I guess the WaPo doesn't like the Sanders energy strategy
From three days ago, Washington Post editorialist and Council on Foreign Relations member Fred Hiatt tells us:
How Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both reject the reality of climate change
In this piece of WaPo hatchet job (NB: the WaPo has already declared Sanders the principal loser of the South Carolina debate), we are told of Bernie Sanders' besetting sins on climate change:
He would prosecute oil executives “for the destruction they have knowingly caused” (he “welcomes their hatred”) and phase out carbon-neutral nuclear power. The Vermont independent would ban the fracking of natural gas, which is — if you control the methane emissions — a useful transitional fuel from dirty coal to clean wind and solar.
Let's start with "Nookz!" Nuclear power can't really be a comprehensive solution to the world's energy and climate change woes. Carbon emissions are involved in all phases of the process of generating nuclear power. So it's not "carbon neutral." Most important, though, are the carbon emissions generated in the extraction and preparation of the nuclear fuel, the first two steps. As Keith Barnham points out:
Nuclear fuel preparation begins with the mining of uranium containing ores, followed by the crushing of the ore then extraction of the uranium from the powdered ore chemically. All three stages take a lot of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. The inescapable fact is that the lower the concentration of uranium in the ore, the higher the fossil fuel energy required to extract uranium.
But you might say, "couldn't we use nuclear energy to prepare nuclear fuel?" And the answer is: to a point. This last sentence of my quote of Barnham illustrates that point. As the world uses up its high-grade ores and moves on to the low-grade ones, it will encounter the problem that Ugo Bardi and others identify:
It’s true that there are large quantities of uranium in the Earth’s crust, but there are limited numbers of deposits that are concentrated enough to be profitably mined. If we tried to extract those less concentrated deposits, the mining process would require far more energy than the mined uranium could ultimately produced [negative EROI].
Extracting and refining ores does not encounter a supply problem (what they call "peak uranium") at this time. The problem will arise, however, if there is a significant ramp-up of nuclear power as part of any attempt to move the world off of the direct combustion of fossil energy. So it's easy to imagine a scenario in which a ramp-up of nuclear power causes a shortage of adequately-concentrated uranium deposits, with the extant ones requiring greater and greater investments of fossil power to use -- and meanwhile the world gets stuck with a toxic nuclear-power infrastructure it has to use fossil fuels to decommission, and a lot of ore that has uranium -- if it can be found -- but that can't be usefully mined.
Of course, both problems -- the problem of uranium ore shortage and of uranium-using infrastructure -- become less onerous if the world converts to thorium-using breeder reactors. The question remains, however, of why there are so few thorium-using breeder reactors in the world today. Anyone?
(Please note that I haven't really said anything just yet about the safety problems of nuclear power, a subject well-covered elsewhere. Suffice it to be said that the plants can't be 100% safe, which is what the public is going to want. Also, nuclear power is not a local, nor a democratically accountable, power source.)
As for the fracking of "natural gas," scientists have already linked the rise in methane emissions to a rise in fracking. Methane, as you might already know, is a far more powerful greenhouse gas per unit mass than carbon dioxide, although it dissipates from the atmosphere after only a few years. So, no, fracking is not going to magically eliminate its carbon emissions.
So, to sum up: the Washington Post uses a three-point strategy to disrespect Sanders' energy strategy:
1) Claim that Sanders relies upon "magic" to get his plan accomplished.
2) Claim that dangerous sources of energy are "necessary" or "essential components of a transition strategy."
3) Blame Sanders for not endorsing said dangerous sources of energy.
It also bears mention that Fred Hiatt has an alternative solution for weaning the world off of fossil energy. Here it is, in his own words:
Which brings us back to the plan, put forward this month by the Climate Leadership Council, that would actually work. Supported by energy companies (including Total) and environmental groups alike, it would impose a steadily rising tax on carbon. That would lead to reduced consumption and increased innovation in alternatives, including battery storage for solar and wind power. To get buy-in from industry, the plan would do away with a lot of regulation — but only so long as emissions were, in fact, going down.
The "steadily rising tax on carbon," it might be considered, will be effective to the extent to which it prohibits people from commuting to work in their fossil-burning vehicles. Are the fossil-extraction industries to provide everyone with solar-powered electric cars to get to work? And, as for magic, let's consider the magic powers of the steadily rising tax: it's going to magically promote "increased innovation in alternatives." Is that what taxes do? I had thought that taxes magically promoted the taxed industries' antipathy to being taxed, with the end result that political power is exercised, regimes change hands, and the taxes are removed.
