Although I had said I would not post any more items about James Hansen, this is clearly a promise I cannot keep because the second-half of his book is astonishing for two things – the brutality of his criticism; and the simplicity of the solution he proposes. It is brutal because he criticises: — (1) the failure of the UNFCCC Kyoto process (i.e. emissions target have not been met by anybody); — (2) special interest groups for manipulating politicians (i.e. policy inaction is the goal of those that dispute global warming); and — (3) governments for lying to themselves and us (i.e. catastrophic climate change can only be avoided by phasing out coal and not developing unconventional sources of fossil fuel). With regard to (1), Hansen is particularly dismissive of cap and trade schemes like that in use in the EU and that proposed for the USA. He favours a fee and dividend approach (i.e. one in which the government takes a fee from producers [who then put up their prices] and distributes a dividend to all taxpayers). With regard to (2), this was covered in previous posts on Richard Lindzen. With regard to (3), Hansen sees this as being the result of governments being caught between pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and anti-nuclear lobbyists who have ensured that, over the last 20 years or so we have pursued one and shunned the other – the complete opposite of what we should have been doing. However, the simplicity of Hansen’s solution (one of which I was actually already aware but was nonetheless surprised to find him asserting) is almost breath-taking, because it solves our climate change problem, our energy crisis, and our radioactive waste legacy: Fast neutron reactor (FNR) programmes (cancelled in the UK and US in 1989 and 1994 respectively) should be re-instated because FNRs can be fuelled by: — (1) the 99% of the Earth’s uranium that thermal reactors cannot use; — (2) our existing legacy of long-lived high-level radioactive waste (producing a much smaller volume of shorter-lived, less-radioactive waste); and — (3) uranium extracted from seawater (where it is universally present at greater concentration than its average crustal abundance). Therefore, if you are asking yourself why FNR programmes were cancelled and/or why we are not pursuing this course of action already, the answers are that this is (1) because of the success of anti-nuclear campaigners in the 1980s (who are still demonising nuclear power today); and (2) because it is not in the interests of the fossil fuel lobby for us to stop burning their sh– —————– UPDATE: Tomorrow and thursday I will provide a two-part history of decision-making in the UK regarding nuclear energy, which demonstrates the validity of Hansen’s argument in favour of Fast Neutron Reactors. N.B. In the UK, they tend to be called Fast Breeder Reactors, which is a reference to their ability to generate more fuel than they use (another advantage) – see ‘Fast Neutron Reactors’, World Nuclear Association (2010).
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
Pingback: I’m nothing if not controversial « Anthropocene Reality
Pingback: Newsflash: Renewables are cheaper « Anthropocene Reality
Pingback: Life is full of tough choices… | Anthropocene Reality
Your link to the World Nuclear Association would be persuasive but for my belief that the nuclear power industry has lied to us on too many occasions (and continues to do so (see: Fukushima). 😦
LikeLike
What about Fukushima? Please do not post any links from Greenpeace on this subject. What I would like to see is facts – not ideology. Every year, more people die trying to get dressed in the morning than die as a result of nuclear accidents. Notwithstanding all of that, I am willing to concede that Japan is not a good place (tectonically) to build nuclear power stations. However, 20-30 years ago they did not have much choice. However, now that they have choices, I agree they should reduce their dependence on nuclear power ASAP.
LikeLike
Here’s the latest on Fukushima I’ve read. Yes, it’s hearsay, not authoritative; but as I’ve said I’m very reluctant to believe anything put out by the nuclear industry; I trust their views on the subject about as much as it seems you trust those of Greenpeace. (Speaking of links, your ‘more people die’ anecdote would be more believable with a link than with bold; those numbers depend very much on with whom you speak.)
LikeLike
Pendanty, are you forgetting that I am a supporter of Greenpeace? I just happen to disapprove of the ideological nature of their opposition to both GMOs and Nuclear Power. However, I would support their opposition to both if they chose instead to focus on the fact that both GMOs and Nuclear Power are elitist, high-tech, solutions that are most likely to perpetuate technological dependency (as opposed to help to achieve sustainable development in poor countries).
LikeLike