What is usually missing in the discussion about nuclear power is that the production of the nuclear plant itself and the creation of the fuel rods used in the plant require enormous inputs of energy. Coal is used to make the fuel rods from uranium mined somewhere on the planet, and mining requires large amount of energy. EF Schumacher explained this in Small is Beautiful. Then there is the issue of wastes from the nuclear cycle which require more resources over thousands of years than we can even imagine. Humanity will be burdened for hundreds of thousands of years with storage issues.

The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat. https://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

New studies now show waste heat may explain some temperature variations at a national scale better than do global climate change models. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005694

Dear Sir,

Global warming has two aspects cause and effect. Green house gas is the effect and heat addition is the cause. Now the amount of green house gases accumulated can not be removed, and we are thinking/planning to reduce further emitting of green house gases. But heat rejection from air conditioners, refrigerators, waste heat from industrial processes including thermal power plants and nuclear power plants are helping to rise in ambient temperature and fuelling climate change . Hence nuclear power plants are also responsible for global warming.

Scientists agree that today’s warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the atmosphere, like when we choose to extract and burn coal, oil, and gas, or cut down and burn forests.

The list of effects that global warming is having on environment, climate and human kind (https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/globalwarmingeffects.php): 1. Melting of Glaciers 2. Climate Change 3. Droughts 4. Diseases 5. Hurricanes Frequency 6. Rise of Sea Levels 7. Agriculture 8. Heat Waves 9. Frequent Wildfires 10. Severe Precipitation 11. Longer/Shorter Seasons 12. Crops 13. Oceans 14. Food Chain 15. Health Risks 16. Animal Extinction 17. Quality of Life 18. Economic Collapse 19. Air Quality 20. Decreased Population 21. Human Extinction 22. Going off the Grid 23. Fresh Water 24. Disappearing Countries

The west the developer of nuclear power has created a fear about this technology in the world. they have exploited it for defense purposes and now they will exploit new technologies of power generation and sell to poor and foolish nations

Nuclear energy produces heat as waste in the process of generating electricity, and therefore a cause of heating of the environment. The heat is sustained in the environment in the presence of heat absorbing agents like carbon-dioxide. In its absence, the natural phenomena would have occurred: what is hot becomes cold, as we all know. So, if carbon dioxide were found only in the natural levels, there wouldn't have been cause for concern as the heat caused by Carbon-dioxide at such natural levels would be the heat we needed for our survival -not the one caused by anthropogenic activities, which is actually, killing us.

The production of Nuclear Power generates heat and adds to the Global Warming. However, it would be less than in the production of Thermal Power.

I think you should also consider the CO2 produced by building and decommissioning the nuclear plant. These figures are significant, even if the CO2 produced by running it isn't..

Would not toxicity from radiation over-ride toxicity from greenhouse gas emissions?

From valuable feed backs from eminent scientists and technologists, it is being concluded that nuclear power generation is a source of global warming and climate change, IAEA should note this character of nuclear power. Since it is economical and competitive in generation cost, the peaceful use of nuclear power generation may be continued till world is not self sufficient in green power.

I am not convinced of the assertions of the pro-nuclear community, that nuclear power is as cheap as renewables. The lifetime cost of a nuclear plant is spread over a wide range of services and modalities, and it is very easy to 'lose' many of the more inconvenient ones by externalisation. If you do this of course nuclear can be made as cheap as you like; and so can coal, wood, oil and pretty well anything.

You are right sir, but for environmental global warming /climate change reasons , we have to discard fossil fuel fired thermal power generation in phased manner, till we find out an alternate source of green power or before that dead line for sake of minimum human habitation on planet earth. As you have mentioned, nuclear power is as cheap as hydro-electric power and cost around Rs.1.00 per Kwh in India at current prices.

Less contribution of GHG emission in the atmosphere

Effectively addressing global warming requires a rapid transformation of the ways in which we produce and consume energy. The scope and impacts of climate change—including rising seas, more damaging extreme weather events, and severe ecological disruption—demand that we consider all possible options for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions—including their respective costs and timelines for implementation.

To help prevent the worst consequences of climate change, much of the states must achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions by or before mid-century.

Swiftly decarbonizing the electric sector, one of the largest sources of US, China and India, among others, carbon emissions, is among the most cost-effective steps for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures can help dramatically cut the sector’s emissions, and are safe, cost-effective, and commercially available today.

