World Wildlife Fund: Why not nuclear power?

[kristopher]

The nuclear industry's attempt to group nuclear power in with green renewable energy sources because of its current low CO2 emissions doesn't pass muster when seriously examined.

Why not nuclear power?

In the face of growing energy-related problems such as climate change, acid rain and local air pollution, nuclear power has been promoted by interested industries and certain governments as a clean source of energy which could help to reduce energy-related human impact on the environment.

WWF strongly opposes this view.

Solutions to energy-related problems such as global warming can only deliver long-term benefits if they reduce instead of merely displace humanity’s damaging impacts on the environment. Nuclear energy is still unsafe – for both humans and nature. The argument that the world should re-embrace nuclear power is seriously flawed....

snip

...WWF does not believe that nuclear power is the solution to global warming. In fact, WWF has a vision for the future which phases out the use of fossil fuel and nuclear in the share of energy use across the globe. This is both possible and necessary in order to ensure an environmentally sound, secure and peaceful future.

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/nuclear_power/

Few have the luxury of being able to devote our time to gaining the required education to evaluate the claims of the nuclear industry as it tries to lock-in its position as the linchpin of tomorrow's global energy system. Those who do have the time and expertise are very consistent in their conclusion that nuclear power is a poor choice as a solution to climate change and energy security concerns.

The WWF position statement is based on the same concerns about nuclear power that lead off the conclusion of the MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power" - safety, cost, waste, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

[XemaSab]

1. If you have enough time to dick around on DU

you have enough time to educate yourself about power.

[Systematic Chaos]

2. ROFLMAO []D [] []V[] []D

:hug:

[bananas]

7. Unfortunately, many have been mis-educated and misinformed by nuclear industry hype and PR

I said the cost estimates were way too low - I've been proven right.
Warren Buffett, Entergy, Exelon, Constellation all came to the same conclusion.
The CEO of Entergy said it best: "The numbers just don't work".
All we've seen on this forum by pro-nukes is naivety, bad math, wishful thinking, and ad hominems.
Every problem with nuclear energy is met with denial - cost, safety, waste, proliferation, etc.

[joshcryer]

14. Most nuclear power advocates here are against the nuclear industry.

I don't know of one poster here who advocates the nuclear industry as it stands now, that is, an industry that makes money on fuel rods and decrepit plants. In fact, several of them have specifically addressed you to clear up the misinformation you are spreading about them.

You yourself have indirectly made a convincing argument that we need to build new Gen IV power plants.

[kristopher]

15. Sure, we will just wait 30 years for the industry to "mature"

You are serving up a load of bull.

[joshcryer]

18. I think that the nuclear industry should be tossed on its head and new innovative nuclear...

...technologies researched and deployed in the event that renewables are not able to meet the necessary requirements of CO2 abatement below 450 ppm.

[kristopher]

23. Then why are you constantly posting false negative information about renewables?

It is impossible to reconcile your claims like this with your unaltering actions promoting current generation nuclear power while falsely maligning renewable power.

[joshcryer]

24. What false, negative information have I posted about renewables?

Whenever I say anything "negative" about renewables it is merely to give a reality check to the deluded hubris that takes up too many renewable discussions.

When I say "It costs $100 trillion to implement Jacobson's plan." Or when I equate that to 300 Apollo's or 50 WWII's I am talking about reality.

[FBaggins]

40. You don't understand. If it's about renewables and it's negative

... Or even only mildly positive... It is by definition "false"

[Dogmudgeon]

3. The WWF report is from April 2000; it was written by Mycle Schneider at WISE

Leaving aside the artistically badass front page photograph ...

Published April 2000 by WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © text 2000 WWF. All rights reserved.

Schneider lacks the expertise to pass summary judgment on nuclear technology. He has a long history as a propagandist and has done no original research as far as I can tell -- and I've looked for it several times. You might as well cite Franklin Graham as an authority on gay marriage.

They also post a position paper from 2003 which makes assertions that have been refuted so often that it invites ridicule, not analysis. There's also a longish report on their energy "vision" that overlooks a huge amount of scientific work and environmental concerns, even after omitting nuclear energy issues. (Their conclusion: the usual "20% by 2020", with full implementation in seventy years -- and lots of photographs of solar power units and windmills.)

Are you sure you want to represent this as a serious examination?

