Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 17:48:09 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu, alt-politics-greens@cs.utexas.edu,alt-politics-libertarian@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: GREENHOUSE GAS & the ECONOMY Subject: GREENHOUSE GAS & THE ECONOMY Richard Clark recently posted an interesting question: what if it were conclusively established that greenhouse gases were causing weather changes so destructive that a 50% reduction in them would be required in the near future to avoid major climatic disaster? Could the world respond, and if so, how? IT WON'T HAPPEN, EVEN IF TRUE! My initial reply is that this is a very unlikely (but not impossible) scenario. The reason is less that it is not TRUE (it may be), but that even when data is very obvious, people who don't like the consequences of certain facts will question them and offer counter studies to "prove" the opposite. My example here is the current US economy. It is obvious to me that most are living "better" today and for the last several decades than at any previous time IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. (see my Two Different Worlds & Baseball Players Syndrome post). Yet by using manipulated statistics which don't correct for the large influx of poor immigrants and new workers, or the increase in income that most individuals and families have with time, many (maybe even most) people now seen to think that most Americans have been getting poorer since the 1970's or even before! If people can be made to believe that the decade of the 1980's was a "dark age" when only 5% got fabulously rich while every one else became impoverished, they will not believe in global warming even when Antarctica has melted, or people are dying by the hundreds in heat waves. And there are many powerful interests that are opposed to implications of accepting a need to reduce greenhouse emissions. WHAT COULD BE DONE? The only reply to Clark that I have seen was from Ed Zaharis. He devoted most of his reply to banking and monetary theory. But I think this problem has little to do with that. The last part of the post got to the point: nuclear electric power as a replacement for the coal, oil, and natural gas burning plants now in operation. This would be an important first step. Keep in mind that one of the main energy inputs to nuclear power is the mining and refining of the ore to get the fuel rods. This has already been done: there is enough weapons grade uranium and plutonium in the US and former USSR to provide the electric power needs of the world, probably until hydrogen fusion or solar become available. Or until humanity expands in space to draw on the resources of the entire solar system. Disposal of the spent fuel rods ("nuclear waste") is the main problem with the widespread use of nuclear power, and that is a problem that must be faced EVEN IF NO NEW PLANTS ARE EVER BUILT! WHAT IF I WERE CZAR? I will present a scenario that starts with Clark's and proceeds to an even more unlikely one. When conclusive evidence of the harm from greenhouse gasses is established, the public has become much better at recognizing studies based on mis used data, and can see through the many attempts by various interests to obscure the facts. World leaders gather to decide on a strategy to deal with the crisis. There is widespread popular recognition that SOMETHING must be done to cut "greenhouse" gas emissions by 50% . In a move of unprecedented statesmanship, the US President asks ME to take charge of the US program. It is, she explains, based on my diverse background as a college professor in various physical sciences and my teaching of environmental courses, combined with the obvious insight and wisdom that is displayed in my newsgroup posts. ;-) My decrees will be rubber stamped by Congress and implemented immediately. What should I do? Since the US with about 5% of the world population produces 25-30% the CO2, our response is important. THE PLAN The most immediate problem is CO2. Most is from power plants and our transportation system. I am wise enough to know that I cannot "micro manage" the national economy: the market/price structure is the key. The US is locked into an economy based on cheap gas and electricity. This must change fast but not TOO fast. Step 1. Announce that the gas tax will be increased by 10 cents/gallon. Every year. Forever. Get used to it. The money generated from this will go to a special fund to pay for bike path construction, light rail systems for commuters in cities, and other such projects. This should bring in $10 billion/year initially, and increase from there. Well, its a start. Step 2. Fund a project to build a nuclear waste storage facility soon. Review the current proposals and have a panel of geologists select the best currently available technology and location, and start construction. Step 3. Announce a tax on CO2 emissions from all power plants and other industrial processes. It will start small but increase and be extended to home heating fuels in one year. Money spent on home insulation, replacement windows, higher efficiency furnaces, etc will be tax deductible. Step 4. Gather a panel of nuclear power engineers to select a standardized design power plant, based on only minor modifications of existing operating plants. Begin converting US nuclear warheads to fuel rods for the plant recommended by that panel. Declare a moratorium on all new fossil fuel power plants. Step 5. Increase funding for research on batteries and fuel cells for cars and trucks, plus solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable power sources, and start construction of a small scale prototype ocean thermal electric power plant in the Caribbean to generate hydrogen gas from the temperature difference across the thermocline. Hydrogen is