Solutions to Climate Crisis by James Hansen
source: http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html
-
-
- coolplanet
- added this
Some scientists claim that if we keep the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450 ppm (parts per million) we should be safe. Dr. James Hansen was once one of them. But over the past several years through his research he has come to the conclusion that we must reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 ppm in order to avoid disaster for coming generations.
Humans have caused carbon dioxide to increase from 280 ppm in 1750 to 387 ppm in 2009. 387 ppm is already in the dangerous range. Such a reduction is still practical, but just barely.
“I am sorry to say that most of what politicians are doing on the climate front is greenwashing—their proposals sound good, but they are deceiving you and themselves at the same time.” ~James Hansen
Government Greenwashing
Greenwashing: the practice of expressing concern about global warming and the environment while taking no actions to actually stabilize climate or preserve the environment.
Greenwashing is prevalent in the United States and other countries, even those presumed to be the “greenest.” Politicians who advertise themselves as being “green” often demonstrating token environmental support while kowtowing to fossil fuel special interests and the 2,340 registered energy lobbyists in Washington. Their stated goals for future emissions reductions are figments of their imagination, entirely inconsistent with the policies that they are busy adopting.
“There are countries saying that they will build power plants that are ‘carbon capture ready.’ They are misleading you. The politicians know that the public, at least in most countries, will never accept the large increases in electricity price that would accompany carbon capture, let alone accept burial of the carbon dioxide in their neighborhood.”
~James Hansen
Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty. “Clean coal” technology does not exist and carbon capture is not economically feasible.
Developed countries will need to complete their coal phase-out by about 2020, if global phase-out of coal is to be achieved by 2030. If coal emissions are phased out this rapidly— a tall order, but a feasible one— the climate problem is solvable.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy rate first priority in the suite of technologies needed to phase out carbon emissions. But in most countries, phase-out of coal emissions requires also a carbon-free source of baseload electric power that is competitive in price with coal. Until we have another way to meet 21st century energy needs while eliminating coal and carbon emissions, nuclear power appears to be the only option.
The (“3rd generation”) nuclear technology ready to replace the aging 2nd generation reactors in the United States and other counties is inherently safer than existing nuclear power, which already has an exemplary safety record – however, it still burns less than one percent of the nuclear fuel and leaves a long-lived nuclear waste pile. Hansen recommends initiating urgent development of a fourth-generation nuclear power plant. These “fast” nuclear reactors utilize more than 99 percent of the fuel and can “burn” nuclear waste, thus solving the nuclear waste problem that concerns so many.
“You will hear politicians and others say something like, “We have a plan. We will reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020, 90 percent by 2050.”… When they tell you that they are going to solve the problem via a “goal,” “binding target,” or a “cap,” you know that they are lying. Yes, lying is a harsh word, so you may instead say “kidding themselves.” But I expect that one day your more perceptive grandchildren will say that you let the politicians lie to you.”
~James Hansen
Continued at link
-
- tags:
- Environment, Upstream, Global Warming, Nuclear, 6 more
-
-
coolplanet
-
From “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” by James Hansen (Bloomsbury 2009):
“When asked about nuclear power, I am usually noncommittal, rattling off pros and cons. However, there is an aspect of the nuclear story that deserves much greater public attention. I first learned about it in 2008, when I read an early copy of ‘Prescription for the Planet,’ by Tom Blees, who had stumbled onto a secret with enormous ramifications…
Nuclear waste problems are the biggest drawback of nuclear power. Unnecessarily so. Nuclear experts at the premier research laboratories have long realized that there is a solution to the waste problems, and the solution can be designed with some very attractive features.
I am referring to ‘fast’ nuclear reactors. Fast reactors allow the neurons to move at higher speed. The result in a fast nuclear reactor is that the reactions ‘burn’ not only the uranium fuel but also all of the transuranic actinides--which form the long-lived waste that causes so much heartburn. Fast reactors can burn about 99 percent of the uranium that is mined, compared with the less than 1 percent extracted by [current] light water reactors…
We already have enough fuel stockpiled, in nuclear waste and by-products of nuclear weapons production, to supply all of our fuel needs for about a thousand years.
In fact, given that fast reactors make it economical to extract uranium from seawater, we now have enough fuel, in theory, to run nuclear power plants for several billion years. In other words, nuclear fuel is inexhaustible, putting it in the same category as renewable solar energy.” (pp. 196-201) - 1 year ago
-
coolplanet
-
-
coolplanet
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODS-jBsjOtc
Lecture by Burton Richter, Emeritus Director of the SLAC National Accelerator, at Stanford University, May 5, 2010
- 1 year ago
-
coolplanet