How Japan Should Impact the US Nuclear Debate

My thoughts and prayers have been and will continue to be with the people of Japan. Their suffering is both a tragedy and testimony to the fragility of even the most developed infrastructure.

It is also a reminder of the sometimes alarming ubiquity of our energy supply system. Almost a year after the Deepwater oil spill began in the Gulf of Mexico, the people of Japan and around the world are watching as another potential oversized disaster unfolds due to a crack in the global energy pipeline. The Daiichi reactor in Fukushima, Japan suffered structural damage as a result of the 8.9 point earthquake on Friday, and three explosions caused by excessive sea water flooding have only made the situation worse. Perhaps because of our energy infrastructure’s ubiquity, disasters like these are bound to happen, but nuclear accidents are the ones that seem to rattle public confidence most profoundly. It is important to understand such disasters in the proper context in order to learn from mistakes and not unduly handicap any options in the critical quest for cleaner energy.

Fortunately, speaking in disaster orders of magnitude, the still unresolved emergency at the Daiichi facilities will most likely resemble a Three Mile Island as opposed to a Chernobyl. Engineers on the ground appear confident, and James F. Stubbins of the University of Illinois says “the likelihood there will be a huge fire like at Chernobyl or a major environmental release like at Chernobyl, I think that’s basically impossible.”reported over the weekend in NYT:

Until this weekend, President Obama, mainstream environmental groups and large numbers of Republicans and Democrats in Congress agreed that nuclear power offered a steady energy source and part of the solution to climate change, even as they disagreed on virtually every other aspect of energy policy. Mr. Obama is seeking tens of billions of dollars in government insurance for new nuclear construction, and the nuclear industry in the United States, all but paralyzed for decades after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, was poised for a comeback.

Nuclear power’s comeback may have hit a speed bump, or at least picked up a few skeptical passengers. Nevertheless, as Broder points out, the Administration is following through on its commitment to nuclear in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, and regulators at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission claim that America’s nuclear power plants will be safe in natural disasters. That very well may be the case, but the safety of our existing fleet of 104 reactors hasn’t precipitated the construction of a single new plant since 1979, when the victimless accident at Three Mile Island put the American nuclear industry in stasis.

With public health and safety concerns certainly piqued by events in Japan, political and financial obstacles to a nuclear renaissance may have sharpened as well. As I opined recently, nuclear power may actually be one of the most popular forms of energy considered by Congress in recent years, and certainly the most popular form capable of generating baseload power. The effects of the Japanese disaster on American politics are yet to be seen, but don’t expect them to be zero.

Additionally, the private sector has long bemoaned the extreme regulatory hurdles and capital costs associated with breaking new ground on a nuclear site, and any legislation seeking to erect new power plants was likely to both standardize structural facility design and streamline the permitting process. But whereas a week ago the prospect of a cheaper, quicker process for installing new nuclear power seemed welcome, now it may seem to many like rushing into things. Even if Congress follows through on its fairly widespread support for nuclear power, the myriad of concerns raised vividly by the Daiichi accident may weigh heavily on the minds of our legislators.

The dangers exposed by this debate extend even farther when we consider the big picture. Say we somehow agree to some threshold of n disasters divided by total nuclear capacity as an acceptable future. Even if n ≤ 0, we would still have to weigh that calculation against the arguably much more dangerous carbon infrastructure that nuclear power would replace. As Americans for Energy Leadership has written, the environmental, health/safety, and geopolitical consequences of the carbon economy are vast. And though the casualty count for coal and oil accidents is much higher than for nuclear, again, the nuclear catastrophes really seem to stick in our collective psyche.

Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned. | Sources: Ball, Roberts & Simpson, 1994; Hirschberg et al, Paul Scherrer Institut 1996, in: IAEA 1997; Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001.

However, any form of decarbonization of our energy economy in the near future is unlikely without substantial help from the “nuclear wedge”, says Broder:

“’It’s not possible to achieve a climate solution based on existing technology without a significant reliance on nuclear power,’ said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington and an energy and climate change adviser to the 2008 Obama campaign.”

