Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power

Figure A. source Economist Sun, wind and drain: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

Figure B. source Charles Frank The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies

Figure A and B summarize some of the conclusions of the recent paper by economist and Brookings senior fellow Charles Frank. The paper might not have attracted much attention outside the usually wonkish energy policy circles. But The Economist wrote a full page review which quickly became a lightning-rod for much shouting by pro-renewables activists. There are three levels for you to study the results — in increasing order of difficulty:

  1. Economist: Sun, wind and drain: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought
  2. Brookings blog post by Charles Frank: Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power
  3. Brookings paper by Charles Frank: The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies [PDF]

The Economist article will not be a favorite with Angela Merkel, as is nicely summarized in the last paragraph:

The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy

I've read all 182 tedious comments, which I cannot recommend because the majority are non-referenced complaints from boosters. Approximately none of the Economist commenters had read the Frank paper. So my take is you can skip #1, read #2 for a good introduction, then work your way through #3.

Figure A is a nice graphic produced from Figure B which is the “money table” of the Frank paper. I've included Figure B so you can quickly grasp what the Cost vs Benefit bars mean in the graphic. There's a minor error in the graphic: the Wind cost/benefit bar is missing the mark for “net benefit” which is a negative $25k/MW not zero.

What Figure A and B claim to tell us is that in the USA new combined-cycle gas plants offer the greatest net benefit given a large set of assumptions. Dr. Frank's paper is a model of transparency — every assumption and parameter is referenced and further qualified by end-notes. Even though this is a simplified methodology for estimating net benefits, there are still a heap of assumptions that must be understood in order to assess where the results might be applicable. I'll summarize a few that I think are critical:

  • Net benefits are calculated on the assumption that new generation replaces on average 22 hours/day of coal non-peak generation and 2 hours/day of single-cycle gas peak generation
  • This is USA-centric, based upon EIA 2013 data
  • Therefore relatively very low methane (gas) prices
  • Therefore relatively high insolation, moderately high wind resource

For energy policy wonks I will highlight a few weak spots in the paper:

  • Most important is that Frank's Adjusted Capacity Cost does not fully reflect the negative reliability impact of VRE.
  • I will speculate that Dr. Frank chose to avoid the complexity of Capacity Credit to keep the presentation accessible. (Capacity Credit estimates the amount of firm, dispatchable generation that can be replaced by VRE without reducing reliability.)
  • Dr. Frank does not examine how Net Benefits vary with VRE penetration. Detailed modeling shows that increasing VRE has large effects on reliability.
  • Capacity Credit for VRE generation is inversely proportional to penetration. The more wind/solar you build the less marginal value you get.
  • The Frank paper is directed at a future powered by less coal (that's good) but not a zero-carbon future (which we must achieve).
  • If we build a strategy for the goal of Zero Emissions we will still likely build Gas CC in quantity because it is fast to build, relatively cheap and politically acceptable. But looking out a century to achieving Zero will help us focus on ramping up nuclear as fast as feasible and safe. We cannot wait 50 years to get started.

Why do I think the Frank paper is important? This is a serious effort to help policy-makers understand why subsidies supporting wind and solar are such an expensive and inefficient way to reduce carbon emissions. And Dr. Frank illustrates why traditional LCOE analysis overvalues wind and solar. And yes, the headline results are US-centric, but there is a serious effort to support generalizing the results by:

Sensitivity to Carbon Prices: In Tables 9A and 9B, the net benefits for both wind and solar are negative. However, if the carbon price is increased from $50 to $61.87 or above, then the net benefits of wind are positive (as shown in Table 11). Above $185.84, the net benefits of solar are also positive.

My interpretation of that result is that solar costs at least $185/ton CO2 avoided. For a society with finite resources, the cost/ton of CO2 abatement is a rather important number.

Sensitivity to Natural Gas Prices: The results in Tables 9A and 9B are highly sensitive to historically volatile natural gas prices. In the United States, the average annual cost of natural gas to electricity producers reached a high of $9.01 per million Btu in 2008. The average monthly cost reached a low of $2.68 in April 2012 (EIA, November 2013, Table 9.10.). The variation among countries, and the effect on net benefits, is illustrated in Table 12.

