James Hansen: To Mitigate Climate Change, Nuclear Energy Should Be Included
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/james_hansen_to_mitigate_climate_change_nuclear_energy_should_be_included-154923By News Staff | April 18th 2015 09:33 AM
[font size=3] James Hansen, a former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who was one of the first scientists to raise concerns about global climate change, spoke at MIT Tuesday in the biennial David J. Rose Lecture, sponsored by the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE).
...
“We need to be realistic in looking at the available energy sources,” he said, pointing out that solar and wind energy still represent only about 3 percent of global energy supply. “If we could decarbonize electricity, then we could solve the problem. "
Even liquid fuels for transportation can be manufactured using alternative sources of electricity. Sweden, he noted, has already achieved essentially carbon-free electricity, thanks to a combination of nuclear power and abundant hydropower; France is nearing this goal, thanks mostly to its extensive use of nuclear power. Both countries, he said, produced most of their nuclear infrastructure within a decade, “so that has been the fastest way to decarbonize that has been demonstrated so far.”
“I think you need to be open-minded. We should be looking at all the carbon-free energy sources, and figuring out what their contribution should be — and frankly, the market should be helping us do it. … We should have a carbon-free energy portfolio, and let the market find what is the least expensive way. We should be doing (research and development) on all the good candidates, and certainly nuclear is one of them.” [/font][/font]
https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr
We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.
Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.
While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.
...[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
I have a great deal of respect for Hansen but it has been obvious to me for a while that he isn't nearly as well versed on the solution for climate change as he is on the problem. This piece provides fairly clear evidence supporting that observation.
He complains about renewables providing only 3 percent of the global energy supply and says that shows we need to invest more in nuclear. Apparently he isn't aware that after 50+ years of STRONG support for deploying nuclear, it is only providing less than 3% of global energy.
This is somewhat dated. The nuclear portion has probably declined slightly while the wind and solar has increased substantially.
Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:35 AM - Edit history (3)
However, both of you are wrong to believe that marginal tinkering with the mix of the world's ever-growing energy consumption is going to fix even the climate problem, let alone the overarching predicament posed by human overgrowth.
"Changing the energy system" hasn't accomplished that, and probably can't - marginal energy changes ("Wind beats nucular, yay!"
all seem to occur outside the realm of FF use, which is where the CO2 comes from. IMO, the difference between IRENA's numbers and those given by BP are immaterial. The differences are a couple of orders of magnitude below the consumption rate of of fossil fuels, which is where the danger is coming from.
When I say you're both wrong, I mean you're both focusing on the wrong issue if the final goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions. If we actually wanted to "solve" the carbon problem, we would attack it at source. We're not doing that, so I can only assume that nobody in power believes that atmospheric carbon is really an existential threat. I certainly don't think you believe that, based on your behaviour.
I tried. 
again.
