About Social Media Today
Comments by Geoff Russell Subscribe 
On Climate Change and the Energy World Map
Nice to see somebody who realises the inefficiency of a focus on energy efficiency as a response to climate change ... huge gains in efficiency of many types of devices have had no impact on per capita emissions during the past 2 decades:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/05/17/green-junk-in-praise-of-waste/
But can CCS be rolled out quickly? Here's a novel idea, why don't we use a technology which we know works and which we know from actual experience can be rolled out quicky ... about 7 times faster than renewables. Which technology? Fission electricity, nuclear reactors. 7 times faster isn't a dream but a measured fact (see graph):
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/16/energy-markets/solar-miracles-and-nuclear-reaction
On EU: 100 Percent Renewable Energy Is Here
Referring to my previous comment, it was a little obscure.
There's enough information in the various comments above to make it reasonably clear that opting for a 100% renewable energy infrastructure will be far too slow to prevent the worst that climate change will deliver. On the other hand, the nuclear build during the 1970s/80s was incredibly fast (about 5-7 times quicker than the German wind+solar roll out in the last decade). The only thing stopping us collectively doing this again is the lack of political will driven by people who sincerely, but innumerately consider that 100% renewables can be rolled out in time and who are frequently clinically radiophobic.
Anybody opting for 100% renewables is clearly happy to risk a very hot and unstable future.
Lastly, I should point out that James Hansen doesn't think that a total phase out of coal by 2035 is sufficient to bring atmospheric CO2 back to 350 ppm by 2150. Also absolutely necessary is a slashing of non-CO2 forcings (e.g., methane, black carbon, etc) and a roll back of 200 years of deforestation. Both of these aren't optional, but required and both imply a radical dietary shift away from meat and dairy products.
So we need a massive nuclear build in addition to a major dietary shift ... that's all :)
On EU: 100 Percent Renewable Energy Is Here
David, I'm a little confused. Are you trying to heat up the planet? Or do you simply not care at all about climate change?
On EU: 100 Percent Renewable Energy Is Here
France has been producing electricity for less than 80 gms-CO2/kwh for 20 years. Would you care to compare this to the emissions of all the countries in your renewable list? Germany's electricity is 6 times filthier and she's running out of money to subsidise her grand plans. Most of the EU's emissions reductions have been achieved by outsourcing production emissions to China.
If the anti-nuclear movement hadn't stopped the nuclear roll out during the 80s, we'd all have been producing clean electricity for 20 years and our climate problems would be much smaller.
Data? p. 111 here:
Thankfully the Chinese have got more brains than the EU and are rapidly deploying clean nuclear technology.
On Welcome to Renewable Electricity Nirvana
Hi N Nadir, it's particularly good to get praise from someone whose work I admire ... yours! Thanks.
The CNN piece was authored by Prof. Kirk Smith ... check him out, his work is behind a lot of estimates in this area, he was the first to devise the methods and actually measure indoor air pollution in villages in India and elsewhere. I doubt there are any serious contradictions between him and the WHO ... more a question of definitions and study dates. These numbers aren't measured accurately but estimated with widish error margins. India and China have been rapidly rolling electrification out and, despite plenty of problems, the number of people cooking with biomass is dropping quickly.
I haven't checked progress on the Jaitapur project lately. It's a massive nuclear plant that could change and change (and save) the lives of many in India. I doubt Greenpeace can stop it, but if they did, it would could reasonably be called a crime against humanity.
On Nuclear Energy and My Greenpeace Conundrum
During Sweden's nuclear build she added electricity at 7 times the per capita rate at which Germany has added wind+solar over the past decade. France added nuclear electricity about 5 time faster.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/16/energy-markets/solar-miracles-and-nuclear-reaction
During the 1970s/80s people just built nuclear and it worked. They didn't need new grids, energy storage, energy efficiency. And nuclear can deliver many more advantages that renewables can't even dream of ... desalination, overnight electric vehicle charging, synthetic fuel generation, etc.
