Comments on: taking options off the table…. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4193 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Will Toor http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4193&cpage=1#comment-8964 Will Toor Wed, 02 May 2007 18:40:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4193#comment-8964 I don't think that the statement that solar is not a viable option for baseload power is correct. Concentrating solar thermal power plants, particularly if hybridized with natural gas, can provide dispatchable power, probably at about 10 cents/kwh. A good reference is the Western Governors' Association study on CSP, available at www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Solar-full.pdf I don’t think that the statement that solar is not a viable option for baseload power is correct. Concentrating solar thermal power plants, particularly if hybridized with natural gas, can provide dispatchable power, probably at about 10 cents/kwh. A good reference is the Western Governors’ Association study on CSP, available at http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Solar-full.pdf

]]> By: schlew http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4193&cpage=1#comment-8963 schlew Wed, 02 May 2007 12:59:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4193#comment-8963 And I would add that the rather strident tone of the policy debate has also removed new coal plants designed to operate much more efficiently and cleaner than current plants. This all or nothing mentality is what will keep us from making significant reductions to our fossil fuel usage for the forseeable future. And I would add that the rather strident tone of the policy debate has also removed new coal plants designed to operate much more efficiently and cleaner than current plants. This all or nothing mentality is what will keep us from making significant reductions to our fossil fuel usage for the forseeable future.

]]> By: Andy Kellen http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4193&cpage=1#comment-8962 Andy Kellen Wed, 02 May 2007 03:30:13 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4193#comment-8962 The failure on the part of Crow and David to even contemplate the possibility of nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming suggests one of two possibilities: 1. Their professed concern about global warming is merely a pretext for advocating their position on efficiency and renewables, or 2. Their concern about global warming is sincere, but their position on the role of nuclear power demonstrates a failure of logical risk analysis sufficient to discount, if not completely dismiss their global warming concerns. I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity. Their unwillingness to discuss their objections to nuclear power makes it difficult to address these objections directly, but I’ll assume they have to do with the issues of safety and waste disposal. On the safety issue, since the most serious accident at any American nuclear plant resulted in no injuries to anyone, if you maintain that global warming is not as dangerous as nuclear power, this suggests that the danger of global warming can be largely dismissed. Regarding the waste issue, the MIT report referenced at the bottom of Kevin’s post has a good discussion about the feasibility of geological disposal of nuclear waste (page 54, footnote 3). Essentially, if the appropriate criterion is a consensus in the relevant scientific community, then the science is settled – nuclear waste can be safely isolated in geologic formations for the necessary durations. On the other hand, if you maintain that there’s no viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal because the safety of geological storage hasn’t been demonstrated with absolute certainty to the satisfaction of all potential skeptics, then a comparable analysis would lead to a conclusion that the link between CO2 and global warming hasn’t been demonstrated to a level sufficient to warrant any significant concern. By all means, the economics of nuclear power should be evaluated against those of competing technologies, with relevant subsidies included in all cases. But dismissing out of hand the possibility of considering nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming makes it that much easier for those who are inclined to do so to dismiss concerns regarding global warming. The failure on the part of Crow and David to even contemplate the possibility of nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming suggests one of two possibilities:

1. Their professed concern about global warming is merely a pretext for advocating their position on efficiency and renewables, or

2. Their concern about global warming is sincere, but their position on the role of nuclear power demonstrates a failure of logical risk analysis sufficient to discount, if not completely dismiss their global warming concerns.

I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity. Their unwillingness to discuss their objections to nuclear power makes it difficult to address these objections directly, but I’ll assume they have to do with the issues of safety and waste disposal.

On the safety issue, since the most serious accident at any American nuclear plant resulted in no injuries to anyone, if you maintain that global warming is not as dangerous as nuclear power, this suggests that the danger of global warming can be largely dismissed.

Regarding the waste issue, the MIT report referenced at the bottom of Kevin’s post has a good discussion about the feasibility of geological disposal of nuclear waste (page 54, footnote 3). Essentially, if the appropriate criterion is a consensus in the relevant scientific community, then the science is settled – nuclear waste can be safely isolated in geologic formations for the necessary durations. On the other hand, if you maintain that there’s no viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal because the safety of geological storage hasn’t been demonstrated with absolute certainty to the satisfaction of all potential skeptics, then a comparable analysis would lead to a conclusion that the link between CO2 and global warming hasn’t been demonstrated to a level sufficient to warrant any significant concern.

By all means, the economics of nuclear power should be evaluated against those of competing technologies, with relevant subsidies included in all cases. But dismissing out of hand the possibility of considering nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming makes it that much easier for those who are inclined to do so to dismiss concerns regarding global warming.

]]> By: Lab Lemming http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4193&cpage=1#comment-8961 Lab Lemming Tue, 01 May 2007 23:41:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4193#comment-8961 Is a large proportion of baseload energy really necessary, or is overnight electricity use largely a byproduct of its low marginal cost due to the physics of cheap coal plants? Is a large proportion of baseload energy really necessary, or is overnight electricity use largely a byproduct of its low marginal cost due to the physics of cheap coal plants?

]]>