The danger in this case, then, is what will happen if we don’t expand our nuclear capacity.

We should not be alarmists. The maintenance of, and revolution in, our energy infrastructure will not occur by comparing death tolls. But in the aftermath of events like the disaster at Fukushima, it is difficult not to suffer a little sobriety at the prospect of moving in any direction on energy. We are frightened by the possibility of a meltdown, just as we face the daunting task of decarbonization. However, to be rather mechanistic, the direct casualties resulting from any nuclear contamination or explosion should not be tallied independently from other injuries resulting from this natural disaster. We need to be careful not to blame nuclear technology for damage done by a tsunami, just as we would not blame an architect if an unusually strong earthquake destroyed a house (as this one did many).

This is neither an “accidents happen” moment, nor a time to point fingers. And we do not dishonor a tragedy or exercise hubris by compelling forward reasons for optimism in the arena of nuclear energy debate. As AEL’s Dan O’Connor recently pointed out, nuclear power carries with it the benefits of base load power generation and capacity factors exceeding 90%, the highest in the business. The impressive contribution of nuclear power has shrunk the carbon intensity (in this case, carbon intensity = kgCO₂/MWh) in economies like France, Sweden and, yes, Japan (see Table 1 – credit to CARMA).

Table 1. CO₂ emissions from electricity generation

Country	Electricity generated(a)	CO2emissions (b)	Energy mix (c)			Carbon intensity(d)
	TWeh	million tons	fossil	hydro	nuclear	kg CO2/MWeh
Poland	163	163	96%	1%	0%	1002
South Africa	215	198	93%	0%	6%	920
Australia	228	203	90%	7%	0%	891
China	3260	2830	83%	15%	2%	868
India	719	579	76%	16%	2%	805
Czech Republic	78	58	65%	3%	30%	742
Indonesia	125	83	78%	9%	0%	662
Malaysia	95	59	86%	6%	0%	626
Germany	636	389	62%	3%	24%	612
United States	4190	2558	69%	7%	18%	611
Turkey	149	91	72%	27%	0%	609
Taiwan (China)	218	124	59%	4%	17%	570
Thailand	124	70	92%	5%	0%	563
United Kingdom	370	206	71%	1%	20%	557
Netherlands	101	55	78%	0%	4%	548
Spain	283	138	58%	7%	19%	487
Russia	896	434	63%	20%	16%	484
South Korea	392	174	44%	1%	35%	444
Italy	355	152	70%	9%	0%	429
Mexico	220	93	73%	13%	5%	421
Ukraine	172	67	44%	7%	48%	387
Saudi Arabia	167	64	99%	0%	0%	385
Egypt	101	38	87%	12%	0%	376
Japan	1030	376	33%	8%	28%	365
Iran	205	74	86%	10%	0%	363
Belgium	83	26	36%	0%	55%	317
Argentina	95	29	61%	30%	7%	307
Finland (e)	98	29	8%	4%	7%	295
Pakistan	87	23	53%	35%	3%	261
Canada	732	156	26%	50%	12%	213
Venezuela	101	11	24%	74%	0%	110
France	551	48	9%	9%	78%	88
Brazil	431	22	7%	83%	2%	50
Sweden	154	3	2%	47%	45%	17
Norway	139	1	1%	98%	0%	5
World Total	18830	10377	-	-	-	551
The data are taken from the CARMA database. The data are for the year 2007. The table shows the 35 countries with the highest electricity production in 2007. These 35 countries accounted for 90.1% of world electrical energy generation, and 92.7% of world CO2 emissions from electricity generation in 2007. The table is sorted in order of decreasing carbon intensity. The largest value in each column is highlighted. The emissions data are for electricity generation alone. The energy mix data are for electricity generation alone, not for total energy use. The data show emissions during operation, not for the whole life cycle of the generating plant. Notes: (a) The units of electrical energy generated are terawatt-hours. (b) The units of carbon dioxide emissions are millions of metric tons. (c) The fossil fuel fraction in the energy mix combines gas, oil, coal and lignite use. (d) The units of carbon intensity are kilograms of CO2 emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. (e) The data for Finland differ from Finnish industry data. The discrepancy is marked in the table.

