The Nuclear Approach To Climate Change 432
Harperdog writes "A new roundtable at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explores the question of whether nuclear energy is the answer to climate change, particularly in developing countries where energy needs are so great. This roundtable, like the ones before it, will be translated into Chinese, Arabic, and Spanish within a week of each article's publication. Here's a summary: From desertification in China to glacier melt in Nepal to water scarcity in South Africa, climate change is beginning to make itself felt in the developing world. As developing countries search for ways to contain carbon emissions while also maximizing economic potential, a natural focus of attention is nuclear power. But nuclear energy presents its own dangers."
Not THE answer, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone whose concerned about safety, I want you to go and look up how many nuclear reactors are over 30, 40 years old. These antique behemoths are being run because there are many unnecessary obstacles to overcome if you want to build a new plant. Nuclear technology as well as construction and information systems have improved dramatically each decade, so how is it that people can react to modern reactors as if they have no safety advantages over their retro-ancestors?
Nuclear is the answer (Thorium) (Score:5, Interesting)
Just not the king we use. Uranium and plutonium are terrible ways to achieve nuclear power. There is relatively little power output and a large amount of waste product, which we know will kill us if we even come close to it. The only benefit is being able to create nuclear weapons.
Thorium on the other hand produces much more power per gram and has very little waste. The waste it does produce is exceedingly less dangerous than the current 1950s style reactors.
Plus, there is craps loads of the stuff everywhere. Time to switch. I think we have more than enough Nukes to destroy the world population many times over, so there is no need to stick to a dangerous tech just so we can make more.
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
1. total world energy production - 2012 = 12 x 10^6 kT oil [goo.gl] - thus about 5 x 10^20 J.
averaging over 356 days => average power produced=1.6 x 10^13 W
2. Solar constant - 1361 W/sq m [wikipedia.org]
Surface of Earth intercepting Sun's energy = PI*(6384 km [wikipedia.org]) ^ 2 = 1.28 10^14 sq m
Sun's radiation total power on Earth = 1.74 x 10^17 W
Average power produced by the world / Sun's radiation power = 0.01%. Yet, until recently, Earth (or Gaya - to encompass the ecosystem as well) managed to deal with the Sun's radiation without warming.
Conclusion: the major cause of the warming is very unlikely caused directly by the world's energy production (ultimately transformed in heat) - as it contributes with only 0.01%. Look elsewhere.
Pick One (Score:4, Interesting)
Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, Agrarian Society
This is news to few; heck the bumper sticker [zazzle.com] I made for myself with that saying has this in its footer metadata: "Made on 4/24/2007 1:19 PM".
I hear Richard Branson has repeatedly tried to get appointments with Obama to talk about IFR reactors (and been rebuffed), so I probably don't need to be prosthelitizing them any longer.
Re:Honest question (Score:4, Interesting)
Right - the problem is primarily due to an incremental increase in solar energy retention due to greenhouse gasses. Basically all of that 1361W/m2 ends up radiated back into space - some reflected, but mostly as infrared radiation (heat), but let greenhouse gasses capture even a fraction of a percent more of that infrared energy and it dwarfs humanities energy production and the global temperature will rise until it's hot enough that the amount of escaping energy again matches the incoming. Of course all manner of ecological feedback loops can contribute as well, and that's where the question really gets complicated. So far though it seems like, at the rate we're forcing the system, there are more positive (self-accelerating) feedback loops than negative (self-limiting), and that's a scary proposition for any engineer.
For want of modding... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I'd seen your post earlier, I might of modded you up.
At this point I'll concede on the global warming/climate change point. As you point out, the real question now is: Is avoiding the damage economically worth it? In some cases I hear people advocating to switching to electric sources that run 10X the cost of conventional ones.
As somebody else pointed out, if we were given a source of essentially free unlimited electricity we'd be 99% of the way towards post-scarcity. Cheap power enables so many things.
I think we still need a healthy mix of power sources, and I don't like coal due to the ancillary pollution - not just global warming. By the time you pilo on enough pollution controls to qualify coal power as 'clean', it's more expensive than nuclear.
We dearly need affordable power, and I think nuclear has the best promise. Even then I don't propose making it our 'sole source.' I like to place my ideal non-carbon electric mix at 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, and 20% 'other' such as hydro. In order to reach this in the USA we simply need around twice as many nuclear reactors if we keep building them in the 1-1.4GW size range. We could use a whole raft of the small kw range devices for both providing electricity and heating remote Alaskan towns. Put the solar panels on roofs south of the Mason-Dixon line, the wind turbines in North Dakota and such, where they make sense.