Nuclear is NOT "zero carbon." Far from it.

I don't fear nuclear power if done right (which would be some type of modern breeder) but, note that it takes a lot of carbon to mine uranium (no electric powered monster scoops, etc.), a LOT of carbon for concrete containment domes, etc. So, your second link, calling nuclear "zero-carbon," just isn't correct.

Oh, and Shellenberger (and Nordhaus) have a tech-neoliberal version of environmentalism that I don't recognize.

I think it's worth recognising what Shellenburger's view is.

It's that the idea of living "in harmony" with nature, that is, assuming we can interact with all of nature in a non-damaging way, is a sham. There are too many of us for this to work. Like, billions too many. The numbers don't add up.

Instead, we need to limit our impact on nature by limiting our footprint. It is better to build nuclear power stations that occupy a tiny area than huge monocultural plantations of biomass to get the same amount of energy. It is better to use intensive agriculture on less land than so-called "organic" over more.

Nuclear power is low carbon (I see someone else has already linked to the IPCC figures - please tell me you're not some oil-funded hack who rejects the IPCC), and its risk is a minimal one to human health, but not the the environment. That Chernobyl - the worst nuclear accident that is ever likely to happen - is a biodiversity paradise now without people there is evidence for the position.

In a carbon-based economy, nothing is zero carbon, but it is still possible to establish which generators are insignificant emitters of carbon dioxide over their whole lifecycle, The European Union studied a range of "external costs" of many processes and activities, including energy production.

The results of considering the lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions of various power generation options (p17):

Coal: 1070-1230 g/kWh
Nat Gas: 423-640 g/kWh
Solar PV: 34-54 g/kWh
Wind: 10-13 g/kWh
Nuclear: 5-8 g/kWh
Hydro: 4 g/kWh

So over its lifecycle of energy inputs of various sorts, nuclear is among the best in the non-combustion pack, and certainly way better than any fossil fuel option.

It's a mistake to take an anti-technology approach to environmentalism, unless you also wish to be anti-human.

"we can’t achieve our clean-energy goals by relying heavily on solar and wind because they are intermittent energy sources that require backup power from fossil fuels on days when the weather isn’t cooperating."
"to solve the world’s biggest environmental problem say that nuclear power is the best approach to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."
"In fact, it’s a key part of the answer to climate change."
http://www.columbiatribune....

Good grief! all the bovine stuff that people use to distract from the issues.

Nuclear is short of fuels in ten years.

Really folks. Ten years. Do any of you understand that? Or is denial your only recourse? The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTC...
"As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand."
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.

The IAEA folks! really! when is that going to sink in?

Same conclusion: http://www.sciencedirect.co...

http://energywatchgroup.org...

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04...

Whenever the pro nuclear fan lose the argument on current, real nuclear power,
they immediately switch to fantasy mode with Seawater, breeders,
liquid core reactors, thorium, small reactors, whatever the current
popular nuclear science fiction is pushing.

It's kind of amazing how they continue to pretend these are real commercial viable tech, instead of 60 year old research projects, that have huge problems, cost many times as much, and all still produce deadly wastes, in slightly varying amounts.

https://daryanenergyblog.wo...

Newer reactors are able to produce more fissile material than they consume, generating carbon-free, safe, ecologically-friendly energy forever.
http://www.3rd1000.com/nucl...
http://www.world-nuclear.or...

Notice the completely information absent reply.

Denial is their only recourse.

Denial probably pays well. Nuclear industry spends billions of dollars per year on pr and influence.

I wonder where it goes? Don't you?

"Nuclear is short of fuels in ten years"
Self repeating a lie until it becomes a truly truest truth, at least to yourself it works.

"I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce"
"The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all"
http://www.theguardian.com/...

Why do you waste our time?

The climate models aren't wrong. You totally miss understand science if you think small errors in the extent of warming mean the models are invalid.

Heat content of the oceans is all that matters, and it has gone up right along with GHG since the 60's.

Temperature does not matter. Please study chemistry again.

Ice volume has also dropped. Extent does not matter.

