Only Nuclear Power Can Save Humanity

"So say the global warming high priests...

Four of the best-known scientists espousing the belief that humanity's carbon emissions are an immediate and deadly threat have issued a statement begging their fellow greens to support nuclear power."

"Doctors James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley co-signed an open letter over the weekend in which they address "those influencing environmental policy, but opposed to nuclear power". The four scientists write that "continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change ... there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/1...ave_humanity_say_global_warming_high_priests/

Will the hard-a$$ greenies listen now?

 

James Hansen and no doubt his scientific colleagues have areas of great expertise for which they deserve to be respected. Unfortunately nuclear power is not one of them. So they probably have little more authority on the matter than you or me.

Nevertheless, I do think nuclear is better than fossil fuel which is taking us off the cliff. There are at least two problems:
1. I see no future energy source projection that shows nuclear plus its allies making a major dent on fossil fuel. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/more_highlights.cfm If they have an alternative projection that shows nuclear etc displacing fossil fuel they should offer it.

2. In my view turning AGW around requires a central focus on overpopulation. They don't even acknowledge the problem.

Still I wish them the best if only to expand the conversation.

 

\

Nuclear power could completely replace hydro, wind, solar, coal, etc. for generating electricity. That means significantly less CO2 and actually less radiation (coal slag is radioactive). I can't see a GW advocate being against it.

The main cost with nuclear energy (in America) is with the 'greenies' being dead-set against it and, being allied with elected, liberal Democrat representatives that keep draconian regulations on nuclear plants in full force via unelected 'officials' at the EPA and State environmental departments.

I think it is very difficult for 'greenies' to give up the free government stimulated, cash cow 'green' programs that they constantly lobby for and monetarily benefit from.

 

World wide? Show me any serious projection anywhere that shows that to be anything more than a faith statement. And of course we are talking about a lot more energy(Include fertilizer and pesticides) than just generating electricity. Did you look at my link? No country has committed itself more to all the alternatives to fossil fuel than China, including nuclear. Would you like me to show you their projections to 2050? The long and short is, fossil fuel sources remain a major source of their energy, even then.

Everybody has their own favorite energy alternative and they are all adamant about it. What they don't have is a viable energy source projection that keeps us from falling off the climate cliff, not to mention other disastrous impacts, like the ocean. Short of a major population drop I don't see one either. I'm looking for fact based solutions, not trying to throw cold water on what others are trying to do. But that requires a graphical demonstration of good sources going up while the bad ones are being eliminated within a viable time frame offered by a reputable source. Cheer leading mantras for one's favorite alternative or scapegoating greenie bad guys just isn't enough. With all the bad PR nuclear already has plus the huge financial commitment required you have to have your game down and show in clear terms a possible viable win. I don't see it and I'm no enemy of nuclear.

 

Fact: If the federal government (through the EPA) would promote nuclear energy (as it does 'green' energy) and just eased draconian environmental restrictions on gas, oil, fracking etc, Americans would all profit.

Set up a congressional committee to take testimony from nuclear plant designers, engineers, plant operators, etc. from every corner of the world. Compare with the EPA regs.....Review UN environmental regulations, especially the ones that apply to US.

 

When I hear the word "only", that raises a red flag. I think there are many alternatives, some which we have yet to consider, or to even learn about. "Only" boxes us in. Nuclear energy may very well be the godsend that we need, but more likely in the form of fusion.

 

Nuclear has it's place. It cannot become the main source of energy worldwide though. Many places lack the ability and the infrastructure, and then there is the waste disposal problems, and the fear of nuclear proliferation.. With nuclear power technology often comes the ability to make nuclear weapons. And then there is the matter of supplying enough uranium.

IMHO, It's great in it's own capacity but expecting to power large countries with ever expanding and growing population with it alone is not likely.

 

Great idea! Lets solve the energy problems of the 21st century with the technology of the mid 20th century. Nuclear energy is antiquated, dirty, and dangerous.

 

Apparently your '21st century technology' has been a miserable failure as coal burning plants (late 1800's technology) are still being built. Coal-ash emits radioactivity right into the atmosphere day in day out and also contributes 2,000 pounds of CO2 for every megawatt.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

 

Many countries in the 'rest of the world' already use nuclear energy. In any case, I am concerned with America and our problems with being tied to the Cartel and all the world unrest caused by America having to use Arab oil and all the health problems associated with burning coal and letting all that radioactivity straight into our atmosphere.

 

If they showed up with population planners I might take them seriously.

 

Pictured: nuclear power saving humanity.

 

That's a tsunami debris field, NOT any kind of radioactive dispersal field. You have been duped.

