Professor King says forget about hydrogen fuel cells, far too expensive in cost per tonne of CO2 saved.

Maybe in 100 years time....

Note: "decarbonize" = code for a nuclear power revival, because renewables can only do so much at affordable prices.

Some of you may feel that the environmental damage plus safety and proliferation risks inherent in nuclear technology are preferable to those posed by CO2 emissions and dependence on Russian/OPEC oil. There are arguments pro and con on both sides of this argument. It's just telling that the nuclear industry feels it needs to hide behind euphemisms like "decarbonize".

Personally, I don't think nuclear is an acceptable option as long as there is no high-capacity permanent repository for highly radioactive waste anywhere in the world. That may be mostly a political issue, but that makes it no less real.

Dr. Robert Bussard died on Oct. 6.

Fortunately, the Navy re-funded the project back in August. Work on the Polywell Fusor will continue, with the construction of the next test article.

There is more than on way to get low carbon energy. Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Hydro come to mind. My favorite is PV solar, but take your pick.

Once you have clean energy you just need to build an electric vehicle. Rode mine to work today www.zevutah.com

The cost is not as much as you might think. You just have to be willing to build it yourself because the car companies are not providing electrics at this time.

@ Rafael,

The physical amount of high level radioactive waste from one more generation of fission reactors is relatively minuscule. All the US high level waste would fit on a single football pitch only a few feet high, over thier life expectancy. that i sjust not a large volume ot handle. Burying it in a mountain mine surrounding Death Valley is a valid solution, especially in light of the history of the waste in natural fission reactor discovered in the Congo.

One of the best solutions that I have seen is a subcritical "actinide burner" particle accelerator. It could process all the high level waste and convert it to wastes that would be safe after a mere few hundred years. I have always felt that recycling and burning MOX is a necessary pre-rerquisite to any waste disposal strategy. Waste repositories need to remain undisturbed. If there is fissile material to be "mined" it virtually guarantees that the repositories will be disturbed. I 'd call it the Pharoah's curse. It would be just like putting the Pharoah's gold into his pyramid tomb.

It is only inviting mischief.

I think it depends on what you mean by highly radioactive - most stations leave it in ponds till it "cools" down.
Then you could vitrify it and bury it somewhere dry and deep, like the place in Finland that is being build.

It is a question of political will and courage rather than engineering. The Finns may have this, the Irish, for instance do not.

Aside from nuclear, if you get a decent battery technology, you make wind, wave and solar much more viable.

For cars, we may need to get people to rethink what a car is, and select something much smaller and lighter for single person commuting, say the size of a Smart or a C1/Aygo etc, [ but not a zap ] (even a Yaris).

If people insist on using 3 tonne vehicles to bring a single person to work we are doomed.

There are so many ways to slim down while keeping a roof over your head and a crumple zone in front of you, without taking 3 tonnes to work.

It is reminds me of the comment from Jared Diamond's "Collapse" on the people of Easter island - "what were they thinking when they cut down the last tree" ?

"One of the best solutions that I have seen is a subcritical "actinide burner" particle accelerator. It could process all the high level waste and convert it to wastes that would be safe after a mere few hundred years."

something like the Integral Fast Reactor ( http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html ) would be better, and has the advantage over the subcritical reactor that it isn't purely theoretical. the expense of building a particle accelerator for each and every subcritical plant would almost certainly be prohibitive.

It is hard to imagine that we will solve the global warming problem only with solutions that are not proven to day (like hydrogen or CCS) well I mean to bet only on future solutions to solve today (and tomorrow) problem is a risky business. That's why a credible program of reduction of GHG should be mainly based on robust foreseeable solutions : Energy conservation will the main contribution to reduction of GHG emissions, through fuel efficient vehicle (smaller, lighter, streamlined, improved ICE) better insulation in house, less beef in our plate. Technology like PHEV, alternative fuel, CCS, Solar, wind will help but will be marginal in the next 20 years.

Rafael, a new wave of nukes is unfortunately a done deal in the UK. The government has just closed a sham "consultation" knowing full well what the decision would be.

The nuclear industry has executed one of the most impressive PR campaigns ever and pulled the wool over our politicians' eyes in spectacular style.

