Climate Climate & Energy

No nukes is good nukes

Someone -- I think Bart? -- sent me to a paper by David Fleming called "Why nuclear power cannot be a major energy source."

I just got done reading it, and as far as I'm concerned it is devastating to the pro-nuclear argument. Game over.

The paper -- based primarily on the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith -- carefully considers how much uranium is left in the ground, the energy balance for the full nuclear lifecycle (including cleaning up waste), the promise of breeder reactors, and just about every other aspect of nuclear power.

The ultimate verdict: If nuclear power maintains its current contribution -- roughly 2.5% of the world's energy -- it can continue for about 75 years, under ideal conditions. If we ramp it up to supply 100% of the world's electricity, it could last about 6 years, under ideal conditions. And there are no ideal conditions.

In other words, nuclear power simply cannot bridge the coming energy gap. More than anything, it serves as a kind of techno-totem, allowing people to cling to the illusion that technology will save us and we won't have to alter our lifestyles.

Anyway, read it. Bookmark it. Link to it. Send it to your friends. The nuclear illusion needs to be put to rest once and for all.

My favorite part of the paper is the helpful summary at the end. Here it is:

The Evolution Will Be Pint-Sized

Some small animals evolving to adapt to climate change, study finds As we humans cling to the status quo while it floats down the river toward a global-warming waterfall (ahem), […]

Spore Losers

Climate change could make pollen rise and allergies worse Perhaps you’ve heard the argument that a rise in carbon dioxide levels is a good thing, because CO2 helps plants grow. […]

Adaptation redux

Roger Pielke Jr. has an overheated post up today wondering why I don't care about the suffering of "millions, perhaps billions" of people around the world adversely affected by climate. Oy. I hesitate to reply, but here goes.

Champagne vineyards threatened by radioactive contamination

Global warming isn't the only thing threatening wine. In France, groundwater less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards has tested positive for radioactive contamination, caused by a nearby leaking nuclear waste dump:

"We have been told for decades that nuclear dumpsites will not leak and that the best standards are being applied. In reality the dumpsite in Normandy is a disaster, and radioactivity is already leaking from the dumpsite in Champagne," said Shaun Burnie nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace International. "The authorities know they have a problem in Champagne already, with mistakes in the design. This is only the beginning of the problem, the bigger picture is that France has a nuclear waste crisis out of control that is threatening not only the environment and public health but also the economy of the Champagne region."

Clearly, there are some promises that just can't be kept. I wonder if Champagne is iconic enough to influence public opinion about nuclear power. In the meantime, bringing a Geiger counter to the next New Year's bash would be a cool party trick ...

And the Sand Played On

World’s deserts will become more desert-y, says U.N. Happy World Environment Day — we got you some bad news! As climate change progresses, desert temperatures will rise up to 12.6 […]

Wining and Declining

Global warming screwing up wine country Bad news for oenophiles: Global warming is messing with wine country. Wine grapes are highly temperature-sensitive, and if the globe gets much hotter (which […]

Adaptation and political context

The U.S. should be doing more to prepare for changes in the climate that are already inevitable. As many folks have pointed out, even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the gases already in the atmosphere will yield climate weirdness 30 to 40 years from now.

Adaptation -- the term of art for these sorts of adjustments -- is necessary. And it probably doesn't get the attention it should in policy discussions.

Nevertheless, I'm leery about discussing it too much. Why? Because there's more to policy discussions than policy discussions. There's also the political and cultural context in which such discussions take place. Focusing purely on policy details without taking the larger context into account is not a virtue, as some would have it. It's irresponsible.

Kevin Drum recently made this argument with regard to another subject, namely Iran. Should progressives spend more time criticizing Iran's repressive, authoritarian regime? Well ...

Under the Radar

FAA shuts down work on proposed wind farms The Federal Aviation Administration has shut down work on at least 15 Midwest wind farms pending … wait for it … more […]

Why we’re not Brazil

BioD already mentioned it in comments, but I thought I'd draw above-the-fold attention to this post from Robert Rapier on The Oil Drum.

One often hears that Brazil is the model for biofuels usage: They've come close to achieving energy independence by creating ethanol with sugar cane. As Tom Daschle and Vinod Khosla said in their recent NYT op-ed, "Brazil has it figured out; why can't we?"

Rapier explains exactly why: