Commentary: A Global Renewable Energy Power Play (November, 2017)

by John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

Here’s an interesting insight into the arcane world of global renewable energy politics, based on the October 30 column in Forbes by widely-read energy blogger Rod Adams.

Last week the annual “Conference of Parties” (COP23), the consultative body for the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, convened in Bonn, Germany.  For the past eight years a business-oriented Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF) has been held alongside the COP, cosponsored by the U.S.-led advocacy group Climate Action and the UN Environment Program (UNEP).

This year Forum accepted the World Nuclear Association as a Gold Sponsor. But then UNEP demanded that the Forum reject any participation by the nuclear trade association. Its spokesman said “we prioritise the renewables revolution, such as wind and solar energy…Our work on the nuclear sector is limited.”

It’s limited all right – to zero.

Adams reports that among the gold-level sponsors that SIF accepted were BMW and Toyota, whose profits come from fossil fuel burning engines, and Orstead, a utility that operates coal-fired power stations. Why did UNEP not veto those?

The answer seems to be that the auto manufacturers and utility acknowledge that their use of petroleum and coal is destroying the planet – UNEP’s mantra – and they’re seeking absolution for their guilt. And nuclear? The nuclear industry is proud that it emits virtually no carbon dioxide – no guilt, and no absolution needed.

Beneath this theological level, UNEP (along with the American climate change organizations) is passionately anti-nuclear. Why? Because the prospect of clean, safe, cheap 21st century nuclear electricity not only threatens to displace coal and petroleum, which is fine with the activists, but it also threatens to put an end to the subsidy-driven wind and solar carnival, which is not.

Adams quotes Kirsty Gogan, global director of Energy for Humanity, as saying “by blocking nuclear from the conversation, and insisting on a conditional, renewables-only, response to climate change, UNEP have displayed a dangerous ideological agenda that undermines its own credibility.”

But there are some climate change warriors who urge greater reliance on nuclear power. The most prominent is renowned climatologist Dr. James Hansen, the now-retired head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is the man who made “global warming”, later rechristened “climate change”, a global issue, in his 1988 testimony before a Senate Committee including his soon-to-be most ardent disciple, Al Gore.

Hansen is so passionate a believer in fossil-fuel-caused climate change that he has been arrested in protests against mountaintop coal mining and the Keystone pipeline. But he understands that attempting to maintain an acceptable level of civilization by relying on activist-approved renewables is, to use his term, “crazy”.

In 2013 Hansen co-authored an open letter to policy makers, which stated that “continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” In a Scientific American report (12/4/15) Hansen said “Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change .The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won’t use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy.”

Seven years prior to that, on a website titled “Tell the Truth to Obama”, Hansen said “The [$25 billion Federal nuclear waste disposal] fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste… Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.”

Here are three takeaways:

First, intermittent, diffuse, and non-dispatchable wind and solar electricity can be valuable in certain remote locations, and even for homesteads, but it simply can’t be relied upon to power a modern electric grid – and in fact, it’s already causing cause serious grid stability problems. Nuclear stations deliver steady, safe, reliable dispatchable baseload power to the grid, accompanied by almost no greenhouse gas emissions (mainly from trucks and equipment used in mining uranium ore.)

Second, we are long overdue to knock down the daunting regulatory barriers to licensing and building the Generation 4 nuclear plants that James Hansen urgently recommends.

Third, climate change activists who irrationally oppose even the discussion of anything nuclear deserve to be disregarded.

In addition, the Trump administration should reduce the U.S. contribution to the UN Environment Program, and let the renewable-industrial complex pick up the slack.

–  John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen institute (www.ethanallen.org).

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Do Vasectomies Prevent Dictators?

November 16, 2018 By David Flemming George Plumb claimed in a November 9 VTDigger commentary that men should feel obligated to get vasectomies to prevent authoritarians from using booming populations...

Dealing with Pre-Existing Conditions

November 15, 2018 by John McClaughry During the last national election campaign Democrats scored points by attacking Republicans for wanting to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing...

When a Liberal State Rejects a Carbon Tax

November 14, 2018 By David Flemming When asked bluntly, even the most liberal voters hate carbon taxes. That was made evident in the state of Washington on Election...

Climate issues fared poorly on state ballots 

November 14, 2018 by John McClaughry The very liberal Washington Post ran a story on November 7 on the fate of climate change issues on state ballots. Their...

How I Voted Three Times. Or not.

by Rob Roper I voted three times last Tuesday. Or maybe I didn’t. My point is, you have no idea. You see, I have two kids who recently...

Video