And, by the way -- the MIT studies support nuclear energy.

--d!

[kristopher]

5. Roflmao

So you maintain that the World Wildlife Fund can't be trusted and that Mycle Schneider lacks the expertise to evaluate nuclear power, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycle_Schneider

Mycle Schneider a nuclear energy analyst based in Paris who has been adviser to members of the European Parliament on energy issues for more than 20 years.<2> From 1998 to 2003, Schneider advised on energy policy for the French environment minister's office and the Belgian minister for energy and sustainable development. Since 2000 he has been a consultant on nuclear issues to the German environment ministry.<2>

Schneider is a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials,<5> and the nuclear non-proliferation group Independent Group of Scientific Experts (IGSE), which is based at Hamburg University.<2><6> Since 2004 he has overseen the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.<3>

Mycle Schneider founded the "citizen's science"<7> group WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003.

...

Schneider writes numerous publications on safety, proliferation and economic trends of the nuclear industry.<2> He is co-editor of the 2009 book International Perspectives on Energy Policy and the Role of Nuclear Power.<9> His World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 was published by the German government.<2>

In your eyes it is clearly far better to trust the nuclear industry.

Thank you for the perspective, but I disagree.

[bananas]

9. IPFM is highly respected, and so is Mycle Schneider; they've earned their respect.

It's kind of sad to see these amateur attempts at swift-boating.
Maybe NEI and H&K will pay better next time.

[txlibdem]

4. Anti-nuke activists cannot be trusted to openly and honestly study any technology

They start with a bias and work backwards from there. The trouble with their anti-nuclear power stance is that it leaves only coal power to provide the massive amounts of electrical power that America and the world needs.

Fears are easy to stoke. Rational thought takes more time, more patience and a lot more mental work for the public to absorb. It's so much easier to give potential donors the "easy" answer, instead of the correct (but harder to explain) one.

At the same time, as discussed in the MIT report The Future of Coal, little progress has been made
in the United States in demonstrating the viability of fossil fuel use with carbon capture and sequestration

When they say "little progress has been made" they must mean zero, because the coal industry has shut down its carbon capture and sequestration test plant. There is no further work being actively done by the coal industry on CCS. How foolish are these people who fight against nuclear power, a source of zero carbon energy that will save species from extinction, when the utility companies have no choice then but to built many more coal power plants to supply the energy demanded by society. Coal plants that are actively destroying habitats and, via ocean acidification, causing the death of corals and potentially thousands of marine creatures that depend on them.

[kristopher]

6. You are attempting exactly what you decry.

You are making an appeal to fear then making a false assertion -

Global warming is a danger. True.

We must have either coal or nuclear. False.

Renewable energy resources are superior to nuclear power in every way except one - they do not enrich and perpetuate the current established electric energy infrastructure anywhere near the way nuclear power can.

Otherwise, nuclear is a loser.

[txlibdem]

10. Everything you wrote is false.

No other way to describe it.

I'm looking for the graph that shows the moon is made of green cheese so I can have a flawed premise to all my posts as well.

Good luck convincing anyone with an IQ that coal is a positive and natural gas is a double positive. You might convince those with a death wish, perhaps.

[joshcryer]

19. Coal is also a double positive on that chart (cogen = coal gasification).

[joshcryer]

20. One might argue that coal is a triple positive, actually.

:rofl:

[bananas]

8. You said so many wrong things it's unbelievable.

[txlibdem]

11. Choose to believe what you wish to believe

I prefer to live in the real world where facts and real issues matter.

Tell your grandchildren, when they learn in school that there *used to be* a state called Florida, and a City of Venice, that you just couldn't believe in facts or the truth. I wonder what their reply will be.

[joshcryer]

21. Feel free to provide substance rather than a blank allegation.

[GliderGuider]

12. Oh dear, sooo close yet sooo far...

"Solutions to energy-related problems such as global warming can only deliver long-term benefits if they reduce instead of merely displace humanity’s damaging impacts on the environment."

This is absolutely, undeniably true. Unfortunately, the problem with the conclusion they drew is that nuclear power in fact completely meets this criterion.

The primary damaging effect that humans have on their environment is the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear power undeniably reduces this impact, and does not "merely displace" it.

