Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics.

"What he and the rest of the green industry lobby don't ever seem to mention is that the scientific models all predict a climate changing and life altering temperature increase by 2100 regardless of how much we cut CO2 emissions. If we go to great lengths to cripple our industry and greatly reduce our consumption then we might, they say, reduce the temperature increase from a calamitous 3 degrees to a disastrous 2 degrees. Bully for us!"

It is my understanding that there is no one consensus on exactly how much change is likely to occur or how effective our attempts to mitigate the impact are likely to be. This is why the IPCC has approached the problem in terms of various scenarios, ranging from manageable to disastrous, and also in terms of high economic growth/low economic growth, globalization/regionalization, in the hope of devising some kind of optimum strategy.

Some argue that we need strong environmental measures at the expense of economic growth, while others argue that this may actually exacerbate the problem as people will less concerned about environmental issues if they are facing economic hardship, plus there will be less money available to combat the issue. Thus there may need to be some kind of balance.

To state that we can at best mitigate from calamitous to disastrous is a bit simplified. We don't really know.
I agree that we should consider other options such as geo-engineering, but it would be foolish to count too much on technology that does not yet exist, or indeed may never exist, or which may have unintended consequences. In the meantime, if we accept that human made climate change is occurring, surely it is prudent to try to reduce emissions. And as a long term strategy, if emissions are the problem, then emissions must be reduced.

regarding cutting emissions through more efficient technologies vs. geo-engineering... I am reminded of the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

"Cutting emissions....a pound of cure." Tell you what, Dexter, lead the charge! Put your money...and *much* more important your lifestyle and culture....where your mouth is. Start by turning off your computer for useless, self-indulgent activities like WebDip. surely you can friends within waling distance (or biking) and play the game on a board, as originally intended, and stop emitting CO2 with your energy sucking entertainment devices. And then, let's stop using jets to transport stuff around the world and use solar-powered and wind-powered ships. Yes....the cost of the goods you love - food, clothing, electronics, etc...will skyrocket because transportation costs will increase massively, but you'll be "saving the planet". And we should probably stop doing stupid things like giving MRI's and CAT scans to old, dying people....because they are old...and they are dying...and having a detailed imagine of their disease won't change that. (Not to mention that if we can encourage old people to die a little sooner, they will stop sucking on the tit of limited global resources....)

So lead the charge....give up your energy sucking self-indulgences.

Unless you are willing to do that....STFU. I'm so sick and tired of Al-Goreish hypocrites telling me what to do while they do the opposite.

But when the ounce of prevention itself will negatively impact the well being that we're trying to preserve we're looking at chemo for a cancer we can't cure. Climate change is going to happen regardless of its cause. However, as octavious said there's no political capital in it. You can get more votes through propaganda (manipulating the facts to create necessity vs choice) than you do with free thought.
Oddly enough, most people who want green energy that aren't part of green industry itself have negative views towards nuclear energy and cloned/"artificial" meat. Easily amenable solutions to our current infrastructure.

"Climate change is going to happen regardless of its cause" Of course...which is why we have ancient names for weather *patterns*, such as El Nino and El Nina. And...regarding weather change....the last decade has seen a temperature decline.

All this global warming crap is just that: crap. Mentioned above is the idea that every "climate change model" predicts utter doom and chaos, *no matter* how much we reduce CO2....and yet, the "climate change" advocates *PRIMARILY* CO2....

Hmmm....could climate change be a (thinly) veiled attack upon successful, industrialized nations....another Socialist front to "equalize outcomes" across the globe on a socioeconomic front?

@ Spyman

The various scenarios modelled by the IPCC range from a best case "pretty damned bad" to a worst case "we're all going to hell in a handcart", with the best case depending on a cut in carbon emissions of something like 80% (whether this cut is due to an ill-concieved international effort or an unprecidented global recession doesn't really matter. Either option will leave our industrial resources and political will seriously weakened to the point that geo-engineering will probably be beyond us). I have looked long and hard through the IPCC for any hint of a credible scenario in which we can preserve the current climate by cutting carbon, and there just isn't one.

I would also argue against the idea that emissions are the problem. Human generated emissions may be the thing that is causing the problem, but emissions by themselves we can live with. Indeed, there are many benefits that come with increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere, including increased crop yields. The problem is rising temperatures, and this a problem that cannot be solved by reducing emissions. It is far from prudent to dedicate our resources to a strategy that cannot work.

