Reply #73: Again with the Jacobson?

[GliderGuider]

Anyhow,

I address the question of efficiency in point #15: "Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce CO2 production, provided we can avoid a rebound effect (aka a Jevons paradox). It should be pursued at least as vigourously as new energy sources."

I don't believe that a nuclear build-out will be a waste of either time or money.

We don't need an unlimited source of funds to do this. the global GDP is about $65 trillion per year. We could build all the low-carbon energy we need with one percent of one year's GDP, which wouldn't even drop the GDP numbers, since that would also be productive activity. Money is not the issue.

Regarding speed of build-out, there are currently 60.5 GWe of nuclear reactors under construction world-wide. Last year the global wind industry installed 37.5 GW of capacity, or less than 10 GWe of actual generation. That's a creditable showing, but the numbers speak for themselves in terms of the current speed of build-out.

As I said in point 12, "The value of wind power could eventually exceed nuclear power, but it will probably take 15 years to get there." Until wind decisively passes nuclear in installed base and cost, and the Keeling curve has been reversed, we should continue to build low-carbon energy sources in all forms. Until the finish line is in sight, it makes sense to me to continue to bet on all horses. We don't know what the future holds, except for more CO2...

There's a reason that all nuclear supporters compare its risk to fossil fuels. It's because once one fully groks the risk of fossil fuels all other risks pale into insignificance, and you realize that unless we get on with the job by any and all means possible the game is over. Compared to that, the risk differences between nuclear, hydro and wind are truly moot.