Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
Comments
James Greenidge
Queens NY
This is demonstrably false.
Moniz has chosen a long-time Union of Concerned "Scientists" wonk as his chief of staff. Despite the UCS's protestations to the contrary, the UCS has been stridently anti-nuclear in their entire ~40 year history. From their anti-nuclear ads in SciAm in the mid-late 70s to their spokesperson's whacky statement on NPR a few years ago, "Nuclear winter is not the answer to global warming" to every policy paper they've ever written that mentions nuclear.
If Moniz actually supported the expansion of nuclear power, he would not have chosen a person with absolutely no energy science credentials and nothing but anti-nuclear and anti-science policy credentials as his chief of staff.
But, hey, go on whistling if it makes you feel better over there in the dark.