Ringie-ringie!

“Mr. President, this is Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma calling. You saw the news about that tornado we just had, right?”

“Hi Jim. Yes, I saw the news. 2.6 miles in diameter and winds over 250 miles per hour. My heart goes out to everyone in Oklahoma…”

“Mr. President, as much as I’d prefer not to depend on government aid, there’s something I have to ask. FEMA has been great so far, but we’re going to need serious money to rebuild. Something along the lines of…”

“Jim, I gotta’ level with you. The consensus of science is that climate change will produce an increase in the frequency and severity of violent storms…”

“Mr. President, now’s not the time for…”

“Yes it is, Jim, just like confronting someone with the fact that they have a drinking problem the day after they get pulled over for DUI. You’re as much in denial as someone with alcoholism. Your denial is directly responsible for preventable harm to others.”

“Mr. President, let’s not get political at a time like this.”

Jim, it’s not politics, it’s science. It’s reality. So here’s the deal. If you want any further aid in rebuilding after this tornado, or any other tornado as long as I’m in office, you’ll come out and make a speech on the Senate floor declaring that climate change is real, is caused by human activities, and is occurring now. I’ll take that speech as a good faith gesture and you’ll get the aid you requested. But then you have to follow up. There’s going to be a new climate bill introduced in two months. I’m counting on you to co-sponsor it and make sure it passes.”

“But Mr. President, I can’t-”

“You can’t? Famous last words from every alcoholic who refused to acknowledge he had a drinking problem. Let’s not confuse won’t with can’t. Now you know I don’t like playing hardball, but climate change is as serious as a heart attack and the time for softball on it is long over. By the way, this is exactly how President Johnson got the civil rights laws passed. And history shows he was right. You have two days to think it over. Feel free to call me any time, OK Jim?”

“Yes Mr. President. Thanks.”

“Goodbye.”

“Goodbye.”

Realistically we could also go for an expansion of uranium and plutonium fueled reactors, and with reprocessing, extend the fuel supply hundreds of years: more than sufficient time for breakthroughs in fusion research, and the deployment of commercial fusion reactors.

The chief problem with uranium and plutonium is the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, which limits the spread of fission technology to countries that can handle it responsibly. Thorium can’t be used to make nuclear weapons: we could give the technology to every unstable regime on Earth and not have to worry about them doing what North Korea did and Iran is trying mightily to do.

The underlying issue here is baseload power that is not subject to intermittency. Wind is good for at most 30% of grid power (speaking from engineering experience in the industry), and if you assume solar is good for 50%, you still have 20% that has to come from “somewhere.” Geothermal is promising but still experimental.

Natural gas is the best of the fossil fuels, and can be used for “dispatchable power” via gas turbines that can be spun up to cover peak demand periods. But natural gas shouldn’t be counted on for baseload, because the atmosphere doesn’t care where its excess CO2 load comes from. No matter how you cut the pie, there’s still a need for fission in the mix, and thorium could solve that issue globally without risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

BTW, I have no connections whatsoever to the nuclear industry, whether uranium, plutonium, or thorium.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214353/-Conservatives-hating-what-you-like-because-you-like-it

Am I right?

For example, climate change is probably the biggest opportunity for a new technology boom the world has seen in a century. A relatively small input of gov money for development of thorium reactors could pay off hugely, revitalize some of our most important industries, and put us in the position to export the technology worldwide. Streamlined licensing procedures and tax incentives for investment would overcome the inertia to new reactor construction. There’s no downside I can see in this picture. This should be part of a convergent solution that’s a win/win for everyone involved.