Comeback Kid...

Scientists have now turned their attention to what would be needed after 2030 to meet a 2 C goal: an energy system transformation that emits less carbon. For this, all technology options need to be on the table, including nuclear, the scientists said.

Credit: ©iStock

Topics: Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Green Tech, Nuclear Power

I post this with uneasiness: having grown up in the era of "duck and cover" in all its feckless utility. Remembering instances of crisis like Chernobyl (proud I can still SPELL it) and Three Mile Island. There's that whole thing about the waste produced, half-life; where/in WHOSE neighborhoods will you STORE such waste? And the latest zeitgeist, terrorism - currently Christian and Muslim - both aberrant extremist cases that take extraordinary means to make their "points" while managing to be poor representatives of their particular faiths. Hopefully updated safety and security protocols reflecting the times and technology are also being considered. The most positive aspect are jobs that reviving the industry would invariably generate. Education could start preparing a 21st Century workforce instead of testing ouut students like lab rats. My preference, as I'm assuming is Green Peace mentioned in the article is solar, wind and nuclear fusion, all on par as equally clean; all likely as aggressively opposed by fossil fuel interests. I would embrace this then as an interim step that could only see defeat in moneyed interests and their lobbyist - case-in-point, terrorists on no-fly list still with the ability to purchase firearms after San Bernardino. Our national cognitive dissonance is quite breathtaking.

In contrast to last week's Cynicism post, I do want to leave a viable planet after I'm gone. As part of the human species, I think we're unique and special; all witness to the Cosmos and its wonders; such than cannot be appreciated or studied...in our absence.

James Hansen, former NASA climate scientist, and three other prominent climate scientists are calling for an enlarged focus on nuclear energy in the ongoing Paris climate negotiations.

"Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change," Hansen said during a panel discussion yesterday. "The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy."

He was joined by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide; Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science; and Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Their stance clashes with those of environmental groups such as Greenpeace that advocate against nuclear energy.

As nations have proposed emissions curbs in Paris up to 2030, scientists have computed that there is a 1-in-2 chance that their collective ambition would raise temperatures in 2100 by between 2.7 to 3.7 degrees Celsius. Nations would like to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million (ppm).

There is 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at present.

Scientific American: Nuclear Power Must Make a Comeback for Climate's Sake
Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire