Some notes for our meeting on Wed., 12/9

[Robert Marshall]

Hi, 

I had an exchange with Porter Abbott a short time ago re two  points which are crucial in the period of COP21 in Paris, and because I don’t feel so peppy, rather than write from scratch, I send them to you all for our meeting tomorrow:

Fear of long-lingering and harmful radiation, which I and other nuclear advocates find treated over and over again and find harmless, and;

Competition of nuclear and renewable and “safer” forms of energy.

These interfere with needed progress and cooperation and tend to stall out cooperative energy development:  we need all we can get…

So I forward these notes in the hope we can have a useful discussion on the COP21 situation and  the need to join hands in these efforts.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Marshall <nm...@charter.net>

Date: December 6, 2015 at 10:33:46 PM EST

To: Porter & Anita Abbott <pab...@english.ucsb.edu>

Subject: Re: ScientificAmerican.com: How Renewable Energy Could Make Climate Treaties Moot

Hi Porter,

On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Porter Abbott <pab...@english.ucsb.edu> wrote:

The main 2 problems with nuclear, for me, are 1) disposal, an important issue which few nuclear advocates address, 2) focusing on nuclear takes the pressure off developing safer technologies.

I'm sure you agree!

Thanks, Bob.

Thanks for your note.

Re your two points, 

1) Disposal is not really a problem if nuclear technology is developed as it once was progressing earlier when 4th Generation Fast Reactors would have used the early waste as fuel and reduced its potency and life time to tolerable levels.  Also the present storage techniques, particularly in France, lessen the dangers to quite tolerable levels.  Observers can stand a few feet above the stored waste.  And should the development resume, as it should, the waste will be consumed as fuel in a reasonable time, so not millennia.

2) Models show that renewable “safer”, such as solar and wind, technologies are not capable of supporting adequate power demands in a timely manner to prevent excessive warming without substantial use of nuclear power, hopefully of the 4th Gen. types.  Although the time for massive deployment is likely past, and we are likely in for it.  We can use both, and, it appears, we need both. I put quotes around safer above to note that nuclear is now operating in hundreds of places without incidents.  

It is surprising to learn that radiation pollution is causing so many deaths now from burning coal and nuclear power so few.

Unfortunately it is highly over regulated (but this is now being reviewed) and so excessively expensive.

So, I do find that we don’t agree, unfortunately. 

I suggest a closer look at the other article I mentioned (see below) and several of its references, particularly: 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648I 

and:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fast-reactors-to-consume-plutonium-and-nuclear-waste/

also:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

Bob M.

On 11/24/2015 12:23 PM, Robert Marshall wrote:

Hi Porter,

Thanks for the heads up re the Stanford article re 100% renewables in Sci. Amer.

Fortunately, in the same issue there is a good summary of the need and potential for getting the climate problem under control with nuclear power which is endorsed by James Hansen.  And there are other model studies indicating the same conclusion from other climate folks.

To be safe and avoid a terrible mistake, we need to proceed with both.  The Stanford study has been criticized for it bias against nuclear for no good reason and we can’t risk the planet with such incorrect bias.  It doesn’t make much sense to close down down zero carbon, harmless nuclear plants to scratch that itch.

And all we need is the wrong foot first in the coming Climate Conference in Paris.

Here is the url for the other article:

 How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming

Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that can quickly combat climate change, experts argue

By David Biello | December 12, 2013

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/ 

On Nov 24, 2015, at 6:10 AM, pab...@english.ucsb.edu wrote:

Porter has sent you the following from ScientificAmerican.com:

How Renewable Energy Could Make Climate Treaties Moot

fyi

Powering the U.S. and 138 other countries exclusively with wind, water, and solar would solve global warming—and is entirely doablehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-renewable-energy-could-make-climate-treaties-moot/

© 2015 Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Robert Marshall
nm...@charter.net
Festina Lente

"We need to move 
from our human-centered
to an earth-centered