> I think James Hansen has done a good job of showing the
> flaw in Lovins' "soft-energy path": that no combination
> of these technologies will create the reliable base load
> capacity to run an electrical grid.
Lovins steps out on a ledge to postulate that it's the grid itself that is the problem. The idea that we have a small number of large generators, to which we feed a significant amount of the generation to support transmission, could really be leading people like Hansen to the wrong conclusion.
Is he right? Unclear.
Hansen is not beyond hand-waiving, but I agree with his basic premise -- that we're very far from having a choice of solutions, let alone even one -- enough not to bother tearing into his logic or conclusions. Here's a decent one if you're interested:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/james_hansen_says_goodbye_to_s.php
> So, that base load capacity is going to be based largely
> on either nuclear or coal.
This gets back to my earlier point: regardless of what you think about soft-energy paths, I think he makes a very compelling case that nuclear is not the answer. It doesn't make economic sense, and in a world where economic interests often trump even common sense and rationality, it seems unlikely that we'll be seeing a nuclear "solution" any time soon.
> Where does that leave us?
It's an excellent question. I'm not sure we'll solve it here. But I think we can put to bed the idea that nuclear is better than coal.
We do need to find something better than coal. It's just not nuclear.
---
This also answers the earlier question about why the US continues to push on /jordan