Quote:

---

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to The Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.

Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.

That isn't realistic, the letter said.

"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

Hansen began publishing research on the threat of global warming more than 30 years ago, and his testimony before Congress in 1988 helped launch a mainstream discussion. Last February he was arrested in front of the White House at a climate protest that included the head of the Sierra Club and other activists. Caldeira was a contributor to reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Emanuel is known for his research on possible links between climate change and hurricanes, and Wigley has also been doing climate research for more than 30 years.

Emanuel said the signers aren't opposed to renewable energy sources but want environmentalists to understand that "realistically, they cannot on their own solve the world's energy problems."

The vast majority of climate scientists say they're now virtually certain that pollution from fossil fuels has increased global temperatures over the last 60 years. They say emissions need to be sharply reduced to prevent more extreme damage in the future.

In 2011 worldwide carbon dioxide emissions jumped 3 percent, because of a large increase by China, the No. 1 carbon polluting country. The U.S. is No. 2 in carbon emissions.

Hansen, who's now at Columbia University, said it's not enough for environmentalists to simply oppose fossil fuels and promote renewable energy.

"They're cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need" is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen told the AP.

The joint letter says, "The time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems" as part of efforts to build a new global energy supply.

Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor who studies energy issues, said nuclear power is "very divisive" within the environmental movement. But he added that the letter could help educate the public about the difficult choices that climate change presents.

One major environmental advocacy organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that "nuclear power is no panacea for our climate woes."

Risk of catastrophe is only one drawback of nuclear power, NRDC President Frances Beinecke said in a statement. Waste storage and security of nuclear material are also important issues, he said.

"The better path is to clean up our power plants and invest in efficiency and renewable energy."

The scientists acknowledge that there are risks to using nuclear power, but say those are far smaller than the risk posed by extreme climate change.

"We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect."

---

Quote:

---

"They're cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need" is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen told the AP.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
safer nuclear power might be a good idea. still doesn't deal with the ultimate issue of nuclear fuel waste storage and disposal.

And "safer" is not good enough. As long as any operator can consider cost, price, expense, or operating convenience over ABSOLUTE SAFEST practices, it's not safe enough. A pragmatic solution- REQUIRE the CEO and his family to live on the reactor site. That would ensure his motivation. And if the site isn't safe enough for them, it isn't safe enough for the employees or the public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quite a conundrum for conservatives. On the one hand, if they agree with this, they get to push for more nuclear power (privately run, natch); on the other hand, it kind of requires them to agree that climate change exists and that humanity is contributing to it, something they're loathe to do for fear of alienating their uneducated base.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
And "safer" is not good enough. As long as any operator can consider cost, price, expense, or operating convenience over ABSOLUTE SAFEST practices, it's not safe enough. A pragmatic solution- REQUIRE the CEO and his family to live on the reactor site. That would ensure his motivation. And if the site isn't safe enough for them, it isn't safe enough for the employees or the public.

---

Quote:

---

I think it's clear that AGW isn't much of anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I think it's clear that AGW isn't much of anything.

---

What do you know that every single expert on the matter doesn't?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I think it's clear that AGW isn't much of anything.

---

What do you know that every single expert on the matter doesn't?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

As there isn't consensus by " every single expert ", I find the question moot.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I never said that all the experts agree with each other, I said none of them agree with YOU. You claim that AGW is a hoax, and is clearly wrong. No expert in climate science believes that. Some are skeptical, but that's not the same thing.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


No one has denied that climate change doesn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I never said that all the experts agree with each other, I said none of them agree with YOU. You claim that AGW is a hoax, and is clearly wrong. No expert in climate science believes that. Some are skeptical, but that's not the same thing.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

I copied exactly what you said. Nice try.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Nobody watched Pandora's Promise?

Okay.

Just some statements I remember being made during the show - to stimulate conversation.

Only around 50 people died so far as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Seems in line with the WHO study finding less than 50 deaths in 2005. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

No one has died as a result of radiation during a U.S. nuclear generator accident. Per Wiki, there may have been one fatality due to radiation in 1964, but most are electricutions and other industrial-type accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_S
tates

13,000 people in the U.S. die each year due to illness related to the burning of fossil fuels - 3 million world-wide.

Production and use of coal as fuel continues to increase. This seems correct, since, per Wiki, production has increased 2.4 BILLION metric tons between 2003 and 2011. Consumption in many countries continues to rise, with China increasing usage by over a BILLION short tons between 2008 and 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Improvements in infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy, upward mobility, diet, health, etc. all seem to be tied directly to the availability of electrical energy.

All the spent fuel rods from nuclear generation in the U.S. would cover a football field goal line to goal line and sideline to sideline about 3 yards deep. That's about 16,000 cubic yards. About 40 semi loads. 99% of that is relatively low level.

Using a radiation detector, the narrator found that naturally occurring background radiation at Guarapari beach in Brazil was around 30.0 millisieverts an hour. Normal background radiation, tested in cities around the world, was in the 0.08 to 0.14 Msv range.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---