The Australian example is a case in point: Australia had a carbon tax, from 2012 to 2014, with the end result that the carbon tax was rescinded and the Australian government is still even today against a carbon tax even though Australia just recently suffered climate-change-induced wildfires that destroyed a fifth of its forests.
Which brings me to the real path to climate change mitigation. It begins with utopian dreaming, as was pointed out in this article (password: AddletonAP2009). First we need to imagine a world in which climate change mitigation is possible, then we need to figure out how to get to that world from the world we currently inhabit. Bernie Sanders is not there yet; but he's closer than Fred Hiatt or his buddies on the Council on Foreign Relations.
Comments
Even WaPo may be reaching Stage 5 of Grief (Acceptance)
Eugene Robinson opines:
Now hold on to your hats and sit down if you are already taken aback and woozy:
I can't stand when they begin their sentences with
But of course not one peep about Repub Bloomberg. I'm surprised he didn't say: "not a Democrat AND had a heart attack"
Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin
I think that in this case
"When my wife makes Harvard beets they taste like they went to Brooklyn College. "-Henny Youngman
Was not Warren
a former Republican?
And we know Her was a Goldwater Girl. And Bill legislated like a Republican.
Could it be possible the Repubs decided to stop battling the Dem Party and just buy them out, lock, stock, and barrel?
You know, like the corporate world. If you can't beat the competition,do a hostile takover. Strip them of their assets, like pension funds, then close them down. Or at least run in the red as a tax loss.
Would explain a lot.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
If we are doing "stages" --
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
That was wonderful to watch
On sooooo many levels.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Media rerun from 2016
"Hillary a shoein."
"Hillary has this sewn up."
All those pundits had the same faces on election night 2016. If you turned down the sound and just looked at their facial expressions, they were identical.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Shadefruende in spades
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of toadstools.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Who Is Mike Bloomberg's Comedy Writer?
Inquiring minds want to know?
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/02/bloomberg-comedy-writer.html
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
If there is anything bad in the world
Seems the pundits are keen to hang it
around Bernie's neck.
Problem is, it doesn't stick.
question everything
It reinforces the opinions
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
What a dishonest headline
and argument. The policy Hiatt promotes would do nothing to slow climate change, but then it's a corporate plan, so no surprise there.
And the idea of fracking as a "Bridge" fuel has been debunked. No one has been able to stop methane "leaks" so even implying it can be done voluntarily by Big Oil is a lie by omission.
But WaPo is a Bezos rag at this point, so this is exactly what I expected.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Regulations
Without a firm control of practices and procedures Nuclear Energy is a non-starter. As sloppy as you could be wind turbines will not cause harm (outside the zone of collapse) to the environment, but Nuclear Power Facilities are quite a different story.
Oh, by the way, coal fired plants release radioactivity.
RIP
A minor correction to your essay's headline.
I guessthe WaPo doesn't liketheSandersenergy strategyAs for nuclear energy, the people have spoken. We have soundly rejected nuclear energy as a power source. They might be able to build a new nuclear plant somewhere in the U.S., but it would require them having a lot of guns and locking up a lot of protesters.
How did this searing slice of Truth-Telling make it thru WaPo?
Robert Reich:
Calm down, establishment Democrats. Bernie Sanders might be the safest choice (“Moderate” candidates won’t be electable if they can’t speak to middle- and working-class frustrations.)
Wow. More people though the country was corrupt under Obama than under Bush. That's saying a ton, but hardly anyone seems to refer to this.
Then he states the obvious, but what needs to be stated over and over and over again:
As for me right now I'm sitting at the kitchen table sipping coffee on this lovely grey overcast day, with my little daughter napping away, making phone calls to NC for Bernie.
Nice support for Bernie everywhere, with more having already voted early or interested in doing so than not.
One call went like this:
Caller's identity pops up as 30yr male, says he's voting for Bernie. I notice he's occasionally slow to answer to which he says he's at a restaurant working.
I follow the script until the end to when I ask if he'd be willing to sign up to volunteer, then ad lib a little to make it more real:
"Every little bit counts, man. We got 'em on the ropes."
Him: a pause, then "You believe this guy Bloomberg?"
"Yeah. Ugh, he's such a..."
"Piece of shit? I can't believe this."
"I'm calling you from NYC. I hate this guy. He epitomizes everything that Bernie stands against."
"Um, yeah. I gotta go now; I'm getting called back to work. But thanks for what you're doing. I'll see if I can volunteer too."
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut