Posted on 06/22/2007 4:34:12 AM PDT by Schnucki
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said on 21 June that he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy. He was speaking at the launch of the World Energy Council's (WEC's) Energy and Climate Change study.
The recent German G8 meeting had "significantly pushed forward" the climate change debate, according to de Boer, and had emphasised the need to reach a new agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009.
Gerald Doucet, general secretary of WEC, said that the "keep all options open" debate had moved on from 'renewables versus fossil' or 'renewables versus nuclear'. The WEC study concludes that all clean energy options will need to be used. In Doucet's view, the main 'nuclear renaissance' would begin to have a significant impact on global greenhouse gas emissions around 2030. In the meantime, the nuclear industry should look to lifetime extensions to help maintain the nuclear contribution to electricity provision.
Kurt Yeager, chair of the WEC Study Group and President Emeritus of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) said that there was no way the world would combat climate change without "a strong dose of nuclear power." He said that the technologies were available to address issues concerning waste management and proliferation and governments must get on with the job of developing nuclear power so that future generations can make use it.
The WEC Energy and Climate Change report concluded that "all governments should give serious consideration to the potential of nuclear power for reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The study showed that countries that have high proportions of nuclear in their energy systems had greenhouse gas emissions significantly lower than that of comparable nations with less or no nuclear contribution.
The report assessed the contribution of eight technologies for addressing climate change: nuclear energy; renewables; distributed power; energy efficiency; clean coal; combined heat and power; smart electricity control; and carbon capture and storage.
The report concluded that nuclear power is the most technically confident large scale approach to low-carbon power production up to 2050, and a key contributor to the world's clean energy portfolio. As an emissions-free energy source capable of producing electricity on a large scale, the report considered nuclear energy one of the primary global alternatives available to achieve carbon dioxide emissions stabilisation.
The report stressed it was essential to maintain the excellent safety record of nuclear power over the past 20 years and "to launch concerted efforts to win over global public opinion concerning the strategic importance of nuclear power in achieving a confident sustainable energy future."
Greenpeace was on Fox this morning as being against nuclear, promoting solar and wind as the only ecological alternatives to oil, coal, gas and nuclear.
Cavuto should have asked him the status of Fat Ted agreeing with the wind project at Cape Cod.
... and both are about as credible as islam.
Maybe they should outlaw the use of carbon fuels for all electrical generation into the grid.
Past time.
It’s disgusting that the French are so far ahead of us in this.
And we can’t just blame the enviro-wackos, oil interests aren’t lining up in favor of nuclear power either.(although I’ve herd that some may be quietly investing, it seems to be just rumor so far.
Politicians can’t permit any technology that would have a significant impact on profits of the established fossil fuel industries who provide much of their financial support, percs, payoffs and bribes.
Not to mention high paying jobs, consulting contracts and board directorships for them and their relatives and friends.
That’s why there is so much ballyhoo surrounding solar, wind and other alternate energy.
It sounds as if something is really being done to promote alternate energy but insiders know that they are really not serious technologies in terms of replacing fossil fuels.
It sounds good to the greenies but does’t impact profits very much.
If we had just one serious, forward looking president in the last 30 years we could be energy independent by now.
It would require a surprisingly small number of nuclear power plants to eliminate the need for foreign oil.
oooh ... this is gonna be good. Got my popcorn ... let me know when you see liberals heads starting to explode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.