The UK has one of the largest wave resources in the world, the largest offshore wind resource in Europe, the largest tidal resource in Europe. Instead we're going nuclear. It's a very sad day indeed.

But with regards to this report, it's confirming what we all know (and what the car manufacturers continue to lie about), and that is that it doesn't cost anything to cut emissions from cars. All it takes is for people to choose low carbon cars over high carbon cars.

In the UK if everyone opted for the cleanest cars in their market segment tomorrow, it would shave around 30% off average new car CO2 emissions bringing them down from 167g/km to about 117g/km. And this is for vehicles that are available today. There is now a good and attractive selection of lower carbon cars out there (BMW 5 Series @ 136, Renault Megane @ 117, Polo Bluemotion @ 99).

For consumers to want to choose low carbon cars, the manufacturers have to increase the number of green options out there and actually make a vague attempt to market them properly. They've got to make it an aspiration for everyone to own a clean car.

@ Scatter -

(a) Most consumers are selfish. They want the largest car, with the biggest engine and the most luxury goodies they can afford. Doing the right thing for the common good is typically waaaaaay down the list. Sad but true.

(b) Car makers only have one chance every few years to sell you a product. Naturally, they want to maximize revenue and profit on each sale. Generally, small car = small profit.

Plus, in Western Europe, new vehicle sales are stagnant or declining, largely because of decades of negative population growth in a number of countries - there is no way to substantially increase unit volume except in emerging markets. However, those generally require much simpler, cheaper designs.

So car makers are not lying, they are just acting rationally in their own business interest. Unfortunately, that happens not to coincide with the public policy interest right now. Politicians will have to move the goal posts to align them.

What you say is true at the moment but these priorities can and will change through progressive government policies and because of the slow sea change in public attitudes that is going on right now.

But I believe the manufacturers are lying because they keep on insisting that in order to manufacture lower emission cars it will cost the consumer more. This is not true - the average consumer will save money by buying a low carbon car. It will reduce the manufacturers' profits (boohooo) but it will save the consumer money both in the capital and running costs.

I should add I'm not talking about the luxury/sports/executive end of the market as they don't impact greatly on average CO2 (we should just tax the hell out of them).

I'm talking about the cars normal people buy - the superminis, lower and upper mediums, MPVs. These are where the real savings in average CO2 can be made at no cost to the consumer.

It's very simple, put a carbon tax on fuel, and use the money to increase the tax-free part of the income. Nobody could object, since low-carbon people will gain more than they loose, while high-carbon people will pay the bill.

Here in Minnesota, nearly 90% of vehicles have only one occupant in them at any time. We use automobiles primarily as personal transportation pods. However, present day vehicles are designed for multiple uses and higher duty rates than we actually use them, thus, on average we use a 4,000 pound machine to move a 200 pound payload.

Fuel use is directly correlated to mass and air resistance. Let's set aside, for now, commercial and high duty vehicle use and focus on the auto's role as a transportation pod.

If vehicles most often carry only one or two people, with minimal cargo, then we need a new class of vehicle, one that will satisy 80% of transportation needs. Radically reducing the size of the primary vehicle could make 60 g/km achievable with existing technology. The standard car or van of today then becomes the secondary vehicle. Such a vehicle could be leased as needed rather than bought.

Keep an eye on the Mitsubishi iCar and the Volkswagen Up! By moving the engine away from the front of the car, design for crash force absorption is simplified for a small car.

If 80% of road miles are done by vehicles with very high fuel efficiency, total liquid fuel demand then drops to a level that sustainable liquid biofuel production from perennial plants (which also sequester carbon as part of their life cycle) enters the realm of the possible. Since biomass plants take their carbon from the atmosphere, fuel produced from them is essentially carbon neutral.

It is the efficiency of the entire system that is critical. Hydrogen fuel cells are efficient, but the hydrogen delivery system is not. Electricity is efficient, but storage and delivery are not. Nuclear, in addition to having waste problems, is another finite, mined fuel. At some point we have to bite the bullet and transition to sustainable energy use. We might as well do it now.

