James Hansen says something smart...

[flacaltenn]

I didn't much care about this story until I stumbled upon WHICH climate scientists were begging for more nuclear power...

Top climate change scientists issue open letter to policy influencers - CNN.com

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Neat...............

Here's some of the letter...

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

 

[daveman]

Oooops. Going against the cult's dogma. Heretic! Outcast unclean! Nuclear power is Satan's toe jam!

 

[flacaltenn]

Has he weighed in on paper or plastic yet? Ive been waiting for him to choose for me.
That is one well crafted manifesto tho.... gonna give goldirocks heartburn for sure.

satans toe jam..... chuckle.....

 

[westwall]

What I found humorous was this assertion....

"A frustrated Hansen described this standard hard-green ideology as "a religion of sorts" to CNN over the weekend, acknowledging that he and his fellow pro-nuclear environmentalists have a hard road ahead of them."

Which I have been saying for years now....

 

[ScienceRocks]

We need to build nuclear plants within areas that don't get quakes. A lot of them...

Fund fusion research big time.

 

[Abraham3]

I agree

 

[Abraham3]

I didn't much care about this story until I stumbled upon WHICH climate scientists were begging for more nuclear power...

Top climate change scientists issue open letter to policy influencers - CNN.com

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Neat...............

Here's some of the letter...

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

What is your point here? What significance do you find in those scientists supporting increased use of nuclear power?

I see you're all excited to see Hansen speak. I'm wondering why? Has he made statements in the past with which these statements conflict? Has he changed his position on this matter? AFAIK, he has not. So why the thrill here?

I think a very large majority of people concerned about greenhouse gas levels realize that nuclear power is a solution. However, a significant number of them (unfortunately, IMHO) believe that it is too dangerous a technology for widespread use. Given Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is certainly evidence for the latter position.

Education would help. The number of injuries and deaths caused by our use of coal is many orders of magnitude the numbers from nuclear power. The magical boogey-man factor needs to be overcome.

So... the reason this thread exists is that those of you in the 'Denier' camp have been putting forth two exclusive arguments: 1) that 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they support nuclear power and 2) 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they fail to support nuclear power.

Why don't you folks settle on one or the other before you get back to us?

 

[Spiderman]

We need to build nuclear plants within areas that don't get quakes. A lot of them...

Fund fusion research big time.

The future is the small modular nukes.

 

[Abraham3]

Not located in fault or flood zones

 

[Spiderman]

Not located in fault or flood zones

floods don't matter as they can be buried underground and some of the new designs are self limiting so they don't need large amounts of water for cooling.

In fact no major building need be done as small reactors can be plugged into existing power plants.

 

[westwall]

Not located in fault or flood zones

Guess you've never looked at a geologic map of the US. Or you reeeeally don't want nuc's around and are just hiding that fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

We need to build nuclear plants within areas that don't get quakes. A lot of them...

Fund fusion research big time.

The future is the small modular nukes.

Absolutely... I have my eyes on 2 or 3 companies doing just that. If they go public -- I'm all in...

 

[flacaltenn]

What I found humorous was this assertion....

"A frustrated Hansen described this standard hard-green ideology as "a religion of sorts" to CNN over the weekend, acknowledging that he and his fellow pro-nuclear environmentalists have a hard road ahead of them."

Which I have been saying for years now....

I guess I missed that... More truth from Doc Hansen..

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't much care about this story until I stumbled upon WHICH climate scientists were begging for more nuclear power...

Top climate change scientists issue open letter to policy influencers - CNN.com

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Neat...............

Here's some of the letter...

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

What is your point here? What significance do you find in those scientists supporting increased use of nuclear power?

I see you're all excited to see Hansen speak. I'm wondering why? Has he made statements in the past with which these statements conflict? Has he changed his position on this matter? AFAIK, he has not. So why the thrill here?

I think a very large majority of people concerned about greenhouse gas levels realize that nuclear power is a solution. However, a significant number of them (unfortunately, IMHO) believe that it is too dangerous a technology for widespread use. Given Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is certainly evidence for the latter position.

Education would help. The number of injuries and deaths caused by our use of coal is many orders of magnitude the numbers from nuclear power. The magical boogey-man factor needs to be overcome.

So... the reason this thread exists is that those of you in the 'Denier' camp have been putting forth two exclusive arguments: 1) that 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they support nuclear power and 2) 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they fail to support nuclear power.

Why don't you folks settle on one or the other before you get back to us?

I think the thread title says it all.. This self-proclaimed Climate Czar finally said something smart and useful.. I'm just ....................... speechless.

As to the CONTENT --- it wasn't so much of their ENDORSEMENT of nuclear that's important here.. EVEN MORE useful is their honest appraisal of the "Alternatives" that we've been wasting too much time and money on...

The LATTER is gonna target them more for blowback from the congregation than the nice words about nuclear power..

 

[polarbear]

What I found humorous was this assertion....

"A frustrated Hansen described this standard hard-green ideology as "a religion of sorts" to CNN over the weekend, acknowledging that he and his fellow pro-nuclear environmentalists have a hard road ahead of them."

Which I have been saying for years now....

I guess I missed that... More truth from Doc Hansen..

There will be larger cracks than this one, as time goes on and the prophesied climate cathastrophy fails to materialize.
Hansen is not the first one that has distanced himself from the IPCC hard-core and won`t be the last one either.
Funniest of all is the reaction of the hard-core greenies here in this forum.

I see you're all excited to see Hansen speak. I'm wondering why? Has he made statements in the past with which these statements conflict? Has he changed his position on this matter? AFAIK, he has not. So why the thrill here?

Who is "thrilled"...???
I remember how thrilled the greenies have been every time some PR. spokesman for a corporation they detest started sucking up, like BP did it in order to polish their image.
As far as Hansen`s new stance is concerned, how could that "thrill" anyone who knew all along that wind & solar just can`t cut the mustard ?
Europeans have known that for over 10 years now.

 

[Kosh]

So it seems that some are willing to go with something that has a by product that has a half life of 5000 years stored in containers that are estimated to last 100 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

So it seems that some are willing to go with something that has a by product that has a half life of 5000 years stored in containers that are estimated to last 100 years.

I'm telling you that I am ANXIOUS to go with a fuel source that generates only 0.7 ounce of waste per household per year..

You misunderstand half-life in terms of toxic materials..

What is the "half-life" toxicity of lead, or mercury or lithium when THOSE are improperly disposed of?

Spoiler: CLUE !!!

It's longer than Uranium waste

What is required here is for the Fed Govt to fulfill their promise to provide a first class disposal site.. Not JUST for the power plants, but for their MOUNTAINS of LEAKING nuclear WEAPONS waste that are RIGHT now destroying Savannah River, Hanford and other TERRIBLY MAINTAINED govt sites. And for the TONS of nuclear waste generated by every hospital in the USA.

0.7 ounce... About the size of a AAA battery.. We can handle that properly. AND we could also actually REUSE IT economically if the Govt were so inclined to change the fuel reprocessing law..

 

[Abraham3]

I didn't much care about this story until I stumbled upon WHICH climate scientists were begging for more nuclear power...



Neat...............

Here's some of the letter...

What is your point here? What significance do you find in those scientists supporting increased use of nuclear power?

I see you're all excited to see Hansen speak. I'm wondering why? Has he made statements in the past with which these statements conflict? Has he changed his position on this matter? AFAIK, he has not. So why the thrill here?

I think a very large majority of people concerned about greenhouse gas levels realize that nuclear power is a solution. However, a significant number of them (unfortunately, IMHO) believe that it is too dangerous a technology for widespread use. Given Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is certainly evidence for the latter position.

Education would help. The number of injuries and deaths caused by our use of coal is many orders of magnitude the numbers from nuclear power. The magical boogey-man factor needs to be overcome.

So... the reason this thread exists is that those of you in the 'Denier' camp have been putting forth two exclusive arguments: 1) that 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they support nuclear power and 2) 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they fail to support nuclear power.

Why don't you folks settle on one or the other before you get back to us?

I think the thread title says it all.. This self-proclaimed Climate Czar finally said something smart and useful.. I'm just ....................... speechless.

As to the CONTENT --- it wasn't so much of their ENDORSEMENT of nuclear that's important here.. EVEN MORE useful is their honest appraisal of the "Alternatives" that we've been wasting too much time and money on...

