fossil fuels, there will be no cutbacks. Period.
So, in my opinion, what these students ought to be protesting for is (at the least) a carbon tax, to incentivize R&D into non-C energy. Better yet (IMO) is a serious federal research program -- $10-20 billion/yr -- into technologies like nuclear fusion and air capture and carbon sequestration. Continued tax breaks for solar and wind. Credits for home-based solar panels. Drive up the demand for solar panels, and (unexpectedly) you will help drive down the price."
Yes, Piekle has it right. I'm with you on the R&D but not the production subsidies. I'm close to installing solar hot water and I continue to watch solar PV prices. My favorite R&D project.
Game changer: The "green" nuclear. Molten salt thorium nuclear reactors. Much cheaper, safer, and cleaner.
Feb 2011
"China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source."
"The project was unveiled at the annual Chinese Academy of Sciences conference in Shanghai last week, and reported in the Wen Hui Bao newspaper (Google English translation here)."
"If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
June 2012
"The U.S. Department of Energy is quietly collaborating with China on an alternative nuclear power design known as a molten salt reactor that could run on thorium fuel rather than on more hazardous uranium, SmartPlanet understands."
"Proponents of thorium MSRs, also known as liquid thorium reactors or sometimes as liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs), say the devices beat conventional solid fuel uranium reactors in all aspects including safety, efficiency, waste and peaceful implications."
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/us-partners-with-china-on-new-nuclear/17037
The solution is there. Technology developed in the US in the 60's. Just needs to be updated. Fortunately the Chinese (who do and will burn the most coal) are on to it. We can all breath easier.
McKibben reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. He is tolerated at the moment but he is headed for irrelevance. It is the breakthroughs in technologies and not McKibben's protesting minions that are relevant and capable of changing the world.
I worked on ITER for a few years while at Sandia labs. I agree that there needs to be a serious Federal research program on new energy technologies, my feeling is nuclear fusion research is hugely under-funded. If there is one thing the Federal government should be doing I think most people would agree funding risky but promising research into fusion is one of them.
Hmm, didn't check to see the what the campaign goal really is, David? Sloppy.
Confirm it for yourself on the 350 site, but in fact it's to divest from the top 200 public companies with fossil fuel reserves (i.e. in the ground).
But never having been part of that crowd, I don't expect the actual goal will appeal to you either.
"When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time."
A nonsensical statement on several levels. Cutting emissions is critical to averting trillions of dollars in damages.
Pielke fails to define "policies focused on economic growth." He then compares a specific policy to a vague and untestable aspiration ("focused on economic growth.")
It is also stupid as a general rule to assert iron laws of politics, when anyone who has studied politics or history for five minutes knows that governments frequently do strange, counterintuitive, sometimes self-destructive things. Voters are unpredictable. And Roger's going to predict what they will do 100%? Silly.
A dumb assertion that does not improve with repetition.
If you read RP Jr's book "The Climate Fix," you'll see that by "economic growth" he means economic activity that does not consider damages (which is the case with most canonical metrics like GDP). He doesn't dispute that AGW causes damages or that we should seek to minimize those damages -- just that, so far at least, we have not.
The generation of electricity through nuclear fusion is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. In 1970 it was 40 years in the future. In 2010 it is 60 years in the future.
Sixty years ago ORNL laboratory was operating an MSR reactor on a Monday to Friday basis. They did not want to work over the weekends so they dumped the molten core on Friday afternoon and then pumped it back up on Monday morning. That should tell you something about molten salt reactors.
Today we have passionate advocates for MSRs like Kirk Sorensen but they are not getting funded. Neither governments or private companies are investing in LFTRs in the USA while solar and wind power are attracting huge subsidies.
The failure to back people like Kirk Sorensen and David LeBlanc will mean that leadership in Generation IV nuclear technology be lost. Who will pick up the torch? Russia, China, India or the Czech Republic?
http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/if-thorium-good-enough-moon-its-good-enough-earth.html
Post a Comment