Image: Ken Caldiera/Carnegie Insititution for Science
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Coal-burning remains the single largest source of all the greenhouse gases dumped into Earth's atmosphere. As a result, climate change continues to gather speed, and molecules of CO2 released into the atmosphere today will continue to trap heat for centuries. In order to mitigate global warming, the world needs to transition to energy technologies that emit dramatically reduced quantities of greenhouse gases as quickly as possible. Even with such an energy transition, it will take decades for the pace of climate change to slow noticeably, as this video explains.
For more on the future of Climate Change read "How Far Can Climate Change Go?" by Ken Caldeira in the September issue of Scientific American.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentMy weather prediction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdec 2012...........extremely hot 100 C +
2013...............extremely wet, heavy floods
2014..............ice age
So—this monologue is implicitly answering the original question—all of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo read between the lines and what this guy is saying we need to transition to Nuclear Energy ASAP. Sorry for using "the N word".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs opposed to the Big Oil junk science spewed in the article, numerous studies peer reviewed in reputable journal (ie real science) have shown that when the 75 times GHG multiplier of all the methane leaks from production to transmission of natural gas is included conventional gas is almost as bad a GHG producer as coal, worse when the cooling effect of coal sulfur emissions is accounted for, and much worse when fracked gas is included.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo savings there.
All expenditures on wind and solar, are subsidized, with the total subsidy worldwide to date is almost $1 trillion according to Bloomberg. The industry produces almost no net power outside of its required 100% name plate filthy GHG spewing inefficient gas backup run inefficiently. Less gas less GHG's far less money if the wind/solar/gas backup scam was replaced with efficient CCGT gas plant or better yet nuclear.
If that subsidy money had been spent on nuclear power the world could now be coal free saving over a million souls annually from cruel air pollution deaths.
Truly the biggest subsidy to the wind solar gas industry is paid in the blood of innocents.
Germany is often held up as the example for the world to follow with billions spent on solar & wind energy. After the nuclear accident in Japan, a perfect storm of disasters in which not one person has died from the effects of radiation, Germany sped up the process of shutting nuclear plants. All the billions spent on alternative energy have proven to be an expensive flop. They are now building twenty three new coal fired power stations. Nary a squeak from the AGW believers. If the danger is real, turning our backs on nuclear is suicidal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood comment, Germany just commissioned a new 2200 MW Lignite (the filthiest and highest GHG emitter) Dirt Burner, not ONE word from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the UCS or the Green party. And no press on that either. Hey SCIAM, how about an article on that? Focus is 100% on zero GHG emissions Fukushima. And not one word on all the German historic towns forcibly evacuated FOREVER to make way for giant, earth wrenching, lignite strip mines. Greenpeace and the Green party are OK with that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo see why nuclear energy is not an answer but rather a little understood potential nightmare, see the Aesop Institute website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the same site are a few more interesting alternatives.
See Cheap Green and Moving Beyond Oil.
Several are Black Swans - highly improbable innovations with enormous implications.
Once validated by independent laboratories a few are likely to totally change the energy landscape.
To see why nuclear energy IS the answer and IS a well understood, simple-minded tech see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisatomicinsights.com/
www.learningaboutenergy.com/
bravenewclimate.com/
On the same sites you will find articles that blow WIDE OPEN, renewable energy SCAMS that HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED by independent laboratories.
Get real dude, why sentence the next generation to suffering & deprivation because you worship pixie power or are you just another Big Oil Shill, promoting their bait-and-switch campaign to sucker anyone & everyone into ANYTHING-BUT-NUCLEAR, since they know very well that Nuclear Energy is their ONLY competition.
Have their been any renewable energy scams, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, there is excellent science being done by inventors and companies who recognize the need to leave fission behind.
Fukushima fuel pond #4 is a threat to all our lives. It will continue to be one until the fuel is brought down from its present position on the fifth floor of a building badly damaged by the earthquake, and capable of collapsing at any time in another strong quake. See the Aesop Institute website to understand that nuclear power has left every American in mortal danger right now.
In the event of a strong solar storm, all the nuclear plants become potential meltdown candidates.
That is a risk worth leaving behind as fast as is humanly possible.
And I have no connection to the oil industry. In fact, read Moving Beyond Oil on the Aesop Institute website to see some really exciting cost-competitive green alternatives.
"..Fukushima fuel pond #4 is a threat to all our lives.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a load of pure garbage. You have ZERO credibility making that statement.
ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/05/16/spent-fuel-at-fukushima-not-dangerous/
The fuel rods are now putting out a few watts per meter of heat. It is a trivial issue.
"..strong solar storm, all the nuclear plants become potential meltdown candidates.."
That is absolute nonsense. Been debunked many times. Nuclear plants can supply their own electricity by several different methods, and as a last resort have diesel fueled pumps. If that solar storm happened Nuclear Meltdowns would be about on the very last of the list of disasters we would have to deal with.
"..Moving Beyond Oil on the Aesop Institute website.."
Yeah, yeah, you are promoting LENR - which IS NUCLEAR ENERGY! But all you have is more SCAMs. There maybe something to LENR. But dude, I can give you a very long list of Energy Altenatives that "there is something to".
Dude, this is how it works, first you figure out the science, then you publish the science, then it is peer-reviewed, then it is replicated by ANYONE who wants to. Then you develop the tech, then you prove it is economical for commercial scale, then the big build. Your LENR is still on step #1 of 7. Betting the bank on that is nothing short of STUPID. Don't sacrifice billions of lives on pipe dreams. Big Oil LOVES Bait-and-Switch SCAMs, anything to direct resources and capital from practical alternatives to its noxious product. Whether you know it or not, you are a Big Oil lackey.
LENR is one of several Black Swans - highly improbable innovations with enormous implications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPion fusion is another nuclear system which may prove practical.
Both have nowhere near the potential problems of fission.
Non-nuclear systems that may surprise most scientists include the hydroelectric fuel cell invented by an American in Vietnam. Fueled only be water, fresh or salt, 2 kW units may be close to production there and in Japan. The inventor holds 37 U.S. Patents, most when he was a senior scientist for Hewlett Packard and Kodak.
200 prototypes are being fabricated for a Japanese partner. The system may prove scalable to 600 kW. It is expected to run cars.
Fukushima fuel pool #4 does indeed threaten us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, you are clearly an expert like the Tepco folks who it now turns out have been lying through their teeth about the lack of danger.
Please keep your head in the sand as you would not want to be bothered by reality.
Your science on nuclear is right up there with the science on chemtrails. Believe in them too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we use just nukes which can't be turned off wouldn't you waste 70% of the power off peak?
Sethdayal is a ranting troll now putting up misinformation on RE by using biased math and made up facts. And forgets to mention the recent US nukes are costing $10k/kw for which you can build 5x's as much RE and making thousands of jobs.
He says Nuke power is cheap then why are Progress/Duke power charging $.03/kwhr to their customers in Fla for nuke power they won't even have ready for 10 yrs if ever?
Solar PV now has a 4 yr payback in many areas and a 2kw wind generator is more simple than a moped are solid facts. As are solar CSP units that give both heat and electricity. Fact is without solar to help peak power the grid will have a much harder time using more nuke % than we have now.
And ranting on RE subsidies is a bad joke compared to the trillions for oil, coal, NG, nuke.
I say put all the costs in each fuel and let the free market reign. Then home/building RE is clearly the cheapest electric one can get as it already is in many places .
If you factor in the cost of carbon capture and storage, none of the fossil fuels are economical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar, wind and biomass are the solution.