Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By New Energy And Fuel (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Climate Folks Make Strong Case For Nuclear Power

Tuesday, November 15, 2016 0:45
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

An international team of scientists suggests that we must ramp up energy production using nuclear power if we are to succeed in warding off the worst effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. (Or we can simply take the risks of natural gas supplies driving electricity prices sky high when the price cycle turns up.)

The team asserts in the International Journal of Global Energy Issues that beginning in 2020 we could achieve an annual electricity output of 20 terawatts. They suggest that there would be no need to develop carbon dioxide trapping and storage technology for the tens of billions of tons of emissions that would otherwise drive global warming to catastrophic levels.

Herve Nifenecker of the Université interages du Dauphine, in Grenoble, France and honorary chairman of “Sauvons Le Climat” and colleagues in Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, France, India, Singapore, and the USA, explain how solutions to the problem of climate change developed in the wake of requirements established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make various assumptions we might not be able to address. One scenario involves attempting to capture and store carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, and oil, in power stations and vehicles. However, the quantities involved amount to a massive geological-scale engineering effort even at today’s emission rates based on rising energy requirements.

This is refreshing. The realization stated as “a massive geological-scale engineering effort” gets pretty close to the facts. It seems there are some scientists that realize the immensity of the suggestions from the global warming crowd. No one yet has considered the ramifications of getting the engineering wrong, “a massive geological-scale catastrophe” is a phrase that comes to mind.

The team also points out that if we renounce nuclear power as an option, then aside from the storage needs of carbon dioxide emissions, the international demand for electricity will fall short by about 40% over the period 2020 to 2100. It is unlikely that such a scenario will be accepted by developed and developing nations alike. Several large, highly populated nations, such as China and the US are forecast to need more and more power over the coming years. The uptake of sustainable, non-carbon alternative power sources such as wind, solar, tidal and other technologies seem not to be adopted at the requisite rates to keep up with needs and are limited by physical factors such as their random production, despite the best efforts of environmental lobbyists.

The team reports, “An accelerated development of nuclear electricity production, starting as soon as 2020, would significantly alleviate the constraints required to stabilize global temperatures before 2100. The carbon dioxide volume to be stored would be divided by at least a factor of 2.5 and might even prove unnecessary. The constraints on the development of expansive and intermittent renewable electricity techniques might also be lessened.”

The team’s research suggests that it should be physically and economically plausible to multiply by a factor of fifty the production of nuclear energy by 2100, leading to a complete elimination of fossil fuels wherein 60% of electricity demand is met through nuclear and the remainder through sustainable technology. Despite tabloid hyperbole surrounding nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the long-term health effects of these accidents are negligible compared with the chronic pollution of coal-fired power stations. It might even be said that nuclear energy is the most benign way of producing electricity in terms of environmental health and biodiversity. “Nuclear power could both answer the climate challenge and give a perennial solution to humanity’s energy needs for thousands of years,” the team concluded.

The odd thing, and its quite odd indeed, is the study paper, which one could surmise to be too much for a journalist to grasp – is behind a paywall. The team has a powerful case to make. Burying it behind a paywall isn’t helping at all. Damn, the case to back up rational common sense with an appreciation for the math is out of reach for almost everyone.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.