The second most damaging impact humans have on the environment is the generalized ecological damage we do to other species habitats through non-FF-related activities like agriculture, mining, and the building of human habitat. Nuclear power is much less damaging in this regard than other technologies like hydro, wind or solar, because nuclear power requires much less material (i.e. concrete and steel) and much lower land use per unit of energy generated.

According to this viewpoint, WWF should be solidly behind nuclear power. Nuclear power produces very little CO2 or other waste, results in very few human deaths, requires much less material and land than wind power, and has much lower impact on the habitat of other species. This is in addition to it being compact and extremely functional from a human perspective - it has very high availability and reliability, and is easy to integrate into the current grid structure, making it less impactful overall than other more diffuse and variable energy sources like solar and wind.

WWFs objections are purely ideological. They are not grounded in fact, reason, practicality or even concern for the wildlife they claim to represent.

[kristopher]

13. Your claim that nuclear is clean is contradicted by peer reviewed literature

You produce a lot of garbage that is aimed at supporting nuclear, and that is the basis of the problem with your "analysis" - they are designed to support support a predetermined conclusion, not to arrive at objective information that will actually inform the decision making process/



http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security†
Mark Z. Jacobson*
Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148–173 This journal is a The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, 94305-4020, USA.
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Derivation of
results used for this study. See DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering impacts of the solutions on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, reliability, thermal pollution, water pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. To place electricity and liquid fuel options on an equal footing, twelve combinations of energy sources and vehicle type were considered. The overall rankings of the combinations (from highest to lowest) were
(1) wind-powered battery-electric vehicles (BEVs),
(2) wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,
(3) concentrated-solar-powered-BEVs,
(4) geothermal-powered-BEVs,
(5) tidal-powered-BEVs,
(6) solar-photovoltaic-powered-BEVs,
(7) wave-powered-BEVs,
(8) hydroelectric-powered-BEVs,
(9-tie) nuclear-powered-BEVs, (9-tie) coal-with-carbon-capture-powered-BEVs,
(11) corn-E85 vehicles, and
(12) cellulosic-E85 vehicles.

The relative ranking of each electricity option for powering vehicles also applies to the electricity source providing general electricity. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, etc.) exist to power the world for the foreseeable future, the results suggest that the diversion to less-efficient (nuclear, coal with carbon capture) or non-efficient (corn- and cellulosic E85) options represents an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to global warming and air pollution mortality. The sound implementation of the recommended options requires identifying good locations of energy resources, updating the transmission system, and mass-producing the clean energy and vehicle technologies, thus cooperation at multiple levels of government and industry.

Paper available for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

[joshcryer]

17. If you assume a longer lifecycle that Gen IV would enjoy, Jacobson's own numbers equates nuclear...

...with hydro.

[GliderGuider]

22. I don't claim that nuclear power is "clean"

No generation technology is clean in any absolute sense of the word.

What I do believe is that nuclear power is a better overall form of electricity generation than wind.

• Nuclear power produces relatively little carbon dioxide, even over the entire life cycle of the technology. More than wind, but much, much less than coal;
  
• Nuclear power is relatively safe (and getting safer all the time). Though still not as safe as wind at the moment, it’s certainly it’s much, much safer than the coal it would supplant;
  
• Nuclear power uses less land, steel and concrete per MWh of produced electricity than wind;
  
• The capital cost of new wind and nuclear power, when corrected for capacity factor, is about the same. However, given the shorter life cycle, the requirement for capital re-investment in wind may be twice that of nuclear;
  
• Nuclear power integrates more easily than wind into current large-scale power grids;
  
• Nuclear power requires less peaking capacity support due to its base load characteristics;
  
• Nuclear power can replace coal-fired generators directly due to its similar generation characteristics.

Wind, on the other hand, can potentially achieve lower operational CO2 outputs, doesn’t produce waste that needs to be stored, and is somewhat safer. Wind power may be able, in time, to overcome some of the other disadvantages I’ve described above, but for me, right now, current implementations of nuclear power are where I’d prefer to put my anti-global-warming dollars.

[joshcryer]

16. Why not nuclear power?

Their first objection alleges that nuclear power poses a "huge safety risk," discusses mining, handling, and reprocessing, is highly toxic for thousands of years.

