Negative and Positive, Energy/Climate Feedbacks

A negative feedback mechanism could be a silver lining to a bad process, that reverses the damage automatically. Naively, I thought that the disappearance of oil might have this effect. As oil is used up, the world will have to substitute for its loss with clean nuclear and wind energy, and oil will not be pouring CO2 into the air. However, a recent History (HIS) channel program, shot down this hope. Their take is that oil is primarily responsible for doubling the atmospheric CO2 from the level before the Industrial Revolution. Also, the oil remaining would easily cause another equal increase, which could be catastrophic.

Even worse, are the positive climate feedbacks scientists are talking about now. As the air heats, forest fires burn more frequently, and fiercely, which heats the air more. As floe ice melts in the arctic, less of the Sun's energy reflects into space, and is instead absorbed by the water. As areas of frozen tundra thaw, methane hydrates percolate into the air, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

This leads to the idea of a "tipping point". There is a slim, but real, danger, that a point may be reached where no amount of nuclear and wind energy can stop the feedbacks. Also, rising sea levels may not be the most serious problem. Per the History channel program, in past geologic times, atmospheric CO2 several times higher than current levels produced a Venus-like Earth. If the world does not press nuclear and wind energy, right now, we will be playing with fire.

Bottlenecks to the Coming Nuclear Renaissance

The world is ready for nuclear energy, to prevent climate change; America's NRC expects 30 applications for plant licenses within the next few years; 70 nations have announced interest in nuclear energy; a Global Nuclear Uranium Partnership is in the works; the US has let contracts to study reprocessing of spent nuke fuel (which is not waste); both China and India each seem poised to build 300, one-gig nukes during this century; and uranium mine production is rising everywhere; but can all the needed plants be built and staffed? All countries must rely on the same worldwide resources for engineers, and specialized factories.

There are at least three potential bottlenecks for deployment of enough plants to save our world economy and civilization itself--concrete, staffing and ultralarge forgings for the reactor vessels. Reactor containment structures will have to compete for concrete with the footings for millions of wind turbines. Concrete, currently in short supply, can probably ramp up. However, this will add to emissions; concrete production causes 4% of the world's CO2 right now. Nuclear staffing will be a race of long lead times for plants vs. retirement of industry old timers.

The most critical looming shortage is massive forgings for reactor vessels; and The Japan Steel Company, is the only one in the world that can do this work. Since 31 nuke plants are in the worldwide pipeline now, and Japan Steel has a 3.5 year backlog; will they be able to handle demand from 70 nations in coming decades? Last month, two American companies announced that they had placed orders for vessels even though they do not yet have licenses; a gamble they felt was necessary. Its past time, for some American company like GE, or foreign facility such as ThyssenKrupp to see the enormous business potential, and build a second plant for the world--before it is too late.

Proceedings of Bali Climate Conference (Part Two)

Conference extremists want US to pay reparations for emissions, which is totally unfair. America took no deliberate action to cause harm, but will do its part, in cutting fossil fuel. Other nations however, must control deforestation; likely 1/3 of total CO2 emissions.

CO2 is most directly related to burning of fossil fuels, and America consumed 25% of the world's total; namely 80Q of the world's 310Q fossil fuels in 1990; and will consume estimated 22%, 130Q of world's 600Q total fossil fuels in 2030.

A goal for emissions by 2030 to equal the 1990 level, would take the following clean energy (or equiv.):
US 130Q-80Q=50Q (equivalent to 8.5 billion barrels of oil) = 570, one-gig, nukes or 1.15 million, one-meg, wind turbines; or combination of these two clean sources.
World 600Q-310Q=290Q (equivalent to 48 billion barrels of oil) = 3200, one-gig nukes or 6.4 million, one-meg wind turbines; or combination.
NOTES: 1. All energy data from eia.doe.gov 2. One billion barrels oil=6Q, since US 7.5 billon barrels equal 42Q (2005)

A goal for 2050 would be more difficult to achieve, since oil may well be gone and additional clean energy will be needed to compensate. Antinuclear activists who closed down nuclear energy because of a few minor events, are the real villains of the coming climate and oil crisis. Chernobyl was not serious, compared to the Bhopal, India, chemical plant leak (thousands dead, and twice as many blinded and maimed), and Three-Mile Island problem was nothing at all. If the world had 2000, one-gig nukes right now, with the capability to ramp up to producing dozens more each year, there wouldn't be anything to even discuss.

Proceedings of Bali Climate Conference (Part One)

Two overriding ideas have come from the Bali Conference. Many of the 10,000 delegates, in particular those from Europe, blame America for all emissions problems, and think that they will get policies they like when the Bush administration is over. They ignore more important facts of history. The world, Europe especially, owes plenty to America, and all of its administrations for sacrifices to bring peace in two world wars, and two Asiatic wars; for huge balance of trade deficits that amount to nothing less than wealth transfers to the rest of the world; and for $trillions in foreign aid.

No one can predict in detail how the future will play out, least of all government planners. This was seen clearly in the problems of rigid Soviet economics, versus the thriving free market countries at the end of last century.