There is also another often overlooked reason that developing some sort of geo-engineered global climate control is desirable. This batch of climate change is largely man made. However natural climate change of an even greater scale is rather common on our planet. Being able to exert some control over our planet's climate is a tool that humanity must develop if it hopes to survive the random and unbalanced actions of mother nature.

Damn....I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn..

"Hmmm....could climate change be a (thinly) veiled attack upon successful, industrialized nations....another Socialist front to "equalize outcomes" across the globe on a socioeconomic front?"

no, the socialists don't control the scientists, i mean we've tried, but we've found that we are too moral to consider bowing to pressure from any lobby group which doesn't have enough money to pay for us to do research, unlike research funded by oil companies.

"The sky is falling!"
"How do you know?"
"Give us funding and we'll give you more data"
"What did you find out?"
"The sky is falling!"
"How do you know?"
"Give us more funding and we'll let you know"
&c

"Being able to exert some control over our planet's climate is a tool that humanity must develop if it hopes to survive the random and unbalanced actions of mother nature." Control number one: stop feeding so much carbon and methane into the system. Yes, a switch to solar/wind/nuclear will be expensive, but it is eminently doable. ...and most of the expense will be a one-time expense associated with initial investment in technology and in infrastructure. I'd hate to be back in the 1830s arguing with people like you for expansion of rail... but I'm sure there were plenty who said such an undertaking was too prohibitively expensive and we should stick with the existing canals and steamboats. Crap. You guys have a weird imagination. You have no problem with Star Trekian terraforming plans yet you object to existing proven technologies that already have gotten considerably cheaper in the last few decades even with *very little* investment in them. Mind you, I like the idea of terraforming... though I think we should experiment on say Mars or some other blank slate before screwing with our home world.

And no, I don't think turning off our computers and such is a viable solution. Though I would note that computers and other technology (such as light bulbs and a/c and appliances) have gotten *far* more efficient over time. Strangely enough, conservatives in this country have their panties in a twist over their "right" to use inefficient light bulbs over more effiicient ones. Yes - taking on the big issues. Protecting our "right" to be inefficient, wasteful and selfish to future generations.

Were you steering the Titanic toward an iceberg, you'd be saying - there's no point in slowing down or changing direction - we're going to hit it anyway - the only difference is whether we break into 3 or 4 water-tight compartments - it's only a difference between disaster and calamity, we should work on technologies to make steel float. Oh - and we're very glad we didn't put those extra lifeboats on - that would have degraded our standard of living here on the deck. After all, until you're ready to dump your deck chair off into the water, we won't take your criticism about not enough life boats seriously.

Oh - and by the way, yes, I reduce my footprint in numerous ways - I use mass transit when I can, I bike and walk here in town many times, I have a fuel efficient car, I use reusable bags at the grocery market, etc., fucking, etc. Does it degrade my experience of life? Not in the slightest. Matter of fact, the walking and biking simply keeps me healthy and saves a gym membership. So... krellin, have I qualified to talk about conservation and changing energy technologies?

thelevite +100

@Dexter -- that Carbon Scare is *completely* false. Talk to a *real* climate scientist, and you find that CO@ is a **LAGGING** measurement, not a leading measurement, to climate change. Compeletely bogus argument....but far being it from anyone to actually look at actual data...

But you still want to believe....but you DO NOT want to give up your precious elf-indulgent wasters of energy. So you are a god damned hypocrite. Enough said. I don't need to read anything else that you say, because you prove my point that climate fear-mongerers don't ACTUALLY care about the climate. How much fucking CO@ did you put into that atmosphere to type that response? And why don't you care about the answer to that question if you truly believe we are headed to some dooms-day scenario.

Damn....I don't mind someone with a strongly held belief. But you rotten hypocrites....I wouldn't pee on you if you were set on fire.

Pick and choose your ways to "reduce your footprint" but if you believed you were killing the planet and dooming humanity, you would get rid of IT ALL! You do not NEED to have the computer on to play webdip or argue in these stupid forums. You are a lousy, worthless hypocrite for suggesting you care...but not actually caring enough to make a difference everywhere you can. Because advocates like you would have others give up their way of life in ways that DOES effect them. But...you do the *easy* things in your life....but you won't do the HARD things...like giving up your technology.

Hypocrite.