Gen IV nuclear power does not require mining. You either use depleted uranium or you use thorium, along with nuclear waste that we have in storage containers around the country. LFTR itself has online reprocessing advantages that allows chemical separation of wastes, so that reprocessing is not necessary. Waste is solidified and shipped to a storage facility (perhaps on site or perhaps in the deep oceans), where most of its radioactivity is gone in 400 years or so. IFR burns up virtually all of the nuclear waste, and uses on site electrolytic reprocessing. Gen IV nuclear 1, WWF 0.

The second allegation is solely focused on Gen II/III/III+ reactors, that use up a fraction of the energy in the fuels used in Gen IV, which leave behind copious amounts of nuclear waste.

Gen IV burns up nuclear waste, and its waste products last around 400 years, this is in stark contrast to the CO2 which we are emitting into the atmosphere, whose effects will last tens of thousand of years.

The third allegation is that investments in nuclear can drain funds from renewables.

Fair enough. But all investments in any technology that reduces CO2 output is desirable.

Their fourth allegation is that nuclear is baseload but offers no incentive for energy savings.

This is weird, because the argument makes little sense. If you do not have baseload you do not have a grid. Energy savings comes about through government incentivization, not through a grid that punishes people for using energy "wrong."

[kristopher]

25. Centralized generation results in expanded energy use...

...as the sellers of power attempt to expand their profits. It is the biggest problem facing energy conservation and efficiency efforts.

Due to its structure centralized generation always has been, is, and always will be a regulated monopoly. The method of recouping costs involves allowing a limited set profit based on the cost to provide electricity; usually cost plus 6% or so.

The incentive to increase profits is therefore directly related to spending - the more they spend the more profit they make.

Distributed generation makes the end user responsible for investment in generation to meet their specific needs with the opportunity to sell excess to others via a smart grid.

The shift results in a direct economic incentive for energy efficiency and conservation.

This is very, very basic knowledge for energy analysts. If you are missing fundamental things like this you really are not equipped to judge energy policy.

[GliderGuider]

26. Interesting. Has this principle been validated experimentally anywhere?

?

[kristopher]

27. Isn't 100 years of practical experience globally enough?

It is economic behavior that undisputed.

[GliderGuider]

28. "Heavy objects fall faster than light ones" was undisputed too

until Galileo actually did the experiment.

Show me something peer reviewed...

Or at least a paper that describes the undisputed mechanism in detail as it relates to electrical power generation. Unless you can do that, it looks suspiciously like a theory made up by an economist to validate his preconceived opinions.

[kristopher]

29. So NOW you are open to peer review?

Funny how you always dismiss it in favor of your gut whenever it is convenient for you.

What we are talking about is similar to the dilemma created by having highways funded with gasoline taxes while trying to move away from gasoline. In that case the perverse incentive works to create a shortfall of funding if the policy objective of moving to electric vehicles is achieved.

When the problem in the electric industry is written about it is in my experience most often in the context of trying to find a way to allow utilities to meet their obligations if they implement strong energy efficiency measures (YMMV). I don't know of a paper that I can post that specifically focuses on this point but it is a fundamental element in the regulation of utilities so you should be able to find it discussed (not focused on) in various places like DOE, ORNL, FERC and NREL.
Here is a snip from one brief article out of Oak Ridge: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/uti.htm

Why Utilities Run DSM Programs
At first glance, it seems ridiculous for a company to encourage its customers to use less of its product. Does General Motors urge us to carpool and keep our cars longer? Does Pizza Hut tell us to eat more vegetables and fruits and avoid fatty cheeses and meats?
Electric utilities are different in three ways. First, they are regulated monopolies. If you don't like Sony stereos, you can always buy from Zenith or Panasonic. But if you don't like your local utility, you have to move outside its service area to be able to buy electricity from another entity. Because of utilities' monopoly status, they are regulated by state agencies, the public utility commissions. Second, electricity is considered a necessity "clothed with the public interest." Third, the production and transmission of electricity cause serious environmental problems, including emissions of greenhouse gases.
Utility experience during the past several years shows that DSM programs provide resources that cost-effectively substitute for power plants. That is, direct-load-control programs and interruptible rates provide the same types of services that a combustion turbine does but at lower cost. Similarly, energy-efficiency programs are often low-cost alternatives to the construction and operation of baseload coal and nuclear plants.
The recognition that DSM is a "resource," analogous to power plants, led to a new way of planning for electric utilities, called integrated resource planning (IRP). IRP involves utility consideration of a broad array of ways to meet customer energy-service needs, rather than only building and operating power plants. Utilities now consider purchasing electricity from other utilities and from nonutility entities, repowering and extending the life of existing plants, DSM programs, transmission and distribution improvements, and pricing as alternative ways to meet the growing demand for energy services.

