Is There a Role for Nuclear Power in Reducing CO2 Emissions?

Last Sunday, CNN was reporting (here) that top climate scientists had come out in favor nuclear power as a "realistic" way to reduce carbon emissions. Slate was also reporting (here) that while "Many in the environmental community say that renewable energy is not a viable solution to the climate problem," climate scientist James Hansen is saying that "...this is the equivalent of 'believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy'".  CNN also plans to air a documentary on Thursday Nov. 7, Pandora's Promise (see the video clip below),  investigating the resurgence of interest in nuclear power.

The media always seem to find black-and-white stories (Nuclear Power vs. Climate Catastrophe or Renewable Energy vs. Climate Catastrophe) compelling, but these are false choices. Almost a decade ago, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow from Princeton University began arguing that there are a wide range of technologies that could be applied to reducing carbon emissions. For example, see the 2004 article in Science Stabilizing Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem in the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies and the 2006 article in Scientific American A Plan To Keep Carbon in Check. Their point might be too boring for a media special but its important to understand and keep in mind as the spin cycle starts winding up.

Pacala and Socolow argue for a divide and conquer strategy (see the graphic above, click to enlarge). By 2056, carbon emissions are forecast to double from the current level of about  7 billion tons per year to over 14 billion tons per year. If we want to stabilize carbon emissions, no single technology, be it renewable energy or nuclear power, will be able to do that. However, seven technologies that each reduce carbon emissions by 2 billion tons per year by 2056 would stabilize carbon emissions. Pacala and Socolow go on to describe 15 current technologies (no pie in the sky) that are capable of each contributing 2 billion tons per year. One of the technologies involves doubling today's nuclear power output to displace coal-fired power plants.

What are the other technologies? Here's the list, including nuclear:

1. Increase the fuel economy of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg.
2. Drive two billion cars not 10,00 miles per year (current average) but 5,000 miles per year at 30 mpg.
3. Cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent.
4. Raise efficiency at 1,600 large coals-fired power plants from 40 to 60 percent.
5. Replace 1,400 large coal-fired power plants with gas-fired plant.
6. Install Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) at 800 large coal-fired power plants.
7. Install CCS at coal fired power plants that produce hydrogen for fueling 1.5 billion vehicles.
8. Install CCS at coal-to-syngas plants.
9. Add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal-fired power plants.
10. Increase wind power 40-fold to displace coal.
11. Increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal.
12. Increase wind power 80-fold to make hydrogen for cars
13. Drive two billion cares on ethanol using one-sixth of the world's cropland.
14. Stop all deforestation.
15. Expand conservation tillage to 100 percent of cropland.

So while we are all watching CNN's documentary or reading about the conversion of climate scientists, keep in mind that we have a large menu of (boring) choices at least half of which have to be deployed between now and 2056 if CO2 emissions are to be stabilized.




MORE READING

Stabilizing Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem in the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies

A Plan To Keep Carbon in Check

Amy Leuers, Director, Climate Change at the Skoll Global Threats Fund (blogged about here) tweeted (here) "At least we must face the tough tradeoffs, not doing so is a form of denialism."  

Slate The Pro-Nukes Environmental Movement

CNN Top Climate Change Scientists' Letter to Policy Influencers and Pandora's Promise

Is This The Future of Jazz?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (here) interviewed Robert Glasper. Glasper is a piano player and record producer who is described as trying to synthesize hip hop and jazz. Glasper has gone further than this and argued that jazz itself has become stagnant and needs to change. The WSJ article and Glasper's other interviews raise a number of issues about jazz that have been debated through the 20th century to the present: What is jazz and how does it differ from other music forms? Can a jazz musician be commercially successful and avoid "selling out"? Is jazz Black music? If jazz is racially defined what can other minorities and White musicians contribute, if anything (is there a White jazz)? Is jazz dead in the 21st Century? Is Robert Glasper's music the future of jazz?

Ultimately, the answers to these questions revolve around whether you or anyone else likes listening to any piece of music, not whether it's classified as jazz, hip hop, Western classical music, or some synthesis. So you really just have to listen to Glasper's music (the video above provides a good sample of his current work) and decide for yourself (personally, I like it, but...). If a style of music has an audience, that's all that matters and the rest of this post and other critics opinions are really irrelevant.

Here are a few great quotes from the WSJ article (mostly attributed to Glasper):

"Jazz is gong to die if we don't take it someplace else."

Wynton Marsalis "I don't think the art form [jazz] is going to receive anything by being R&B. That's already been done."

"I never got my due when it came to the jazz community."

"I'm not playing R&B because I need the money and hate the music. That's selling out; R&B is just more a part of my life experience than jazz."

Having an argument about jazz is difficult because defining jazz is not that easy. The typical components in any definition involve: (1) improvisation (but what about big band arrangements?), (2) swing (free rhythmic interpretations, changes of key and time signature, playing behind the beat, syncopation, etc.), (3) spontaneity of group interactions (but what about solo playing?), (4) starting with "heads" rather than complete arrangements, and (5) elements of popular music (the Great American Song Book, Blues, Rap, Rock, Bossa Nova, etc.).

Robert Glasper's music meets many parts of the definition, but not everything. The role of improvising seems less prominent although Gasper would probably look at each piece as a product of an improvisational process.

For me, I've lived with this debate since I started listening to jazz guitarist Wes Montgomery. Montgomery started out as a swing musician playing Charlie Christian solos (Christian was the first well-known electric guitarist and played with the Benny Goodman Sextet and Orchestra). In his early career Montgomery played bebop and hard bop while in his later career, as he became more popular, he move into pop and rock (the supposed "sell out" period). He influenced many guitarists and his Bumpin' album is considered the first example of smooth jazz.

Robert Glasper is traveling a well worn path here. Is it the future of jazz? Time will tell...