Amartya Sen is trying to start a conversation at The New Republic. Here’s the heart of it:
The bulk of the American population seems basically unconvinced that the threat is large enough to warrant any great sacrifices today on the part of the present population. Even as President Obama is gathering enough traction for trying to impose strong constraints on allowable emissions, particularly affecting older plants and factories, Democratic candidates in some states are reputed to be getting ready to dissociate themselves from Obama’s initiative, moving closer to the Republican position as the next elections get closer. There has been a serious failure in communicating the results of scientific analysis and in involving the general public in informed ethical reasoning, especially in the United States. Of course America is not the whole world, but public understanding and policy-making in the United States are important not only because it is such a big polluter, but also because the willingness of other countries to make sacrifices today would be hard to arrange if Americans go on polluting the environment with little attempt to restrain themselves.
But it is also clear that people don’t take the risks of nuclear power seriously enough. We have a consensus that we need to dramatically lower carbon emissions, but we don’t have any consensus beyond that. Sen correctly notes that we want to see increased power use in much of the world as an anti-poverty initiative. Solar can be a real catalyst, especially in equatorial regions where sunlight is abundant.
That’s not clear at all. We’ve come to an impasse on ET on that one – it seems to me that you have two (isn) camps, one based on cost-benefit analysis and one based on a belief that only a zero risk of nuclear accidents is acceptable, and the two sides can’t even talk to each other because they don’t live in a similar universe.
I’ve seen plausible arguments that it’s quite possible that almost everyones risk of radioactivity exposure is mostly due to coal burning power stations, not nuclear ones. The assessment of the harm done by nuclear accidents varies wildly depending on who does the study.
When the choice is more fossil fuels or nuclear or freezing in the dark (which isn’t clearly a real choice either) which is the best route?
Still too much energy being wasted persuading people that pumping energy into the climate system is a really bad idea and not enough energy being spent on fixing the problem.
It’s been a long time since I looked at the nuclear power issue. But I remember three key problems with all of the cost/benefit analyses. First, spent nuclear waste is a problem with only theoretical solutions, and as such all cost/benefit analyses assumed low costs for disposal (basically assuming the taxpayers took ownership of this issue for the next 100 or so generations).
Second, this is the classic problem of combining a very low risk probability for very high cost scenarios. The slightest tweak to the probabilities of the scenario – guesswork at best – resulted in massive changes to the costs side of the equation. Thus whoever did the study would naturally end up with high or low costs depending on their bias going in – and you couldn’t really challenge their risk assessment with data since there is so little.
Third, there is the problem with acceptably low risk multiplied a high number of times until it become unacceptable. I saw this scenario in real life back in the 1990s with a computer system I was working on. Taken in its normal form the computer would have a data integrity error once every 52 years – pretty impressive. However, at a massive installation we had just deployed the number of computers and the intensity of use meant that there would be one data integrity error at that site every 10-11 months – highly unacceptable. Something that we came to realize when the first error occurred a few months after production started. We did take steps to fix it – alas at a cost to performance – and absorbed a big hit to our profit on the deal. Similarly, while the cost/benefit analysis of a single nuclear plant may yield and positive net benefit based on extremely low probability of a disaster occurring, multiply that result times tens of thousands of nuclear plants and recognize that the probability of any one of those plants having a catastrophe grows until it approaches 100%. So change your evaluation strategy from being based on one plant to being based on the entire strategy – what are we willing to pay as cost for heavy reliance world wide on nuclear energy? It’s a different equation with different implications.
I don’t want to sound all downer Dan on people, but humans in their current form are probably not going to have stewardship over the planet for the next 100 or even 5 generations. Nothing to do with violence or deprivation-based human extinction scenarios, either. The cost-benefit analysis is going have to take into account that the dominant intelligence of the planet will almost certainly be an order of magnitude greater than what we have right now.
And if humans in their current form are still around after 100 years, our species is fucked anyway.
Sure, I’m actually pretty sceptical that massively expanded nuclear makes sense, especially using the tech we’ve been using up to now. The point was that the discussion isn’t normally really about cost-benefit in my experience.
It also depends what the alternatives you’re choosing between are. Nuclear vs coal or nuclear vs fracking is a different calculation to nuclear vs solar or nuclear vs wind and storage.
I think it’s unrealistic to ask politicians to make statements about policies that would cost their constituents jobs while they are running for office. They won’t do it.