Note that nuclear becomes the highest net-benefit policy when gas prices exceed about $9/MBtu. Current UK prices are above that level, which is where US prices were only six years ago.

My bottom line is: this paper is good starting point. Please keep in mind that the true cost of variability for wind and solar is significantly understated, as the value of VRE falls as penetration increases. Still, I appreciate that adding complete VRE analysis would have made this paper much more cumbersome.

Fortunately, there has been some very good work on VRE and System LCOE in the past couple of years. In a future post I will get into the research of Lion Hirth et al and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. For the eager here are three good references for in-depth modeling studies of high penetration VRE:

  1. Hirth, Lion, The Optimal Share of Variable Renewables. How the Variability of Wind and Solar Power Affects Their Welfare-Optimal Deployment (November 8, 2013). FEEM Working Paper No. 90.2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2351754 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2351754
  2. Ueckerdt, Falko and Hirth, Lion and Luderer, Gunnar and Edenhofer, Ottmar, System LCOE: What are the Costs of Variable Renewables? (January 14, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2200572 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2200572
  3. Hirth, Lion and Ueckerdt, Falko and Edenhofer, Ottmar, Why Wind is Not Coal: On the Economics of Electricity (April 24, 2014). FEEM Working Paper No. 39.2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2428788 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2428788

 

 

The Energy Collective is attracting serious energy professionals

On The Energy Collective site (EC) I am noticing more and more contributions from people who know what they are talking about. Like Barry Brook’s BraveNewClimate.com, EC is a place where you can read conversations where at least one side has real-world experience with some aspect of the energy business.

E.g., I try to keep up with the writings of Joris van Dorp via his RSS comment feed at EC; similarly Engineer-Poet by his RSS comments feed at EC. Today that path led to a lightweight post by Sarah Battaglia, a social media person at Energy Curtailment Specialists (a company that begins it’s website pitch with “We have never sustained a complaint at the Better Business Bureau.”) This post used 26 keywords for a 500 word piece. I only encountered this because van Dorp and Engineer-Poet both invested their time to explain to Sarah how things work in the real-world. Sarah’s post contained bits of wisdom like this:

Some plants may also use nuclear power to generate electricity, but this method is relatively expensive and may be hazardous to human health and the environment.

Later Sarah comments

You don’t see many solar panels exploding or causing dangerous radiation to local residents.

Joris van Dorp replied:

As a matter of fact, solar panels do cause one thing to explode: energy costs! :)

Here in Europe, Spanish investors in solar power systems are still reeling from the collapse of the subsidy system in their country as a result of its deep financial crisis. Many have seen family fortunes dissappear as banks seized their solar farms which became unprofitable overnight when ‘guaranteed’ subsidies were eliminated in desperate attempts to prevent sovereign default. While Spain has the best sunshine in Europe, there is virtually no PV being installed there since the crisis. PV is simply too costly and Spain is simply too deep in the hole financially and socially for it to even consider extracting the necessary funding for subsidies from its impoverished tax payers.

I agree that we have to find a way to exist for centuries to come. Fortunately we don’t need to look far. Nuclear energy has the proven potential to provide limitless energy cheaper than coal. While the nuclear option has many other unique benefits to humanity, this particular characteristic of being able to compete (without subsidies) with coal means that it is the only credible hope humanity has of stopping antropogenic global warming and ever increasing fossil fuel dependence.

“Hot new” energy technologies are exciting and interesting, and I love them, but they are no use. The political will to provide for their permanent (!) heavy subsidy does not exist in developed countries. And in developing countries, the enthousiasm for such permanent subsidies is of course even less. Hence, a thousand coal fired power plants are planned or under construction globally today.

Coal is death. Nuclear power is hope. Renewable energy is a distraction, unfortunately.

Bob Meinitz is another frequent fact-based commentator:

Sarah, it’s true that solar panels don’t explode (most deaths from solar are the result of falls from rooftops during installation). The fact is that while most people harbor an irrational fear of radiation, nuclear is five times safer than solar per unit of energy generated, it occupies a tiny fraction of the land area, and delivers power with six times the capacity factor, day or night, rain or shine.

While powering the world on renewables alone is theoretically possible, from a practical standpoint the chances of doing so are zero. It would cost hundreds of $trillions in 2014, and there’s no evidence that the price will drop fast enough or that a buildout could happen fast enough to keep pace with the exploding global demand for energy. The graph below makes that evidently clear – wind’s contribution to world electricity is the skinny purple line, and solar’s contribution is invisible.

This is what I mean by reinforcing misperceptions. It’s critical that we examine our energy options on a factual basis, and not one of popular culture myths which persist four decades after The China Syndrome if we’re going to have a chance of getting a handle on climate change.

Joris van Dorp replies:

Bob, that graph makes your point perfectly.

Besides, the graph also shows the serious consequences of anti-nuclearism. Between 1991 and 2011, twenty years have passed in which nuclear energy grew only very slightly. If the world had adopted the French nuclear energy strategy, then fossil fuels for electricity generation would have been zero today. Nuclear and hydro together would have covered the whole electricity demand.

Advocates for renewables against nuclear don’t seem to understand that their ideology is no solution to the problem of exponential fossil fuel consumption. On the contrary, as the graph clearly indicates, *their ideology is itself the cause *of historical exponential fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation.

 

Sam Altman “I believe the 22nd century is going to be the atomic power century”

Samaltman

Russ Roberts in now full time at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, so he has been spending more of his time at the vortex of the Silicon Valley innovation cluster. One of the benefits is that he is becoming progressively more involved-with and excited-about the innovation culture. So his Econtalk guests include a growing number of Silicon Valley insiders. In July Russ interviewed Sam Altman, CEO of the iconic accelerator Y Combinator (YC). Sam confessed in the interview that he doesn’t filter himself very well – meaning it was a refreshingly frank discussion. Here’s Sam:

“I have studied a lot about what I think is sort of the best use of my time and money and what I think will help the world the most. And I really do believe that safe, cheap, clean energy is probably the most important thing an individual can do for the future of the world.”

It was clear to me that Sam has done his homework, and naturally I think his conclusions are indicators of an open, inquiring mind. Evidence:

“There are two nuclear energy companies in this batch. I believe that–the 20th century was clearly the carbon century. And I believe the 22nd century is going to be the atomic power century. I’m very convinced of that. It’s just a question of how long it takes us.

Y Combinator is in a good position to harvest the rewards of innovations that require a long development cycle and heaps of capital. Unlike the typical 10 year venture fund, YC makes a large number of tiny ($120k) bets, 700+ such bets so far since the YC launch in 2005. New nuclear is obviously a very long-term bet, even given that the company will almost certainly have to move to a friendly-regulator nation for the initial licensing. Sam is more optimistic  than I am about the reality of getting a new non-LWR design licensed by US NRC. OTOH if I were talking my book publicly I would be extremely deferential to the NRC staff.

Please do listen to the Sam Altman interview. Update: I found one of the two YC S14 batch nuclear companies. It is Helion Energy who is building an SMR concept. But it is FUSION, not fission:

Helion is making a fusion engine 1,000 times smaller, over 500 times cheaper, and realizable 10 time faster than other projects.

There’s a bit more at TechCrunch. Of all the earlier failed fusion experiments, could this be the one that works Obi Wan?

China hopes to export a 1.4 GWe reactor

NewImage

I see China’s nuclear program as the most likely path to global deployment of nuclear power fast enough to help mitigate climate change. South Korea will also contribute, but at much smaller scale. 

The World Nuclear Association reports that the CAP1400 may be exported at an estimated capital cost of USD $3000/kW. The CAP1400 design was completed in 2012, site works completed in April 2014 and the State Nuclear Plant Demonstration Company hopes to have this first plant operational by 2018. This all looks like good news to me:

Westinghouse announced in 2008 that it was working with SNPTC and Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute (SNERDI) to develop jointly a passively safe 1400-1500 MWe design from the AP1000/CAP1000, for large-scale deployment. SNPTC initially called it the Large Advanced Passive PWR Nuclear Power Plant (LPP or APWR). It is one of 16 Key National Projects in China. This development with SNERDI opens the possibility of China itself exporting the new larger units with Westinghouse’s cooperation.

