Waking up to the NEED for nuclear energy

Two articles confirm the viewpoint that I've known and said and advocated for several years.  My industry of career choice, nuclear energy, is NEEDED by the world to address climate change.  You can see the articles below.  One is by ex-NASA scientist James Hansen, who is really concerned about this, and who sees nuclear as really one of the only ways to start reversing climate course in the necessary near future.  The other indicates, as I also know, that the real problem is not climate change, it's ENERGY.  The world needs energy and will continue to need energy, more of it.  To make that energy less carbon-intensive and less climate-affective, renewables, though I admire them, won't provide enough of what's needed.

Nuclear energy is taking some hard knocks right now for being expensive, potentially dangerous (even though as Hansen notes it has probably saved many, many more lives, and will save more in the future, if you do the math right, than it has taken), and technologically challenging.  But new strategies, such as waste-consuming reactors, modular fail-safe designs, and small reactors, such as those on nuclear ships and submarines, can effectively address many of those concerns.  What is needed is concerted and mutual effort.  The pressing concerns of climate change, when the idiot diddies who dispute it are dealt with, can move us in the direction that will provide a secure energy future and a better-than-bad climate future.

Article 1:  Jim Hansen presses the climate case for nuclear energy

Hansen:  "I think the only hope we have of phasing down emissions and getting to the middle of the century with a much lower level of fossil fuel emissions — which is what we will have to do if we want young people to have a future — we’re going to have to have alternatives and at this time nuclear seems to be the best candidate."

Article 2:  Global warming is not the world's top problem, energy is

"The obvious bridge to a cleaner energy future, one that does not bring runaway greenhouse gas emissions, is nuclear power. But activists are entrenched against it in America - unlike their political ancestors, modern liberals only care about poor people when it comes to demonizing the wealthy. Actual technological solutions that can provide cheaper, cleaner energy for the poor are blocked because activists are interested in addressing symptoms rather than cures. We're still somewhat handcuffed by resistance to nuclear power, resistance is almost autonomic even if people cannot remember why. "Pandora's Promise" director Robert Stone had a real uphill battle getting his documentary made because none of his usual backers - for his anti-nuclear and otherwise pro-environment pieces - wanted to be involved in that project. Being anti-nuclear is built into their cultural DNA. Pro- environment means anti-energy. Except it just isn't true outside fundraising brochures."

 These are great words and statements to read and think about.  But it's time to DO something.