China isn't waiting for new nuclear designs, but it is developing them ... particularly small modular reactors. When they come on line, they will roll off production lines on the back of trucks. In comparison, renewables are an environmental nightmare. Vast areas of land covered in mirrors, PV, wind farms etc. If it's farming land, that's irresponsible, if it's forest, ditto.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/14/81000-truckers-for-solar/
Run the numbers. Please. How big an area would you have to cover with mirrors to produce with solar thermal electricity the amount produced by the 6 Fukushima power plant reactors? You would have to cover an area about the size of the 20 km evacuation area ... permanently. Level it, and cover it in concrete and metal and mirrors... for ever. Why? With nuclear, people can live there, farm there and wildlife can have a share also, but not if you blitz the area for a solar thermal electricity plant.
On Nuclear Energy and My Greenpeace Conundrum
Sweden uses about double the electricity that Germany uses, but her electricity generates < 20 gm-CO2/kwh compared to 450 gm-CO2/kwh in Germany. So it doesn't much matter how much she uses. Germany needs energy efficiency because her electricity is so filthy. It's the same in my country, Australia, we are even worse, with over 800 gm-CO2/kwh because we are totally non-nuclear. So our Green party is very much in favour of trivialities like energy efficiency.
You don't need to worry about energy efficiency if your energy is clean (not as far as climate change is concerned anyway).
Sweden is 50/50 hydro/nuclear ... so she's lucky having hydro resources and smart having nuclear.
On Nuclear Energy and My Greenpeace Conundrum
How safe do you want? Quantitatively ... really .. do the math.
Consider, Japan has about 0.5 malignant melanoma cases per 100,000 per year. So if you moved all the Fukushima evacuees to Queensland in Australia, the children would end up with roughly the Queenland average for malignant melanoma ... 67 cases per 100,000 per year. Other cancers would rise to because Australia has more BBQs and more red and processed meat => more bowel cancer.
Bottom line? Moving back into the evacuation zone would be far less carcinogenic than moving to Queensland (or anywhere else in Australia). If cancer risk due to sunshine was treated the same way as cancer risk due to radiation, then the whole of Australia would be an evacuation zone ... for ever.
Things get even sillier when the insignificant risks from radiation are compared with the calamities of a changing climate. If you aren't pro-nuclear, then you are part of the problem. We don't need mushy headed romantics making decisions based on woolly notions ... we need clear rational numerate informed decision making.
On The Truth About Solar Energy
Rosana, how do you compare the price of solar with that of any grid based system? Here's how I'd do it.
Build two houses, connect one to the grid, note the price.
Install solar on the other until you have an equivalent energy supply both in quantity and reliability, note the price.
We have a term in Australia for people who freeload on services provided by others without making a contribution, it's called "bludging". What you call "grid parity", I call grid bludging.
But apart from not comparing costs properly, you entirely ignored the environmental costs. Solar on rooftops simply can't solve our climate problems and solar elsewhere is just the biofuel debacle all over again. Here's an analysis in the Australian context ... but with some mention of one US Solar installation:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/14/81000-truckers-for-solar/
On Energy vs. Electricity: WWF Solar Report Gets it Wrong
Moree Solar Farm project website is here
http://www.moreesolarfarm.com.au
and the EIS is http://www.moreesolarfarm.com.au/pdf/Environmental%20Assessment%20Report.pdf
On Coal’s True Cost in India: 100,000+ Deaths per Year
Biomass is also extensively used for cooking in India and also kills. You'll find a link in the following article to Professor Kirk Smith, who has been studying, measuring and helping to reduce such problems for 3 decades:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/25/greenpeace-india-spotlight/
Greenpeace in India is actively standing in the way of projects to increase electricity production and save lives because it fears nuclear electricity far more than biomass cooking pollution.
On Climate Change and the Energy World Map
I think the challenge is surmountable if there is agreement within the major mainstream political parties. Opposition is extremely vocal, but not too numerous and based on clear misinformation ... much the same as climate change denial, anti-vaccination and other anti-science positions. Once the climate change denial challenge is beaten, then I reckon the anti-nuclear opposition won't be so tough. I'm not denying its a huge challenge, just that any society with a strong scientific basis should be able to meet it because it's irrationality is pretty clear.