I was listening to PM on BBC Radio 4 on the way home last night. They are running a series of spots on climate change this week and how various industries are trying to or being forced to adapt. They interviewed a senior chap from Maersk who are
trying to achieve a carbon neutral fleet by 2050, which means starting to build ships with the right kind of propulsion by 2030.
I'd love to hear from anyone on this forum or anywhere else for that matter who can present a realistic way to achieve that other than using nuclear propulsion like the US carrier fleet.
What most people fail to acknowledge these days is that this whole "CO2 causes global warming" came about because Margaret Thatcher, not wishing to rely on coal power or being at the mercy of the miner's unions in the UK, needed to get the anti-nuclear lobby on her side. They discovered a little known (at the time) study by a Scandinavian scientist who had suggested that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could help ward off another ice age which would be a disaster for Nordic countries. It was theoretical and controversial at the time.
Fewer people have died as a direct result of the nuclear power industry in total than die in the mining industry every 5 years. Or on the world's roads daily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
I'm not for a moment denying that the climate is changing, and there is a certain amount of data to suggest a trend towards warming as a whole (second warmest decade of the last 100 years was actually the 1940s BTW) but there is still no concrete proof that this trend is caused in part or in full by the amount of CO2 that is entering the atmosphere. What I do accept is that regardless of the causes, if this trend continues, then the planet could be in for a rough ride and that if we can slow that warming trend by reducing CO2 production then it's not a bad thing.
For those still worried about nuclear waste, the total volume of nuclear waste produced since nuclear power was invented takes up a tiny fraction of the volume of coal that is mined annually. Yes, it may be radioactive for thousands if not millions of years, but are you trying to tell me there isn't a massively deep hole miles from anywhere that couldn't be repurposed for the completely safe storage of that material?
Enough energy hits this planet in the form of solar radiation for the whole world's energy needs. We just need to focus more on harnessing more of it, but in some cases, such as that of aircraft or large container ships, battery power just isn't viable. The nuclear option is certainly viable for shipping.
And before you start suggesting that we should all stop flying, in the days after 9/11 when flights across, to and from the US were banned, the a sudden increase in average temperature of 2C across the country has been attribued to the absence of contrails across the sky !!