Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Posted by samzenpus on from the cooling-off dept.

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.

8 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. About time. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solar's production curve does not match the peak user curve of electrical power. Wind is a good bit better but still needs natural gas peaking plants to back it.
    For low carbon base load power you have only three choices.
    1. Hydro
    2. Nuclear
    3. Geothermal.
    1 and 3 are location limted.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:About time. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Solar's production curve does not match the peak user curve of electrical power.

      Food production also does not match demand. Little food is produced in the winter, but people still need to eat. We solve this mismatch in two ways:
      1. We store food.
      2. We CHANGE THE PRICE. For instance, tomatoes are significantly more expensive in the winter.

      The same solutions can be applied to electricity. We can improve storage, by using things like flow batteries. Where demand pricing has been implemented, it has been effective at shifting demand, especially with industrial users. Demand pricing should be much more effective with residential users as price aware appliances become more common. Most current energy infrastructure planning assumes the demand curve is fixed, but it is becoming apparent that it is not.

    2. Re:About time. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Storage is notoriously DIFFICULT.

      If you came up with some kind of Shipstone (Heinlein's super battery) then your idea would work.

      But using current technology, electrical storage is:

      1) heavy

      2) Expensive

      3) Leaky (slowly losing power, converting it to heat)

      4) Relatively short term - see leaky.

      5) Limited lifespan (each charge cycle decreases how much the next one can hold).

      6) inefficient - it takes 200 units to store 100 units.

      So while your idea works in principle, in practice it fails.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  2. Re:Ask Japan... by digsbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly how many nuclear disasters does it take before we figure out we should be using newer, safer, cleaner nuclear technology?

    FTFY.

  3. Re:So... nuclear power is still supported? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Concerns about rising costs seem to have come and then faded away with new technology.

    Concerns about rising costs have NOT faded away. Nuclear costs are higher than ever, and rising, as costs of other power sources continue to fall. Post-Fukushima safety measures will raise costs. Waste storage will raise costs. Reduced subsidies will raise costs. Fuel reprocessing actually raises costs rather than reducing them. New technologies, such as pebble beds, thorium fluoride, traveling wave reactors, are decades away, even if they work at all.

    There may be good reasons to build new nukes, but cost is not one of them.

  4. Re:Ask Japan... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > the single energy technology that has already offset huge amounts of carbon generation

    Hydro. Longer and more. By far.

    > Nobody seems to want to give nuclear credit for what its already done.

    Says the guy that forgets about hydro.

  5. Re:Ask Japan... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How many people have died so far from nuclear incidents, in the last 50 years?

    Now look at Bangqiao Dam, ~200,000 deaths from that one accident, trumping all past and predicted future deaths from all incidents (including Chernobyl) by a factor of 3 or more. Heres the million dollar question: why does noone EVER mention safety when a renewable like hydro is brought up? Why does it get a pass, and nuclear is the bogey man?

  6. Opportunity cost by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nuclear is so much more expensive than wind, that using it slows the progress of clean energy by tying up resources. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...