On the transition to a greener energy world (1)
In your extended look at how to transform our energy system to a climate-friendly one, nuclear power doesn’t make the cut (7 August, p 34).
It should. For starters, Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium to produce small modular nuclear reactors producing about 450 megawatts each. It says that they could be operating in the early 2030s at a cost comparable with renewables such as wind.
In addition, you report a “lack of public and political support” for nuclear, but another technology, thorium-powered nuclear, may offer a way to address this. This is inherently safe as the reaction needs a beam of neutrons, so if there is a problem the beam can be turned off.
The public should be persuaded that thorium can be a major electricity generator in the medium term. Relying on wind and solar is putting all your eggs in one basket. Four major sources would be good: wind, solar, modular (uranium) nuclear and thorium nuclear.
On the transition to a greener energy world (2)
The future widespread use of electric cars is an unthinking assumption. Cars are a particularly inefficient mode of transport. Most spend 90 to 95 per cent of the time parked in driveways, car parks and on the road. A traffic jam of electric cars will still happen.
A mix of public transport, cycleways and footpaths would be far more efficient and better for our health and wallets. Electric cars could be rented when needed. A debate on sustainable transport policy is long overdue.
On the transition to a greener energy world
There has long been a negative stance on biofuels, but they don’t have to be made from food crops. They can be made from any kind of plant. The main rivals to power transport 鈥� batteries for electric vehicles 鈥� are not only heavy, but entail an environmental and human cost in production. For example, a source of cobalt involves child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Biofuels can be produced in a carbon-neutral way. They are also much more sensible than building devices to remove carbon dioxide from the air to squeeze into aquifers or try to turn into fuel.
On the transition to a greener energy world (3)
Whatever we do with our energy systems, it is too late to prevent sea level rise. We have to accept that Jakarta, Miami, Bangkok and many other cities, including London’s riverside within the next 50 years, are lost causes. While wealthy elites can afford to flee, for billions of poorer people across the globe, we will need solutions.
On the transition to a greener energy world (4)
The best source of energy we have is the sun and the right place to put solar generators is in hot deserts, where solar strength is great and pretty constant all year.
Such a scheme was in 2010 in order to supply energy from North Africa to Europe. It was shown to be feasible, with a tried and tested power station prototype, which has the ability to supply electricity 24/7, and at a remarkably modest cost.
Bitcoin computers could be turned to climate science
You report climate scientist Tim Palmer’s call for a “CERN for climate change” supercomputer project (31 July, p 11). Why not incentivise the vast computing resources of the cryptocurrency mining community to perform the calculations? Although most mining hardware is targeted at cryptocurrency solutions, this could be addressed.
Palmer cites 鈧�200 million a year as a likely running cost for the climate computer he envisages, the equivalent of about 15 bitcoin per day. Any bitcoin mining group that is performing worse than that, but could meet the atmospheric modelling need, ought to be considering switching business models. There are several “green” mining organisations that might be attracted to the idea that their contribution to the global carbon footprint is at least being targeted at solving the problem.
Australia's climate impact isn't so great
Ian Napier writes that Australia isn’t responsible for climate damage because its carbon emissions are less than 2 per cent of the world’s total (Letters, 31 July). This can’t be justified when it is known that its population is only about 0.33 per cent of Earth’s. Its annual export of some 400 million tonnes of coal only adds to the flames.
Don't let economic growth trash what's left of Earth
Jim Watson proposes that there are advantages for many countries to skipping fossil fuels and moving directly to renewable energy supplies (7 August, p 23). I’m sure he’s right about that. He then says that this switch could underpin economic development. But is it not the case that economic development 鈥� in other words, more consumption of finite planetary resources 鈥� is the driver behind the greatest and fastest extinction of other species?
Rather than viewing economic development as inevitable, maybe a better solution would be to create and promote economic models that avoid replicating the mess so-called developed countries have made.
Another explanation for breathing easier at altitude
You report suggestions that asthma could be reduced in a lower oxygen atmosphere (31 July, p 42). There may be a simpler explanation 鈥� a controlled or high-altitude atmosphere may lack the irritants that provoke shortness of breath.
Several years ago I went on holiday in North Wales. I climbed Snowdon, Pen yr Ole Wen, Carnedd Llewelyn, Cadair Idris and several other peaks before realising that I hadn’t taken either of my asthma inhalers for five days. The air in North Wales being so much cleaner than in Reading, I felt much healthier than normal.
The air at higher altitudes often lacks the noxious fumes from car and truck engines and pollen from many sources. So maybe the experiment could be repeated with people in a really clean air environment and 21 per cent oxygen as a control, and then a dirty, low-oxygen environment.
For the record
In our recent feature on cave art (31 July, p36), the depiction of a kangaroo shown on page 39 was in fact ancient aboriginal rock art at Kakadu National Park, Australia