Rachel's Democracy & Health News #921  [Printer-friendly version]
August 23, 2007

CARBON-FREE AND NUCLEAR-FREE: A DETAILED ENERGY PLAN FOR THE U.S.

[Rachel's introduction: A new report offers a blueprint for a U.S.
energy system with no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and no nuclear
power plants, achievable within 35 to 60 years. The blueprint
provides a solid platform for climate justice activism. Has your
favorite Presidential candidate taken a position on this report yet?]

By Peter Montague

A path-breaking new report concludes that the U.S. could develop a
sustainable energy policy -- one that is both carbon-free and nuclear-
free -- in 60 years or less.

The book-length study by Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research (IEER) in Takoma Park, Maryland offers a
detailed plan for powering the nation's economy with zero carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions and no nuclear power plants. The study
resulted from a joint project of IEER and the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute.

Such an energy policy would solve four pressing problems:

1. Global climate disruption: carbon dioxide emissions from combustion
of fossil fuels are the main human contribution to climate disruption,
which is threatening the global economy, human societies, and many of
the ecosystems upon which humans depend;

2. Disruption of marine food webs by ocean acidification, which is
occurring now as atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed into the
oceans;

3. Insecurity of oil supply. Increases in global oil consumption, and
conflicts in oil-producing regions, are making oil prices volatile and
supplies insecure;

4. Nuclear proliferation: As we know from the experience of India,
North Korea, and Pakistan, among others, the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is being enabled by the spread of nuclear power plants, which
are being promoted as a solution for carbon dioxide emissions.

The new IEER report, which will be published by RDR Books in the
fall (and on the web sooner than that), is available now in
summary, and as a special issue of IEER's newsletter, Science
for Democratic Action.

It can provide a blueprint and an agenda for climate justice
activists and for state and local officials.

The study offers seven main findings:

1. A goal of zero carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to minimize
harm related to climate change.

2. A hard cap on carbon dioxide emissions -- that is, a fixed
emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero some
before the year 2060 -- would provide large carbon emitters a flexible
way to phase out CO2. However, current "carbon trading" programs
would undermine and defeat the hard cap, and so would have to be
abandoned. See related carbon trading story in Rachel's News #888.

3. A reliable U.S. electricity sector can be achieved without CO2
emissions and without nuclear power.

4. The use of nuclear power entails risks of nuclear proliferation,
terrorism, and serious accidents. It exacerbates the problem of
nuclear waste and perpetuates vulnerabilities in the nation's energy
system that can be avoided.

5. The use of available highly-efficient energy technologies, and
building designs could greatly ease the transition to a carbon-free,
nuclear-free energy system. IEER calculates that a two percent annual
increase in efficiency per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could
produce a one percent decline in energy use per year while providing
three percent annual growth in GDP. "This is well within the capacity
of available technological performance," the report concludes.

6. Biofuels, broadly defined, could be an important part of the
solution, or could actually make the problem worse -- depending on the
choices that we make. The report points to ethanol from corn, and
biodiesel from palm oil as two examples of damaging biofuels. On the
other hand, the report says microalgae grown in a high-CO2 environment
can provide substantial energy benefits with minimal environmental
harm, delivering 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuels per acre of
land per year.

7. Much of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be done without
increased cost (for example, efficient lighting and refrigeration).
The remainder of the CO2 reduction would likely cost $10 to $30 per
metric tonne of CO2. (A metric tonne is 1000 kilograms or 2200
pounds).

8. The transition to a zero-CO2 system can be made in a manner
compatible with local economic development in areas currently
producing fossil fuels.

If you believe, as we do, that the four problems described at
beginning of this article -- climate chaos, ocean acidification,
insecurity of oil supply, and proliferation of nuclear weapons -- are
extremely serious and need to be resolved without delay, then you will
want to study this new report from IEER carefully. The full report
will soon be available on the IEER web site.

With the publication of this new report, we all now have a firm basis
for demanding a carbon-free nuclear-free energy system for the U.S.

Has your favorite Presidential candidate taken a position on this
report yet?