Highest co2 in 15 million years, enough to raise CO2 level in urban areas and inside to level that are proven to impair thinking and cause fatigue and pain.

Fossils use emits 400 times all the volenoces combined.

Go outside, get some fresh air if you can find it, and think again.

What a surprise, the crazies believe what they want, not what the evidence shows. They think air temperature matters. Air temperature is a couple of percent of the earths total heat content. Not only that, they think winter temperature matter as if it wouldn't be the yearly average.

I thought you lived in Hawaii? -5F?

I think each of his aliases lives in different regions of the world.
That's what you can do if you are a millionaire who has done vital work for the NSA.

I think each live in different parts of his psyche. I'm waiting for them to start having arguments with each other like drunken frat boys.

'So the individual countries’ plans are voluntary, but the legal requirements that they publicly monitor, verify and report what they are doing, as well as publicly put forth updated plans, are designed to create a “name-and-shame” system of global peer pressure, in hopes that countries will not want to be seen as international laggards.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015...

We get to decide how we respond to the task, so there is plenty of leeway. Perhaps we can develop new technology that will make this transition nearly painless?

http://nextbigfuture.com/20...

Looks rather like an opportunity to produce vast amounts of wealth.

Also, vehicle electrification is moving along quite rapidly, and numerous states should be able to extend some emissions reduction to the transportation sector by leveraging their grid's already low emissions.

http://www.eia.gov/environm...

Some people will be willing to accept a lifestyle change to help us meet emission goals, but the vast majority should be inconvenienced as little as possible. Rest assured, if the transition remains inconvenient and costly, our chances for successful global mitigation will be low. Innovation will be critical.

Trust someone whose very identity is a lie? I don't think so, I have over 35 years experience as a qualified radiation worker, I am a technician who calibrates radiation monitors and safety equipment and I live within 3 miles of the nuclear power plant where I work. I post under my real name only, the one on my drivers licence. I have yet to see PacE tell the whole truth. Pace is one of multiple aliases including; NukePro, SteveO, Steve, Frank Energy, and a few others, mostly as an attempt to drive "traffic" to his personal web site. I do not trust him and I wouldn't advise trusting him in any endeavor. Just click on his name and see his openness, then click on my name and see all my posts.

Just click on his avatar, or look up Frank Energy or NukePro or any of his other aliases then decide if you want to believe... Science is a method of finding truth, not a belief system.

Click on his "name" and see how open and truthful he is, then click on my name and read all my posts. You decide who you should believe.

The truth, an inconvenient truth: renewable energy has killed more people than nuclear.
http://www.newsbusters.org/...
"That brings us to the second inconvenient truth: Nuclear power is the world’s most abundant and scalable carbon-free energy source."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/...
"an inconvenient truth of their own: mountains of hazardous waste being created by the production of solar panels."
"fueled by government incentives, production of solar panels has skyrocketed in recent years, and in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water have also been produced."
http://oilprice.com/Alterna...
http://www.greenbiz.com/blo...
"The truth of the matter is that, for all of the cost declines in renewable energy production, wind and solar power are necessarily intermittent."
"Nuclear produces virtually no pollution by volume compared with any other energy source and is vastly more efficient in terms of materials and land used."
"The irony of the nuclear power issue is that, for all of the concerns over nuclear power accidents, there are actually very few deaths associated with nuclear."
"For instance, no one has died in the wake of the Fukushima plant accident, the worst accident in a generation. The World Health Organization reported that health risks are minimal from the “disaster” in fact."
http://oilprice.com/Alterna...
"Wind turbines’ inconvenient truth"
http://www.senatorbobday.co...
death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
https://a.disquscdn.com/upl...
http://thoriummsr.com/wp-co...
http://nuclear-economics.co...
http://nuclear-economics.com

Lets look at the facts; I post under my own name.. PacE is one of many aliases Nukepro uses to lure people to his website. PacE is a science denier and conspiracy theorist. I work as an instrumentation technician and have been a qualified radiation worker for over 35 years. I am not paid to post while PacE earns a small stipend for each click on his personal website. PacE claims to be a millionaire in Hawaii, I am a blue collar worker who chooses to work at a nuclear power plant because it's safer, cleaner and more satisfying People can trust science or science denial it's their choice...

