4 Prominent Scientists Say Renewables Aren't Enough, Urge Support For Nuclear

First time accepted submitter Paddy_O'Furniture writes "Four prominent scientists have penned a letter urging those concerned about climate change to support nuclear energy, saying that renewables such as wind and solar will not be sufficient to meet the world's energy needs. Among the authors is James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist, whose 1988 testimony before the United States Congress helped launch discussions of global warming into the mainstream."

Comments

Easy for them to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Five nuclear power plants in the US have closed this year, due to a combination of competitive and operating issues. An industry analyst quoted in the article expects more plant closures to come.

Now we're stuck with these decommissioned plants. Anybody want a high-paying job? Sign up to help clean up and tear down those zombie plants.

Not good at math

[TrumpetPower!]

You only need to cover a half a percent of the Earth's surface with off-the-shelf 15% efficient PV panels to provide all of humanity all of its energy needs. If we covered all residential rooftops in the States with PV panels, we'd generate about as much electricity as the industrialized world needs -- and that's just residential rooftops just in the US.

To suggest that solar somehow isn't enough is just laughable. Hell, with the kind of abundance that solar offers, we've got far more than enough available to distill CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into hydrocarbons -- an incredibly energy-intensive process -- and use those hydrocarbons as our storage and transportation mechanisms just as we do today.

What we don't have is the willingness to invest our hydrocarbon inheritance in bootstrapping ourselves into such an energy-wealthy society. Instead, we'd rather squander our inheritance on monster SUVs and petroleum-based fertilizer to feed dozens of billions of people.

Here's some perspective from somebody who can actually do the math:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/

Cheers,

b&

Re:Logic!

[The Grim Reefer]

How many square kilometers of land have been made completely uninhabitable for the next 200 years or so as a result of coal power?

A lot. Not only for discarded waste, but mine fires. Centralia, Pennsylvania has been burning since 1962 and will be burning for the next 1000 years by most estimates. Then there are other mine fires all over the planet. It does look like there may be some success with extinguishing these on the horizon. But regardless, they are devastating to the local ecosystem and have all of the problems with burning coal for energy ,but with none of the energy.

Re:Regulations are needed

[Joe U]

I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-greed.

I have no (ZERO, None, nada, zilch) issues with nuclear energy as long as it's done properly.

I have major issues with letting companies like ConEd run anything dangerous. They will cut corners to make more money, they will leak radioactive waste into the groundwater, they will eventually cause a disaster. It's in their nature. They need to earn a never ending growing profit, the quick way to that is to cut corners.

So, YES, we must invest in nuclear, but must do it properly.

Re:Logic!

[geoskd]

How many square kilometers of land have been made completely uninhabitable for the next 200 years or so as a result of coal power?

That would be none. The wildlife is still quite happy living in and around every nuclear disaster site. It is just picky humans that refuse to live there. People are afraid that they will get cancer and die (some of the dumber people imagine mutating...). Fun fact: The cancer rates in and around coal mining towns are obscenely high, as are the increased frequency of various ailments related to air quality just about everywhere on the planet... If we applied the same paranoia to the statistical odds of illness from coal related diseases, half of Pennsylvania would be "uninhabitable", just to name one area. People have an irrational fear of nuclear power and radiation. They would be better served by being afraid to get behind the wheel of a car...

Re:Assumptions

[DamonHD]

There are ways to look after the poor without encouraging profligacy with energy.

We do it already: this really isn't black and white.

One way is to keep the first kWh cheap and have a rising block price per kWh against usage: if you're not running a McMansion with the windows wide open in winter you need never hit the punitive tariff bands. Just for example.

Or directly subsidise the energy bills of the poor. Take taxes from the top end (of energy usage or general taxation) to compensate.

I'm a fairly right-wing (at least by EU standards) investment banker "greenie" and I have no desire to mess up anybody else's life, including those further down the line when we've burnt way more fossil fuels than was in any way necessary and (a) certainly squandered the cheap stuff and (b) possibly ruined the climate.

Rgds

Damon