...and we have a meltdown with a Chernobyl scale release of radioactivity that blankets some high density population/economic center like New York, London, Chicago, Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, or Moscow; forcing it's evacuation and abandonment.
What happens to that massive and already overpriced investment in low carbon energy?
Along with the concrete problems of cost, safety, proliferation and wasted associated with nuclear energy, the risk of a major public backlash in response to the next, inevitable "impossible" accident is virtually 100%.
An open letter to James Hansen on the real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm
BY JOE ROMM ON NOVEMBER 23, 2008 AT 8:24 PM
To James Hansen (and his fellow 350 ppm-ers):
NUCLEAR: The single nuclear wedge requires building 35 nukes a year — roughly 10 times the current production rate, more than 50% higher than the greatest rate the world ever sustained for even a single decade, and far in excess of what current production bottlenecks would allow. Nuclear plant prices in this country have already tripled since 2000 to nearly price themselves out of the market (see “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power, Part 1“).
Is it now clear why your extended nuclear power discussion is off the mark? You point out that
The common presumption that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready until 2030 is based on assumption of ‘business-as-usual”. Given high priority, this technology could be ready for deployment in the 2015-2020 time frame.
Sorry, too late. The incomprehensibly fast scale up of low carbon generation we need for 350 ppm leaves no time for such hypotheticals, no time for hoping things get commercialized within 10 years. After all, somebody has to build the massive manufacturing capacity right now, and somebody has to train all of the people needed to build these reactors right now (not to mention training people to run them), and somebody has to contract for all of the relevant raw materials pretty damn soon.
Maybe fourth-generation nukes could be useful in the next set of post-2030 wedges, which is why a major ramp up of R&D remains incredibly valuable. But for getting off of coal in two decades, we gotta go with what we have.
Again, I’m not advocating building 700 nuclear plants
= new reply since forum marked as read