Some questions that you don't need to answer point by point, they are really just to guide the thought process:
1) Why are utilities regulated?
2) How are their profits determined by the regulators?
3) What is the basis of their revenue stream?
4) What happens to their obligations if their revenue stream declines due to reduced consumption as a result of mandated energy efficiency measures?
5) With all other things being equal how does anyone make more money selling less product?
6) What are the differences between large scale thermal and renewable energy projects in how economies of scale are achieved?

We can provide regulatory patches such as demand side management but those cases where that is most valuable are for avoiding having to build new large scale thermal generation. If large scale generation *is* built (such as nuclear), it needs to be paid for - and that drives utilities to fight energy efficiency measures as strongly as they can.

The cases like PG&E where there has been success in broadly reducing consumption are tied to commitments to exploit renewable energy resources. (And even they are hamstrung by the need to balance increased rates for reduced consumption against their existing financial commitments.) Overall utilities spend only around 1% of their money on reducing consumption; efforts that are based on avoided costs criteria with targets that seldom result in significant long term deflections of the demand curve.

To achieve those reductions we need to bring the consumer closer to the *total* costs of generation or to have regulators that are strongly committed to the goal over a long period of time. Some examples of measures that move in the consumer direction are time of day pricing or readouts on appliances that give instant feedback on the costs of running them. The smart grid will help a lot in widespread implementation of those information based measures.

As far as long term sustained effort by a national/global hodgepodge of regulators it is, quite frankly, nearly impossible to imagine.

Of course, the best way to bring the consumer closer to the total costs of their electricity is when they generate it themselves as part of a distributed grid.

[GliderGuider]

30. I wanted to see something more than just your assertion.

At first glance I have three thoughts:

First off, the ORNL article you linked seems to say that large centralized utilities can indeed operate successful end-user efficiency programs. A lot depends on the strength of the regulators and the pressure from the community to reduce end-user costs. It doesn't provide much support for the idea that small, distributed generation environment would be better at that.

The second is that this seems to be the age-old argument about which works better to change the behaviours of producers and consumers - regulation or market forces. You seem to prefer market forces, I prefer regulation. I think that regulation is more transparent and controllable. Both approaches can be subverted, of course.

The third thought came up when I read this line from the ORNL article: Increasing competition is driving down the cost of new supply options, which makes DSM less cost effective and exerts strong pressure to keep retail prices low.

As the cost of energy goes down, it allows people up to use more of it. It's reminiscent of a certain paradox we've discussed before. In order to avoid this rebound effect it seems that there are two main approaches. One is to control supply through regulation, the other is to reduce demand either through education or price supports. It's a tightrope act, and I suspect that in the end there are no easy solutions given human nature and the way our economic system incentivizes growth. I prefer the regulatory approach, because I like keeping the bastards where I can see them. So from that perspective I have no problem with regulated monopolies providing a major public good like electricity.

Plus I have a strong sense that the main reason that renewable electricity promotes efficiency is the simple fact that it's more expensive than than its centralized counterpart...

[joshcryer]

38. "Increasing competition is driving down the cost of new supply options"

That's an obscene thought. But you have to recognize that if it's "renewable" then it doesn't matter if people are overconsumers.

Leave the lights on! It's renewable! :puke:

[joshcryer]

33. Energy use has topped off in developed countries and efficiency has slowly taken over.

Your argument falls flat.

[GliderGuider]

34. It's kind of like what's happened to population growth.

Maybe the developed countries have topped out in a broad sense?

[joshcryer]

35. Partially, developed countries have flat or nearly flat population growth.

But in the US population has still grown (more from immigration and their children) but we saw a dramatic increase in energy efficiency with appliance and housing standards. But there's plenty of room to grow. If just the efficiency part of Waxman-Markey were to be implemented, we'd even use less energy than we currently do.

What's ironic about this specious argument trying to relate centralized grids to growth is that the WEO projects wind will be providing much of our energy and our energy use will be going up. And that is backed up by empirical studies with peer reviewed data.