@orthaic....the Socialists don't control the scientists? haaaaa ha ha ha ha! A lot of freaking sociialist governments and government agencies and socialist groups provide funding to "climate change scientists". You are 100% wrong. They have actually done studies that indiciate...even when researchers don't know where the funding is coming from, they have an amazing ability to have results that meet the expectations of the funding agency. Perhaps that is because the funding only goes the approved questions and methodologies that provide the "correct" answer....such as climate change "models" which are totally bogus simulations that have yet to predict anything with any accuracy....and yet which consistently recieve funding, and which are consistently pointed to as valid sources of information by the agencies that fund the studies...and who....strangely enough...want to see the destruction of capitalism.....

Sigh.....

the model is like an experiment, it is useful for understanding even without accurate prediction. It helps us to develop accurate theories with predictive powers.

it is not perfect, and you clearly have a very warped view of the world.

Climatologists are not 'climate change scientists', they are scientists who happen to specialize in understanding climate patterns. The fact that they believe we can repeat past experiences and see massive climate change in a short time is based on the actual science, not some covert socialist scheme to destroy capitalism - which by the way is doing a good enough job fucking itself up with an over-inflated asset-bubble financial service bust.

Oh but maybe you weren't paying any attention... did you see the capitalism? did you see it failing?

"Pick and choose your ways to "reduce your footprint" but if you believed you were killing the planet and dooming humanity, you would get rid of IT ALL! "

Such a load of crap. Dexter morgan, third mate on the Titanic shouldn't be listened too because he adds ice cubes to his drink. I do more good than harm - I'm a science teacher - and I don't hesitate to engage people I know outside of the classroom as well and I'm politically active. Say I gave up my computer and became car-less and jobless and lived in a tent by the river... it wouldn't exactly help anything. I'm working as hard as I can to change the world in positive ways and, in the meantime, as a bonus, I'm reducing my footprint in ways that I can while still being an active part of this culture (and not living in a tent by the river). Tune in, turn off and drop out is not particularly useful idea.

A million people or even a hundred million people in this country dropping out will not be particularly useful. The only way to truly change things is for the national policy to change... that takes research, education, and political action. Dropping out is stupid. How much effect are the aboriginals in Australia and Africa and the Amazon having on industrial/cultural/political policy in the west? None. How much effect is the homeless person down the street having? None. You would propose that I, being on the Titanic, should open a porthole and stick an oar out and try to slow the ship down. A waste of time. The real opportunity to change things is to talk to people and to try and get the captain and the passengers (the voting population) on the same page about needing to change policy... such as investing in renewables just as we invested previously in rail and the highway system and the electrical grid and hydro projects. I can't hardly get over how ignorant your comments here are.

Re: Renewables. Wind power has a higher carbon footprint than Nuclear, hydroelectric involves the destruction of two ecosystems, solar farms have a high cost when it comes to land that could be better used to manage population gains AND it destroys an ecosystem. We have enough fissile and ready to be mined fissile materials to last us a century or two, not to mention Thorium reactors. The only issue with nuclear is that the widespread disinformation due to an easily scared populace. Hell, France runs majorly on nuclear energy.

krellin, one more analogy... I'm assuming that you are for reducing the national debt. By your logic, you are a total hypocrite if you don't send all of your money to the government to help. If you try to limit your income tax burden by taking personal deductions and mortgage credits then you can't complain about how the government is in debt because you're not "helping". Or say that you believe the way to solve the problem is to "starve the beast" then you are a total hypocrite if you pay any taxes... never minding that you would end up in jail for doing that. That is your logic. I don't think you are a hypocrite... just an ass.

@thelevite, how exactly does wind have a higher carbon footprint than nuclear? I'm not against nuclear - but we do have to solve some safety and waste problems with it... *and* it is currently the most expensive of the major technologies. I'm all for investing in improving it. For one thing, the system should be fail-safe... i.e. a deadman switch that allows shutdown without power and supplies water without power... so that we don't have a Fukashima sort of failure. What kind of system is it where losing power for a few days anytime during a several month shut-down period completely screws you and causes a massive melt-down and explosions? Pretty vulnerable. That said, yes to nuclear. Not sure why you're so concerned about the ecosystems... Solar, for example, is best set up in the desert... how much would wildlife or us actually be negatively effected by that? Not much compared to fossil fuels, that is for sure. ...and less of an issue than construction of other infrastructure - which is usually in more fertile and habitable land. I heard (and forgot the exact number) an estimate at one point on how many square miles of solar panels and how many billion dollars it would take to convert to 100% solar in the U.S. - and, while not a small number, it was certainly something that sounded doable. And yes, I realize that 100% solar would have its limitations.

