Entergy & Exelon retreat from new builds

David Lewis said:

I studied the environment "movement" as a leader elected to speak for a part of it, for years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in British Columbia.  I found it very difficult to come to many conclusions about it. 

 One way to look at it is to consider that a small part of the mind of a lot of movement supporters is actually in support of some goal or other that is in vogue at the moment, while the rest of the mind is concentrated on other things, like paying the mortgage, getting a better job, securing retirement, etc.  This explains why concern about "environment" issues comes and goes.  Another way to think about it is it is a large number of small groups who became active around any number of single issues, like setting aside some virgin rainforest in B.C. by creating a new national park for instance, or limiting the use of pesticide near their home.  The people involved may not have thought about larger issues such as what is the best power source civilization should turn to now that climate change is setting in.  They may not even understand that now that climate change is here, their idea that they could "save" a forest "for all future generations" is no longer viable.  It is as hard for many in the environment movement to face an issue as large as global climate change as it is for the "drill baby drill" crowd - everyone wants to hang on to the past. 

Relative to nuclear energy, Dan's "second group" of split environmentalists might say they believe CO2 emissions reductions can be reduced more quickly with solar, wind, and natural gas, rather than by using nuclear, but in that case I wonder why they have to crank up the lies to support their case.  They can't actually believe what they say they believe if they have to lie to explain it. 

For instance:  Al Gore published, on page 246 of his 2009 book "Our Choice", a chart from what he called the "now famous" McKinsey & Company "study of different ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases" that had the word "nuclear" air brushed out of it.  If the word "nuclear" had remained in that chart and been published in his book, Gore would have been showing his readers that a think tank he respected considered that using nuclear power was a better and more economical way to reduce CO2 emissions than any power source he touts, i.e. wind, solar thermal, solar PV, biomass co-firing, carbon capture and storage at coal or gas plants, etc.  Obviously, Gore understands that nuclear is cheap low carbon energy, and obviously, he is lying about it. This isn't the first time Gore has reached for his air brush - in the movie Inconvenient Truth, Gore featured the diagram of seven energy "wedges" first published by Solocow and Pacala.  Gore's version had only six wedges.  The nuclear wedge was missing. 
 
Its the same with Amory Lovins.  He is the man responsible, more than any other person, for making the argument of choice environmentalists use against nuclear power the "its too expensive to use" line, yet when you take a look at his argument, it rests on lies.  For instance, he cherry picks quotes from the MIT The Future of Nuclear Power because if you don't know what is in that report the quotes sound like MIT agrees with Lovins that nuclear is too expensive.  However, if you read it, you see that MIT was comparing nuclear to the fossil fuels, not to conservation, solar or wind.  MIT is saying unless there is a carbon tax, nuclear will remain relatively uncompetitive, compared to coal and gas, unless the risk premium Wall Street charges new nuclear subsides after a few successful new builds.  Lovins would have people believe that nuclear is more expensive than any renewable.  It is a lie. 

It says something about the environment movement that Gore and Lovins, et al, can get away with BS like this. 

So, regarding the "second group" in the environment movement, I'd say there is this group who think nuclear power is a bad option to replace fossil fuels, who lie about certain aspects of nuclear technology to support their case. 

 Obviously, they don't believe their real reasons will sell. 

 In the case of Lovins, there is evidence that his "real reason" is that he believes civilization should not have access to abundant low cost energy that doesn't have side effects that threaten civilization, because he believes the civilization will then blunder on a bigger scale to kill itself off with something else.  Lovins:  "It'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it"  - from "The Mother Earth—Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22. 

 In the case of Gore, I don't get it.  I think its the proliferation issue that bothers him, but I have a low confidence level on that.  As a seasoned politician, he can sense what the people he aims his message at will buy, and it seems he thinks the buyers of doing something about climate change will not be buyers of the nuclear option.  I have more confidence in that interpretation.  He seems to believe civilization could survive even if it had abundant low cost low carbon energy. At least, he acts out his confidence in a high energy lifestyle by having a personal carbon footprint the size of Wyoming.  

