Slashdot Mirror
Citi Report: Slowing Global Warming Could Save Tens of Trillions of Dollars
Layzej writes with news carried by The Guardian about a report published by the Global Perspectives & Solutions division of Citibank (America's third-largest bank) examining the costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report examined two hypothetical futures: one "business as usual," and the other (the "Action" scenario) which includes an aggressive move to reduce energy use and carbon emission.
From the article: "One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action."
But there will be winners and losers, says the report: "The biggest loser stands to be the coal industry, where we estimate cumulative spend under our Action scenario could be $11.6 trillion less than in our Inaction scenario over the next quarter century, with renewables, wind and nuclear (as well as energy efficiency) the main beneficiaries."
Yes, what is interesting about this is who wrote it-- this is one of the first detailed analyses of the methods and costs of dealing with global warming that I've seen that is not from an advocacy group, and is written by people who actually have a clue about real world economics.
If you'd stop calling them "nukes", it would help. That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths.
I have to agree. It was purely an anomaly, what happened at Fukushima, Onagawa, Fleurus, Forsmark, Erwin, Sellafield, Atucha, Braidwood, Paks, Tokaimura, Yanangio, Ikitelli, Ishikawa, Tomsk, Cadarache, Vandellos, Greifswald, Chernobyl, Hamm-Uentrop, Tsuraga, Saint Laurent des Eaux, Three Mile Island, Jaslovské Bohunice, Lucens, Chapelcross, Monroe, Charlestown, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Chalk River, Vina, Kyshtym, Windscale Pile, and Chalk River.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
In the short term, however, I am fairly confident that successfully slowing global warming will cost a pretty tidy penny itself
This has not been true so far. The biggest reductions in CO2 have come from:
1. Gas produced from hydraulic fracturing, replacing coal
2. Efficiency improvements, such as LED lighting, variable speed DC motors, etc.
These have SAVED money.
Of course, massive government subsidies for solar power and electric vehicles have cost a lot, but those haven't actually contributed much to CO2 reductions.
That seems like a long list until you look at what is on that list. You are placing Atucha in the same category with Fukushima. At Atucha one worker was exposed above the annual limit. That is very different than a meltdown. Of that list there have been 3 releases of radioactivity. Three Mile Island of those was 35 years ago. Chernobyl was built 35 years ago. Technology changes and gets better over time.
1952, Chalk River, Canada: A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor.
Many of the other "nuclear accidents" (OMG!! OMG!!!) you're trolling are equally exciting, and this one is rated at 5 on a scale of 1-7.
Wasteland? How about thriving natural areas.
There are plenty of ways to cause mass destruction. Chemicals are far more scary. (look up Bhopal). Fear can't drive us to be impractical and ignore proven solutions in hopes of a miracle breakthrough.
If you are worried about the radiation then you have another good reason to switch from coal to nuclear. "the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." - http://www.scientificamerican....
And then you need to consider the turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, not years. - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
The areas you are talking about are very small patches, and there is no where that has zero microbial life. True, there are places that are impacted very close to the plant, but far from the 'thousands of acres'.
You can consider human life as an element, or you can ignore that element if you want. There are many factors, cost, practicality, certainty, reliability, etc. If you consider human health overall, nuclear power has been one of the most advantageous sources of energy ever devices, second probably to hydro. If you consider CO2 contribution/offset, then it is right on top as well.