Richard Schiffman
By Richard Schiffman
NASA’s former chief climate scientist (he recently left government to pursue a more activist role) met with environmental journalists last month at Columbia University to release a new study with the ominous title, “Assessing Dangerous Climate Change: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.”
Hansen and his co-authors contend that the agreed-to goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) above pre-Industrial levels prescribed in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is still too high to prevent “long-lasting, irreversible damage” to our planet — including raising sea levels, submerging coastal cities and turning vast tracts of the earth into virtual furnaces.
Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.
Hansen’s controversial conclusion is that we need to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. Nuclear alone, in Hansen’s view, has the potential to produce “clean” (carbon-free) electricity in the prodigious amounts that we will need it in the decades ahead.
His assertion is controversial for a number of reasons. First is the still unresolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste products from nuclear power production.
Second is the potential weaponisation of plutonium, a real concern given the threats of global terrorism. Third, in the post-Fukushima world, is whether nuclear plants can ever be made safe enough to build near large population centres, or in regions prone to earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.
Hansen counters that, even factoring in the possibility of freak accidents, nuclear energy production is still far less harmful than coal-fired power plants. Those don’t just contribute mightily to the burden of greenhouse gases, he explains, they spew particulates into the atmosphere, leading to tens of thousands of deaths from lung and heart diseases in the United States every year.
Other environmentalists acknowledge the atmospheric benefits of nuclear power, but still remain wary. Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the Natural Resources Defence Council’s Energy Program, says, safety concerns aside, nuclear power plants are just not cost-effective. With the prohibitively high price of new plants, none has been built in the United States since the Three Mile Island reactors were completed in 1974. Indeed, several aging plants have been closed recently, and more are slated to be shut down soon.
Nuclear power generation is now flourishing in only three countries, France, Russia and China — all nations where the state has aggressively subsidised its development. In France, the huge government-owned utility Électricité de France now has 70 percent of its electricity generated by nuclear power, up from only 8 percent a decade ago.
Electricity “is much cheaper in France than in Germany,” Hansen told me, “because the French have mostly nuclear power while Germany has renewables.” He says that we should follow France’s lead.
But it is hard to see how the French model could fly in the United States, where energy decisions are made not by central planning, but by marketplace compensation. Hansen and environmental groups agree that mechanisms like a carbon tax will be necessary to spur the growth of clean technologies. It is questionable, however, whether even this powerful goad would be enough to revive a nuclear industry now languishing on life support.
Hansen may convince some environmentalists that green nukes could help to save the planet. But– barring a major technological breakthrough – he won’t be able to convince electric utilities that nuclear plants could save them money. And, for the time being, they are the people whose opinions matter. REUTERS
By Richard Schiffman
NASA’s former chief climate scientist (he recently left government to pursue a more activist role) met with environmental journalists last month at Columbia University to release a new study with the ominous title, “Assessing Dangerous Climate Change: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.”
Hansen and his co-authors contend that the agreed-to goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) above pre-Industrial levels prescribed in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is still too high to prevent “long-lasting, irreversible damage” to our planet — including raising sea levels, submerging coastal cities and turning vast tracts of the earth into virtual furnaces.
Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.
Hansen’s controversial conclusion is that we need to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. Nuclear alone, in Hansen’s view, has the potential to produce “clean” (carbon-free) electricity in the prodigious amounts that we will need it in the decades ahead.
His assertion is controversial for a number of reasons. First is the still unresolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste products from nuclear power production.
Second is the potential weaponisation of plutonium, a real concern given the threats of global terrorism. Third, in the post-Fukushima world, is whether nuclear plants can ever be made safe enough to build near large population centres, or in regions prone to earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.
Hansen counters that, even factoring in the possibility of freak accidents, nuclear energy production is still far less harmful than coal-fired power plants. Those don’t just contribute mightily to the burden of greenhouse gases, he explains, they spew particulates into the atmosphere, leading to tens of thousands of deaths from lung and heart diseases in the United States every year.
Other environmentalists acknowledge the atmospheric benefits of nuclear power, but still remain wary. Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the Natural Resources Defence Council’s Energy Program, says, safety concerns aside, nuclear power plants are just not cost-effective. With the prohibitively high price of new plants, none has been built in the United States since the Three Mile Island reactors were completed in 1974. Indeed, several aging plants have been closed recently, and more are slated to be shut down soon.
Nuclear power generation is now flourishing in only three countries, France, Russia and China — all nations where the state has aggressively subsidised its development. In France, the huge government-owned utility Électricité de France now has 70 percent of its electricity generated by nuclear power, up from only 8 percent a decade ago.
Electricity “is much cheaper in France than in Germany,” Hansen told me, “because the French have mostly nuclear power while Germany has renewables.” He says that we should follow France’s lead.
But it is hard to see how the French model could fly in the United States, where energy decisions are made not by central planning, but by marketplace compensation. Hansen and environmental groups agree that mechanisms like a carbon tax will be necessary to spur the growth of clean technologies. It is questionable, however, whether even this powerful goad would be enough to revive a nuclear industry now languishing on life support.
Hansen may convince some environmentalists that green nukes could help to save the planet. But– barring a major technological breakthrough – he won’t be able to convince electric utilities that nuclear plants could save them money. And, for the time being, they are the people whose opinions matter. REUTERS