 

What makes you say that? Why would a debris field leave a heat signature? And the the bottom picture is certainly not just a tsunami debris field.

 

What are the exact radioactive readings each mile within the debris field? Do some research before claiming you know anything about radiation levels. You get more radiation just going outside.

"References to these news accounts were widely circulated on the Internet accompanied by a color graphic supposedly showing the flow of radioactive discharge from Fukushima all the way across the Pacific Ocean to the western coasts of North and South America and down to Antarctica:

However, that chart did not actually track or measure radioactive discharge emanating from Fukushima in 2013, or any other aspect of the Fukushima disaster. It was a plot created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) immediately after the Tohoku earthquake in March 2011 showing the wave height of the tsunami that followed. It had (and has) nothing to do with the flow or spread of radioactive seepage from Fukushima."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp#iMm3FmVtEkfbYyze.99

Read it please.....You are promoting false fears.

 

Well, I really wasn't trying to speak to Fukushima specifically, but nuclear power in general. And the picture was meant to convey the idea of what can happen with nuclear power. But I'll play, since Fukushima is such a good example.

“Absolutely Every One” – 15 Out of 15 – Bluefin Tuna Tested In California Waters Contaminated with Fukushima Radiation
Fukushima radiation levels '18 times higher' than thought
Fur loss, open sores seen in polar bears

http://canadaam.ctvnews.ca/report-r...t-radiation-levels-in-japanese-fish-1.1486514

And this is all from an accident halfway around the world. Obviously such an event inside our own country would be much more disastrous. If nuclear power is going to be widely used, we must use different methods than traditional reactors. Thorium, maybe. Fusion, done right, would be better.

 

I think Plasma based energy generation will be the future.. not Nuclear

.

 

I think the future is definitely fusion. NIF just achieved a record yield....

A NIF cryogenic layered deuterium-tritium (DT) implosion experiment on Sept. 28 generated about 5×1015 (five quadrillion) neutrons (about 14 kilojoules) of energy, almost 75 percent more than NIF's previous record yield set on Aug. 13

https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php

 

You left out the follow up study:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...lear-meltdown-still-have-traces-of-radiation/

Madigan, in a phone interview, pointed out another interesting fact that he and his partners discovered: The radiation is, over time, excreted by the Bluefin. It is found in the fish’s muscle tissue and just the act of swimming eventually helps them work it out of their bodies. Some of the fish they sampled (from recreational catches) showed no traces of radiation after a year of swimming in and around California waters.


The use of different fissile material could be better investigated if the EPA would lift draconian restrictions. Read my post about NIF. (latest on fusion)

 

The thread asked if nuclear power can save humanity. Humanity isn't limited to The United States alone. So my comment wasn't focused on the US alone.. Coal, is mined here as well as abroad, not exactly a "cartel" issue. And nuclear power does not address oil consumption. Cars, trucks, trains, boats, planes, all don't require nuclear power, they require oil.. SO any increase in nuclear power will not effect them..

The fact is nuclear power has a great many limiting factors that prevent global expansion on the levels that would be required. Waste, and the fuel itself being of prime concern. We can't even meet demand now, and an increase will increase that demand. We also cannot dispose of the waste fast enough and safely enough to meet such an increase would require.

 

But eventual excretion is irrelevant when the pumping of radiation into the ocean is ongoing. Fish will never purge it from their system if they continually ingest it.In any case, do want to have to wait for years on end to eat fish every time an accident occurs? And just to say that "some" fish around California had no radiation is pretty meaningless. Those fish may very well have never even been near Japan.

 

The point is there is scant radiation in the ocean due to Fukushima and since there haven't been multiple 'Fukushimas' being hit by a rare large earthquake large enough to create a rare tsunami, the risk of receiving a health risk amount of radiation is probably less than one getting hit by lightning. You most likely will receive more millisieverts walking outside on a sunny day.

You are being duped.

 

Or you are. Better safe than sorry in such serious cases.

 

When it comes to any nonfossil fuel source minus dealing with the overpopulation factor none of them hit the mark in my opinion. However to tack back toward nuclear it might be worthwhile to take another look at Germany, who not only is getting a lot of positive press for its supposed solar and wind uber alles ramp up but is confident enough in the short term to phase out nuclear power. The results to say the least appear unhappy.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

I'll let readers of the link sort through the numbers and problems with solar ramp up and intermittency etc. and only offer a small pithy look at Germany's energy future which should make its sad point.

And when will fossil fuel production potential peak out? Hard to say but by 2030 it will have gone up.

 

Like Germany, Japan too is having to alter its carbon lowering expectations to meet the consequences of lost nuclear power. All the hype in the world about solar style alternatives does not supply Honda manufacturing with the energy it needs.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/15-2