(…snip detailed description of the reactor…)

CNNC and SNPTC have talked of export potential, and SNPTC said that “exploration of the global market” for the CAP1400 would start in 2013, particularly in South America and Asia. In mid-2013 SNPTC quoted approx. $3000/kW capital cost and 7 c/kWh.

China is working diligently on new reactors designs that depend only on Chinese-owned intellectual property. This indicates a leadership that intends to take a big share of the global nuclear power market. That is a very good thing, because the US, UK and Germany have abdicated their leadership role – leaving only France & Russia of the original nuclear market players. It’s going to be an Asian Nuclear Century. Hopefully India will also engage the market once their designs are locally proven.

Image credit Paul Sakuma/Associated Press – Tesla Fremont plant

Robert Rapier on Global Coal Consumption

NewImage

Robert has been working through the definitive BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, producing so far three posts on the implications of the BP data. Today he looks at the reality of coal power trends. Last year China consumed over 50%, and produced over 47% of global coal. 

This is why I cringe every time I see a breathless announcement such as Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar.

Roberts previous two BP-based posts are – World Sets New Oil Production and Consumption Records and The US and Russia are Gas Giants.

Government’s role in shutting down the US nuclear industry

A November 15, 2007 Heritage backgrounder “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes” provides a brief history of anti-nuclear activists and regulatory turbulence, counseling that, this time around, we must act to avoid those enormous costs.

Amory Lovins loves to say “there are no private investors interested in nuclear power”. That is manifestly untrue. But the fact that utilities and venture capitalists are investing in nuclear today is a miracle considering the massacre experienced by investors in the period 1970 through 1994 (when Clinton killed the Integral Fast Reactor). Excerpts from the Heritage true history:

(…) Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives.

This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy.

The United States once led the world in commercial nuclear technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regulated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets, consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries.

This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacle to investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

(…) Investors are right to be wary. Anti-nuclear activists have already exploited the authority of public institutions to strangle the industry. Now these same public institutions must be trusted to craft good public policy that reestablishes the confidence necessary to invite investment back into America's nuclear industry. To be successful, the new policies must create an industry that does not depend on the government. They must mitigate the risks of overregulation but allow for adequate over sight while preventing activists from hijacking the regulatory process.

(…) Activists Gone Wild

Anti-nuclear groups used both legal intervention and civil disobedience to impede construction of new nuclear power plants and hamper the operations of existing units. They legally challenged 73 percent of the nuclear license applications filed between 1970 and 1972 and formed a group called Consolidated National Interveners for the specific purpose of disrupting hearings of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Much of the anti-nuclear litigation of the 1970s was encouraged by factions within the government.[4] Today, activist organizations determined to force the closure of nuclear power plants, such as Mothers for Peace, continue to use the legal process to harass the nuclear energy industry.

Activists went well beyond simply challenging nuclear power in the courts. On numerous occasions, demonstrators occupied construction sites, causing delays. For instance, in May 1977, the Clamshell Alliance led a protest that resulted in the arrest of more than 1,400 people for trespassing at the Seabrook plant site in New Hampshire.[5] In California, the Abalone Alliance adopted similar tactics and frequently blocked the gates of the Diablo Canyon power plant.[6]

A watershed victory for the anti-nuclear movement occurred in 1971 when a federal appeals court ruled that the construction and operating permits for a nuclear power plant violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As a result, util ities were required to hold public hearings before obtaining a permit to start a project.[7] This decision created a major opening in the process that anti-nuclear activists could exploit.

Changing the Economics of Nuclear Power

(…) In addition, the role of the judiciary cannot be overemphasized. Congress's loss of enthusiasm for nuclear energy led to more aggressive regulation, and because jurisdiction over nuclear issues was divided among multiple committees, there was no unified congressional direction. The result was an expansion of costly and often unnecessary rules.

