Unavoidable Answer for the Problem of Climate Change [New York Times endorses nuclear power]

New York Times ^ | November 19, 2013 | EDUARDO PORTER

[grundle]

How will the world replace fossil fuels? Can it be done fast enough, cheaply enough and on a sufficient scale without nuclear energy? For all the optimism about the prospects of wind, sun and tides to power our future, the evidence suggests the answer is no.

Scrambling to find an alternative fuel to generate some 30 percent of its power, Japan had no choice but to turn to coal and gas. A few years ago, it promised that in 2020 it would produce 25 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than in 1990; last week it said it would, instead, produce 3 percent more.

Japan is unlikely to be the only country to miss its targets. In response to the Fukushima disaster, Germany shut down eight nuclear reactors and said it would close the remaining nine by 2022.

Everybody is promising to fill the gap with renewables. So far, however, coal and natural gas have won out. CO2 emissions in Germany actually increased 1 percent last year, even as they declined in the United States and most of Western Europe.

Between 2010 and 2012, worldwide consumption of nuclear energy shrank 7 percent. Over the same period, the consumption of coal, the dirtiest fuel and the worst global warming offender, rose 4.5 percent. Data released on Tuesday by the Global Carbon Project confirmed that coal accounted for over half the growth in fossil fuel emissions in 2012.

With energy consumption expected to grow by more than half over the next 30 years, the odds seem low that the world can avoid catastrophic warming without carbon-free nuclear power.

[AZLiberty]

Must be a promo piece for John Kerry’s Iran deal.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Holy crap.

Are the Stanley Cup Finals being played in Hell next June?

[Codeflier]

Climate change religous mumbo jumbo!

[ToastedHead]

“As long as they stick them in fly over country. We can’t have that crap lowering our property values over here.”

[Paladin2]

I say we need to get the takers on a treadmill hooked up to the grid for 48 hr/wk.

so many kWh/day or no pay.

[Vaquero]

Guess the Slimes didn’t like the eagle windmill mixmaster seen recently on yahoo.

Nuke works for me.

[Paladin2]

Those concerned about CO2 emissions should just stop producing their own planet killing emissions. We’d have a 50% drop which would save the Planet!

[Flycatcher]

With energy consumption expected to grow by more than half over the next 30 years, the odds seem low that the world can avoid catastrophic warming

Can the NYT be sued for unadulterated stupidity?

[TigersEye]

Better 40 years late than never, eh NYTs?

BTW, there is no man-caused warming. But the planet might warm or cool
on its own systemic merits and there isn't anything we can do about that.
Reliable energy sources are a good idea in any season.

[ClearCase_guy]

Call me crazy, but I think I see exactly what is going on here, and it is a deeper game than many might suspect:

1) Hey nuclear power is pretty awesome!
2) You know, if a third world country wanted nuclear power, that might be perfectly fine.
3) Wow, Iran is building nuclear facilities.
4) But don't worry, they just want to generate electricity, and nuclear power is pretty awesome!
5) The US would be wrong to try to stop Iran from developing full nuclear capability.
6) It would be crazy to listen to Israel and try to block Iran.
7) Israel is always causing trouble like that. Maybe some day someone will teach those Joooooos a lesson!

The heart of what the NYT is all about is always anti-zionism.

[Mark17]

Are the Stanley Cup Finals being played in Hell next June?

LOL, hopefully in Chicago again.

[Cicero]

I was wondering if this was a one-time guest editorial. But evidently this guy has been writing economics columns for the NY Times since 2004.

Yes, nuclear is the only answer. And we are ten or twenty years behind the eight ball because we have neglected this field for so long. You don’t just sit down and build a nuclear plant in a short while. You need the manufacturing capability and quite a while to build it once everything is in place. And we’ve pretty much dropped out of it since Three Mile Island, Jane Fonda, and Jimmuh Cartah. Not to mention the NY Times.

I’m not sure if we want the Chinese building our nuke plants.

[COBOL2Java]

Leftist theocracy: AGW is evil! Get rid of fossil fuel!

Genie: Nuclear power!

Leftist Theocracy: NO! Nuclear is evil!

Genie: We're back to the Middle Ages!

Leftist Theocracy: NO! Humanity is evil! Get rid of it!

Genie: Um, OK...

[Chickensoup]

France is the world leader in Nukes I think.

Radioactive cheese eating surrender monkeys.

[xjcsa]

[New York Times endorses nuclear power]

Has the Times started "endorsing" every column it prints?

[NJRighty]

I say we need to get the takers on a treadmill hooked up to the grid for 48 hr/wk.

Make it mandatory for able-bodied welfare recipients.

[digger48]

Thanks for the post.

Fighting Industrial Wind Turbines here in my county.

Have them slowed down, but too many locals in charge that are getting big buck$ from the GERMAN companies wanting to build here.

E-on is losing it’s butt over there because of the ban on nuke power, so they are harvesting US taxpayer dollars here to smooth out their bottom line

[Paladin2]

Maybe a direct work output per $ of Food Stamps. Energy is energy.

[Paladin2]

I'd suggest that there is much known about nuk power.

A concerted effort should only take a couple of years.

We got to the moon in less time. Clone the power plants of the aircraft carriers and subs.