The benefits of nuclear power are surely non-negligible, perhaps even wholly impressive, and certainly so for those whose goal is to get us off coal and oil. We should not seek to admonish caution, but the questions raised by accidents do not void the answers given by successes. Therefore, as we undergo a transformation in our energy infrastructure, we must simultaneously take precautions for safety while vigorously exploring new opportunities for decarbonization.

Uncertainty or Definitiveness in Climate Science?

Two new studies, published in Nature (subscription required), find a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. At least, that's what I keep hearing. But something else is happening here, beyond the humans-are-changing-the-climate narrative. Behind the boilerplate conclusions offered by the two studies, and in the context of climate-fueled extreme weather research in general, is an interesting discussion of the value and validity of such specific scientific findings to policymakers and the general public.

As The New York Times reports:

In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

The two studies each used climate modeling to predict the likelihood of observing discrete precipitation levels that, according to their findings, were impossible without the contribution of human-influenced atmospheric moisture content. The first study (Min, Zhang, Zwiers, and Hegerl) analyzed global rainfall over a fifty-year period (1951-1999) and used climate simulations to calculate the effect of increased GHG levels in the atmosphere on precipitation. The second (Pall, Aina, Stone, Stott, Nozawa, Hilberts, Lohmann, and Allen) established causal relationship, using climate simulations, between emissions and a unique extreme weather event (specifically, a flood in England in 2000).

The context for the two respective papers is important. The conclusion offered by the Min et al. indicates that climate change is both happening and having an effect on macro-scale phenomena, specifically global precipitation preceding extreme weather events. The paper by Pall and colleagues ostensibly asserts that we can identify a climate "fingerprint" in specific extreme weather events, indicting humankind for its increasing frequency.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress used the evidence put forward by these two studies in saying that "key weather events are becoming more extreme — especially deluges, heat waves, and droughts — as climate scientists have long predicted they would if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases kept rising." He is referring here to the conventional wisdom in climate change research that, while we anticipate increasing and intensifying climatological extremes associated with anthropogenic emissions, no single weather event can be attributed to the effects of climate change. Climate Progress (which, incidentally, censored me just last week) seems to have put this conventional wisdom to rest.

Not so fast, say others. Over at his blog, Roger Pielke Jr. provides the following contribution to this discussion:

I have been asked by many people whether these papers mean that we can now attribute some fraction of the global trend in disaster losses to greenhouse gas emissions, or even recent disasters such as in Pakistan and Australia.

I hate to pour cold water on a really good media frenzy, but the answer is "no." Neither paper actually discusses global trends in disasters (one doesn't even discuss floods) or even individual events beyond a single flood event in the UK in 2000.

Pielke notes that the Min et al. paper discusses precipitation only, omitting any data on streamflow or damage. On this, he says,

Precipitation is to flood damage as wind is to windstorm damage. It is not enough to say that it has become windier to make a connection to increased windstorm damage -- you need to show a specific increase in those specific wind events that actually cause damage. There are a lot of days that could be windier with no increase in damage; the same goes for precipitation.

Further, Pielke criticizes the Pall et al. paper for drawing conclusions on extreme weather trends in a study with an overly narrow focus on a single weather event. The data, Pielke suggests, don't add up to such a compelling conclusion as has been reported.

Perhaps the most interesting dynamic at play here is what Pielke referred to as "a really good media frenzy." Andrew Revkin at DotEarth has probably the best compilation of opinion and fact surrounding this story, and he uses these two studies to discuss the interplay between scientists and journalists. Specifically, Revkin reminds us, climate science does not tend to lend itself to soundbites and easy conclusions:

As I wrote recently, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the definitiveness of an assertion and its credibility. This doesn’t mean that everything definitive is wrong (only Joe Romm could find a way to interpret it thus). It means that a reporter, or citizen, confronted with a flat statement on a tough issue would do well to dig a bit deeper.