Yet limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power in addition to natural gas.

Nuclear power produces very few lifecycle carbon emissions. It also faces substantial economic challenges, and carries significant human health and environmental risks.

A very simple calculation will show that the cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant is quite sensitive to the decommissioning cost (DC). In your example, for instance allowing a DC of 10 INR per watt gives a power cost of about 1.5 INR/kWh, in good agreement with your statement. However, who in the world thinks that you can safely decommission a nuclear plant so cheaply? At a more realistic cost of 400 INR/watt the price of power jumps to more like 4 INR/kWH; but this DC can be safely left to future generations - externalised in effect - and quite left out of any calculation. As I believe it has been in many cases.

Nuclear Life cycle emissions +up & downstream processes http://www.energiasostenible.org/mm/file/GCT2008%20Doc_ML-LCE%26Emissions.pdf Not sure about these numbers but these are some of the issues. I think DC is underestimated by a long way, France UK & Japan have legacy issues where costs could spiral out of control - I would like to see Nuclear focus on generating electricity from its waste.

Sir, the price quoted is just for stating that the price of nuclear power is competitive in the market, and exact current prices not shown. A nuclear power plant consumes a few kg of nuclear fuel in a year while a similar capacity coal based thermal power plant consumes coal in several Million tons per annume. Our point is to focus that as indicated earlier by authorities that nuclear power generation is eco-friendly, is only partly correct and not wholly, for its waste heat has global warming potential for climate change.

http://www.ippnw.eu/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Why_nuclear_energy_is_not_an_answer_to_global_warming.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming#.Whax2FVl_X4

https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP16web-86692468.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP2015Web-78834554.pdf

http://www.sfen.org/sites/default/files/public/atoms/files/nuclear4climate_position_paper.pdf

What is usually missing in the discussion about nuclear power is that the production of the nuclear plant itself and the creation of the fuel rods used in the plant require enormous inputs of energy. Coal is used to make the fuel rods from uranium mined somewhere on the planet, and mining requires large amount of energy. EF Schumacher explained this in Small is Beautiful. Then there is the issue of wastes from the nuclear cycle which require more resources over thousands of years than we can even imagine. Humanity will be burdened for hundreds of thousands of years with storage issues.

Dear Radhashyam Muduli,

The correct answer to your question: "Why Nuclear power generation can not be treated as an agent for global warming?" is that it is politicized. Nuclear power is a deterrent for some and weapon for hegemony for the powerful.

Howard Walter Mielke has correctly identified the enormous cost of mining, and production of reactor grade uranium, cooling the core with several million m3 of seawater or surface/ground water, cooling the waste with an equally large amount of water and keeping the waste cool for several hundred years.

Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)

Nuclear power accidents and Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown and other mishaps involve loss of life besides monetary costs for remediation work.

There is need to protect the nuclear arsenal which is about 15,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of around 1460 million tons of TNT. Water is needed in one form or the other and that will raise the temperature and humidity of the microenviroment by a certain degree which is not considered significant.

Additionally there is the question of remaining prepared for any untoward incident such as the decay heat accident and the coolant loss accident that may contaminate the water body in the microenvironment.

Mirza Arshad Ali Beg

You are right, Mr.Beg.Since nuclear power is cheaper and dangerous for its radioactive emissions a sort of privacy is to be maintained for this dangerous fuel source. We should honour the care of political leaders in this respect.because information can be transmitted very fast through them. A true scientist can try his life long to spread his discovery and inventions, but he can not reach the people,but a political leader comes to limelight within 3/5 years of his tenure. This is a different issue. Our mission is to make it known to scientist and technologists that the power generation from nuclear fuel is not ecofrirndly as it is discharging waste heat to environment and causing global warming.

Sir, 

If your nuclear plant works well, you can expect to ‘externalize’ the costs of the wastes, transfer it to the future generations ; if an accident occurs, obviously, some of the costs will also be transferred to the future.

If you produce energy at a ‘low price’ for the present generation, with the idea that the next will also benefit, there is a ‘trade off’ as you give a sustain to a future economic growth for the wastes. 

But if the price of electricity is low, as you expected it to be, than you may get a massive rebound effect for all your consumption (you still need ‘fossils’, the substitution effect is bounded).

This is due to a ‘permanent income effect’ that makes you more rich, and your ‘fossil-CO2 loaded’ consumption will also rise… you will loose the benefits of the substitution, ‘fossil’ plants by nuclear plants, simply because of the lower the price of electricity, the richer you are and the more you consume. 

For ex. you’ll be allowed to trip more if your electricity bill is lowered, thanks to the nuclear plant, and you will not produce less CO2 (you may produce more in fact, it's the rebound). 

If there are extra costs for you (or your descendants) like wastes, raising price due to uranium supply, accidents and pollution, the ‘solar-wind-and others’ choice is the good one, because it is cheaper.

The ‘climate change’ is just an excuse to sell more nuclear plants, that are (and will be) parts of the problem : those plants are tools for growth and growth means warming the planet. 

Finally, if the ‘solar-wind-and others’ mix becomes 'cheap' and technically 'efficient', you can logically expect a ‘renewables rebound effect’ : the same as above, replace ‘nuclear’ by ‘renewables’… 

But you can avoid it if you change the way you produce your energy and the rest : if an energy plant is ‘smaller’ and ‘nearer’ ('the smaller, the better'), the transaction costs may be lowered (you can better put a 'price', or a better price, on energy production and its effects) and you can expect to have a better control (‘efficiency’) on the chains of production. You may also control your consumption.

Nuclear power: peaceful use of nuclear reaction is beneficial to mankind except its radioactive emissions. But nuclear power plants are converting only 28% of the heat into electricity and rest 72% of the heat is rejected and warming the environment that lead to climate change. This negative aspects we can not neglect as it is harmful to human habitation in long run, and effects of climate change has been surfaced and causing undue hardship to human race and it is not an excuse.

Therefore, it is decided to discontinue this practice soon after we become self sufficient in renewable energy like, solar, hydro-electric, wind and marine sources etc.

Nuclear may seem a clean source of power, nevertheless there are mining activities behind its extraction that generate greenhouse gases emissions that will affect global warming.

South Australia where I presently live is a major exporter of uranium. I am saddened to see that those praising this activity quite dismiss any moral obligation to clear up the mess it creates downstream. They won't even allow a waste storage facility in what is likely to be one of the safest places in the world to put one. And having such a store opens the door in the future to 'burning off' the excess energy it contains (which apparently is huge - as much as 90% of the available energy in the uranium is not tapped using conventional reactors) using hybrid reactors. Not that I'm a nuclear enthusiast - quite the reverse - but when faced with the sorts of contamination that all this spent uranium produces, I would heartily support any such remediation activity.

Technical Report Nuclear Power- Pros and Cons and Threats of Climate Change

Dear Radhashyam Muduly,

Ref; We should honour the care of political leaders in this respect.because information can be transmitted very fast through them.

This may be true in the case of but few politicians, because it is established that politicians are invariably liars. They conceal truth; they work on half-baked truth and speak it hundred times to make it truth.

Case in example is that of South Australia, cited by Tony Maine: "I am saddened to see that those praising this activity quite dismiss any moral obligation to clear up the mess it creates downstream. They won't even allow a waste storage facility in what is likely to be one of the safest places in the world to put one." The politicians are the ones who praise the activity, while the scientists identifying the problem are either sidelined or are asked to shut up.

Incidentally Australia has no operating nuclear power plants and the construction of such a facility is prohibited. Australia hosts 33% of the world's uranium deposits and is the world's third largest producer of uranium after Kazakhstan and Canada. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia)

A resurgence of interest in nuclear power was prompted by Prime Minister John Howard in 2007 in response to the need to move to low-carbon methods of power generation in order to reduce the impact of climate change. In 2015, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherillinitiated a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission to investigate the state's future role in the nuclear fuel cycle. South Australia is currently home to four of Australia's five uranium mines. The Royal Commission determined that there was no case for the introduction of nuclear power to the electricity grid in South Australia, but it did not consider its potential interstate. In its final report of May 2016, the Royal Commission recommended that prohibitions preventing the development of nuclear power plants nationally should be repealed.

In 2017, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott advocated for legislation to be changed to allow the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia. The Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, has been urging for debate on the prospect of nuclear power in Australia, including the revisiting of Jervis Bay as a prospective site for a nuclear power plant.

In November 2017, Senator Cory Bernardi presented the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Facilitation) Bill 2017 in the Senate, with the intention of repealing existing prohibitions preventing the establishment of nuclear power in Australia.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia)

So you see Dear Radhashyam Muduly, how the politicians manoever to sideline the findings of the scientists in their own country.