the likely replacement for natural gas. By using catalytic heaters, houses won't even need chimneys. Step 6. Establish a internet newsgroup for the discussion of ideas on this. And that is just for day 1 WHO PAYS? Will this plan disrupt the US economy? Of course. But if electric power prices can be held down during the phasing out of coal and oil plants, most business will survive. The cost of the transportation changes will fall on those most able to afford them: rich suburbanites. They travel most in one person/car and will pay most of the gas tax increase. The extension of buses and light rail from the cities will get to them within a decade, before the gas tax makes things unbearable in the 'burbs. Trucking will lose long distance business to the renewed trains as gas prices rise. Energy intensive products and processes will become more expensive than their competitors. Local products will gain relative to distant ones. Car pooling, busses and bicycling to work will become more common. People will more inclined to live closer to where they work. Sailboats will become more popular than motorboats because they will affordable. But we will learn to cope. Well, that's my plan. If you don't like it, what is yours? ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 And in Feburary, 1997 Jay Hanson wrote: ECONOMISTS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE MUST BE HALTED More than 2,000 economists said in a statement issued in Washington, D.C., Thursday that the United States would be able to reduce its industrial emissions to slow global climate change without damaging its economy. The statement, written by five leading economists and signed by some 2,000, said well-designed policies relying on market mechanisms "may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run." (...) They endorsed a system of "market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or trading of marketable emissions permits among countries." Revenues from carbon taxes or emissions credits could be used to reduce budget deficits or lower existing taxes to benefit the economy, said the statement drafted by Nobel Prize winners Kenneth Arrow and Robert Solow, as well as Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Nordhaus of Yale University. It said many policy options are available that would slow climate change "without harming employment or U.S. living standards, and that these may be economically beneficial in the long run." Source: Reuters Hi, Well I am glad that all these big name economists and Nobel Prize winners are picking up on the ideas that I posted here several years ago. CO2 & ELECTRIC POWER Some additional information: generating electric power by different means will release different amounts of CO2 per kilowatt of elecrtic power. Some German Data on relative CO2 production: Steinkole (Bituminous) Steam 0.82 kg CO2/kw-hr Combined Cycle 0.79 kg CO2/kw-hr Heizoil S (Oil) 0.76 kg CO2/kw-hr Erdgas (Natural Gas) Gas turbine 0.58 kg CO2/kw-hr Steam plant 0.47 kg CO2/kw-hr Combined Cycle 0.38 kg CO2/kw-hr Nuclear 0.00 kg This is just in the burning; it does not include getting and transporting the fuel. The reason for the differences is this: the more of the energy that comes from forming C-O bonds, the more CO2 released. The more hydrogen in the fuel, the more energy that comes from forming water vapor: also a greenhouse gas. But the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is probably not increased by forming more water (except maybe by power plants located in the desert, but not near the oceans where other factors determine the humidity). Coal is almost all carbon, so the CO2 is the highest. Methane has the most hydrogen atoms (4) relative to the number of carbons, and so gives off the least CO2; petroleum oils of various kinds are in between. ADVANCED-DESIGN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS When the United States builds its next generation of nuclear power plants, they will be much advanced over today's plants. But they'll draw on the experience we've gained from current plants. They will be easier and safer to control. More efficient to operate and maintain. Less expensive to build. PLANTS WILL BE STANDARDIZED Most of today's 109 nuclear power plants are virtually one-of-a-kind designs built at a time when nuclear technology was evolving and regulatory requirements were changing rapidly. The advanced-design plants will be standardized, much like ships, airplanes, or even modular homes. They will incorporate 40 years' worth of technological improvements, including enhanced safety features. KEEP IT SIMPLE! Two new standardized designs have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and one more should be approved in 1998. Like their predecessors, they are light water reactors or plants that are cooled with ordinary water. Because they are standardized, they will be quicker and less expensive to build, easier to run, and much simpler and safer. *Whole sections will be factory-built and shipped to the plant site. *Spare parts will be a snap to obtain. *Control rooms will be more user friendly. *The cooling water for the major safety systems in some designs will rely more on the laws of nature, like gravity and natural convection, and less on pumps and motors. Studies show the advanced plants will be able to meet safety goals more than 100 times greater than those of current nuclear power plants. Power companies will be able to order them in medium size (600 megawatts) or large (1,350 megawatts), according to the needs of their customers. Like personal computers, the simpler advanced-design nuclear power plants will help make Americans more productive. And they will produce electrical energy cleanly and affordably. Thanks to Steven Hales for this information on CO2 production and nuclear plant design.