In June 2006, the NRC listed over 80 sources of regulation,[8] including over 1,300 pages of laws, treaties, statutes, authorizations, executive orders, and other documents.(…) Because the interpretation of NRC regulations was left to the discretion of individual NRC technical reviewers, each license application would often result in its own unique requirements.[9]

(…) This inconsistency increased costs, further sour ing Congress on nuclear power and leading to an endless spiral of legislation, regulation, and still more added costs. Between 1975 and 1983, 430 suits were brought against the NRC, leading to 2,349 proposed rules and regulations–each of which required an industry response.[10] The addi tional and unexpected controls created industry wide uncertainty and raised questions about the long-term economics of nuclear power. They also drove up capital costs.[11]

This was all done by the NRC without adequate information. The NRC recognized as early as 1974 that it was issuing regulations without sufficient risk assessment training or cost considerations. It did not even have a program to train employees in how to conduct a review using NRC guidance.[12] Yet the commission continued to issue regulation after regulation.

(…) The shifting regulatory environment gave rise to additional reviews from numerous public institutions.(…) between 1956 and 1979, the average construction permit review time increased fourfold. The average time required to bring a plant on line from the order date increased from three years to 13 years during a similar time period.[15]

(…) As more inspections and inspectors were required, delays often resulted from inadequate regulatory manpower. Workers had to spend inordinate amounts of time waiting for inspections rather than building the project. The oft-changing construction specifications also led to mistakes, which created further delays.Even after construction was complete, delays often continued. Delaying plant completion could cost up to $1 million per day.[17] Stories of costly and unnecessary delays litter the history of U.S. nuclear power. Plants such as the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island were completely built but never used because extremists succeeded in scaring the public and political leaders.

Overregulation Leads to a Declining Industry

Overall, regulation increased the cost of constructing a nuclear power plant fourfold. [19] Such cost escalation would have been justified if it had been rooted in scientific and technical analysis. Regrettably, it was largely a function of anti-nuclear activism, agenda-driven politicians, activist regulators, and unsubstantiated public fear. A total of $70 billion was added to the cost of nuclear reactors constructed by 1988, and this cost was passed on to the ratepayers. After 1981, the cost of constructing a nuclear power plan rose from two to six times, [20] which means that either consumers paid significantly more or utilities incurred losses if they did not charge market prices. Neither circumstance was sustainable.

(…) In total, $30 billion was spent on nuclear plants that were never completed,[26] which is more than the value of most of the companies that are considering new plant orders.

 

Letter to American Nuclear Society: Resolving The Issue Of The Science Of Biological Effects Of Low Level Radiation

As I write we have over 220 signatures on the captioned letter, hosted at the Ted Rockwell Memorial site. We need many more signatories supporting this vitally important initiative. Please sign and invite your colleagues to sign. Following is an update via email from John A. Shanahan, President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA. John sent a list of signatories as of July 20th. I put a copy of the list here on Dropbox.

Hello,

Everyone is on bcc to maintain your privacy.

Thank you for signing the letter to the American Nuclear Society about the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis requirements for the nuclear and radioisotope industries.

Attached is a current list of signers, including each of you.

Please review it and consider inviting colleagues who are not listed. The long-term success of nuclear power and nuclear medicine depends on moving away from LNT to more realistic standards.

It is important for you to know that there are several wide categories that can include many people who are not members of the professional societies mentioned. Here are some examples:

- (Friends of Nuclear Energy / Radioisotopes) can include elected officials, teachers, people outside nuclear related professions who support nuclear power and nuclear medicine. Worldwide.

- (Employees in Nuclear Energy) This includes everyone from mining uranium and thorium to operations of nuclear power plants to radwaste storage and professors in nuclear engineering, who are not members of ANS, etc. Worldwide.

- (Employees in Radioisotopes for Nuclear Medicine etc.) This includes everyone involved in producing radioisotopes to using them in all applications, not just nuclear medicine. Of course it includes doctors in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine. Worldwide.

Please invite your colleagues who are not listed in the attached document. We want all countries who use nuclear energy and nuclear medicine to have as strong a presence as possible. Encourage your colleagues / peers to go to:

tedrockwellmemorial.org

read and sign the letter.

It is very important that as many voices are heard from as many organizations as possible, Worldwide. Special encouragement to Women in Nuclear, WiN and Young Generation in Nuclear organizations, Worldwide.

Thanks

John


John A. Shanahan

President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA
President, Go Nuclear, Inc.

The BN-800 reactor startup is big news

NewImage

The BN-800 is the big brother to Russia’s BN-600 fast breeder reactor which has been supplying power to the electrical grid since 1981. This is a sodium-cooled, pool-type reactor (like the EBR-2). I think it is a big deal because successful deployment will allow Russia to close the fuel cycle, while accelerating China’s deployment of fast breeders.

