Books, Video, Audio
The Science Council for Global Initiatives (SCGI) is an international NGO dedicated to uplifting the standards of living of people of all nations while repairing our damaged environment.
The last two weeks of September was quite the time for news – the Pope’s visit, the Speaker’s exit, the Chinese President’s visit, the United Nations General Assembly, huge Hurricane Joaquin, weird House committee rants, flowing water on Mars, more Trumpeting, the new Daily Show.
But the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Seattle on his way to the East Coast was little heralded. Disputes over computer hacking, cyber-plundering and limits on U.S. firms’ access to Chinese markets have tensions high between the two federal governments, to the point where unleashing economic sanctions on Chinese businesses is a definite possibility (WP).
In this interview (James Hansen, former Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and currently professor at Columbia University) talks about the role of nuclear in climate change mitigation.
I’m James Hansen. I’m from Columbia University’s Earth Institute where I had programmes on climate science awareness and solutions. First we have to educate the public because there’s a lot of misunderstanding about nuclear power.
There are problems with every energy source including nuclear power, but if you look at fossil fuels, 10,000 of people a day are dying from pollution from fossil fuels. Nuclear power has been much safer than that over its lifetime, but we can make it much better with new technologies, much better nuclear power. So it really has the potential of being a substantial part of the solution to climate change.
Nothing but fear and capital stand in the way of a nuclear-powered future
By David Biello | September 14, 2015
In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years. That's the conclusion of a new nuclear grand plan published May 13 in PLoS One. Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal to build hundreds of fission-based reactors, largely due to concerns about safety and cost.