Mira Arshad Ali Beg

The CO2 induced global warming theory has numerous loopholes. First, it is not supported by any thermal or thermodynamic theory related to earth atmosphere. Second, anthropocentric factors influfencing carbon cycle are of very little or negligible consequnce .

Fossil fuel fired power plants are major polluter of environment and to be replaced by green power in phased manner. We should be vigilant to consume less power in our daily life.Human activities in industrial and domestic front has added all warming of the environment. We should proceed in a planned manner to check global warming and climate change at this appropriate hour of human civilization and this steps will keep us heal and hearty.

The use of nuclear power should be classified as an agent of global warming. Although far better than fossil fuel generating plants can be used for purposes not meant.

The use of nuclear power is definetely the source of global warming. However it may be negligible compared with all other causes. The other reality is that it is not well understood due to the hiding agendas of emitterrs.

The Baldwin 2006 paper shows that the carbon footprint of nuclear energy sources are very small in comparison with various other energy sources including some renewables.Therefore, the contribution of nuclear energy in the global warming seems insignificant.

S. Baldwin, "Carbon footprint of electricity generation," London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2006, pp. 1-4.

Carbon emissions are less but direct heat rejection to environment to the tune of 70% is the cause of global warming in nuclear power generation.

My take is that as carbon dioxide releases are very small in nuclear plants, our arguments need to be taken further: nuclear plant use shall mean doing away with fossil fuels as sources of energy -eliminating a bigger evil in the process, and substituting it with a lesser evil, in nuclear plants. A sound of warning however; nuclear plant operation needs high level technology -lets promote such technology acquisition as a prelude to its adoption.

Global warming is taking place for more than one reason. All are to be addressed for effectively checking the climate change. This is not only told by me but also all technologists from nuclear power generation accepting the fact.

Has anyone read the NIPCC Report from 2009, or the followup from the 2011 Interim Report? There is extensive review of the existing climate studies which is quite interesting. Especially the chapter on temperature and localized heat zones. I found the summary information very interesting.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Human activities has been the single cause for global warming.Nuclear power generation with 72℅ direct heat rejection to environment is a great cause of global warming and should be withdrawn from active generation of power in phased manner.

Nuclear reactors are not our problem. In the contemporary society, we know that energy choice depends virtually on its friendliness to the ecosystem which in practice, the nuclear reactor technology surpasses all other thermally derived power. It's relatively cheaper and safe, energy production is continuous and efficient. Global warming as a universe-thermodynamic occurrence is not direct only on production of heat but the absence of a sink for such heat. Our problems should lie with the continuous production of GHGs which also traps these heat in our atmosphere. Come to think of it, what credible alternative can we have to nuclear?

GHG are indirectly heating atmosphere. Nuclear power cycle is directly heating the atmosphere. Hence both are responsible for global warming and climate change.

Water vapor is the primary green house gas, and radiational cooling releases heat from the eath. In the report I referenced above , the chapter that discusses temperature of the atmosphere has extensive discussions on research related to "localized heat islands" that occur around populated areas. The localized temeratures have risen, but the temperature studies of the vast acareage around these cities has not increased.

All these effects have come from excess human activities on earth for progress of civilisation. At this juncture, the persons concerned in science, technology, administration,. Social development and after all political leaders are requested to bring down the national growth rate for a favourable impact on climate change.

Folks, let's see straight : a nuclear reactor-plant is made to raise (or to grow) production (and so : income and consumption) ; it's just made for this ; fulfilling the 'needs' for energy will create new needs, and so on. Then, you'll have 'development' : tons of commodities that weight tons of CO2.

You can close-replace some fossil plants by nuclears, but the overall effect on CO2 emission and greenhouse gaz lies in the tons of commodities that will follow the nuclear plant, that will be plugged directly or that the households will afford with the net income induced by the plant.

People have the right for 'growth', for 'development' (more and - or better consumption), but since we haven't found the solution to the warming, it's better not to get in tangle with the tiger ; this could mean 'rebounds effects' caused by nuclear plants (this heat the water and the air too, but it's nothing compared to induced rebound effects) ; and the stock of uranium is huge : it's like a giant pot of ice-cream, you won't be able to stop pickin' in. Once in, can't escape easily (see Japan going back to nuclear energy).

Q : 'why we can not say that nuclear power is an agent for global warming and climate change?'

A : Nuclear power is an agent of warming because it works ; due to rebounds effects, consumption grows and CO2 emission follow.