Mmmmm, solar good, nukes bad – right? Maybe not completely right. The externalities mentioned by Sen are largely ignored or glossed over by the advocates of solar. The large scale manufacture of solar panels creates massive amounts of the same types of toxic byproducts as the manufacture of semiconductor products. The panels themselves contain some of the same toxic chemicals as microelectronics. The safe disposal or recycling of these toxins is currently not factored into the carbon footprint of solar. Recycling solar panels at the end of their life cycle is left up to their owners.
I’m an advocate of getting the hell off of carbon-based energy production in the best way possible. That will require, as Sen rightly states, an evaluation of all of the costs associated with a particular means of energy production.
Embedded in your description of the problems with massive solar is the indication of the solution – a solution no one except environmental extremists bring up.
Namely, conservation. Talk about a once hip word that is now completely obsolete.
Given the massive amount of energy each and every person consumes the reality is that no matter how we generate the energy we cannot do so without horribly screwing up the environment we depend upon for survival.
Less than a century ago people were so energy-cost conscious that leaving a light bulb on unnecessarily was a near sin. Yes, gas was cheap, but most people didn’t have cars and those who did drove them only on local trips.
Today our energy footprints are massive. No matter that all of our appliances have Energy Saver labels or that my family drives electric cars – my family still uses 50x the energy of a family 100 years ago.
This cannot continue indefinitely.
Your point is well taken: reasonable conservation by large scale consumers would a very good thing. However, there are millions, maybe billions, of people in the Third World who would like to have some of the energy consuming amenities that we now enjoy. Many of them will have them. Creating policies now to assist their respective nations to power those amenities with renewable energy would be a beneficial endeavor for First World nations. America has lost the capability (If it ever possessed it) for such long term initiatives so I’m not looking for much help from our corner.
No, I mean more than reasonable conservation by large scale consumers. We think we’ve done a lot if we’ve cut energy use by 50%. We need to cut it by 95% or more. Largely because, as you point out, eventually all 7 billion are going to be using energy on the same levels.
Think about what that would entail. You would no longer be able to think of routinely commuting more than 5 miles per day – even if by public transport. Trips of an hour or more would be rare – intercontinental trips would be even rarer. Stop relying on goods shipped across the ocean – too much energy. Cut your consumables to a tiny percentage. The internet itself would need to be recast as less social and more information, as it is a huge energy hog.
Won’t happen, as I said, but it needs to for long-term wide-scale species survival. Individual action to cut energy use to 5% of the norm is admirable but won’t make a slight dent – this has to be done on a global scale. Any individual doing so probably should being doing so either as a pilot to prove it can be done in the modern age or as part of a plan for multi-generational survival of a local group.
With respect, you’re going too far. Why not do away with flush toilets and washing machines as well? Why not one common water faucet every so many blocks? Wait, blocks? Pavement consumes all sorts of energy so, no pavement. No houses, no pets, no children because they all consume energy. Starving alone outdoors in the darkness isn’t a solution.
There is a potential new nuclear technology that could be as close to a magic bullet for climate change as we might see. Molten Salt Reactors can use either thorium for fuel or there is a group out of MIT that says they can use spent nuclear fuel as recycled fuel for the reactors.
And the best part is that it’s almost literally impossible for a MSR to melt down and it doesn’t produce weapons grade isotopes.
I’m always hopeful that a new tech emerges that breaks current constraints and buys the human race a few more generations to solve the problems created by a species that evolved to optimize for tribal organization and goals of short-term gain who now has to collaborate globally to manage their only planet for long-term survival.
But I’m of course highly skeptical. I’ve seen so many such claims over my decades – the most infamous being the cold fusion fiasco of 25 years ago. Anyone remember Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)? Or Solar Satellites that would collect solar energy unblocked by sun and beam it to earth?
Relying on such a species-saving technology emerging in time – without unforeseen negative global side effects – is insanity masking as optimism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
It isn’t theoretical. They exist, and have been tested as far back as the 1960s.
These types of reactors weren’t chosen because they didn’t create nearly as much weapons-grade byproducts. Because nuclear weapons are very, very important in blackmailing the rest of the human populace.
So, this type of nuclear power exists, and can be used to get rid of some types of nuclear waste.
China and India are on it, don’t worry.
We’re still too busy protecting the oil and coal industries to notice or care.
The bulk of the American population is ignorant and it is going to take a leader with a lot more courage than anyone out there now to change that. Until then Coal Rolling!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsC0kLNSLAQ
Wind power! Go for it! Please!
I’m an investor. I put my money where my mouth is.