Google spent $250M to research whether aggressive adoption of renewable energy would be sufficient to halt global warming.
Their conclusion was simple: Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK'
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a piece published yesterday in IEEE's Spectrum.
This means we need a power technology that can produce carbon free power on a reliable basis (24x7) that is not "renewable." There is only one option left on the table: nuclear energy.
Advanced nuclear designs such as the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) are passively safe and use our existing nuclear waste for fuel. The small amount of waste product produced from these reactors is easily sequestered.
Unfortunately, after 30 years of flawless operation, President Clinton pulled the plug on these reactors telling Congress that the clean power from these reactors was no longer needed.
The fact remains that nuclear power is the safest form of power ever created (least number of deaths per kwH for any power technology). In the US for example, coal kills 20,000 people per year while there have been no deaths attributed to nuclear power in its entire history in the US.
So why aren't we spending billions of dollars to perfect and cost reduce these advanced reactors and supplying them to China and other emerging economies?
We have no other option left on the table. If there is a better option, what is it?