Patrick Moore and the path to lost credibility
Patrick Moore, the former Greenpeace member and co-founder, was quick to write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star following a column I wrote in which I argued that more attention needs to be paid to the potential of geothermal heat and power in the oil sands, particularly before we head down a path that includes nuclear. Now, we all know Moore is a nuclear convert who spends most of his time promoting the technology as a solution to global warming. While I don’t always agree with his point of view, I certainly respect his belief — and the reasoning behind it — that only widespread acceptance of nuclear, where no large-scale “clean” alternatives exist, can help us manage climate change. But by jumping so quickly to dismiss my column and the potential of geothermal, I question whether he truly is a nuclear gun for hire who attacks any suggestion of a reasonable alternative.
In his letter, he writes “we know that nuclear energy can deliver clean, safe and affordable energy to Alberta’s oil sands,” using “we” as if this claim is accepted without question by the general public. He goes on to write that “the harnessing of deep geothermal energy from the Earth’s molten core has yet to be proven effective on a large scale at the depths that would be required in Alberta.”
The thing is, you don’t need unproven depths to tap heat in the oil sands. Those studying geothermal as an option are looking at depths of between 2 and 5 kilometres, which is quite common in the area. The reason greater depths are not needed is because geothermal in the context of oil sands production isn’t necessarily for power generation, which requires high temperatures. It’s the heat they need, and only between 80 C and 100 C. Mind you, if they wanted to they could drill deeper to build centralized geothermal power plants, and there again this is not unproven — it’s happening everywhere around the world and at an accelerated pace. And nobody knows better than the oil industry, which continues to drill wells at record depths as part of everyday oil exploration.
The fact is, oil sands companies are seriously considering geothermal, because they know how expensive nuclear can be and how long it can take to build it. MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear. If the oil sands companies are taking a hard looking, who is Moore to suggest they simply abandon reason and go directly to nuclear?
All I argued in my column is that geothermal be part of the discussion before jumping blindfolded into nuclear. He seems to want to stifle that discussion.
This is where I think Moore has lost credibility. If he was a true environmentalist, he would be someone who is open to different options where alternatives make sense. By so quickly dismissing geothermal as something that should be part of the oil sands debate, even as the oil companies themselves explore the option, he exposes himself for what he appears to be: a nuclear pitchman riding on a fading reputation as an environmentalist.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
May 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Tyler, while I agree that it’s highly dubious to dismiss other technologies and curb debate on anything, I can also understand “the Moore situation” in a way that doesn’t involve him being a corporate shill. I have no idea if I’m correct or not, but here goes:
Essentially, it’s based on the belief that the time for talking is over, and the time for action is right now. We’re starting to see possible signs of runaway warming, matching the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios more than the accepted “most likely” one. In this situation, the quickest, most-proven way to reduce emmissions is the best one, and Nuculer offers just that. Any delay, or any extra amount of risk involved with developping the geothermal resource, could be deemed irresponsible given the pressing need for immediate action. And since nuclear is such a controversial subject, it could be that Moore is egging up the cause a bit more than is necessary or palatable.
While geothermal is my own pet “solution” to the climate crisis (along with conservation), and I certainly believe in open discussion, I find the “need for action now” argument a compelling one.
Perhpas someone out there could fill us in better on the costs and risks of geothermal relative to nucular in the context of: 1)the oil sands, or; 2) power generation in, say, Southern Ontario?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Sorry–having reread the post, I’ll refine my previous comment:
>>MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear.< <
How much confidence is there in this sentence? The word “concluded” can refer to different degrees of certainty.
Again, if we’re comparing a very promising but still experimental technology, and an off-the-shelf solution; or if it’s the difference between “considering” and actually doing, then I can see the attraction of nuclear.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
SHP,
I understand and appreciate your view, and agree to a certain extent that Moore’s main concern is that we take action now and stop studying and debating. But this doesn’t mean you blindly take nuclear everywhere when real alternatives exist.
Besides, I’m not so sure nuclear is “off-the-shelf,” particularly when you’re looking at using it in a place like the oil sands. It’s not like AECL has developed an IKEA-style nuclear-plant-in-a-box that comes with self-assembly instructions. This would be a major, multibillion project and would take years even before ground is broken. This is not unlikely what would be required even if we were to explore large-scale use of geothermal in the oil sands, and because of the low temperature requirements, smaller, distributed installations could begin today on a demonstration basis.
Again, I see the need to take immediate action, but there’s nothing immediate about going nuclear. It’s a painfully slow process. And again, geothermal is not experimental. Only its application in the oil sands is new, not unlike the issue facing nuclear. This is why I don’t appreciate Moore trying to stifle discussion of this as a viable alternative.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Tyler,
I’ll assume you were referring to the MIT report titled “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century.” Please correct me if there is another. Given that, I would take a bit of exception to your statement.
“MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear.”