Stop with the fantasy, a world powered by unicorn fart energy.
"Experts warn renewable energy sources offer too little, too late, while anti-nuclear stance increases burning of fossil fuels"
"Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer too little, too late, and the anti-nuclear stance of some countries and almost all environmentalists will only drive many nations towards burning more coal, oil and gas, they warned."
http://www.independent.co.u...

Wind/solar cartel, multi trillion dollars in intermittent/unreliable unicorn energy.
"Using current energy market parameters as as benchmark, the total price tag for Energiewende would likely be about €1.1 trillion"
"Germany’s electricity prices are already double those in the U.S. and France."
"The price of going green keeps rising. No one knows for sure how much rewiring Europe’s economic engine will cost in the end, just that it will be a fortune."
"Those market forces have pushed wholesale price for a kilowatt-hour of electricity in Germany to less than 3 cents. The price guarantee for power from a wind turbine or solar installation is usually a multiple of that."
"Meanwhile, countries such as the U.K., and even Japan, continue to see a future for nuclear power."
http://www.politico.eu/arti...
"Europe’s Solar Cartel Enforcers Struggle to Keep Prices High"
"In all seriousness, green industrial policy has become a global problem that will only grow as long as governments find the benefits of free trade in wind and solar power equipment less appealing than doling out privilege through managed trade."
http://www.cato.org/blog/eu...

'Carbon, specifically CO2, aka plant food is not correlated or causative of "global warming".'

This claim is complete nonsense. CO2 is characterized as a 'throttle' of global temperature, driving the evaporation of water. Without it, the surface of the Earth would be mostly frozen. Sure, it is essential to plant life, just as bicarbonates are to shelled sea life. But, raising CO2 too quickly for natural sequestration processes can lead to a host of problems for us from rising sea level, crop failure, and ocean acidification. Establishing energy policy around the carbon cycle is a way for us to mitigate risk over the coming decades to centuries.

For the curious, I highly recommend The Discovery of Global Warming (hosted at the American Institute of Physics): https://www.aip.org/history...

Climate scientists speak out on the importance of nuclear power:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Be aware PacE is an alias for NukePro and he is attempting to increase traffic at his personal website, I believe that is one definition of "SPAM"

"It is not correlated or causitive[sic]."

Actually, if you take the time to read the text I suggested, you will find that it fully addresses your claims. Climate science as a discipline developed out of the desire to understand the mechanism behind the glacial periods in Earth's history. Many counterarguments have arisen over the past century, and the one you are touting today is quite old. It presupposes that CO2's warming effect quickly saturates in the atmosphere. The flaw with that approach lies in a misconception of radiative physics. Read more about the science history here:

https://www.aip.org/history...

The basic science of climate is not in dispute as you are claiming.

The good thing about all of this is that there is an incredible opportunity. A rapid deployment of sustainable energy will require unprecedented economic performance, something in excess to what was witnessed with fossils and electrification in the 20th Century. This will have the effect of addressing both climate and economics simultaneously. Nuclear power's potential has to date been mostly untapped, but long neglected technology is now getting a new look (the Obama administration has been very receptive). We have also seen a few advances in the capture and sequestration of carbon from fossil fuels which may find application (we can now crack H2 from methane leaving solid carbon, instead of combusting it to CO2). We should be thankful that our institutions have proven their worth, with previous administrations shepherding the long development process of much needed technology. Any future administration must build upon this wise legacy.

"Our actual measurements of CO2 and temperature..."

Firstly, if you are referring to the so-called 'warming hiatus', you should note that cherry picking data points beginning with the 1997 El Nino anomaly will 'flatten' the trend due to decadal oscillations. Waiting longer will inevitably strengthen the trend, as will picking an earlier starting point. Climate is fundamentally a chaotic system and temperature trends, particularly local ones, will not directly follow GHG concentration on shorter timescales.

Also, the GHG effect was recently directly measured:

"They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world."

