The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Lasrick writes Suzanne Waldman writes about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its stand on nuclear power over the course of its five well-known climate change assessment reports. The IPCC was formed in 1988 as an expert panel to guide the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The treaty's objective is to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a safe level. Waldman writes: 'Over time, the organization has subtly adjusted its position on the role of nuclear power as a contributor to de-carbonization goals," and she provides a timeline of those adjustments.

Comments

Re:About time.

[garyisabusyguy]

I live in a desert, we host a very large nuclear power plant

They purify and re-use ground water with many cooling ponds built into their cycle

There is no need for a continuously flowing river in this design

Re:Ask Japan...

[GameboyRMH]

1 with a modern reactor?

So far we've had a partial meltdown that hurt nobody, an "accident" so cartoonishly stupid that it should more accurately be called insider sabotage, and an outdated reactor that was hit with multiple extreme natural disasters simultaneously.

These emotional knee-jerk reactions from Japan, Germany and others are counterproductive and could hurt financially if any kind of global carbon-trading scheme is put in place. Besides, I prefer my nuclear waste nice and contained rather than flowing continuously from the smokestack of a coal power plant.

Re:About time.

[CrimsonAvenger]

No one wants to live next to a nuclear plant. Would you?

I'd have no problem at all with that. Nearest one is about 40 miles away now....

Note that I'm biased, of course. Having worked in the field back in the day, I know a lot more about the subject than most /.'ers....

Re:About time.

[itzly]

The IPCC doesn't write a single report. The have 3 different working groups, each writing their own report. The first group deals with the science, the second deals with the impacts, and the third deals with mitigation. Obviously, the 3rd one is the most politically influenced.

How do they exactly phrase their call for centralized authority ? What's the page number ?

Re:About time.

[gurps_npc]

Where exactly did I say I was only talking about chemical batteries? Oh, I didn't? Could that perhaps be because I wasn't? I was talking about ALL methods of storing energy, not just batteries.

All methods have similar, if not identical problems.

You pump water up a hill, may cost you 100 kilowatts. An hour later, when you run the turbine on the water coming out, you get 70 kilowatts, if you are lucky.

As I said before, storage is an extremely DIFFICULT problem, not a simple one. We have been working on it for more than a hundred years and repeatedly FAILED.

As you said, we pump water up for later use in a turbine. Poor method.

We use electricity separate hydrogen from oxygen, store it then burn the hydrogen. Poor method.

We pump air into high pressure containers. Poor method.

We heat up salt. Poor method.

We spin gyros up to high speed. Poor method.

We pump electricity into batteries and/or capacitors. Poor method - but at least it is easily portable.

I did not make any assumptions - you did. And you made very very poor ones. In general, when you assume someone is an idiot, you are make an ass of yourself, not the opponent.