Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:40 PM Jan 2016

Joe Romm: Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power [View all]

Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power
BY JOE ROMM


Climatologist James Hansen argued last month, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” He is wrong.

As the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) explained in a major report last year, in the best-case scenario, nuclear power can play a modest, but important, role in avoiding catastrophic global warming if it can solve its various nagging problems — particularly high construction cost — without sacrificing safety.

Hansen and a handful of other climate scientists I also greatly respect — Ken Caldeira, Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel — present a mostly handwaving argument in which new nuclear power achieves and sustains an unprecedented growth rate for decades. The one quantitative “illustrative scenario” they propose — “a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system” — is far beyond what the world ever sustained during the nuclear heyday of the 1970s, and far beyond what the overwhelming majority of energy experts, including those sympathetic to the industry, think is plausible.

They ignore the core issues: The nuclear power industry has essentially priced itself out of the market for new power plants because of its 1) negative learning curve and 2) inability to avoid massive delays and cost overruns in market economies. This is doubly problematic because the competition — renewable power, electricity storage, and energy efficiency — have seen steady, stunning price drops for a long time.

Hansen et al also continue the myth that somehow nuclear power is being held back by environmental opposition, rather than its own marketplace failures, a point I will return to later....

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/07/3736243/nuclear-power-climate-change/

Link to International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency report summary
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technology-roadmap-nuclear-energy-1.html
53 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I really appreciate this article. Gregorian Jan 2016 #1
Happy it helps. kristopher Jan 2016 #5
Nuclear is not going to 'solve it's nagging problems' bloom Jan 2016 #2
So much mental horsepower being wasted on the wrong problem. GliderGuider Jan 2016 #3
As if you'd know what the right problems are... kristopher Jan 2016 #4
Bless the witless minions of the so-called "natural" gas industry. hunter Jan 2016 #6
Yep, a baseload system around nuclear would lock in heavy natgas consumption kristopher Jan 2016 #7
Fuck this shit: hunter Jan 2016 #22
The world is what it is kristopher Jan 2016 #23
I'm not a "self loathing human..." hunter Jan 2016 #26
You may be right... kristopher Jan 2016 #27
What is it about this consumer economy you can't do without? hunter Jan 2016 #28
Any time there is trade there is a "consumer economy". kristopher Jan 2016 #33
Then we pass like every other "innovative" exponentially growing population that has gone before us. hunter Jan 2016 #34
"Special"? kristopher Jan 2016 #35
Biology. It's been around a long time. hunter Jan 2016 #36
That's your core argument? kristopher Jan 2016 #39
Is that all you got? hunter Jan 2016 #40
When you keep rephrasing the same point... kristopher Jan 2016 #42
KerTWANG! Nihil Jan 2016 #46
I believe the chief problem is one of perceived absolutes OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #8
Yes, I've heard your 'belief' on this before, and you still kristopher Jan 2016 #9
Romm’s stance appears to be similar to mine OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #10
No it isn't. kristopher Jan 2016 #11
Then you misrepresent my stance OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #12
Your stance is clearly stated in the thread linked above kristopher Jan 2016 #13
A clearer statement from Romm OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #14
Not true. You are reading very selectively (again). kristopher Jan 2016 #15
You must be mistaking me with a straw man OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #16
That isn't relevant to the topic. kristopher Jan 2016 #17
You claim I “have been an unambiguous promoter of nuclear power for years.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #18
It's a flat fact. kristopher Jan 2016 #19
Then prove it or apologize OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #20
Riiiiight... kristopher Jan 2016 #21
The long list of links given says its not (nt) LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #52
Joe Romm is yet another arsonist complaining about forest fires. NNadir Jan 2016 #24
Riiiight.... " Regulators question CO2 plan for $19.3 billion Virginia nuclear reactor" kristopher Jan 2016 #25
As some kind of Luddite I disagree with you about many things... hunter Jan 2016 #29
The implication being that he is the true environmentalist cprise Jan 2016 #31
? hunter Jan 2016 #32
Here in this forum, about a decade ago... cprise Jan 2016 #30
Since, at 440 reactors nuclear only supplied about 2% of global final energy supply... kristopher Jan 2016 #37
2% ? progressoid Jan 2016 #47
Check the titles to the charts kristopher Jan 2016 #48
I get that. But who made that chart? progressoid Jan 2016 #49
Perhaps that's the question you should have asked then. kristopher Jan 2016 #50
Essentially, they look at opposite ends of this type of chart kristopher Jan 2016 #51
Has anyone produced an updated (e.g., 2015) version of that 2010 diagram yet? Nihil Jan 2016 #53
No. We can choose a high energy industrial society or not. hunter Jan 2016 #38
There you go again with meaningless metrics kristopher Jan 2016 #41
I've maybe slept with, but not quite fucked, some of your heroes. hunter Jan 2016 #43
I have no idea what you are talking about. kristopher Jan 2016 #44
Lucky you. It was just a dream. hunter Jan 2016 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Joe Romm: Why James Hanse...»Reply #0