• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Today's Calamity: Where's the Nuclear

    Cap and Trade Calamities

    Waxman-Markey intends to reduce carbon dioxide emissions – mainly by implementing a cap and trade program but also by imposing new mandates and subsidies for renewable energy as well as creating a host of stricter, costly energy efficiency standards. But interestingly enough, if you perform a search for the word “nuclear” in the 1,427 pages climate change bill, it only appears five times – two of which are in the titles.

    While the bureaucratic-laden approach offered by the legislation is extremely problematic, the fact that it has virtually no mention of nuclear power calls the entire green initiative into question. If reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions, creating jobs, and promoting domestic energy sources were truly the objective, then nuclear energy should be central to the legislation.

    Nuclear power already provides the United States with 20 percent of its electricity and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity. When it comes to affordable near-term reduction of CO2 and other atmospheric emissions, the importance of nuclear power cannot be overstated.

    Truth be told, not including nuclear energy in Waxman-Markey could be a blessing in disguise. The fact is that based on the legislation’s other energy provisions, its handling of nuclear energy would probably have relied on subsidies, handouts, and preferences. The problem with this approach is that it just does not work.

    If CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing America’s nuclear resources should be a top priority. This will require a major restructuring effort from Congress and the Administration that emphasizes market-based reforms that ensure long-term regulatory stability and policy predictability. Most importantly, these reforms can be done without additional cost to the taxpayers.

    For more, check out:

    Pitts Bill Could Be Nuclear Energy Game Changer
    Five Free Market Priorities for a Nuclear Energy Renaissance
    Where Is Nuclear Energy in the Markey-Waxman Energy Bill?

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Today's Calamity: Where's the Nuclear

    1. NucEngineer says:

      There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years.


      None of the computer models can replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

      The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

      The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

      The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

      The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

      You may find it interesting what the head of the IPCC said more than 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures:


      Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (more than 1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.

      "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

      Also in this article from more than 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.

      We are now more than three quarters of the way to having significant doubts about the GCMs, according to Amir Delju's own criterion. Which hypotheses in the models need adjustment? Which hypotheses need to be rejected? What new hypotheses (like Svensmark's solar-GCR-cloud hypothesis shown here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849) need to be embraced and incorporated into the models?

    2. TonyfromOz says:


      What you say here is one thing that a lot of people have totally neglected to notice.

      "…..Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W."

      Money is given to these people to 'follow' those effects, and if the words 'global warming' or 'climate change' are significantly highlighted in the proposal for funding, then the money becomes almost easy to get hold of.

      What this leads to is the following.

      The most significant thing that then needs to be found is a way to keep that funding flowing. To that end anything at all that might jeopordize that funding is most definitely not mentioned in the final report or is completely ignored.

      To that end those 'investigating' the effects of 'Z' on 'W' will only look for things that confirm what they need to see, not in order to confirm the Science, but to keep that funding flowing. Anything at all that is contrary to what they are looking for is 'conveniently' discarded.

      The end report that confirms that the money was well spent, and in fact, more might actually be needed, well, then that Report becomes more 'Scientific' confirmation.

      Even here in Australia, hundreds of millions have been given in Government grants, just with those two phrases attached to the proposal, and you can guess how many said,…. 'Sorry, we might have been wrong.' Not one. Now, all of that has BECOME the Science.

      This is not something for the correct investigation of Science. It's a way to get free Government money. Of course they're going to find ….. exactly what they wanted to find.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.