What Path To Combat Climate Change Should We Follow?ByRaymond D. Matkowsky
I have written extensively on what is wrong or foolish about the climate change hype and the direction that makes sense. As it stands now, the policies adopted by many governments are doomed to failure. There are unanticipated problems with wind turbines malfunctions and birds. There are problems with solar cells recycling and bats. There are problems of supplying grids with sufficient power to meet present needs and do not consider the future needs.
I have my own beliefs about what can be done to affect change. These beliefs had been cultivated during my time working developing ways that we could cut the pollution emanating from plant discharges. Let me just say that everything balances out. The amount of material that goes into the system is what comes out. It may come out in different forms, some good some bad, but the total masses will be equal. It is a complex problem that has no simple solution. New technologies put forward will not have an immediate impact and have yet to be proven viable. We should be building on a proven technology not "reinventing the wheel."
Climate Change
I am not a climate change denier. The climate has been changing for hundreds of years. There is no stopping it. Trying is a fool's errand. The most that could be accomplished is to slow it down and I am not sure even that is possible. Mother Nature is a lot more powerful than any human can be. We may have to just adapt to it.
Developing Nations
Many developing nations depend on coal and other fossil fuels to power their industries. Indonesia is a prime example. Indonesia is the world's third largest producer of coal. They are not going to give up this segment because the countries survival is linked to it. They have stated flatly that they will not. A substantial portion of the globe is of the same frame of mind as the Indonesian government. As they stand now renewables cannot replace fossil fuels.
They need to buy food and blankets for their populations. They do not need a pat on their backs for environmental consciences. Environmental considerations takes a backseat to starvation. As long as much of the world faces the same choice, you will never reduce the amount of fossil fuels they burn without a viable and financial alternative.
A financial incentive may occur after about twenty years of coal fired operation. A coal fired powes life time is twenty to thirty years. Some cases are longer. Developing nations may want consider thinking about replacing these plants with nuclear plants that have a lifespan of forty to sixty years.
Growing Technologies
If we follow all of the technologies that have appeared so far, it will be a train wreck. As of now none of these technologies are viable. If they follow the typical research and development timeline, it will be another twenty-five to thirty years before they are ready for the consumer, if they ever become ready. We do not have that kind of time to wait.
We are looking for something that will have a minimal impact on our environment, is a viable technology, is dependable, and has a long and varied history. It also needs to be one that can be applied immediately rather than thirty or more years down the road. It must be one that we can build on in the future.
Wind and solar technology will not meet all of the requirements. Natural gas meets some of them, but we want to rid ourselves of carbon base fuels. We only have one proven technology left, nuclear energy.
The first power station was established in the 1950s and really was the result of the World War II atom bomb program. There is now over 440 reactors that supply a carbon free 10% of the world's electricity. There are 220 research establishments studying nuclear power. Nuclear energy has been well studied, but we need to have more.
Nuclear Energy
Many in the world are afraid of nuclear energy because of its association with the atom bomb and because of the accidents that have occurred over the years. Very few of the accidents were the result of hardware failure. Most were the result of human failure and stupidity. After more than seventy years there have been massive improvements in hardware and circumventing human failure.
Nuclear energy has the highest estimated capital costs of any energy technology. However, the total fuel cost of a nuclear power plant is about one third for coal and a fifth for gas. It will take decades to recover capital costs, but over its lifetime it may prove to be a financial positive for developing countries. However, I doubt that the savings would entice developing nations to close fossil fuel plants prematurely in favor of nuclear plants. The best that could be hoped for is that as fossil fuel plants age out, they will be replaced with nuclear energy. This is still maybe several years down the line.
Nuclear energy can begin to be implemented immediately. The first nuclear reactor in the United States in thirty years just entered service in Georgia. The next one received permission to begin loading fuel, but it will take about a year to do so. Reactors have to be refueled every eighteen to twenty-four months or so. This is a long interval but it does present recycling problems, but these problems are resolvable.
There are several advantages to nuclear plants that other technologies do not have. First of all, we have more than seventy-five years of knowledge to fall back on. Neither wind nor solar do so. Nuclear power can be implemented relatively quickly. Construction takes time, but permitting take even more time. We need to streamline the permitting process. Both solar and wind will have to go through a permitting process also.
Nuclear will not take up as much land as wind or solar would. There are many projects that have failed because of land availability.
Nuclear can be integrated into the grid easily and function twenty-four hours a day without interruption. Time has indicated that both solar and wind has integration and sustainability problems. Neither can supply the amount of power needed reliably.
Nuclear power generation is as and cleaner than other proposals. It can be implemented relatively quickly. The technology can be built upon without great upheaval.
In my opinion nuclear energy is the only technology available to meet our present environmental desires. It most likely can be built upon in the future without reinventing the wheel. A nuclear reactor works twenty-four hours a day, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.
If you have any comments, let us know. Email me at rdm@datastats.com. We will try to print it in our next newsletter.
|