Reporting on the issues, and making policy in response to them, becomes that much more difficult because of the simplistic diagnostics many of us seek. This is the key trouble with climate science, in my view. Science and journalism very often present us with definitive climate predictions, and when credible non-deniers like Pielke chime in with data-driven skepticism, the zeitgeist of climate change as a whole suffers in the public arena. The trouble with trying to solve the climate crisis by using climate disasters as harbingers is that we have yet to accurately predict in advance or attribute in retrospect any direct culpability to anthropogenic emissions in high-profile weather events. Thus, insofar as climate change is a technical challenge with a technical solution, it is extremely difficult to define the parameters which we seek to address.

These two studies, and the reporting on them, are examples of how messy the arena of public discourse can get without even inviting the flat-earthers who refuse to entertain the notion that climate change might just possibly be a bad thing. It is for this reason primarily that I (taking a cue from Revkin) like to frame the challenges we face as an energy quest, for which the technical challenges posed are far more simple to diagnose, even if they are just as daunting.

Budget Roundup

While I will always think the President could bring more political gravitas to energy policy, at least there's some interesting energy dynamics in the budget proposal released yesterday.

• President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes the elimination of $4 billion of subsidies and tax incentives for oil companies (via @NoahFisher at Americans for Energy Leadership).
• The Administration will also push for small modular nuclear reactors.
• Many scientists were relatively pleased with the budget proposal.
• Budget increases in DOE R&D and a rollback of subsidies for carbon energy amounts to $8 billion directed towards clean energy.
• Loan guarantees for nuclear power would triple under Obama's budget, something I recently advocated.
• Energy Secretary Steven Chu has a nifty presentation on science, research and innovation in the budget.

My thoughts on the Groupon ads

Okay, this is only loosely germane to this blog, but I encountered this controversy on Climate Progress, Joe Romm's prolific climate/energy blog, so I say it's fair game.

There've been lots of complaints about the Groupon Super Bowl ads over the past few days. If you're not familiar, check out the following ad:

You can see why this might be considered controversial. Deforestation, which is a leading cause of global climate change and plenty of other environmental problems, is a serious problem that should be taken seriously. I wandered across Joe Romm's complaints about this ad on his blog, Climate Progress, and found his (and many of his commenters') criticisms to be only slightly misguided. The criticisms basically accused Groupon of trivializing global problems like deforestation and that any intended satire was a misfire. I left the following comment on the post:

It remains hard for me to believe that Romm (and many commenters) can't recognize satire. "30 seconds is simply not enough time to do a satirical ad"? Really? I got it. So did lots of people:

http://www.thesmokingjacket.com/lifestyle/groupon-super-bowl-controversy

The criticism leveled against Groupon following their admittedly controversial ads seems to accuse them of not doing more to bring attention to the problems of deforestation, commercial whaling and Tibetan social/political disputes. These critiques hold Groupon to a different standard than, say, Frito Lay, whose numerous Doritos/Pepsi ads have not been accused of ignoring/trivializing global problems, even though they do less to foster debate and awareness than Groupon.

Please, allow me to indicate the ridiculousness I personally perceive in these arguments:

@All : do you own more than one pair of shoes? How dare you not spend that money on slowing deforestation?

This absurd question is the exact same mistake that I believe you all are making, albeit with a lower profile. Groupon is targeting its ads at consumers it knows will spend disposable income on luxury goods (i.e., almost everything) instead of altruistic motivations. Within the confines of the capitalist system that Groupon necessarily operates in, Groupon is doing exactly what we all do.

I agree with @Mike (comment #13). At the end of the day, Groupon is a business marketing itself. If you don't like that, then complain about consumerism at large, but don't single out Groupon. At least Groupon is willing to make interesting advertisements that just might raise awareness about these terrible problems, AND give people consumer discounts for donating to the causes. If only we could get more attractive celebrities to say the word "deforestation" on TV without it seeming patronizing or obsolete.