Wikipedia: Designed to generate electrical power of 880 MW in total, the plant is the final step to the commercial plutonium cycle breeder. It is planned to start producing electricity in October, 2014. 

…China’s first commercial-scale, 800 MWe, fast neutron reactor, to be situated near Sanming city in Fujian province will be a based upon the BN-800. In 2009 an agreement was signed that would entail the Russian BN-800 reactor design to be sold to the PRC once it is completed, this would be the first time commercial-scale fast neutron reactors have ever been exported.

Could Russian success with the BN-800 support GE-Hitachi’s marketing of PRISM – their commercial design of the infamously-terminated IFR project? We don’t know how successful the BN-800 will prove to be.

China will be getting access to more cost and technical data than any other outsiders. So if China proceeds with their agreement to build to the BN-800 design that will be encouraging.

Will nine billion people exhaust our materials resources?

Concrete in china

On Bill Gates’ recommendation we just bought the Kindle edition of Vaclav Smil’s recent book: Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. In his book review Bill closes with these thoughts: 

What does all this tell us about the future?

First, the good news: Thanks to technical advances, we can make major industrial products like steel and cement more efficiently than ever. On average, making a ton of steel today takes a third as much energy as it did in 1950, and produces 10 percent less carbon.

On the other hand—getting back to relative dematerialization—there’s no end in sight to the rising demand for more materials. Even though the richest countries are leveling off, many other countries are catching up. Smil points out that if the poorest 80 percent of the planet reaches a living standard that’s just a third of what people in rich countries enjoy, the world should expect to continue using more materials for generations to come.

So if consumption won’t level off anytime soon, are we doomed to run out of the stuff that makes modern life possible? As usual, Smil refuses to provide pat predictions. He does say we shouldn’t lose sleep worrying about running out in the next 50 years. Beyond that, there are a lot of variables, but we might need to limit the use of some materials or do a better job with recycling. Smil nods to several innovations that could help avoid future shortages, such as new materials that could cut our need for cement by 65 percent.

I agree with Smil that humans have an amazing capacity for finding ways around scarcity by using materials more efficiently, recycling them, or finding substitutes. The big concern isn’t so much whether we will run out of anything—it’s the impact that extracting and using these materials is having on the planet. For example, the cement industry now accounts for about 5 percent of all carbon-dioxide emissions. That’s one reason I think that developing affordable energy that produces zero carbon is one of the most important things we can do to lift people out of poverty.

Is it not obvious that abundant, affordable carbon-free energy is essential to produce the materials demanded by once-poor peoples — from concrete to steel to nitrogen fertilizer?

Bill’s TED 2010 talk Innovating to zero! remains one of the very best arguments for investing much more in energy R&D — particularly in advanced nuclear power, such as the Gates-funded Terrapower traveling wave reactor.

At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he’s backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.

Lastly, don’t miss the 2 minute video interview with prof. Smil on Making the Modern World.

Scaring The Japanese People With Radiation Is Criminal

I realize many journals and on-line publications need sensational headlines to attract readers. It seems necessary in these times of social media and 24-hour news cycles.

But it becomes unethical to push bad science without doing at least a little due diligence. I understand anti-nuke ideology cares little about science and is never held to any technical standard, but in some cases reporting bad science hurts people who need good science to make personal decisions for themselves and their families.

James Conca explains in depth why the latest instance of media fear mongering is a “textbook case of this malfeasance is the Fukushima-induced thyroid scare in Japanese children”.

Since few in the public read peer-reviewed journals or have the patience to plow through jargon-filled papers, it is the responsibility of scientists to communicate clearly and for journalists to have reputable sources.

Ironically, it has repeatedly been shown that the worst health effects from Fukushima have come from the fear of radiation and the forced evacuations, not from any radiation effects (Gaji 2013;Japan Daily PressWHO ReportNYTimes). Not one person has, or likely will, die from Fukushima radiation. But many people have died from the forced evacuations, fear and depression resulting from both well-intentioned and politically-motivated ignorance on radiation doses and effects following the accident.