Environment & Energy

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

20. They don't dispute the 64 gt saved by nuclear power.

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:16 PM

Jul 2013

They don't dispute the deaths caused by GHGs.

All they do is say that Hansen used a lower bound for Chernobyl. And of course they cite Jacobson's numbers on nuclear power (which never use Gen IV reactors in the calculations).

Naturally, they chastize Hansen for not counting renewables or energy efficiency in a nuclear power related article, when he has put those two things at the top of his list of things to mitigate AGW. It's a really low blow, to be sure.

Priorities, in order, for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy are steps to: (1) improve energy efficiency, (2) develop and deploy renewable energies, (3) modernize and expand a ‘smart’ electric grid, (4) develop 4th generation nuclear power, (5) develop carbon capture and sequestration capability.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

The authors of the article are clearly not versed in Hansen's actual position on nuclear power when all he was doing was effectively a paper napkin calculation on it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hansen misguided about value of nuclear [View all] kristopher Jul 2013 OP

Nuclear enthusiasts always ignore the "fallout" Demeter Jul 2013 #1

Do energy efficiency initiatives really displace GHG emissions? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #2

Do we have efficiency initiatives on a global level? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #3

Efficiency initiatives are both local and global GliderGuider Jul 2013 #4

That has nothing to do with the OP kristopher Jul 2013 #5

I'm not talking about a minor rebound effect GliderGuider Jul 2013 #8

What evidence do you have that a lack of energy has curtailed development? kristopher Jul 2013 #12

??? I never said a lack of energy has curtailed development. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #14

that's what I thought kristopher Jul 2013 #15

Mmmm. Gee thanx. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #16

Silly GliderGuider ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #17

Not the first time I've been criticized for colouring outside the lines. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #18

Whatever - I thought i was suggesting the most basic rule of authorship... kristopher Jul 2013 #19

Unsolicited personal advice from a stranger on the internet GliderGuider Jul 2013 #22

Hardly a stranger. kristopher Jul 2013 #24

What's your name? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #27

Grow up. kristopher Jul 2013 #28

So I don't get to know your name? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #29

Nor his qualifications ...... oldhippie Jul 2013 #35

OK, so is it your contention that Botswana would be better off if US emissions were going up!? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #6

My contention is that the USA has outsourced its manufacuring GliderGuider Jul 2013 #7

I don�t believe that is a sufficient explanation OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #9

It's also worth considering why emissions went down in that graph caraher Jul 2013 #11

What does the EIA have to say? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #23

Yes, that is the problem with most accounting schemes for greenhouse gases caraher Jul 2013 #10

That really isn't relevant to the OP. kristopher Jul 2013 #13

Earlier post where we discuss "energy efficiency." joshcryer Jul 2013 #21

They don't dispute the 64 gt saved by nuclear power. joshcryer Jul 2013 #20

They are dealing specifically with what he signed his name to in that paper. kristopher Jul 2013 #25

No, they are deflecting. joshcryer Jul 2013 #30

Then Hansen doesn't agree with Hansen. kristopher Jul 2013 #31

They did not say his methods were wrong. joshcryer Jul 2013 #32

I think I'm corresponding with... kristopher Jul 2013 #33

Oops, I forgot, you're the guy who bought Nordell's nonsense. joshcryer Jul 2013 #34

Until a WovenGems Jul 2013 #26