We'll see if that comment survives moderation. For the record, @Mike said the following:

It is OK to laugh a little. I only watched the Hurley one. Look, she got thousands [sic] of beer drinking guys to think about rain forest destruction for 15 seconds. Maybe we can get her to do a climate change ad. “Extreme weather is not good on your hair! …” Joe, you have a certain audience in mind. That’s fine. But her audience will have to be reached using different methods. Let’s be open minded and creative. The Party that can’t laugh at itself [sic] loses.

Amen to that. Problems like deforestation (which is basically a proxy for climate change) are both complex and immediately irrelevant to Groupon's bottom line. We shouldn't admonish for-profit companies that dare to mention controversial issues in tones that we aren't used to, especially when they're raising money to help combat these global problems.

[UPDATE: In the approximately 72 hours since I submitted my dissenting, non-inflammatory post on Climate Progress, the comment moderators over there appear to have censored my opinion. Cool.]

[UPDATE: Roughly one week after I originally submitted my comment, new comments on the post have now been disabled. I'll have to keep my eye on Climate Progress from now on, to see if my experience is an outlier or part of their MO.]

Environmentalists sue to halt AB 32. Wait...what?

Someone please explain this to me:

A California judge put rules on hold implementing the state's greenhouse gas laws including cap and trade rules adopted last year [under AB 32].

...

The board and those who brought the lawsuit, an alliance of environmental groups led by the San Francisco-based Center on Race, Policy and the Environment, have until Tuesday to respond before the court makes a final ruling.

Basically, an "alliance of environmental groups" is suing to have the California Air Resource Board's authority to implement its carbon reduction measures as set up by AB 32 interrupted. Based on the little reporting available so far on this news, I can't determine with any kind of assurance if CARB broke any serious guidelines in creating and adopting its cap-and-trade policy. However, I have to wonder about the wisdom of the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment in challenging (and potentially delaying indefinitely) one of the most ambitious environmental programs in California's already impressive history by accusing CARB of not achieving proper environmental review.

I haven't kept secret my opinion that cap-and-trade has serious limitations. But it is at the very least a symbolic act of progress, and a market signal to clean tech companies that their business will be welcome in California. And to go from campaigning to uphold AB 32 during last year's elections (against the proponents of Prop 23) to suing to have it delayed makes no sense to me.

Nuclear Power in a Post-Partisan Approach to Energy

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership.

In the wake of cap-and-trade’s defeat, and as we begin a new session of Congress, common ground must be found on policy to renovate America’s energy infrastructure. Now may be the time to explore the possible benefits of renewing America’s once vigorous nuclear power production. Notably absent in recent advances in America’s energy portfolio has been nuclear power. Public safety fears stemming from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have left nuclear policy in stasis for decades, but as our President aims to launch a new industrial policy and our nation trends towards a new national energy policy, it may be time to revive our commitment to this method of zero-emissions baseload power generation.

Nuclear power is unique among clean energy technologies in that Democrats tend to be more hesitant towards its production than Republicans. Indeed, it has a reputation for its appeal to conservatives -Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman included provisions for nuclear technology in their ultimately unsuccessful American Power Act (APA) with the ostensible goal of courting Republican support. The urgency with which Democrats feel we must spark an energy revolution may find a perfect partner with Republicans who support nuclear power. But is there anything more than speculative political evidence towards its bipartisan viability?

If there is one field of the energy sector for which certainty of political will and government policy is essential, it is nuclear power. High up front costs for the private industry, extreme regulatory oversight and public wariness necessitate a committed government partner for private firms investing in nuclear technology. In a new report on the potential for a “nuclear renaissance,” Third Way references the failed cap-and-trade bill, delaying tactics in the House vis-a-vis EPA regulations on CO₂, and the recent election results to emphasize the difficult current political environment for advancing new nuclear policy. The report, “The Future of Nuclear Energy,” makes the case for political certainty:

“It is difficult for energy producers and users to estimate the relative price for nuclear-generated energy compared to fossil fuel alternatives (e.g. natural gas)–an essential consideration in making the major capital investment decision necessary for new energy production that will be in place for decades.”

