When I was in sixth form, I once wrote a piece that argued the case against Nuclear Power. Part of my argument was that it had huge costs, crazily more than the original promise of “energy too cheap to meter”. It obviously had, and still has, its problems on decommissioning spent fuel, and the attendant risks of another Chernobyl if you have a badly designed or maintained reactor. Many, perhaps most, shared these views.

So, it’s interesting to see how many people, myself included, are rather more positive about Nuclear Power these days, as it appears to be the most reliable large-scale carbon-free energy source around. Some of the more fundamentalist “deep green” environmentalists are still opposing it on principle.

I wonder if that will change, now that there seems to be a radically better Nuclear Power option? It was 50 years ago that the Thorium-based option for power generation was dropped in favour of Uranium-based ones, mostly because Uranium helps produce Plutonium for atomic weapons.

Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke is Wired Magazine’s article that explains this possible shift in more detail, and shows why it is more than 100 times cheaper, smaller and generally more interesting. And who’s now planning to use it at large scale.

It appears to be seriously good news, at a time when we really need bright new options in how we produce and consume energy.

I’ve just read the Eight Best Films Of 2009: According to Simon Dillon. Unfortunately, I’ve only seen 3 of them.

So, the following need to go on the must-see list: The Hurt Locker, Up and A Christmas Carol. And, if we can stomach the relentless depression of A Serious Man, or the sci-fi of District 9, those too.

The rather amazing Information is Beautiful site has another great visualisation: this time on Climate Change Skeptics vs. The Scientific Consensus. It appears well researched and balanced, and partly answers the current controversy over the leaked emails from climate scientists.

From Harder, Wetter, Faster, Stronger: Bad News in Climate Science over at GOOD:

So everything we thought we knew from the IPCC’s (Nobel Prize winning!) Fourth Assessment Report of climate science? Well, it’s all worse. This week, a group of 26 climatologists (including 14 IPCC members) released The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science “to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.” Basically, it tells us all what’s been figured out since the last report went to press. The findings are none too encouraging.

On basically every front, the most severe, most pessimistic scenarios laid out in the Fourth Assessment Report are being realized, or worse. The 13 inch average sea level rise predicted by the IPCC by 2100 has been upped to 33 inches, which is roughly equal to the one meter upper limit laid out in the 2007 report. (The new upper limit is a map-changing two meters.) The Diagnosis also finds that arctic sea ice melt is 40 percent greater than was predicted just a couple years ago.

So what’s the takeaway for Copenhagen? The authors write that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.” It’s worth noting that a 2°C rise still condemns the world to some pretty dire impacts, according to the IPCC itself. So we’ve got between five and 10 years max to turn this ship around and avoid the very worst fates of climate change.

Below are some of the report’s key findings:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years, temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80 to 90 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Martha came back from a meeting of the Oakley Regeneration Partnership today with leaflets from Transition Cleeve. This is part of a wider movement to form Transition Towns as “a local community response to Peak Oil and Climate Change”. The leaflet says:

We believe the Cleeve Area can become a low-carbon economy. We can respond in a practical way to the challenges of peak oil and climate change. Why don’t you join us?

I’m glad their literature doesn’t give just one view on Peak Oil, as it’s a tricky area with many divergent views. But whether you take a high or a low estimate of the oil reserves, we should be working now to find ways of reducing our energy consumption, including the ‘black gold’. I recommend George Monbiot’s recent piece on Peak Oil as background reading.

Some of the current suggestions for this young group appear to be encouraging reducing food miles and food waste, growing our own vegetables, keeping our own chickens, improving quality and use of public transport, and fostering community spirit. I’m not sure we’ve got the space to rear chickens (or whether they’d survive sharing a garden with the dog in summer), but I’d certainly support reducing food miles and packaging.

They are working on a website, but for now the best place for info seems to be the Transition Cleeve Google Group.

What I’ve not yet discovered is what really makes a ‘Transition Town’. Does anyone know? (Though I have bookmarked Transition Culture blog for later reading, which seems to be related.)