Fusion energy might arrive and solve all problems; but it always seems to be 50 to 100 years away. Barring that, this century's problems seem sure to center on energy. It will be difficult to convince any American administration, and also be counterproductive, for America to be rigidly constrained. If the end of cheap oil happens as a real crisis, free market capitalist countries, led by America stand the best chance of handling it. At some point, it may be right for America to promise steep emissions cuts, backed by its full faith and credit, with or without rigid numbers.

Already several nations face Kyoto Treaty fines up to $30 billion because they will miss the goals they promised. One negotiator said it had been hard to see how difficult the job would be; i.e., they did not see what they were getting into. For America's enormously complex economy, deciding numbers that can be met would be next to impossible.

Bali posts, Parts two and three, will consider emission transparency, and aid to poor nations. Aid programs will be easy to sell, because America is always generous.

Nuclear Subsidies; Tiny Vs. Renewable's.

A story in the Hawaii Reporter (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/), by Michael. R. Fox, Ph.D, describes the US energy subsidy program in the clearest manner that I have ever seen. Some critics have claimed that the $50 billion Nuclear Loan Guarantee is excessive. (My take; this is ridiculous. In the past there were some shoddy nuke programs, but transparency will guarantee that will not happen again; it is most likely that not a single $billion will have to be spent.)
On the other hand, Mr. Fox, with 40 years in energy, plus University teaching, says that the subsidies for renewables have been ongoing for three decades, with little to show. Now, there is a 0.52 per gallon subsidy on ethanol, which has only 2/3 the energy of gas (data from another source). If nukes received compensation for clean energy delivered, that was equivalent to the ethanol subsidy, one-gig nukes, which produce one million kilowatts each instant, and one million kwh each hour, would be paid a subsidy of $22,000 for every hour of operation.
The cost to build nuclear plants is wildly exaggerated by antinuke activists. Costs are also artificially inflated by government overregulation. In the early 70's many US plants were built for $100,000,000. Some of these were probably slapdash, but plants could be built quite safely now for a few $billion, under current strict supervision. Japan builds for $1.7 billion, and China, probably for less.
As for strict supervision, it is unfortunately too strict, and intrusive. Sometimes, changes are made in designs after construction starts. Then, instead of simple design revisions by software, concrete, rebar, cables, etc. have to be ripped out causing huge overruns. Also, the paperwork for construction is excessive. In one case studied, 44,000,000 pages of documents were produced, almost 2/3 of a ton per day. The nuclear renaissance which is starting in America, needs more common sense supervision than this for success.

Bali Climate Change Conference Report

Among the first issues being discussed at the Bali conference on climate change, is whether rich countries owe reparations to poor ones for climate problems caused by burning of fossil fuels. It seems to me this is a moral obligation that should be accepted.

However, for America, there are good reasons why it should be given some slack; even decades worth. It would not be good for the world if America's might was hobbled by restrictions on its industries. Starting after WWII, America has created the modern world economy. While some economic excesses are a big part of the problem, the available capital and industrial strength that the world now enjoys, is the only reason to hope that the problem may eventually be solved. After WWII, America spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Europe, including the devastated nation of Germany. Also, rather than destroying Japan with reparations, America led them with trade (plus their ingenuity and energy) to where Japan is the world's third economy, and a real economic competitor. No one can call this imperialism.

In more recent decades, trade with America, Europe, and Japan, has helped development of China and India. They should also be given some slack; if their economies succeed, then one-third of the world's population will be supported.

In coming decades, the industrial might of the world must focus on construction of nuclear and wind energy plants; the only solutions visible right now. 5000, one-gig nukes, AND 12 to 15 million, one-meg wind turbines, plus car and appliance efficiency, controlled forestry, and biofuels (from anything except food) might pull the world through.

Insanity-The Only Word That Fits

A recent report, at www.townhallmail.com/raslnam_thukkjkj.html, says that corn ethanol used 6% of the US 2000 corn crop, 20% last year, and about one-quarter this year. Furthermore, congress mandates 7.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2012 (no crop % estimate), and 15 billion gallons by 2022 (i.e. 36 billion gallons ethanol, with 21 billion from scrap stock such as saw grass). (Aside-saw grass technology is now yet proven, but is infinitely better than food as a feedstock. The sacrificed food will not just be corn, but includes other foods that will be left unplanted, crowded out by the corn acreage.)

The Org. for Economic Co-operation and Development says that rising food prices will threaten the nutrition and health of poor people worldwide, and that ethanol production causes greater environmental damage than fossil fuels . A Nobel Laureate, Paul Crutzen concurs; saying nitrous oxide from ethanol causes an increase in greenhouse emissions. Even worse, a Cornell professor, David Pimentel, computes that from start to finish, growing and processing the corn requires 1700 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol. This is obviously a greater strain on the Earth, than even coal, which is simply dug up, moved, and burned in a power plant.

15 billion gallons of ethanol, equal to about 400 million barrels, is less than 20 days of US oil consumption, and could be produced more sanely by 25, one-gig nukes.

PS: A United Nations spokesman said (10/29/07), that using arable land to grow crops for biofuels is a Crime Against Humanity.

PPS: I believe corn ethanol craze will end before five, or at the most ten, years from now.