The desert is still an ecosystem, just because it's not beautiful and teeming with cuddly wildlife doesn't mean we should cover it in solar cells. And like I said, there's still the issue of using the land for housing, which can be quite eco-friendly. Solar power should be a supplement, it should be introduced into new housing by builders as a perk rather than mandated. Wind power still requires creation and transport, and there's also the negative impact their vibrations have on wildlife. Hell, solar cells themselves require petroleum products in creating the PV film. Not to mention that the shining examples of renewable energy in Spain were only in use because they were subsidized, they weren't profitable at all.
Fukushima isn't an apt caveat since they skirted safety protocols such as having compromised backup generators AND the incident was a result of an unprecedented tectonic event. How to prevent another Fukushima? Not use decades old reactor technology and have a competent regulatory body, preferable third party just as the Joint Comission, as well as placement in tectonically stable sites.

Honestly, using Fukushima as an example of absolute worst case isn't bad.

Lets lay this out. 9+ Richter earthquake directly on it, 20 foot tidal wave. Massive disruption to the entire area.

Result: A messy cleanup, but little to no human cost. Containment worked. There has been no massive release of fission products. And as said, this was decades old technology.

Nuclear power has possibly the BEST safety record in heavy industry.

This is not to say we shouldn't still be working on safety, but the dangers of nuclear energy have been grossly exaggerated.

Don't forget the other Fukushima. Next door to the failing one, yet all four reactors in safe shutdown:

http://depletedcranium.com/the-other-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/

Not to nitpick but, Levite, I don't really agree with your assessment of how Fukushima can be avoided.

You can't avoid using decade old reactor technology (reactor lifetime is aimed for 50-60 years these days). However, extension of life projects may have to be heavily reconsidered after the event. Also, it's pretty difficult to keep nuclear power away from all fault lines. Rather, we should learn something about needing offsite backup power that won't be lost to a common mode disaster.
That being said, it is a tragedy that two nuclear workers were exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation and may get cancer later in life. It is also a disaster that so many people had to be relocated and many won't be able to return to their homes for 1+ years. That being said, this was a worst case scenario where everything went wrong on a reactor with a substandard containment and had relatively small repercussion.

It is important to explore all roads to reducing global warming -both geo-engineering and reducing cabron emissions. Long term climate predictions are not an exact science and neither is engineering progress. It would be foolish, at this point, to abandon one in favour of the other.

Besides, global warming, there are other dangers from dirty energy production. Respiratory illness, acid rain, smog etc. That, and the depletion of fossil fuels, should be sufficient reason for governments to embrace nuclear power.

@ Jack
''Nuclear power has possibly the BEST safety record in heavy industry.''

This may be true but what about:

1) The safe storage of radioactive material over geological time scales.

2) The finite amount of U (best estimates are 100-200 years at current usage).

3) The safety of material vis a viz a terrorist plot (dirty bomb etc.).

4) The guys who have to live with and extract the U. Church Rock New Mexico provides a rather scary example.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-navajo21nov21,0,2271711.story and http://newmexicoindependent.com/31989/31989

I am really surprised that this story has not received more attention in the USA (although perhaps not as it is after all the Navajo who are adversely affected).

@Ful - A quick reply

1) This is large but not insurmountable issue. Current repository plans are good but not perfect. It is difficult to say with 100% certainty that the integrity of a man-made structure will be kept over 1000s of years. However, when combined with the lack of mobility of the transuranics (elements higher than uranium), a safe dose to the atmosphere from a deep geological repository should be achievable. The Oklo 'reactor' is a cool example of how we expect the spent fuel to migrate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

2) I've heard even worse predictions than that. Reports I've read have said that current uranium resources could be jeopardy in 50-100 years. However, uranium resources always refers to the amount of cheap uranium. If you expand your economic boundaries you have far more. In fact, the oceans contain an essentially limitless supply.

All that being said, uranium resources aren't really an issue anyways. There is so much spent fuel and weapons grade plutonium that nuclear fuel won't be an issue for a very long time. Add in thorium and other advanced recycling schemes and resources are absolutely not an issue.

3) Again, an issue but not an insurmountable one. There are many safeguards in place to stop malicious diversion of nuclear materials. What scares me more is the far less safeguarded medical nuclear materials. Plenty of it travels internationally and is not monitored nearly as well. And, in regards to nuclear arms, it's far easier to enrich uranium than to try steal someone's spent fuel.

