Bali Climate Change Conference

Reports on the Bali Climate Change Conference next month, say the aimpoint of CO2 emissions rollback to 1990, will be the year 2050, since Kyoto's 2012 date cannot be met. This makes sense, but even more years to work won't make it easy. CO2 emissions are directly linked to Q (BTU) of fossil fuels. Reducing Q from fossil fuels is the answer to climate change, which could otherwise cause water shortages, drought and famine, as well as rising sea levels.

Energy data from eia.doe.gov, actual for 1990 and 2004, and projected for 2030, plus my own raw extrapolations to 2050, are used here. Only 1990 and 2050 are given in detail.

1990 (EIA) Total 350Q/Oil 135Q/Other Fossil 165Q/Other 50Q

2050 (Ext)Total 1050Q/Oil 360Q/Other Fossil 550Q/Other150Q

(Note: 2030 total energy projected by EIA equals 700Q)

My guess of 2050 total fossil energy is 910Q. To reduce this to the 1990 level, 300Q, would take 610Q of clean energy. If we get 360Q clean energy in place of oil, it would solve or ease two problems. Oil and its CO2 will probably be gone by 2050, so equal energy will keep the economy going as oil disappears.

This 360Q could be supplied by 4500, one-gig nukes, or 13,500,000 (or equiv.) wind turbines. Either quantity by 2050 is clearly impossible. However, a large fraction of both sources will give enormous amounts of energy to help fight climate change.

Also, 360Q will still leave the need for 250Q clean energy (2050, 550Q versus the 1990, 300Q of fossil fuel), for the rollback. All of the programs that are starting up right now must be pushed hard. We need: efficiency in car mileage, and electrical devices; zero-sum forestry worldwide; concentrated solar energy plants; biofuels from anything, other than food (corn ethanol must end soon); and coal plants, which should be required by law, to sequester large fractions of their CO2.

No single source, not even nukes, will be enough; but in time, 5000 nukes and millions of wind turbines, and counting, will eventually put Earth's climate on the road to healing.

Ralph Nader Does Not Know the Answer

In an internet rant, Mr. Nader wrote that nuclear is not the answer. He is wrong; especially with respect to the following ideas:

"The nuclear industry is coddled by government". Ridiculous. Nuclear is hardly helped at all in comparison with the coal burning industry; which is not fined for discharging lead, mercury, organic carcinogens; nor for nitric and sulfuric oxides which kill tens of thousands each year; nor does it pay a "Carbon Tax" for the two billion tons of CO2 emissions each year; nor is there even talk of a "Radioactive Tax" for the fact that coal burning plants (10,000 large and small) emit three times as much radioactive U-235 as is contained in the yearly fuel for America's 100 nukes. (See Post, Coal Beds as Uranium Mines.)

"Nuclear plants endanger people because they are terrorist targets". A nuclear plant, protected by 150 million pounds of concrete, and impacted by a 747, is far less dangerous than many chemical plants would be if hit by a Cessna. An angry worker in Bhopal, India, opened a valve at a chemical plant, poisoning and killing thousands; blinding and maiming thousands more.

"A nuclear plant accident would lay waste an area the size of Pennslyvania". I never believed this, and still don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which received large, explosive radiation charges, from those terrible bombs 60 years ago, are thriving cities now.

"Electricity for nuclear fuel enrichment causes massive CO2 emissions from coal burning plants". TVA provides all of the enrichment electriciy in America. They have 3 nukes, plus hydroelectric resources; little coal. If this little is bad, why doesn't Ralph rant about coal.

Beyond Kyoto--America Needs an Emissions Goal

The goal of the Kyoto Treaty is for member nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to a level 7% below that of 1990. The CO2 is from burning of fossil fuels, so emissions rise and fall with the Q(BTU) of energy from the fossil fuels that a nation burns. The US didn't join, because we can't meet this goal; at least not in this century.
Americans are becoming aware of the problem, but we need a goal that could be reached in a reasonable time. How about that year in the future when emissions will stop increasing; i.e., when yearly fossil fuel consumption stops increasing (and we hope, decreases yearly from then on)? That will be the year when clean energy, mostly nuclear and wind, comes on stream in large enough quantity to maintain economic growth. For fossil fuels the yearly growth rate has averaged one percent; this will be a good target for clean energy also.
Per www.eia.doe.gov, US fossil fuels consumption was 71.3Q in 1990; to meet the Kyoto goal of 7% reduction, our fuels would have had to decrease 5.0Q to 66.3Q. This is not possible; actually, we used 86.2Q in 2004; and estimate for 2015 is 103.4, 2030 is 115.3Q.
Clearly America's fossil fuel use is far beyond the Kyoto ideal. For example, to meet a one-percent increase in clean energy in 2030 would take 1.15Q. Nuclear industry sources claim that currently only two nukes could be build each year under the best of circumstances; but 29 plants are being proposed. Suppose that by 2015, America goes nuclear again with two nukes per year, and that by 2030 we will be building five per year. Five would provide 0.4Q. If the build of wind turbines that year equals 7000, 2000Kw, units, they will produce another 0.4Q for 0.8Q total. Another 0.35Q from many diverse sources would get to 1.15Q, and there would be no emissions increase. Year 2030 may be too soon to hope for. However, I believe that America should declare as a national goal, which year our emissions will peak.