Earth Institute Director backs Nuclear

[BNC Moderator]

Combating climate change will require an expansion of nuclear power, respected economist Jeffrey Sachs said on Thursday, in remarks that are likely to dismay some sections of the environmental movement.

Jeffrey Sachs Earth Institute director says urgency of problem and immaturity of renewable energy industry leave little option but nuclear.

More and more environmentalists are realising the futility of pursuing renewable energy without a non-fossil fuel baseload. Why bother with renewables when they can't do the job?

[anonposter]

May 4, 2012 14:00:25 GMT 9.5 BNC Moderator said:

More and more environmentalists are realising the futility of pursuing renewable energy without a non-fossil fuel baseload. Why bother with renewables when they can't do the job?

Rod Adams has argued quite convincingly that that's the reason why we're bothering with them.

Still, the environmental movement is very much at the point of a simmering civil war over nuclear power, the comments there seem to about equal (though you can't say the same about the quality).

[davidm]

I agree with Sachs that we presently need nuclear as a substitute baseline energy source but if we don't get on board pretty soon with a serious negative population growth direction and an end to economic growth ie biosphere destruction as opposed to sustainable steady state, that it will be all for naught. Mother Nature will eat us alive

[anonposter]

May 4, 2012 17:00:06 GMT 9.5 @davidm said:

I agree with Sachs that we presently need nuclear as a substitute baseline energy source but if we don't get on board pretty soon with a serious negative population growth direction and an end to economic growth ie biosphere destruction as opposed to sustainable steady state, that it will be all for naught. Mother Nature will eat us alive

Negative population growth will require the exact opposite of what you seem to think we need to do.

The fact is that all the countries which do have negative population growth are rich populous countries with a high standard of living (and steady state is never sustainable anyway), it'll take a lot of economic growth in the third world to get to that point (and people won't give up their luxuries without a fight, there's a reason we're still burning coal instead of suffering through rolling blackouts due to the night being still).

Besides, if nuclear can provide all the energy we need to maintain our present standard of living for millions of years and with minimal environmental consequences I can't understand what would be wrong with doing it.