4) Far and away the worst part of the nuclear industry. Mining always toes the line with their practices and the nuclear industry has been particularly bad. No excuses here. It is something that needs to be fixed. However, bad mining practices aren't an inherent part of nuclear energy.

1. If we can reprocess fuel, that minimizes it (and there are some designs that can keep burning fission products).

2. Uranium is not the only fissionable. Thorium reserves are rather large.

3. Dirty bombs are the dreams of the overly paranoid. Even if used, I'd be more scared of the panic than the actual radioactive particles.

4. Unfortunately, having relatives that have worked in mines, hearing about mine safety problems isn't shocking. But this problem can be solved relatively easily, I'd think. (I'm by no means a mine safety expert, to be sure)

@ Yonni, thank you for your considered response. I would comment as follows:

1) The half life of 238^U (the commonest isotope) is I believe around 4.5 billion years. The time scales we are talking about is considerably more than ~10^3 years, more like 10^5 or 10^6 and rising. This is of the same order of magnitude as many geological processes. Isn't there also a moral issure of sorts here too, tied up with the toxic burden this places on future generations?

2) Not sure about extraction from the oceans. I would be interested to hear more, but I would imagine that this migyht be a highly energy intensive process of itself. Given that we are dependant on mined resources we likely will reach a position of peak U in a few decades, with all of the strategic/geopolitical implications that this implies. Does this sound familiar? :-)

3) I bow to your obviously more well informed opinion on this. I would just add that this needs to be fully costed into any argument for nuclear power (ditto for 2 and 4 and, particularly 1., where the costs are considerable). I am still, however, very concerned about a dirty bomb as indeed are the security sercices, I believe.

4) I agree, it is a dirty little secret which is only rarely raised. It constitutes, however, a large part of my field and I bring it up here to inform the discussion.

Fulhamish:

The reason a dirty bomb would be more of a panic-attack than a genuine danger is this:

Concentration, Distance, Shielding, and Time are factors in exposure. Sure, standing next to a 1000 mrem/hr on contact source is really bad. But take that point source, and blow it up over Manhattan, and yeah, its going to scare people, but its going to be so diluted that its not really that scary. It would be more along the lines of economically bad, because you'd have to spend money and time to clean it up. More people would probably die from the bomb blast than the radiation (not factoring in panic, of course. People freak out about radiation)

1) The half-life of u238 is irrelevant. Uranium ore is 99.3% U238 and there is no problem handling it without protection. Half life and radioactivity are inversely proportional so, as U238 decays very slowly it doesn't release much radiation. You have to look at the half-life of the more radiotoxic elements like Am241, Pu239, Pu241, etc.

2) Yeah, taking uranium out of the ocean is expensive and likely won't be realized anytime soon. The real point is that spent fuel is not so much waste as just another source of fuel. Once new reactors and recycling technologies become prevalent, spent fuel will be valued as an asset rather than a cost. Already, France, Japan, and the UK recycle their fuel but when fast reactors are introduced the recycling will be much more prevalent.

There's also thorium which is 3x more abundant than uranium and lends itself even better to recycling.

Of all the concerns about nuclear energy, resources should be fairly low on the list.

3) The health risk posed by radiation is greatly overestimated by the general public. I don't think it's worth the hassle for a terrorist to try make a dirty bomb when a regular one could work just fine except for, as Jack said, the panic that would insue.

However, it is of course a risk. Just like hijacking planes is a risk or blowing up hyrdo damns. Or releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They're all calculated risks and we have to do everything we can to minimize it. In my opinion, we have the ability to implement sufficient safeguards so that the risk of dirty bombs does not outweigh the benefits of nuclear power.

4) May I ask what your field is?

@ Jack

1. If we can reprocess fuel, that minimizes it (and there are some designs that can keep burning fission products).

I think Yonni would be better able to inform us, but I understand that the fuel itself is a relatively small proportion of the burden. It is the ancillary equipment which constitutes the bulk of the material. From wiki: The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."

Re Thorium as I understand it we have to via 233^U in the cycle is that correct? If so safety issues are considerably magnified, it is a very nasty beast in a world of nasty beasts.

anyone ever played the game Fate of the World? Its about trying to prevent this disastrous climate change from happening.

Fission products are the vast majority of the waste problem. Irradiated reactor alloys are an issue, but a minor one (provided the plant is running a proper ion exchanger and charcoal filter... we had to change out our filters on the 22 boat, and it was about eight grades of a pain in the ass. Its serious business).