IAEA, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2015

p. 42 : 'Improving economic well-being of citizens is a key priority in most countries. Nuclear power belongs to the energy options that involve large upfront capital costs (see Section 3.3). Yet these investments tend to trickle down to other sectors in the economy such as construction, manufacturing and services, thus generating economic growth and creating new employment. Apart from energy security and climate change mitigation potential, nuclear power can thereby make a significant contribution to a country’s economic development.

Empirical evidence about the relationship between nuclear investments and economic growth is emerging, although some conflicting results were reported in the past. An econometric analysis — based on a large dataset including 16 countries for 1980–2005 — has revealed the role of nuclear energy in boosting long term economic growth in the analysed countries [45]. A 1% increase in nuclear energy production and consumption would increase real GDP by 0.32%, according to this study. In comparison, the impact on GDP resulting from investments in real gross fixed capital is significantly lower (0.17% only).’

IAEA, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2016

p. 58 : 'Apart from the potential to create jobs, nuclear power has positive implications for electricity and aggregate price stability leading to an overall more favourable macroeconomic context for economic growth. Also, nuclear power typically provides baseload energy, while generating relatively low system costs in comparison with the intermittent renewables. In addition, being a low carbon generation technology, nuclear power reduces the volatility of electricity prices due to fluctuations in the carbon price component.'

Nuclear power is an economical way of power generation with price about Rs.1.00 per KWh, and govt. has approved it's utilisation, but it is warming the environment, so we have to discard it in phased manner like fossil fuel power generation. Our first priority is environment and then economic growth for a healthy life.

Global warming is approaching as a monster to destroy the environment. Odisha coast is submerging. Keral is facing decline in fertility in India. Few deserts are receiving rainfall, standing crops are getting damaged by untimely rain, storms with sand is blowing at 100 km per hour and killing people, humanity in men are. missing and turning to animal behaviour, these all are sign of depression of environmental conditions. Now our educated mass should turn their.eyed and ears to this crucial everyday problem.

Which alternative would you @Muduli profer that is exo-friendly much more than nuclear reactors Sir?

Solar, wind, hydro-electric, ocean currents, tidal source of power are eco-friendly. These sources power neither generate any GHG nor warms atmosphere directly or indirectly. Nuclear power though emits no GHG, directly heats up the environment with 72℅ of the rejected heat from the power cycle. Hazards from radiation of raw fuel and burnt fuel are additional risks. This direct heat addition warming the environment very considerably.

GHG and heat dissipation and other type of radiations are the causes of the anthrogenic contribution to the global warming which is the effect. These anthropogenic contributions are the only one we can resonably reduce if we don't wan't do do worse that good trying to foolishly control climate change artificially.

All human activities are contributing to global warming. Cheap resources lead to careless waste of energy, goods, and food to fuel the economy rather than in the best interest people who are not reasonable/educated enough to make the difference between fulfilling their needs rather their satisfying their desires.

Further, about the way nuclear power plant work:

1- they use cold fossil fuel (cause) that becomes hot (cause) for centuries.

2- the mining is very polluting (cause)

3- direct heat (cause) wasted is absorbed by GHG and more over creates GHG (water vapor) (cause).

4- the electricity is mostly wasted in radiative dissipation (cause) by users that is absorbed by GHG (cause). Some of the new type of radiations (cause) (ex. microwaves are powerful generators of warming when absorbed by GHG) generated lately that were not around a decade ago. (There is also a taboo on the health problems they are creating.)

5- running a nuclear power plant is not flexible therefore one has to run them 24h, 7/7 and waste whatever is not actually needed. It would be interesting to know how much that is. I suppose some people are working on some way to store it but it is not yet practical.

6- power plants are dangerous.

7- power plants are becoming extremely expensive to build, maintain, and dismantle.

8- the nuclear wastes are very difficult to discart and are the most polluting wastes humankind have ever generated so far.

The ostriche attitude, or chicken game people in power are playing to leverage more power (cause) and make more profits (cause) is sickening and irresponsible toward the populations and future generations.

Mr. Guy Havet, you are very correct, still then we have to depend on nuclear power till we develop some renewable type power, being propelled by solar heat & light, hydel power , ocean current power, wind power etc.

Mr. Guy Havet, you are very correct, still then we have to depend on nuclear power till we develop some renewable type power, being propelled by solar heat & light, hydro-electric power , ocean current power, wind power etc.