I’ve viewed, though not read every paragraph in detail, the very long MIT report. I have also now done a search and looked in more detail at all the discussions of nuclear. There certainly is not a blanket statement such as the one you made. The MIT report does make mention of the regulatory and public perception issue of nuclear in the context of the United States, as well as the fact that many US plants are likely to be reaching end of life soon. But citing a study that basically points out regulatory and popular resistance to nuclear as a reason to question someone that is advocating changing popular perception and regulatory regimes seems faulty, circular reasoning.
I would also say that the MIT report is consistent with Moore’s statement that “the harnessing of deep geothermal energy from the Earth’s molten core has yet to be proven effective on a large scale at the depths that would be required in Alberta.” EGS, or what is referred to as hot-dry-rock, is still an experimental technology. Unless there is a unique geologic formation (or suitable abandoned oil wells) exactly where needed, EGS in general requires a very precise fracturing of rock such that the pumped flow of water from an injection well to an extraction well occurs at a precise rate and does not create outward fracturing beyond the targeted formation that results in too much water loss. This is indeed technology still in development, as the hundreds of pages of the MIT report discuss.
The MIT report basically says that with very substantial NEW funding, geothermal COULD be verified at the commercial scale in 10-15 years… verified at several sites around the country but still not widely deployed. From MIT…
“Most of the key technical requirements to make EGS work economically over a wide area of the country are in effect, with remaining goals easily within reach. This achievement could provide performance verification at a commercial scale within a 10- to 15-year period nationwide.”
They specifically state that under their scenario of funding, which has not yet even been proposed legislatively, geothermal would not reach price parity with other base load, including nuclear, until 11 years into the development.
I’m a strong supporter of the proposed geothermal research funding that the MIT report calls for. However, I think using that report to question someone’s call for nuclear development is misusing it. Maybe your point of lower temperature requirements for oil sand extraction, combined with what is already known about the geologic formations below this region, make a compelling argument… but that argument is not made by the MIT report I know of.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Of course I was being a bit glib when I said nuclear’s “off the shelf”–these are relative terms. I suppose the point I’m trying to make is that, in some circumstances, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
BUt then I’m playing devil’s advocate (no offence, Patrick). None of us seems to know the facts well enough to convincingly crunch the numbers. A sober assessment of the relative merits of each technology is what’s needed, and it sounds like Mr Moore isn’t exactly being part of the solution on that one.
And of course, no matter how pressing our need to cut emmissions, there’s the whole depressing logic that the tar sands are just a drop in the bucket compared to China & the US, who aren’t skipping a beat in their development of new coal generation. So maybe the best thing is to take this opportunity to develop a new, big-energy alternative even if it does (potentially) take a year or two longer. And then, doing geothermal in Alberta would help develop Canadian expertise in a new and exciting field…
So yeah, I’m definitely closer to Tyler’s POV than Moore’s. Dialog is good. I for one am planning to learn more about this geothermal stuff…
May 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Maybe if Mr Moore had lived in New Jersey as I was at the time of the Three Mile Island accident on March 28, 1979 he might think differently about nuclear power’s alleged safety record. In truth nuclear power has a very checkered history. Just one accident can have catastrophic consequences.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Coal mining has a far worse safety record.
Off shore oil probably worse also.
Of course those are other people being put at risk.
Mind you, I advocate for solar, wind, wave and geothermal more than for nuclear, but I certainly think a lot of people have a very skewed perspective on things when they do risk analysis in their lives… nuclear energy being one of those things that often has an irrationally high fear factor associated with it.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
For learning about geothermal (EGS) I highly recommend going straight to the MIT report I cite in my other post. Quite interesting reading and really illustrates why more research dollars need to be turned on soon.
Only extra info that I’d mention that isn’t in that report is some news that happened too recently to be included, which is that an EGS project in Basel Switzerland was put on indefinite hold when the rock fracturing process triggered a small earthquake. Geologic stability being another issue which needs to be addressed by research. Though I believe the issue is discussed in the report.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:42 am
You’re absolutely right, and my error for making the link to the MIT report. In fact, that comment I made is more based on discussions I had with two members of the MIT panel and other experts in the Alberta oil sands industry looking into this. And yes, my comment is more focused on the medium heat capture, rather than the high-temperature geothermal for power production, which would require deeper drilling and, more importantly, the more complex and uncertain rock fracturing you discuss. But to capture the low-heat is much easier and could be done through existing wells. I guess my big issue is Moore’s apparent dismissal of geothermal without considering where it might work and how it could be deployed faster than nuclear. Some of the geothermal stuff would require substantial funding (no more than currently given to established industries), but the low-hanging fruit could be done quite fast.
Also, I’m not so sure “the depths that would be required in Alberta” are as deep as Moore is suggesting.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
No one was injured by the accident at Three Mile Island. And President Carter and his wife toured the plant shortly thereafter to demonstrate the safety level. The only “consequence” resulting from the events of March 28th, 1979 were increased efforts to improve safety over the last 30 years.