Pushker Kharecha's website is
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/pkharecha.htmlClick on "bibliography" to go to a list of his publications
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/pkharecha.htmlThis abstract and pdf are currently the first items
A direct link to the abstract is
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=kh04000rand the direct link to the pdf is
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/inpress_Kharecha_etal.pdfFrankly, they parrot a lot of the hype about third and fourth generation reactors while ignoring the reality that, for example, France is considering going back to second generation reactors because it's third generation model is much more expensive and difficult to build than expected.
Their emphasis on efficiency and renewables as a first priority is correct.
Here are the conclusions from the report:
7. Conclusions
Tax policy, energy efficiency regulations, and utility profit
motives must be altered to achieve rapid phaseout of coal
emissions. Large-scale efficiency improvements and conservation
measures are deployable the soonest. The building
sector - by far the dominant user of coal - could be carbon
neutral by 2030, with appropriate policies and existing
technologies. We believe a rising fee for carbon emissions is
needed, along with rigorous, enforceable building design
standards, increased government investment in efficiency
measures, and restructuring of utility profit motives. A rising
carbon fee would likely have greater success at reducing
emissions than the “cap-and-trade” approach, as concluded
by the Congressional Budget Office (88) and others (e.g. refs
3, 89, and 90). We emphasize that such a fee does not imply
increased cost for those consumers who minimize their
carbon footprint - indeed, their costs may decline.
Geothermal and biomass energy could displace much of
the base load electric power now provided by coal in the
near term. Federal and private-sector investment in research,
development, and demonstration of enhanced geothermal
systems should be given high priority. Biomass power,
properly designed to account for full life-cycle impacts, has
special attraction because, combined with CCS, it has the
potential to draw down atmospheric CO2. Biomass power
should employ inedible or waste-derived feedstocks.
Wind and solar energy could be deployed to a much larger
degree via addition of new transmission lines and improvements
to the national electric grid. CSP generated in the arid
Southwest combined with at least 12 h of thermal storage
(typically using molten salt storage tanks) could become a
large, commercially viable source of base load power. Solar
PVs are well suited for rooftop deployment in which
transmission issues are avoided and they compete against
the retail cost of electricity. PV power does not lend itself to
low-cost storage and typically displaces electricity from
natural gas plants that provide power in the peak and
intermediate load markets. Windpower also tends to displace
natural gas and not coal. However, both solar and wind power
can be enabled to a much greater extent by the use of batteries
in PHEVs or EVs as well as by a smart grid. They could then
displace some base load coal plants and substantial gasoline
use.
Energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and a
smart grid deserve first priority, but it would be unwise to
simply assume that these alone will meet all near-term electric
power demand. Third-generation nuclear power can substantially
contribute to base load power in the near-term.
High-priority development and demonstration of fourth generation
nuclear technology (including breeder reactors)
is needed to provide a solution to nuclear waste disposal and
eliminate the need to mine more uranium for many centuries.
The time required for these advanced nuclear technologies
to be proven is debatable, but they warrant rapid development
given the need to dispose of existing nuclear waste,
and growing national and global electricity demand.
CCS technology development also warrants investment
for large-scale demonstration. It can then be one of the
elements in the competition among different energy technologies,
and it can be deployed at both biomass plants and
remaining coal plants. However this investment should not
be an excuse to simply continue building new coal plants
(including “capture-ready” ones), given that near-term
potential of widespread CCS deployment seems questionable,
and as others (80) have pointed out, retrofits at coal plants
will probably be impractical.