Slashdot Mirror


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."

3 of 776 comments (clear)

  1. Not good at math by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
  2. Re:Logic! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Regulations are needed by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.