IPCC to recommend Nuclear Power to combat Global Warming.

[Kirkhill]

Climate meet 'will recommend nuclear'

(dpa) - The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which gathers in Bangkok this week is expected to throw its weight behind nuclear energy as a means of mitigating global warming, media reports said Sunday.

"In addition to renewable energy sources, nuclear power will be recommended by scientists as a lesser evil in terms of global warming," Wanum Permpibul of the Climate Action Group said.

On Monday through Friday, 80 of the world's leading experts on climate change will meet in Bangkok to debate the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to 150 state representatives on policy recommendations to mitigate the impact of global warming, blamed primarily on consumption of carbon-based fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

The final report, after what is expected to be a heated debate among participants, will be made public on Friday.

An IPCC endorsement for nuclear power would be controversial, given the strong opposition to the energy source by environmentalists and community-based organisations.

More on link.....

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=118416


There have been noises already saying that this will NOT be the recommendation of the IPCC  but ..... What If?

Will this be "settled science"?  Will these still be "experts"? Will David Suzuki and Al Gore still be loyal supporters of the IPCC?  As The Stomach Turns....... ;D

But a few things are becoming clear now ..... The original game plan looks to have been to get the US to buy French reactors for Developing Countries (possibly including China and India)  and Canada gets a piece of the pie with a few CANDU reactors and lots of low grade Uranium.....as well as Tar Sand oil to the US.  Now why didn't they just say that originally?? 

 

[retiredgrunt45]

In addition to renewable energy sources, nuclear power will be recommended by scientists as a lesser evil in terms of global warming," Wanum Permpibul of the Climate Action Group said.

Hello!! is anybody home. What a great idea, lets just give everyone a working nuclear reactor and let them go on there merry way. Who is going to make sure and police this great brainstorm and make sure that there aren't alterior motives, like ,let me see, a couple of nuclear bombs are not being made so some unsavry dictator can wipe out his neighbour!

"Lesser evil" OK what's the alternative? I don't hear anything from these great educated minds.....

These people are supposed to be educated and inteligient, but this is the dumbest most stupid idiotic idea I have ever heard and I only graduated high school!  God what will they think of next?

Now if their talking about China, fine until they have another Chernobyl or 3 miles island disaster. Nuclear is not a feasable alternative to safe energy production, to combat global warming, because it would have to be done on a global scale to make a diference and that comes back to my first point. We will have to give everyone a reactor and that has to many variables and to many things to go wrong. In the end all we'll end up with is a number of unsavry characters will nuclear weapons and then global warming will be the least of our worries.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb and dumber...

Glad I didn't waste my parents money on a college education, if thats the best plan educated people can come up with.

 

[a_majoor]

Have to agree, we are being offered several unsavory alternatives (the "Green" plan seems to be a massive human die off followed by a permanent feudal pastorial society).

Possible real solution? google OTEC

 

[Kirkhill]

Have to agree, we are being offered several unsavory alternatives (the "Green" plan seems to be a massive human die off followed by a permanent feudal pastorial society).

Possible real solution? google OTEC

One of many solutions - all with pluses and minuses - OTEC brings a mass of "fertilizer" up to the surface from the depths promoting algal bloom (but a great way to capture CO2).

Myself, put me in the Pro-Nuke camp - together with hydro, tidal, solar and OTEC - not a big fan of Wind (irregular supply, unsightly and WAY too much maintenance on all those tiny little 2 MW generators on the top of those poles)  Pickering with its 4124 MW output = 8000 wind turbines (2MW at 25% efficiency).

As to the nuclear waste: small in volume and mass, HAS to be contained (reducing generalized pollution) and recyclable http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Frontiers/2003/d5ee.html

 

[a_majoor]

From a technical perspective pro nuke is the best alternative (OTEC requires you to have an ocean handy....), but it is that annoying political thing which counts against it. Fro every responsible western nation which has civilian nuclear power there are a dozen or so nations which would see this as a route to nuclear or radiological weapons.

A radical nation with an OTEC "might" threaten to flood the ocean with fish (who love algae) 

 

[Kirkhill]

;D

 

[Flip]

I would advocate fission reactors for only a small handful of nations.
It certainly is no global solution.

A candu reactor in north Alberta makes tons of sense.
Save that natural gas for heating our homes.
So Canada is on the list.  I would take Pakistan off.

The IPCC could advocate for fusion reactors for all the good that will do.
That is our only potential replacement for fossil fuels.
Nothing else has the same kind of energy density or scalability.

I think the IPCC has stepped on their own udder with this one.
Environmentalists will hate them
Governments in the developed world will hate them.
Governments in the devoloping world will wonder "why not them ?" and hate them.

 

[Benny]

Now if their talking about China, fine until they have another Chernobyl or 3 miles island disaster.

Given China's liking for doing a cheap and nasty copy of decade old russian technology, my money would be on a chernobyl.

 

[GAP]

What about the have countries exporting the "pebble" nuclear technology? Apparently fissionable grade material can't be made out of it.

 

[a_majoor]

Pebble bed technology is only in the prototype stage even in western nations (mostly due to opposition to any type of nuclear power generation), so until you can "bend tin" there are probably lots of questions to be answered about scalability, reliability, failure modes etc. (Things that look good in theory might have unexpected flaws).

As well, someone with sufficient determination could probably find a way to get at the fissionable material in the fuel "pebbles".

Steven Den Beste wrote a series of blogs about energy, and high density, high availability was high on the list of features that any energy source needs to have in order to be a viable replacement. While nuclear power meets those technological features, the political will is not there. Interestingly enough, Den Beste advocated for deep core taps; super deep wells to access geotherrmal energy. While the drillinng technology isn't there yet, once that technological hurdle is overcome you can place a powerplant anywhere, since wherever you drill, once you go down far enough you reach the hot zone.

 

[Kirkhill]

.. since wherever you drill, once you go down far enough you reach the hot zone.

And Jane Fonda was concerned about "The China Syndrome" with nuclear plants .