Glimmer of hope in Australia on climate
Finally, some positive news from Australia, after 10 years of climate wars that have led to the country being called a climate laggard (28 May, p 9).
That said, while the newly elected Labor party has set a respectable emissions target 鈥� at 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 鈥� it is inadequate to keep global warming at around 1.5掳C. Furthermore, the economy’s reliance on coal exports may confound efforts to go further than this in the immediate future.
However, pressure exerted internally by the climate-ambitious Greens party and independents, along with international pressure from the COP27 climate summit in November, will hopefully result in a more ambitious target within the next three years.
Is nuclear power the answer to climate crisis? (1)
It is a shame that nuclear power generation is a spin-off from bomb production (28 May, p 38). That, and some unfortunate accidents, have given it a bad public image. This is hardly justified in terms of the number of people actually killed and injured by the industry.
Nevertheless, I am surprised that thorium-based nuclear reactors haven’t been developed for power generation. Thorium is more plentiful and cheaper. It also largely avoids the weapons issue and could potentially make for safer reactors than uranium.
Is nuclear power the answer to climate crisis? (2)
In your look at the debate on nuclear energy and its role in the shift from fossil fuels, you state that “France was 4 percentage points behind its target for renewable generation in 2020, while… Germany’s nuclear phase-out induced investment in wind and solar, and the country was 1 per cent ahead of its 2020 target.”
That isn’t the whole story. Despite this, France emits half the carbon dioxide of Germany, thanks to having over 70 per cent of its grid electricity supplied by nuclear power plants that .
Splitting the atom produces far more energy than any other power source harnessed by humans. This energy density is why it has the least land and resource impact, the lowest carbon emissions and lowest volumes of harmful waste.
Is nuclear power the answer to climate crisis? (3)
There is a common problem with the debate about renewable energy. People tend to talk about electricity production, when they should talk about primary energy consumption. Transport, heating and manufacturing all need to be decarbonised as well.
For example, Germany only meets about 15 per cent of its total energy consumption with renewables. Therefore, I think it is questionable whether Germany and other countries will be able to produce all their energy by renewable means.
Is nuclear power the answer to climate crisis? (4)
The estuary of the river Severn in the UK has the second highest rise and fall of tide in the world. The last proposal to generate electricity from it failed because it would have destroyed mudflats on which many birds depend. Now, Rod Rainey, visiting professor of engineering at the University of Southampton, UK, has designed a energy while allowing preservation of the mudflats.
Not only would this be cheaper than the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, it would be cheaper than an equivalent gas-fired station.
Traditional crops could help plug wheat shortfall
While the Ukrainian wheat aspect of the current food crisis is in the news, another 快猫短视频 article deserves a second look, not least as a reminder that food-aid policies have contributed to some of our current global problems (28 May, p 18).
Morton Satin’s piece “Bread without wheat” () gave an excellent overview of the way that some low-income countries have been pressed into importing wheat as aid, replacing demand for traditional crops and skewing their rural economies.
Wheat for use in bread was a big incentive, providing urban consumers with a filling option without the time and drudgery needed to process traditional crops. But those crops can provide flour for bread too, requiring only a little inventiveness in order to replace the vital gluten.
Sometimes, solo work is just what science needs
I was interested to read Chanda Prescod-Weinstein’s column on the importance of teams in science when compared with isolated achievers (14 May, p 28). I am known 鈥� albeit slightly 鈥� for two scientific and engineering projects: the Bowyer-Watson algorithm in computational geometry and the self-replicating 3D printer, RepRap.
Despite its name, I worked on the Bowyer-Watson algorithm alone. Though David Watson developed it at the same time, neither of us knew about the other’s work until it was complete. The self-replicating printer, on the other hand, was developed by a team I led that was so large I didn’t even know everyone’s names.
Collaboration is nice and so it tends to be lauded. But sometimes people need isolation in order to think hard and achieve something significant by themselves.
On the battle against misinformation
In trying to plot a course between total censorship and information anarchy, Annalee Newitz doesn’t assuage any of the dangers of censorship (28 May, p 28). While ideally one could just magic away untrue content, in reality, the only way to judge truth without the use of free speech and open debate is by appointing someone to decree it.
This emboldens many of the world’s worst leaders to enforce their own interpretations of the truth. When considering if global censorship might be an appetising prospect, it is crucial to ponder whether one’s answer would still be the same under all the governmental regimes that exist around the world, and also those that may exist in the future.
For the record {18 June 2022}
Wood burning costs the EU and UK 鈧�13 billion a year in health-related costs and is responsible for 48 per cent of health costs from air pollution due to fossil fuels and wood burned in homes for heating or cooking (9 April, p 22).
Monkeypox, despite its name, usually spreads among animals such as rodents in parts of Africa (28 May, p 8).