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

MIT's Dr. Kerry Emmanuel discusses what is currently known about global warming:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

PacE, your outrageous claims strongly suggest that you subscribe to a particularly paranoid world view. You masquerade about as an expert in matters with which you are politically inclined to distort. And it is laughable that you are insisting that the scientific community in some kind of massive conspiracy is intentionally obscuring the science of climate in order to push a particular agenda. How can you seriously declare yourself as a beacon of truth?

Might I suggest a proper university level text for getting started on the basics of climate modeling?

The Principles of Planetary Climate @ Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Princ...

Corey...FYI...
Pace is one of the many aliases of one poster who will say anything to drive clicks through to his website.

He is a climate change denier and generally a science denier.

He has been caught red-handed altering the documents he posts on his "NukePro" website as supposed "evidence".

His aliases include...

Nuke Pro, PacE, Frank Energy, SteveO, Steve, steveo77, Clarifier, freshenergy888.

Cheers

That is a lot of aliases!

A few months ago he was using the likeness of Forbes energy author Dr. James Conca, and in recent days he attempted to hijack the name and photo of Richard Martin, author of SuperFuel.

The poor guy wants "energy expert" credibility so bad he is willing to steal it.

Look Frank Energy alias PacE alias NukePro alias SteveO and several other aliases is back trying to trick people into clicking on a link to his personal webpage. As you can see he doesn't believe that climate change is a real problem.

Nuclear power plants provide 2/3 of the low carbon power in the USA. Nuclear power plants have been the safest way to produce electricity per terrawatt-hour. Fukushima radiation has not caused any fatalities and the world health organization predicts no measurable increase in cancer rate. Fukushima has shown us that even with 3 meltdowns there is very little, if any, health effect..New designs of nuclear power plants use passive cooling to ensure safety and future designs will be "walk-away safe" and can use the once used fuel from today's reactors to produce much more electric power. We need clean, reliable energy and nuclear power plants can provide it.

Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years. That's producing only 2% of the world's energy for only 30 years. IAEA: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTC...

Why is nuclear even a thing?

Nuclear power costs 4 times available solar and wind.
http://www.lazard.com/media...

Why is nuclear power still a thing?

Nuclear power takes 12 years average to install, it's not a bridge to anywhere, and it produces no power during those 12 years. Solar and wind are installed in less than a year, residential in weeks, and you get energy right away, cheaper from the start. In 12 years solar will be producing more electricity than the world uses now, at solar pv's current doubling rate. 12 TWp, about 3 TW average. that's 3000 nuclear power plants worth, clean, safe, forever, 95% made from aluminum and glass, totally recyclable.

The price will have dropped by 75% as well. Meanwhile the nuclear power plant that you built will already be short of fuel, and have produced nothing.

Why is nuclear still a thing?

Oh, and radiation cancers are properly calculated using LNT and hot particle analysis, but none of the political or industry groups calculate it that way. They claim another 100 mSv per person won't increase cancers in a population.

http://www.bmj.com/content/...
1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT.

At least 200,000 excess cancer deaths from Fukushima. http://llrc.org/fukushima/s...
200k

Nuclear power: deadly, short of fuel, and expensive.
Renewables: safe, clean, cheaper, and infinite fuel.

"Well, the total amount of people killed by nuclear radiation was zero. The total harmed by radiation was zero. The total private property harmed by radiation was zero. Nuclear radiation hurt nobody." Tsunami is that caused destruction.
"Later the United Nations commissioned a multi-country task team to investigate the potential long-term health effects on people and the conclusion they came to was that it would be zero."
"So the primary lesson of Fukushima is that nuclear power is far safer than anybody realised."
http://businesstech.co.za/n...

https://daryanenergyblog.wo...

Great web site, he details all his arguments and backs them with solid facts. Too nice to nuclear if anything.

biased against nuclear

Reality is.

"Neighbors like nuclear power"
"Nuclear produces tiny amounts of nuclear waste"
"The more people know about nuclear power, the more they favor it."
http://nuclear-economics.co...
http://nuclear-economics.co...
"Plant Neighbors Express Strong Support for Nuclear Energy"
http://www.nei.org/Knowledg...