Nuclear industry welcomes climate report backing - Reuters

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Nuclear industry welcomes climate report backing

By Jeremy Lovell
1 hour, 1 minute ago

LONDON (Reuters) - The world nuclear power industry welcomed
on Friday the tacit backing given to their technology by some of
the world's top scientists and economists in the latest analysis
of the climate change crisis.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting
in Bangkok said tackling global warming was both technologically
and financially feasible as long as action was taken promptly,
and that nuclear power could be in the arsenal.

"It is common sense. What else is there for most of electricity
generation that is carbon free," Ian Hore-Lacy of the World
Nuclear Association said.

-snip-

The IPCC report noted that nuclear power provides about 16
percent of the world's electricity and said that figure could
rise to 18 percent by 2030.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070504/sc_nm/globalwarming_nuclear_dc_1

[jpak]

1. The report stated that renewables could grow from 18% to 30-35% of electrical generation by 2030

from the report...

<snip>

Renewable energy generally has a positive effect on energy security, employment
and on air quality. Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable electricity,
which accounted for 18% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have a 30-35% share
of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq <4.3, [br />4.4, 11.3, 11.6, 11.8].

<snip>

Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for
16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity
supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq, but safety, weapons
proliferation and waste remain as constraints <4.2, 4.3, 4.4>27.

<snip>

bottom line: renewables will play a far greater role in GHG mitigation than nuclear.

edit: the Summary for Policymakers can be found here...

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[NNadir]

2. Really? When are renewable advocates going to stop promising and start

delivering?

All we ever hear is about what renewable energy "could" do, not what it is doing. We never see few exajoules to back up the claim. The vast majority of renewable energy generated on this planet - which you fail to mention - is hydroelectricity. It's tapped out. Without hydroelectricity, renewable energy produces less than 5 exajoules of electricity.

Hydroelectric produces about 10 exajoules.

Solar has never produced an exajoule.

Wind has never produced an exajoule.

I have been hearing for years about the death of nuclear energy. Reports of its death are not just exaggerated, they are now hallucinatory.

Nuclear energy produced more than 28 exajoules of primary energy. It is the only viable strategy to produce coal.

That's almost 216,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity is either under construction, ordered or proposed. At the typical 90% capacity utilization this is more than 6 exajoules of electricity and almost 19 exajoules of primary energy. All of this energy will do what renewable energy cannot do, prevent the burning of coal.

[hunter]

3. Every city should have a trash incinerator run by cheap-ass owners...

... who hire people whose only qualifications are that they don't recognize toxic materials in the piles of garbage, coal, and construction waste they are feeding into the boilers.

And the natural ecosystems of more tidal basins should be ruined by power projects, more shorelines cluttered with wave projects, more land plowed under for biomass, and more flowing streams obliterated by micropower hydro projects.

You can say "renewables" and maybe it sounds good, but only so long as you don't mention the sorts of crap renewable projects they are often talking about.

[bananas]

7. Wow - the IPCC scientists agree with Al Gore!

I think that deserves a thread all its own...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=95037&mesg_id=95037

[jpak]

4. The US IPCC delegation was behind the push for nuclear power

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/may/04/050404353.html

<snip>

Consensus came only after considerable debate on such issues as how the share the burden of cutting emissions, how much such measures would cost the global economy, and how much weight to give certain options, such as nuclear power.

The U.S. remained surprisingly quiet at the conference, though it had voiced some of the same objections as China prior to the meeting. Some delegates said Washington appeared to be content letting China take the lead.

However, the U.S. delegation was vocal over the role nuclear power could play in efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. European nations reminded policy makers not to forget the security risks that could be associated with that.

<more>

surprise surprise

[NNadir]

5. You mean it's all Dick Cheney's fault?

The world's scientific community endorsed nuclear power because they are scientists.

Tough shit. I have been saying that your pedestrian views of the world have been universally rejected, and so they are. The community of nations is working to create as much nuclear infrastructure as is possible. They are uninterested in your objections.

At this point opposing nuclear energy only makes sense in a religious context. I am hardly surprised, though, that you object to a report involving hundreds of scientists from 130 nations around the world because it exposes the weak underpinnings of your reflexive antinuclear dogma.

Climate change is an international emergency and the subject is no longer a matter of debate. We know what we face and we know what we must do. It's not a matter for brats and boys and toys. On the contrary it is a matter for serious men and women with serious professional outlooks.