And, oh, WEO projects that we will hardly make a dent in global emissions even with all that wind...

[GliderGuider]

37. Here's a graph of the energy use in developed nations.

Perhaps kristopher could speak to it.

[FBaggins]

32. Do you even know what's behind that statement?

Sure... centralized generation "results in" expanded use of energy... indirectly. But you have cause and effect entirely mixed up.

Take it at the micro level. Two homes exist side by side. One uses electricity (generated centrally) for everything (heat/cooling, hot water, appliances, entertainment, lighting, etc.) - the other is a brand new green home. Smart passive heating/cooling built into the design... solar hot water... wind and solar for electricity generation.

Will the traditional home use more power? Absolutely. But is it because the power is generated centrally? Well... if you recognize in the question that underlying that statement is the fact that their power usage is only limited by their checkbook and their desires... sure. But the real comparison is in the other home.

The green home uses less power, at least in part, because it doesn't have a choice. You'll wash dishes by hand after dinner or leave them until morning because you don't have the power to run the dishwasher at night. You'll bathe in the evening because you don't have enough hot water in the morning after a cold night. You'll get under another couple blankets late at night because you don't have the option of turning the heat up without going outside for more wood. You'll watch less television because you're budgeting the remaining kwh in your battery for something more important. You'll read during the day rather than at night because you don't want to burn battery power for lighting without need.

It's the same life we lead when living on a sailboat for a week. You have power for the radio/GPS/instruments/etc, but you manage it very carefully. If the weather report says that it's going to rain for the next couple days, you darn sure don't turn the lights on at night because you might need that power in a couple days. Life changes... but you are consuming far less.

At the macro level, this deception is built in to most of your arguments. Occasionally going without significant power is "worth it" to have a green society. It's expected that people will change their behaviors to match a cleaner, more sustainable, way of living. Shifting to local produce just means that people will have to get used to the fact (again) that you just can't have fresh blueberries in Ohio in January. The lifestyle is better for you and the rest of society... you just have to recognize that some things need to be sacrificed for that "better".


And that's all well and good as long as you aren't lying about your motivations and assumptions. Let us not pretend that consumption is due to the greedy power companies somehow brainwashing us to buy more of their product. The reverse is true... they sell more of their product because we greedily elect to over-consume. There's really only one group trying to control others' behavior for their own priorities and it isn't the power company. It's you.

[joshcryer]

36. Decentralized expansion results in more energy use!

:sarcasm:

For perspective, they project we'll be using approximately 500 TWh less coal by 2035. Currently we use around 2,000 TWh of coal annually: http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

So in 2035 the united states will be using 1,500 TWh of coal, as projected by the WEO, even with all that wind. A 25% reduction.

Or about 8.2 billion tonnes of CO2 will still be released (compared to the 11 billion coal releases now).

*sigh*

No wonder Hansen is for nuclear.

[FBaggins]

31. Lol! You didn't seriously just refer to the WWF as...

..."those who have the time and expertise to evaluate the claims of the nuclear industry", did you?

Tell me you were just setting up a great straight line intentionally... please.

Do they even have a single physicist on their staff? Anyone who took physics in high school?

[joshcryer]

39. Like most NGOs, their board is composed almost entirely of business people.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/board/index.html

However, they do have a bunch of experts listed: http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/experts/index.html

Not one of which is a physicist. What's more alarming to me, as I went through their experts page, is that they have only one real climatologist and a total of three who focus on that area. Out of 58 experts. Wow.

[FBaggins]

41. I'm not knocking the WWF

They should, after all, be focused on plants and animals and the environments that they live in. Biology... not physics.

No... what I'm knocking is the ridiculous claim that they "have the time and expertise to evaluate the claims of the nuclear industry". They don't. They merely agree with kris' position (which is his litmus test for expertise).

Poor kris turns logic on its head and doesn't even realize it. Rather than look for those who know what they're talking about and listen to their opinion... he looks for people who share his opinions and imagines that they're the experts. As soon as you knock nuclear power, you become credible... but no matter how credible your credentials, as soon as you support the use of nuclear energy, you're (by definition) not credible. He says this almost directly in a couple posts above. An anti-nuke activist is cited as a credible source and his credibility is supported by the fact that he's been an activist for a number of anti-nuke organizations - not that he had a resume that actually put him in a position to evaluate the science of nuclear power.