Goddard Institute Issues a Warning on Global Warming

Sometimes the fact of global warming gets a short shrift due to the more politically-charged discussion on whether it is caused naturally by, for example, an unusual cycle of sun flares, or human activity.

I think the latter question will never be settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved because it has political undertones and repercussions for people who do not share the same political views.

However we should keep the causality question separate from the more urgent one of whether there is indeed a global warming or not. And on that note, the evidence keeps piling on a daily basis from sources whose credentials are in general beyond reproach.

Take the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University, for example. The Institute represents as intense a concentration of scientific minds as any.

Dr. James Hansen, the President of the Institute, said during a presentation of Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in Dennison, Iowa, that global warming has reached a "crisis" state and its full impact might be felt within as short as ten years.

Hansen also dealt with the "former question" that I've underlined above, namely, "who" causes all this warming. He said the quality of the scientific evidence which pointed at "human activity" and "burning fossil fuels" as the culprit was beyond discussion.

Hansen, leaving diplomacy aside, has also dashed the hopes that his fellow Iowans invested in corn-produced ethanol for reducing the impact of the green house gases.

"There is a lot of potential in biofuels," he said. "[But] corn-based ethanol, in the long-term, is not very helpful… it still puts a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Can Nuclear Energy Save You From Global Warming?

Just imagine a world with abundant energy, enabling you to live the good life forever... Isn't that what most of us crave? Nuclear energy is magic isn't it?

Nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. The latest technology has made it safe and we can bury nuclear waste without worrying about radiation. Business as usual without doing any harm.

Perfect!

Well, is it?

Nuclear energy is magical thing. It's hard to understand how it works and it's easy to get bamboozled by claims made by the nuclear magicians – scientists – as well as by opponents.

Take veteran environmentalist Dr James Lovelock, of GAIA fame who says only nuclear energy can save us from global warming. Or Dr Helen Caldicott who says it's too dangerous and we do not need it.

And governments ... Well, depends on who you talk to.

Your life is full already without figuring out what is valid and what's not. Right?

Easier to just leave it to "Them."

But stop!

Find out the facts on nuclear energy and nuclear radiation hazards. Then make up your mind – and next time there is an election you vote with some knowledge under your belt. There is plenty of information out there to help you make up your mind and I'll give you a leg-up.

So, here is an easy framework. Imagine experiencing a certain "knowing"about this important issue on your way to the ballot box, or in talking with your friends.

Given that global warming is a real threat, and global energy demand is ballooning, then the nuclear energy debate is essentially about four Big Issues.

1) Can nuclear energy deliver on a low-emission or even non-emission basis?


2) Is nuclear energy for electrical power purposes safe?


3) Can it be delivered at a reasonable cost?


4) How does it compare with other low-emission alternate energy sources?

Here is an overview only of those issues. But don't just take my word for it. Find out more yourself!

Emissions

• 
  Yes, nuclear energy is emission-free if you just measure the exhausts from a reactor's chimney.
  
• In one study, nuclear energy came close to wind power in low emissions over its lifetime.
  
• There is no air pollution, with big nuclear energy user France having the cleanest air in Europe.
  
• No, it is not emission-free and is a greenhouse gas emitter, when measuring mining of uranium and transporting it, building and decommissioning nuclear power plants.
  

Safe?

• 
  Chernobyl still stands the only disastrous accident with a nuclear power plant, and the antiquated structure and action taken after the "melt-down" bears much blame.
  
• Any safeguards are only as good as the people that manage them, and any further accident will be one too many.
  
• Modern nuclear power plant structures are much safer.
  
• A terrorist attack, using radioactive material in a dirty bomb cannot be excluded.
  
• A terrorist attack using an airplane could be disastrous, even though deactivating a modern nuclear plant can be done in 5 seconds.
  
• A higher-than-normal incidence of childhood leukemia has been reported near power plants in the UK, France and Germany.
  
• So-called Generation IV nuclear reactors, including "fast breeders" are said to be cleaner (low radiation level waste), cheaper and safer but the first will not be ready before 2010, some not until 2030.
  

Cost

• 
  Economics of nuclear energy is a wobbly concept, depending on the assumptions about other energy sources and their end costs.
  
• Nuclear reactors currently have very high start-up and close-down costs compared to other low-emission, and renewable energy sources.
  
• Costs are more than just counting money.
  

Comparison to low-emission energy sources

• 
  You'll find many studies with different results.
  
• One must take into account the urgent threat presented by global warming, that of radioactive energy, and appraise the benefits of energy-wise living and currently available renewable energy sources.
  

The magical attraction of nuclear energy remains: throw enough money at it and all our problems will seem to go away. But the future is most likely one of a diversified use of renewable energy with some nuclear energy. It's a question of where to put the emphasis.

Nuclear energy sources removes people even further from tangible "natural" processes. More of the same kind of thinking that caused our global warming problems in the first place. Why not emphasize responsible energy use, and the use of the Great Big Nuclear Reactor In The Sky to drive wind, tidal and solar energy. And to try and live in harmonious relationship with each other and our environments.

But you just have to make up your own mind. My children's future and yours depend on you. Only your personal attitude – the greatest energy source we know – can help you live with global warming. And we are going to have to live with it for a long, long time.

Dear Think Tank - What is Your Solution to Global Warming?

Not long ago several Climatologists got together in France to decree Global Warming was real. Then they asked what should be done about it. Of course no one had a solution other than shutting down civilization? Well, that is not going to work is it?

Planting Trees with UAVs

So our think tank came up with some ideas of getting rid of CO2, even though we are NOT Global Warming Alarmists purporting Gloom and Doom, we still believe it is wise to cut down on pollution. So, one idea was to plant trees with UAVs. Yes the idea of planting trees using UAVs is something I have been working on for a while.

The seedling would be encapsulated in something like this (attached). I have another idea used to plant crops for Africans by dropping millions of self embedding seedlings, since they are too lazy to plant their own food. Just scatter them by the millions in places of "best chance" to grow.

Removing Urban Heat Footprints

Indeed the Urban Heat footprint of lets say the Los Angeles area is 462 square miles of concrete, inversion layers, 13.5 million people and 5-7 degrees hotter now. Wow, you know look at Pheonix, Las Vegas, Houston, San Antonio, Albuquerque, Orlando, Miami, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, etc. We have discussed 'glass or ceramic coatings' on roads to help absorb the heat to prevent the wild weather Cumulous Nimbus cloud formation.

Urban Heat is huge and real of course. If you look at computer modeling for suburb cities in let's say the US you can see the issues. 1-2 degrees in Pacific Ocean Surface temps gives us El Nino, but who knows the future with all that concrete, of course there are positives for parasails, dirigibles or lighter than air flying strategies due to the heat rising, but we need to cool the cities down about 4-5 degrees.

Humankind Can Rise to the Occasion to Curb Climate Change

I agree that any problem can be solved although if people just wish to argue over it, well I just say; "hey if you people ever get serious, then give me a call" but in my observation everyone just wants to have a political war to change the balance of power. I enjoy a good challenge or problem to solve, so I am not worried. Too many over reacting people out there.

Clean Coal technologies are on their way, we need to pay more attention to land-use strategies and such, mankind needs to stop breeding like rats, but, all is not lost. Perhaps you might like to think on this a bit?