Are our politicians willing to match the level of certainty that the nuclear industry demands? Lacking a suitable price on carbon that may have been achieved by a cap-and-trade bill removes one primary policy instrument for making nuclear power more cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The impetus on Congress, therefore, will be to shift from demand-side “pull” energy policies (that increase demand for clean tech by raising the price of dirty energy) to supply-side “push” policies, or industrial and innovation policies. Fortunately, there are signals from political and thought leaders that a package of policies may emerge to incentivize alternative energy sources that include nuclear power.

One place to start is the recently deceased American Power Act, addressed above, authored originally by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. Before its final and disappointing incarnation, the bill included provisions to increase loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction in addition to other tax incentives. Loan guarantees are probably the most important method of government involvement in new plant construction, given the high capital costs of development. One wonders what the fate of the bill, or a less ambitious set of its provisions, would have been had Republican Senator Graham not abdicated and removed any hope of Republican co-sponsorship.

But that was last year. The changing of the guard in Congress makes this a whole different game, and the once feasible support for nuclear technology on either side of the aisle must be reevaluated. A New York Times piece in the aftermath of the elections forecast a difficult road ahead for nuclear energy policy, but did note Republican support for programs like a waste disposal site and loan guarantees.

Republican support for nuclear energy has roots in the most significant recent energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which passed provisions for nuclear power with wide bipartisan support. Reaching out to Republicans on policies they have supported in the past should be a goal of Democrats who wish to form a foundational debate on moving the policy forward. There are also signals that key Republicans, notably Lindsey Graham and Richard Lugar, would throw their support behind a clean energy standard that includes nuclear and CCS.

Republicans in Congress will find intellectual support from a group that AEL’s Teryn Norris coined “innovation hawks,” among them Steven Hayward, David Brooks and George Will. Will has been particularly outspoken in support of nuclear energy, writing in 2010 that “it is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because fads about supposed ‘green energy’ and superstitions about nuclear power’s dangers.”

The extreme reluctance of Republicans to cooperate with Democrats over the last two years is only the first obstacle, as any legislation will also have to overcome Democrats’ traditional opposition to nuclear energy. However, here again there is reason for optimism. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry bucked their party’s long-time aversion to nuclear in a precursor bill to APA, and Kerry continued working on the issue during 2010. Jeff Bingaman, in a speech earlier this week, reversed his position on the issue by calling for the inclusion of nuclear energy provisions in a clean energy standard. The Huffington Post reports that “the White House reached out to his committee [Senate Energy] to help develop the clean energy plan through legislation.” This development in itself potentially mitigates two of the largest obstacle standing in the way of progress on comprehensive energy legislation: lack of a bill, and lack of high profile sponsors. Democrats can also direct Section 48C of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 towards nuclear technology, which provides a tax credit for companies that engage in clean tech manufacturing.

Democrats should not give up on their policy goals simply because they no longer enjoy broad majorities in both Houses, and Republicans should not spend all their time holding symbolic repeal votes on the Obama Administration’s accomplishments. The lame-duck votes in December on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the tax cut deal and START indicate that at least a few Republicans are willing to work together with Democrats in a divided Congress, and that is precisely what nuclear energy needs moving forward. It will require an agressive push from the White House, and a concerted effort from both parties’ leadership, but the road for forging bipartisan legislation is not an impassable one.

