I agree in one sense that sweeping changes to energy infastructure need to be made over the next 50-odd years to mitigate AGW. However, I think the author has gone reaching for the finish line before starting the race.

First and foremost, we must reduce our overall consumption of energy and dramatically increase energy efficiency. It is in this area that the "low hanging fruit" lies. Energy consumption and efficiency can be reduced by low cost, easy measures. An example of this is the reaction to the US after the 1973 oil shock. Between 1980 and 1990, fuel efficiency almost doubled (see the wikipedia cite for a bit of info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy).

Other such technologies that are cheap, and currently availiable include solar hot water, more efficient appliances etc. One of the simplest ways to reduce energy demand is to reduce standby power consumption. This is responsible for about 10% of household energy consumption, and can suck large percentages (as high as 13% of off peak load). And initiative to reudce standby power consumption (such as the One Watt initiative) can save a lot of power at virtually no cost to the economy. Actually, it may save alot of dosh!

As for nuclear power, I reject it based on three things:

1. It is not energy efficient. Nuclear material must be mined, milled, enriched and processed before it can generate electricity. All of this is very energy intensive. As is building a power plant. It can take as much as 30 years for the plant to "pay" the CO2 back. See the study by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2003) http://www.stormsmith.nl/

2. The waste. There is still no proven, safe method for dealing with the stuff.

3. Uranium is a finite resource. Based on current estimates, the stuff will last, at current rates of consumption, at least 85 years. New uranium deposites will be found, certainly. But in the nuclear renaissance, consumption will surely increase. It is likely that we would have only 100 years of fuel.

I don't think we can, or should rely on nuclear energy.

Fester, you are absolutely right.

We should be talking about all the options - not just nuke as per article.

My post is really to get the discussion going - thanks for being a part of it.

I would still like to see answers to probing questions though - "clean coal" is also not the only answer.

ChrisC,
I agree with your assessment especially enhancing efficiency of power use; if that is done immmediatly, it buys us some time. Its clear coal is going have to go and whilst I think that current attempts to find a way of using coal and reducing emissions is necessary; it still remains a temporary solution to a long term problem.

Nuclear power is out for the reasons that you have outlined. My pet power source is thermal and you hear very little about it; certainly not from our poltical leaders. It's a energy source dependant upon the gravitational dynamics of the earth and the planets in our vicinity; it is clean and available to all countries and economies, regardless of their development level. Its only by product would be steam and that can be recycled.

My concern with this climate change phenomena is the international ramifications of climate change. Some countries are going to come under incredible pressures as their populations retreat to shrinking land masses of their sovereign state. It will unleash a wave of massive global migration not seen since the days of the Roman Empire.

The economic costs of this change could easily push us into eternal conflict, war, depression, pandemic plagues etc.

If we can provide very cheap power to a place like Bangladesh, we can at least give their government a fighting chance to deal with the problem locally.

Only thermal power is accessible to everyone cheaply, regardless of their geogrphic location.

So difficult to get the solutions to greenhouse. Should we use solar, nuclear, hot rocks, drive less, turn off the lights? All very difficult decisions.

One thing is for sure, though. While we are working through all these ideas we need to make sure that we increase the population as fast as possible. Lets bring in as many immigrants as we can and lets give anybody who wants to have a baby $5000, as a reward for increasing the population. That will help solve our energy and greenhouse problems, there is no doubt about that.

We are humans. Our species is special. We've got to do everything we can to increase our numbers as high as we can. If other species fall by the wayside, or even if our ancestors fall by the wayside, who cares, we are the greatest and we need to try to make sure there are more of us great things on the earth. That is how you really make a great planet. You cram it full of as many of your species as possible.

Maybe we can reduce greenhouse a little and make energy last a little longer so that we can cram some more people on to the planet. That would be good.

Ericc

I am recently new to The Forum. From your comments above, is it your intention to derail the topic? Your point is?

Having a difference of opinion is ok - it doesn't help to be vitriolic.

To quote an earlier post of yours in a different forum;

"The easiest method for control of greenhouse emissions is population stabilisation. Stop the baby bonus and have net zero immigration. Then start working on renewables, carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc. Nobody has come up with a cheap reliable method of nuclear waste disposal or decommissioning a nuclear power plant all around the world. If it is so simple as the Ziggy Switkowski committee says, why not give us the details."

Please, if this is your contribution - say so, rather than making flippant remarks. If you have been there and done that, great - contribute again or stay out of it. But some of us haven't, on this forum anyway.

I appreciate EricC's posts. Invariably they contain material pertinent to the issue at hand. They are helpful to an unusual degree, for this forum, in their provision of good data and quality reasoning.
His latest post is to be commended for highlighting the hypocrisy which lies in debating the problems of energy supply and climate change in isolation from their ultimate drivers - the promotion of growth in consumer spending, and of its mutipier - population growth.