Mr. Guy Havet, you are very correct, still then we have to depend on nuclear power till we develop some renewable type power, being propelled by solar heat & light, hydro-electric power , ocean current power, wind power etc.

Till such time we should follow ascetic life to save our environment.

Mr. Radhashyam Muduli,

I agree that it is necessary to transfer nuclear power to renewable sources of energy (solution) and that it will take time. Unfortunately, in France, it has not been possible to develop such alternatives for half a century or so, due to the monopoly (cause) of nuclear power over the financial resources and group thinking of the people fascinated by this power and who believed that it was a panacea that no other solution could compete with.

I am not sure that we need to go as far as imposing a strict ascetic life to everyone but rather a more balanced and modest life (solution). First, we need to educate people (solution) who control the consumerism to be more responsible about the way they force cheap, useless, disposable, low quality goods and food onto people who have little choice. Unfortunately, these greedy and wicked people (cause) play with the weaknesses of the population with powerful tools and with the complicity (cause) of our governments rather than reaching to the best there is in everyone.

When there will be more value added producing goods (including energy) than distributing them or than making financial profits with credits to incite consumer then there will be a chance to limit the impact of human activities on our environment.(solution in a capitalistic world)

To add to Prof Glodeanu's list of effects of global warming:

25- Hail like hell.

On the 4th of july, in Brigueil Correze (16) in France, was shelled by hailstones the size of "tennis balls" or "oranges". From witnesses it was hell and the mayor who was shell shocked said it was just like a war zone after bombing. It destroyed roofs, cars, even security glass. From records this phenomenon has never been witnesses before.

http://www.meteo-paris.com/actualites/forts-orages-avec-grele-et-rafales-ce-debut-juillet-02-juillet-2018.html

In the range of foolish remedy to protect crops against hailstones, for about two decades french farmers have been shooting rockets in the sky loaded with silver salts to reduce their size. The escalation of such interventions is futile and accelerates pollution and the climate disruption.

Dear Guy Havet, not purely ascetic but should cut power consumption to minimum taking light & heat from sun's ray and dehumidification from a stream of flowing air. Our fellow beings , unaware of the fact will not believe our efforts and thinking. At least all Govt. should adopt and enforce some regularizing steps to combat climate change. It is a great thing that, 90% Govt. in the world are aware of the climate change facts,some day they will come forward with right steps to fight the issue.

Dear Radhashyam Muduli,

I hope it isn't just whishful thinking...

I am convinced that a few people have been doing outstanding work for at least more than half a century trying to keep the business as usual and trying to find contrivances and artificial solutions to global warming to keep the economy the way they beleive it is the right way.

Why have we not learned from the Titanic experience?

A few people who had a disease called hubris decided to demonstrate their ego building an unsinkable ship a make a speed record...

When the predictable accident due to overspeeding occured, the captain of the ship didn't make the proper decision...

Trying to save everyone, he sunk the whole ship thus killing most of the people on that ship. While if he had taken the right decision he could have saved the ship and most of the passengers.

The few survivors were among those who were contaminated by hubricity and greed...

Do you believe that the "elite" who has the power to change the way people live, will choose ascetism (or something like it) to limit global warming and save the many living beings on Earth?

or will they find the opportunity to stay among a few of themselves with a model based on robotics, AI, transgenics, ... with a clear 'conscience' since they consider the remaining living beings as useless parasites or plagues?

Thanks for sharing your views.

Kind regards

Guy

@Guy

at point 4 here in an answer above : 'Some of the new type of radiations (cause) (ex. microwaves are powerful generators of warming when absorbed by GHG) generated lately that were not around a decade ago.'

I don't understand : 'microwaves are...warming when absorbed by GHG' ; interesting but how does it work ? does GHG absorb microwaves, and create new GHG ? Something like this ?

But, don't you think that it's the production of microwaves that is carbon loaded, and that the problem is (also) here, in the income effect of the nuclear plant ? Point 5 is linked to this, obviously : a nuclear plant is a economic system in a shell.

Thanks, JP.

Jean-Pierre,

Let met clarify:

About point 4: Microwave energy is damped to various extents by all molecules (depending on their structure and density) in the atmosphere including and in particular by water vapor. The attenuation depends on the microwave frequency, the water vapor density, atmospheric pressure, and temperature. This damping is due to vibration of the molecules the microwave radiations are transformed into heat (IR radiations). That is why you need to put antennas for wifi and cell phone regularly spaced or/and with high power. If you had an old cell phone you even may have had the experience to see water from the cells of your hear condensing on the cell phone. This dissipation creates warming of the atmosphere and the cells of your hear. Due to geometric consideration, for a punctual source of microwaves the intensity will decrease with the square of the distance from the source as well.

You are correct to say that whenever one transforms one energy type to another type there is a loss. Therefore there is a loss transforming electrical energy into microwave energy at the emitter, and from microwave energy to electrical energy and then to mechanical energy at the receptor. Also there is quite a large amount microwave energy dissipated into ‘thin air’ or more accurately into GHG and all water containing bodies. All the microwaves generated to run cell phones or other terrestrial devices are ground based and are dissipated within the height of a few hundred meters. All this original electrical energy is creating heat. The microwaves are never stored. Therefore all microwaves are a cofactor along with GHG to global warming (without talking about their damages to health). The production and use of microwave tools (wifi, cell phones, ...) started to increase dramatically a decade (or two) ago.

Who is ready to give up wireless tools and toys?

Obviously, using the same reasoning applies to all energies produced contributes to the global warming since they are mostly dissipated into heat. The best use of energy one could do is to utilize it to produce valuable lasting materials and yet the efficiency is not good at all besides maybe for polymers.

About point 5: I appreciated the extracts explaining the IAEA biased position.

Indeed, energy industries including nuclear industry are controlling the way economy runs and are in favor of energy spending but it is even worse for nuclear energy due to its inability to turn on and off rapidly. Therefore, we have to 'use' or/and waste the energy around the clock thus working around the clock, the creation of night and day tariffs or peak tariffs vs low tariffs when there is less demand, and so on and so forth...

I suppose this last part was already clear but I will expand it:

Further, the way consumerism works: the distributors of goods make rebates to the people who consume the most including for energy bills. You understand that this is deviant. :(.

The capitalistic proposal I am making is the opposite. These industries will still make loads of money but will incite everyone to respect the work, the goods, food, fuel... since they will have a decent production value. This will also incite to produce more lasting goods. This is a simple, reasonable, responsible, and efficient solution that works as a domino effect without complicated laws and controls.

The problem is what do we use this energy for? :( Certainly not in respecting each other nor other living beings.

If we want to find solutions to global warming we will have to make mediations and reduce our global consumption of food and energy to the levels of the 70's (minimum goal for a solution). In summary live a more frugal life, a more mindful life, a richer life, a more harmonious life but with less energy.

Unfortunately, no one is ready to explain the problem to its citizens, to educate them, and to make the appropriate but tough decision.

People in position of power and deciders prefer doing foolish geoengineering, Mathusianism without consent of the population, ..., and keep doing business as usual. I hope this explanation is clear.

Kind regards

Guy

Actually the word Global warming is a meteorological word used for the heat entrapped in the blanket of GHG , the GHS are emitting from burning of fossil fuels.The Global warming is specially interlinked with fossil fuels.The nuclear power have no carbon emission , in this way it is not considered as cause for Global warming.

However, what is missing is the view of the whole fuel cycle that is included in nuclear power. Enormous amounts of energy are required to make the fuel rods, build the facility that uses the fuel rods, and then store the spent fuel and disgard of old reactor which require special cooling (using energy) for 10's to 100's of thousand years, depending on the radioactive nature of the spent fuels and disassembled old reactors. Nuclear reactors are not as benign to global warming as you claim.

Global warming is not only started from GHG in indirect method But also from waste heat from industrial processes, heat rejected from refrigerator and air conditioners etc directly to atmosphere. Nuclear power rejects 30% of its heat generated in reactor directly to atmosphere through condenser and hence nuclear power generation is a source of global warming agent. Thanks

In addition to all previous comments demonstrating the contribution of nuclear power plants to Global Warming, I recommend the documentary "Into Eternity" by Michel Madsen, 2011 describing the enormous problem of the storage of nuclear wastes in Onkalo, Finland.

The danger of radioactivity from nuclear fuel is there, we have to handle with care for safety of human beings and environment. Processing, reactivating, rejecting as waste at various stages of its use and process are followed right from its mining. In a recent discussion nuclear scientists have clarified that it is not that's much danger as it was initially warned. It's abundant energy content from a small volume and small mass is most dangerous to store and handle this fuel. Thanks