The politician with perhaps the single greatest leverage over the future of nuclear energy is President Obama, and his rhetoric matches the challenge posed by our aging and poisonous energy infrastructure. “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” announced Obama recently. Echoing the calls of presidents past, the President used his State of the Union podium to signal a newly invigorated industrialism in the United States. He advocated broadly for renewed investment in infrastructure, education, and technological innovation. And he did so in a room with many more members of the opposition party than at any point during the first half of his term. The eagerness of the President to combine left and right agendas can hopefully match the hyper-partisan bitterness that dominates our political culture, and nuclear power maybe one sector of our economy to benefit from his political leadership.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Wednesday Edition

This week is the first on our path to 80% clean energy by 2035. Good luck to us.

• NYT has a new piece on the Nissan Leaf, termed "the people's electric car."
• House Republicans are following through on efforts to block EPA regulations on carbon dioxide, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007.
• Third Way has a new report out called "The Future of Nuclear Energy."
• Roger Pielke Jr. details why Obama's call for 80% renewable energy by 2035 is...difficult.
• This made me laugh: "for every 3.5 degree rise in temperature above a local average, Americans became 1 percent more likely to agree that 'solid evidence' exists that the earth is getting warmer."

Oil and democracy

Nate Silver has some interesting thoughts on the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, noting that nations without large oil reserves (especially in the Middle East) tend more towards democracies than their neighboring petro-dictatorships.

Michael Ross, a political science professor at U.C.L.A. who is among the foremost proponents of the hypothesis, has concluded that democratic transitions are 50 percent more likely in oil-poor states than in oil rich ones. That fact alone is certainly not sufficient to explain why Tunisia has undergone regime change, or why Egypt is on the brink of it--but it does suggest that the underlying probabilities were greater in those countries than for some of their regional neighbors.

If the ramifications of this hypothesis are carried to fruition, perhaps we can expect increasing democratic activity even in petro-states like Saudi Arabia as reserves fall and oil revenues suffer. Talk about decentralized power...

State of the Union 2011

Last night, President Obama delivered the State of the Union. Much has and will be said about its content and delivery - I personally like Nate Silver's tweet calling the speech "Smart. Safe. Centrist. Vague. Optimistic." As Silver has regularly reminded us, SOTU speeches tend not to propel the electorate significantly in either direction (even though 91% of those who tuned in gave the speech positive ratings). However, this speech in particular indicates how Obama intends to direct his attentions in the second half of his first term. Without laboring too heavily on the subject, I think it's important not to mislabel the meaning of the President's words.

Two minor mischaracterizations come to mind, all of 18 hours after Obama exited the Chamber. First, the speech has already been called "the most pro-business speech a Democrat has given," which to me suggests a favoring of business over government. This stereotypical dichotomy seems to exist in everyone's political worldview except for President Obama's, who struck me as more an industrialist than CEO-in-Chief last night. The President does not observe dueling forces between business and government, but rather a symbiosis. To wit:

Cutting the deficits by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.

In other words, the President views public investment as a driving force behind the economy. So when Rachel Maddow describes Obama's speech as a "prayer to the free market," I think she's being hyperbolic. Critics will note the lack of any rhetoric concerning the foreclosure crisis and unemployment, and these criticisms are valid - as Robert Reich reminded us before and after the speech, corporate profits do not equal economic well-being. But let's not move forward with an impression that the President has abandoned his faith in the federal government to drive American progress.

The second slight mischaracterization, and the one more germane to this blog, is that Obama "ignored" climate change. While I do think that the conspicuously absence of the words "climate change" was a political calculation, we should not decouple Obama's words on modernizing our energy infrastructure from the movement to save the climate. The two are innately connected, and while the latter remains divisive and scientifically chaotic at best, the former is much closer to a technical challenge that our political and bureaucratic infrastructure can tackle. And President Obama continues to believe in the power of energy innovation to create jobs, rejuvenate American education and business, and to make cleaner our environment.

This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

If not for its eternally inspiring and true sentiments, the following would fast become a cliché: we are experiencing a new Sputnik moment. A decade before America landed a man on the moon, we had no idea how we were going to do it. The difficulties presented our decaying and poisonous energy infrastructure are daunting, but at least we have a President with a bold vision of American greatness to lead us forward in this next challenge.