[Odin2005]

6. At least they do something right for once.

[RestoreGore]

8. Nuclear is not carbon free, so that is a lie

It is also toxic, wastes much water, and is a potential terrorist target and that does not even begin to describe waste management. It also is not an alternate energy source, and should NEVER be considered as a source of energy unless other renewables are subisidized by this government like it is. Too many people now want it to be made into a viable source simply to line their pockets and they are using the climate crisis to do it. They don't give a damn about the environment.


http://www.ipsecinfo.org/

And it does kill. It is killing our waterways.
Close Indian Point.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Ditto for Solar PV energy

PV is a product of semiconductor companies. They are NOT a mom-and-pop cottage industry. Solar cells require large amounts of highly toxic metals and pure water for their manufacture, and in a lot of places, this toxic waste is just dumped into the nearest stream.

Unlike radioactive materials, toxic metals do NOT decay. Ever. They are eternally toxic.

You know, if and when solar cell manufacture ramps up, there will be much more of this eternally toxic waste.

Yet it would be foolish to claim that solar electric power is evil. Suppose I were to rant that "It also is not an alternate energy source, and should NEVER be considered as a source of energy unless other renewables are subsidized by this government like it is." It would just be wrong. I'd also like to know how highly engineered semiconductor material, developed with heavy financial DoD input from 1943 until today, is any more "renewable" than mixed uranium oxides.

We can no longer afford the luxury of thinking about sources of energy as having moral attributes because some of the people "on our side" think so. Energy and power production has only benefits, costs, and physical characteristics, on which we must base our decisions. Solar, nuclear, biofuel, every source of power must be judged on ALL these criteria, good and bad. No special cases, no political attributes, no implied demonism -- this set of human decisions is for keeps.

There ARE significant subsidies going to non-nuclear development, as well. There are several notices of newly-funded projects posted here every day, many from jpak, whose opposition to nuclear power is likewise absolute.

If Indian Point was badly sited and is being poorly run, yes, shut it down. But your argument above is simply a heated shout at what you incorrectly think is (figuratively) the Devil. Environmental responsibility is a function of human behavior, NOT particularly favored or disfavored substances.

In addition, just because someone doesn't agree with you does NOT mean they are lining their pockets. How can we be sure that the anti-nuclear movement isn't lining its own pockets with secret payments from Big Coal ar Big Oil? Because you say so? We see eye-to-eye on many things, including our choice of President, but I hope we can at least also agree that neither of us are in the pay of any industrial concerns. (And I could certainly use the money!)

Many people fear and loathe nuclear power. That fear and loathing should be directed to human stupidity, which we have direct control over. The fact that there have been no megadeath nuclear disasters, in spite of four decades of warnings that they would soon become common, should allay some of our misplaced fears.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

10. I wasn't accusing anyone here of lining their pockets

I was talking about the nuclear industry and those propagating it like Dick Cheney and many members of Congress. And sorry, on nuclear I don't agree about anything regarding it as a viable energy source.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Distrusting nuclear power is understandable

If you hear something often enough, it tends to sink in. I'm not referring to Goebbels' "Big Lie", but to simple "prevailing wisdom." The prevailing wisdom, though, is often incorrect.

I was anti-nuclear most of my life. Even today, as a strong proponent, I frequently ask myself if I am on the right track. (That doesn't just apply to my advocacy of nuclear power, but nearly everything I believe.)

I came to embrace nuclear power because it is, and has been, demonstrably safer than nearly anything else we have. The relative risk of contamination from nuclear materials is real, but has been very low, and is far lower than that of most of our power systems. The morbidity and mortality of nuclear radiation has been dramatically exaggerated. And the intentions of its proponents have the same variety as the promoters of any other energy system.

I am not seeking to "convert" you. Evaluation of energy sources is not a matter of religious faith. I do not expect you, or anyone else, to regard it as viable until you make those evaluations for yourself.

But, sadly or not, the case against nuclear power is weak, and it is typically made with fallacies and innuendo. We pro-nuclearists frequently ARE accused of being on the take, even here at DU. Dick Cheney's name is mentioned frequently, as a surrogate for Beelzebub or Ashtoreth. And the same long-refuted arguments are used over and over. They do not reflect well on the anti-nuclearists who use them.

There is (are?) plenty of well-studied data on nuclear energy. Yes, there are data that do not support the pro-nuclear position, too. You need not rely on its promoters or detractors. And, in any event, and as far as I know, just about all pro-nuclearists also support aggressive research, development, and implementation of non-nuclear energy systems.

At one time, distrust of nuclear power and its industry was well-advised. But things have changed, and a thorough, and ongoing, reevaluation of our entire way of doing things is in order. Not just for one "side" or the other, but for everybody.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

14. Well, you couldn't convert me ;-)

And any level of contamination is unacceptable. I've seen both sides and can think for myself. Nuclear power is not an option for me in response to climate change. See my link below, and thanks for your civil response.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RestoreGore]

13. Co2 used in the nuclear process

http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm