Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Dr. James Hansen’s Nuke Problem

Dr. James Hansen has repeatedly billed himself as an advocate of nuclear power.

Yet sometimes things are so far removed from reality as to not be what they appear to be.

Hansen published an article with three co-writers Thursday in The Guardian. It advocates nukes as a solution to global warming. All have impressive resumes in the fight to save the Earth. But their argument for nukes makes sense only as parody.

Consider this direct quote: “A build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050.”

61 new reactors per year! But that’s just for starters.

Another 54 new reactors per year must cover “population growth and development in poorer countries.”

So “this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonize the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario,” the authors said in The Guardian article.

“We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years,” they said.

Yikes! Breathe deep! Or be awestruck by the brilliance of the parody.

Right now less than 440 commercial reactors more or less operate worldwide, depending on how one counts those shut since Fukushima.

Now multiply 115 new reactors a year from now until 2050. Can you do it with a straight face?

Team Hansen provides no calculations on the cost, size or reliability of these projected nukes.

We do hear about “next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle.”

But none exist today.

None could be designed, financed or built in time to save us from climate chaos. All would drain the on-going boom in wind and solar.

And, what about: Raw materials? Construction capacity? Siting? Regulation? (think China) Insurance? Ecological impacts? Heat emissions? Terror threats? (think ISIS) Decommissioning?

How about cooling water? Massive marine die-offs and ecological imbalance are standard wherever nukes operate. On a warming planet, is there really enough cold water to cool all these thermal monsters? Is creating these gargantuan quantities of waste heat really how we want to fight global warming? Where are the out-take pipes on solar panels and wind mills?

How goes it with reactors currently under construction, like Finland, Flamanville, Vogtle and DC Summer?

Does Dr. Hansen embrace current reactor designs?

If so, what do we do about: California’s Diablo Canyon (surrounded by earthquake faults), Ohio’s Davis-Besse (crumbling) and New York’s Indian Point (unlicensed and uninsured)?

Consider that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission staff has just recommended a $3.9 billion ratepayer bailout to keep both Davis-Besse and several ancient coal burners online for at least eight more years. What do we do about that?

James Hansen published an article with three co-writers Thursday in The Guardian. It advocates nukes as a solution to global warming.The Guardian article likes the “ramp-up” in Sweden and France. But both are now ramping down.

Nuke waste “does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards.” But we’re assured that “technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely” do exist.

Really? Where are the prototypes? The track records? How is Yucca Mountain doing?

We’re told those who advocate a 100 percent renewable solution to power our world “ignore the intermittency issue.” We Solartopians make “unrealistic technical assumptions” and want a mix that “can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power.”

Yet the paradigm shift is everywhere.

Prices for wind and solar plummet while nuke costs soar. Installed wind and solar capacities soar while nuke projections wallow in delay and debt.

Germany’s masterful Energiewende and the startling rise of rooftop solar and next generation wind are just the tip of an iceberg. Only decentralized renewables and increased efficiency can save us.

And then there are the batteries. And the revolution in demand management.

The case Team Hansen makes for nukes demands at least three blind eyes: one to current reactor realities (catastrophic), another to the timeline necessary to solve climate chaos (desperate), a third to what’s really happening in renewables and efficiency (spectacular).

We certainly are indebted to Dr. Hansen and his co-authors for their years of service to the environment and waking up the world to the devastating impacts of global warming.

Now we are thankful again for this latest thorough and convincing argument that the atomic fiasco must end.

More articles by:

Harvey Wasserman wrote SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth. His Green Power & Wellness Show is at www.prn.fm

Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
Victor Grossman
A Big Rally and a Bavarian Vote
James Bovard
Groped at the Airport: Congress Must End TSA’s Sexual Assaults on Women
Jeff Roby
Florida After Hurricane Michael: the Sad State of the Unheeded Planner
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Bradley Kaye
The Policy of Policing
Wim Laven
The Catholic Church Fails Sexual Abuse Victims
Kevin Cashman
One Year After Hurricane Maria: Employment in Puerto Rico is Down by 26,000
Dr. Hakim Young
Nonviolent Afghans Bring a Breath of Fresh Air
Karl Grossman
Irving Like vs. Big Nuke
Dan Corjescu
The New Politics of Climate Change
John Carter
The Plight of the Pyrenees: the Abandoned Guard Dogs of the West
Ted Rall
Brett Kavanaugh and the Politics of Emotion-Shaming
Graham Peebles
Sharing is Key to a New Economic and Democratic Order
Ed Rampell
The Advocates
Louis Proyect
The Education Business
David Yearsley
Shock-and-Awe Inside Oracle Arena
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail