SCGI

Home

Dr. Barry Brook

Critique of ‘A plan for a sustainable energy future by 2030′

The November 2009 issue of Scientific American has a cover story by Mark Z. Jacobson (Professor, Stanford) and Mark A. Delucchi (researcher, UC Davis). It’s entitled “A path to sustainable energy by 2030” (p 58 – 65; they call it WWS: wind, water or sunlight). This popular article is supported by a technical analysis, which the authors will apparently submit to the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy at some point (or may have already done so). Anyway, they have made both papers available for free public download here.

So what do they say? In a nutshell, their argument is that, by the year 2030:
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.

Big claim. Does it stack up? Short answer, no. Read more...

payday loans

GE-Hitachi Advanced Recycling Center (ARC)

GE (General Electric) Hitachi is proposing the Advanced Recycling Center (ARC). It is an ectrometallurgical separation process that would make a new form of fuel from spent fuel rods without separating plutonium. This would be used in the Fourth Generation PRISM sodium-cooled fast reactors. This proposed "first of kind" system would cost about $3.2 billion and would be completed by 2020.

Radio Interview - 4th Gen Nuclear

A 50 minute talk on the world's current energy situation.

October 7, 2009

Any solution to the world’s ever increasing energy requirements must be climate change friendly.

While many activists and scientists insist that renewable energies such as wind, solar and hydro electric can solve the world’s energy needs and avoid a climate catastrophe, opponents point to fourth generation nuclear power as a better solution.

Radiation - facts, fallacies and phobias

Posted by Barry Brook on 19 September 2009

I note a recent article in Opinion Online by Dr Helen Caldicott was linked to in the Is Our Future Nuclear? comments thread, and this subsequently generated a fair amount of heated discussion. The focal claim from Caldicott in this piece is that it is dangerous to live near to nuclear power plants (NPP), because they supposedly increase rates of leukemia.

Power to the People

Listen to me on ABC Radio, talking about nuclear power, fast breeder reactors, renewables, and the inevitability of growing societal energy demand. This also features an interview with Dr Jim Green, and my response. It runs for about 16 minutes in total: http://tr.im/vXE2

-----------------

Published in the Adelaide Advertiser, 4 August 2009 (pg 18).

This opinion editorial I wrote builds on the recent flurry of interest in the Australian media on introducing nuclear power.

-----------------

Imagine someone handed you a lump of silvery metal the size of a golf ball. They said you might wish to put on some plastic gloves to hold it, although that would not be necessary if you washed your hands afterwords.

You look down at the metal resting on your palm. It feels heavy, because it’s very dense.

You are then told that this metal golf ball can provide all the energy you will ever use in your life. That includes running your lights, computer, air conditioner, TV, electric car, synthetic jet fuel.

Everything. Using 1 kilogram of uranium (or thorium, take your pick).

That is what modern nuclear power offers. An incredibly concentrated source of energy, producing a tiny amount of waste.

read more about what modern nuclear power offers

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>

Page 3 of 4