Scatter, I hope you're right, and they start building a lot of nukes. We will need all the carbon-free energy we can to decarbonise the economy.
Electricity is only about 1/3 of our actual energy needs. Even this third is only for a small part carbon-free. The two other parts (heating, industry, transport) are completely fossil-fuel.
If we could replace the electricity part by [wave, wind, solar,...] it would already be marvelous. But that's only one third of the road.
Since we need also carbon-free transport, heating and industry, the nukes will be essential.
Whenever England would produce more carbon-free energy than it needs, it could start making carbon-neutral fuels for export. (biomass + H2 ---> much fuel).
In France, nuclear fuel is recycled many times, producing much less waste. It is done now, but since new uranium is so cheap, it is not economical compared to just dumping the waste. If we are willing to pay the small price for recycling the waste fuel, the nuclear waste problem is even smaller than it is now (compared to the CO2-waste problem)

@ Scatter,

Despite your urgings for coercive societal changes and moaning about vehicles, too bloated for your tastes. But these vehicles offer the flexibility for most consumers, and so they choose them. Your emphasis is misplaced.

We have already solved the CO2 problem that you still envision. By the results of the 2005 Energy Plan that has re-invigorated the GEN III+ nuclear business. That will cut coal consumption in Half by 2018,as the pipelin of 32 new domesrtic nukes get built, and join the grid.

The electrified auto is a done deal. It's coming. The automaker's 2010 designs including early PHEVS, are cast in concrete. There is no intrinsic engineering reason that they should not be cheaper to build and even now to operate over time.

These vehicle designs will reduce Oil demand by 70-80% when fully adopted and incorporated in the auot fleets, by 2020. It will kill the power of the ME Oil sheiks and Oil tyrants like Chavez, Putin and Ahmedijehad. It will remove lots of reasons for war, in the intermediate and long term.

But that is tomorrow, today we must make do, as the crazies forbid exploiting other oil sources in the interim, to ease short term supply issues.

And the World is doing so, unless a major supply interruption were to occur. Whether that is even possible is immaterial. The economic downturn would not be permanent. We have endured much worse.

Together these two committed solutions, already in progress, answer your hypothetical problem. Since the Science of the 21st century increasingly reveals it's not a real problem, even your fanciful problem will be solved, as if it really needed to be solved.

There is no reason for coercive measures, when every person in the World can both desire to have and to have his own vehicle of wahtever size, that suits his needs, when there is ample clean Energy for everyone.

"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

I don't need to urge Stan. It's happening, and faster than you think. And yes I believe that we should be getting from A to B in the most efficient way possible. That's the only sustainable way forwards.

But I don't think nukes are essential in the UK. I don't think they're essential anywhere. Total decarbonisation of energy is not necessary, but big cuts are.
Moving from combustion engines to EVs will cut transport energy consumption a lot. Couple that with a shift to effective, cheap public transport and the savings will be greater.

In the UK we have access to huge renewable resources and carbon sequestration will be feasible thanks to our former oil and gas fields, so gas fired electricity is still open to us.

Nuclear is not the only solution to climate change open to the world although the industry, our politicians and many others will have us believe otherwise.

@Scatter.

The world consumes over 80 quads of energy annually. Despite all the urgings to use "other renewable sources" fora third of a century, these other sources contribute less than one quad of energy. To urge otherwise is as if to recommend to the little child on the Beach that his toy bucket and shovel is all that is needed to drain the Ocean.

I welcome these renewable sources but they are neither fully clean, (like hydro or wind are revealed to have warts) nor is it realisitic to beleive that they scale to the size of the problem.

Harnessing wind, wave and solar ALTERS the climate. Maybe "not much"; but that "not much" is what you insist is a world calamity.

Solar alters th Albedo, trapping heat; Wind interrupts the world evening out temperature differences that cannot be denied and will manifest itself as more intense storms; harnessing waves withdraws Tidal energy and forces the Moon further from the Earth, decreasing the stabilizing effect of the Moon on Earth 's wobble; and altering climate. For example, a one degree change in tilt turned the Sahara from a verdant plant and animal filled Savannah, to virtually unpopulated sand dunes, in only a few Millenia.

Beware of what you ask for. You just may get it.

The number of reactionaries here is stunning.