 But you don't know with anyone - many people in the "movement" are running on autopilot, trying to "make a difference", in a cause they knew was hopeless decades ago.  The ancient Greeks saw it.  They knew there would be an end to it someday, this running things in Greece so all their topsoil ran down into the sea and they had to go further and further away for food, even as they declared there would never be an end.  You can find both statements in Sophocles.  There will be an end to this, and there won't be.  We just happen to be living near the time when it started to dawn on everyone that we are nearly out of planet and we'll have to be very good at a lot of new things if we want to survive. 

What we see at the national level telling us they are the "environment movement" is this pro "renewables" which is equated with "clean", which is equated with "low carbon", which is said to be the solution to climate change line.  Its just a political line, subject to change.  Its coming from so many I believe it illustrates a case of mass non-think.  These people come from a "non-think tank", where they are bred in fantastic numbers, not enough to add up to actually make change possible, but enough to make their opposition believe the entire idea that there are limits is a giant load of BS.

Dan Yurman said:

Too complicated for me to follow except the first sentence which makes clear Mr. Gloor's opinion. Like I said - no one wants to stop you from going off the grid - just remember it is a personal choice not a societal mandate.

StephenGloor said:

This comment was posted on the Oil Drum at this thread:

Dan Yurman said:

The environmental movement is definitely split along fault lines that divide at least three ways relative to nuclear energy. The first group includes thought and opinion leaders who previously opposed nuclear energy, but now see it as necessary and as a feasible path to address reduction of CO2 emissions.  The second group opposes nuclear energy because they believe CO2 emissions are best reduced, and more quickly, with solar, wind, and natural gas plants.  The third group oppose nuclear energy because of ideological reasons, e.g., it is part of the industrial order of the world and we're better off going back to nature or off the grid, etc.  Some in the third group are OK with solar and wind energy as being part of the solution.

Most opposition to nuclear energy willfully ignores the issue of baseload demand from a growing world population especially in countries like India and China.  And Al Gore's famous flip remark that reactors only come in one size - large -has been overtaken by the development of a range of small reactor designs. They will eventually attain market share on the grid and in distributed power applications.

You can't stop people from wanting the live off the grid. The concern I have is that some of them want to take the rest of the world along for the ride.

eareidjr said:

David,

Additional nuclear does not comport with the green vision of a return to the "noble savage" hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Of course, there is the risk that what emerges could instead be a return to the "ignoble savage" existence level, since there are far too many of us today to survive as hunter/gatherers.

The discovery of fire was a crucial step in the emergence of our current society. Un-discovering fire might be far more traumatic; and, far less satisfying. :-)

David Lewis said:

If utilities were confident that they could count on continuing public support while they expand their nuclear fleets a decision to build a new reactor would come easier.  The fact that the Sierra Club, the largest environmental organization in the world, supports the use of more natural gas while continuing to call for all existing nuclear to be shut down must play some role in the decision a utility makes.

 The Big Green backing for natural gas remains solid even as the science shifts.  There are questions as to what the global warming potential of the new shale gas, or any natural gas, is.  Fully accounting for all leaks of methane as shale gas is produced and consumed (unburned methane entering the atmosphere as a result of using natural gas adds to the calculated climate changing power of natural gas), and reevaluating the exact role methane plays in the atmosphere (each molecule may have as much as twice the ultimate effect than previously thought) may radically change anyone's idea of how dangerous natural gas use is.

 The relative risk of nuclear vrs fossil fuel waste has yet to be debated in the green movement. 

Even though just using natural gas exposes a consumer to an order of magnitude of radiation greater than living next door to a nuclear plant and using nuclear electricity, and although the new gas is being extracted from shale rich enough in uranium to have been considered as uranium ore in the past, Big Green remains committed to the idea that when it comes to relatively low levels of radiation, anything goes, unless it can be pinned on the nuclear industry.  

 One reason the last climate bill didn't pass was the adamant opposition to nuclear of many fossil fuel loving  "progressive" people who want action on climate who held out against compromise on nuclear until it was too late. 

 How serious could the case for action on climate be, anyone might think, if the people who say they understand climate change act as if they would rather let climate change happen than allow nuclear power development?