The LATTER is gonna target them more for blowback from the congregation than the nice words about nuclear power..

When you spot some of that blowback, you let us know.

 

[daveman]

When you spot some of that blowback, you let us know.

Did you see this bit?

"A frustrated Hansen described this standard hard-green ideology as 'a religion of sorts' to CNN over the weekend..."

 

[flacaltenn]

What is your point here? What significance do you find in those scientists supporting increased use of nuclear power?

I see you're all excited to see Hansen speak. I'm wondering why? Has he made statements in the past with which these statements conflict? Has he changed his position on this matter? AFAIK, he has not. So why the thrill here?

I think a very large majority of people concerned about greenhouse gas levels realize that nuclear power is a solution. However, a significant number of them (unfortunately, IMHO) believe that it is too dangerous a technology for widespread use. Given Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is certainly evidence for the latter position.

Education would help. The number of injuries and deaths caused by our use of coal is many orders of magnitude the numbers from nuclear power. The magical boogey-man factor needs to be overcome.

So... the reason this thread exists is that those of you in the 'Denier' camp have been putting forth two exclusive arguments: 1) that 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they support nuclear power and 2) 'Warmers' are hypocritical if they fail to support nuclear power.

Why don't you folks settle on one or the other before you get back to us?

I think the thread title says it all.. This self-proclaimed Climate Czar finally said something smart and useful.. I'm just ....................... speechless.

As to the CONTENT --- it wasn't so much of their ENDORSEMENT of nuclear that's important here.. EVEN MORE useful is their honest appraisal of the "Alternatives" that we've been wasting too much time and money on...

The LATTER is gonna target them more for blowback from the congregation than the nice words about nuclear power..

When you spot some of that blowback, you let us know.

You don't think the blowback will be immediate and vicious? You want I should risk my sanity and check your favorite lefty websites?

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/53989

In addition to his scientific research on climate change, Hansen has been arrested several times in recent years at protests against coal mining and tar sands mining.

Bravo James Hansen — precious few scientists and academics live and breathe their politics as he does.

But when it comes to proposing solutions, Hansen is on less solid ground. A loose parallel can be drawn with Tim Flannery, described by Clive Hamilton as a "talented science populariser" but a "policy flake".

There it is.. GREAT when he got arrested for protesting fossil fuel.. TODAY --- "he's a known policy flake"...

Or ---- (i risked my sanity to retrieve this one.. Still continuing decontamination process)

To Those Who Want To See Nuclear Power Play A Bigger Role In Climate Action | ThinkProgress
Four of the country’s top climate experts have distributed an open letter “To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power.” I have the greatest respect for James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley, and Ken Caldeira — and have written dozens of blog posts about their vital climate work.

But I think their letter is mis-addressed and also misses the key point about nuclear power — because it is so expensive, especially when done safely, the industry has no chance of revival absent a serious price on carbon.

While solar power and wind power continue to march down the experience curve to ever lower costs — solar panels have seen a staggering 99% drop in cost since 1977 — nuclear power has been heading in the opposite direction.

I think it is quite safe to say that renewables will do more than “play roles” in a climate constrained world — they will play the major role.

It would be astounding if a technology that exists only in PowerPoint presentations — magical small, cost-effective, fail-safe nuclear reactors — could possibly be researched, developed, demonstrated, and then scaled up faster than a host of carbon-free technologies that are already commercial today. And remember, most of those technologies, like solar and wind, have actually demonstrated a positive learning curve, unlike nuclear reactors!

Now there's the wishful thinking of the faithful.. BELIEVING that wind and solar are actually "alternatives".. At least -- the 1st reaction wasn't to throw Hansen under the leftist VW MicroBus.

Love this comment about that last article..

The failure of solar to achieve much of a market has nothing to do with its competitiveness. It's all about sabotage of projects in the Mojave desert via long and costly lawsuits, spearheaded by false front Greens.

Ain't that leftist conspiracy of blame crap predictable too...

There was a graph at thinkprogress that was just hysterical.. Has nothing to do with the topic --- but I'm still hurting from the laughter. Gonna post it below...