It comes down to the fact that most isotopes of say.. iron are low powered decays. There is one isotope of concern, Fe-60, which has a nice long half-life, but decays into Cobalt-60... which is a major pain in the ass. (It was our radionuclide of concern in the USN). Its the difference between a beta emitter, and an alpha emitter. I could go into details, but it comes down to this: You really don't want an alpha emitter inside of you. Its very bad. :)

These things are manageable, however. At this point, its an engineering problem, not a theoretical one.

Minor adjustment: Iron 60 has a 2.6 million year half-life, and Cobalt-60 has one of 5 years. Thus, you're not going to get any buildup of it due to Fe-60.

And in addition, (and this is just one example of material used in reactors, of course), most iron is Fe-56, which means you'd have to get an atom to absorb 4 more neutrons without decaying to get up to anything with a super-long half life. (And its worth pointing out that Fe-57 and 58 are also stable isotopes).

The nasty heavy metals of fission products remain the major concern (for both their radioactivity and the fact that they're just inherently pretty poisonous). Reprocessing fuel and some modern designs that burn the waste would be a nice efficient way to deal with that.

You can't characterize the waste just by weight.

When we talk about the concerns of containing nuclear waste, we generally talk about high-level waste. Meaning waste that is very radiotoxic and will be that way for millennia. The 2.5b lb of waste includes everything that came in contact with the fuel and may have been activated. These tend to be less radiotoxic and have much shorter half-lives. Intermediate and low-level waste is much more manageable but, like waste from any industry, is still an issue.

Re thorium:
The waste spent fuel from the U233 cycles has advantages and disadvantages. Thorium has a lower atomic number than uranium so fewer higher actinides (i.e. Pu, Am, Cm) are created (and those guys are the real problem in the waste). However, U232 is created which has some real nasty fission products. They are strong gamma emitters which makes it difficult to handle the fuel during reprocessing. The flip side of that is that it also makes it waaay more difficult to terrorists to get their hands on the fuel so it's an inherent proliferation barrier.

However, the real advantage of thorium fuel is that thorium is a better breeder than uranium. (i.e. it makes U233, better than uranium makes plutonium). This makes thorium recycling very efficient.

Right now, we use a fraction of a percent of the ore we put in the reactors and the rest is waste. If we recycle thorium (or uranium), we can fission almost the entire thing.

Yonni: I'm just demonstrating how fission product waste is of concern, and irradiated metals elsewhere in a plan are much, much less so.

Went off on a tangent a bit there... it has been ~5 years since I was an operator, so I had to dredge up a bit of old knowledge.

@ Jack
''These things are manageable, however. At this point, its an engineering problem, not a theoretical one. ''

Of course, as you would expect, I would say exactly the same thing about renewables! Many years ago I was on the periphery of a very exciting wave energy project. I am afraid that, in my view, it got killed off by political and oil industry interests. The URL keeps getting moved and/or deleted but you can try this paper if you are interested.

Scuppering the waves: how they tried to repel clean energy
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp/2002/00000029/00000001
/art00003

Might I also suggest a very sensible measure which would make an immediate, significant and economical benefit, and that is solar hot water heating (nb not PV). It would even be economic on individual buildings in the grey and dingy UK, given current energy costs. Ever wondered why the heck it isn't government policy? Tidal power too is a sure fire winner, be it with lagoons or barrages (more info and references if you like).

Solar how water heating is a nobrainer. No idea why it isn't more widely implemented.

"''These things are manageable, however. At this point, its an engineering problem, not a theoretical one."
Of course that applies to the renewables too which is why they should also be championed by environmentalists. Currently, however, it's impossible to replace our fossil fuel dependence with them alone.

@ Yonni ''Of course that applies to the renewables too which is why they should also be championed by environmentalists. Currently, however, it's impossible to replace our fossil fuel dependence with them alone.''

You make a sound point, however, they could go a long way to meeting that target if sensibly supported. I also have a friend/colleague who is interested in CO2 capture and storage from coal power plants. Fingers crossed, things are looking promising and this could well make up the gap. Certainly I would be happier for future generations to leave them with legacy of carbon dioxide rather depositories than their radioactive equivalents.
Thank you for the debate, I have enjoyed it.

I'd be interested to learn more about CO2 capture. It seems like a pie in the sky solution that is always 'just a little bit away.'
So far the 'clean coal movement' has been little more than marketing for a horrifically dirty industry. I just wouldn't want to waste time and resources into developing another technology which coal advocate use as a way of promoting dirty energy production.