Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 Next
Comments 6901 to 6950:
-
RedBaron at 13:21 PM on 15 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
Nigelj,
What you are saying sounds great, but it is useless. It's not the amout of electricity you use, but rather how that electricity is produced that matters. Use all you need if it is produced by wind or solar.
Same goes for meat and veggies. It's not what you eat, but rather how that food was produced and transported/stored that matters. Local regenerative production of both meat and veggies can be done in a carbon negative manner. If it is, then eat all you want.
Guidelines like you propose assumes we can't actually fix the unsustainable systems that support our societies to sustainable systems. We can, and we must. This is why the changes you have called for are nearly impossible to implement and definately wont reverse AGW.
Carbon budgets are not for individuals. They are a way for policy makers to gage timelines for rebuilding there infrastructure to support sustainable systems.
-
nigelj at 09:02 AM on 15 August 2020Why children must emit eight times less CO2 than their grandparents
So you calculate your carbon budget. Its going to be a very difficult exercise for the average person to take this number and work out the implications for making lifestyle changes. I would wager that virtually nobody is going to do this, let alone get it right. So what is the point of this carbon brief article?
It would be more useful for the experts to give people a lifestyle prescription budget. You actually have to spell out what cars they can drive, what household appliances to own, where they should set thermostats, how many kms they can fly each year, how many grams of meat per day is acceptabale, etcetera. Obviously it would be for some mythical average person but it creates a starting point, and individuals can adjust things.
Just saying fly less, eat less meat and eat more greens doesn't mean a lot. You have to get precise and quantitative. Otherwise most of the population will have no idea what's really expected of them.
-
Eclectic at 18:25 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Daveburton @17 , the Moderators at SkS are typically rather sparing in "striking out or striking through" plain nonsense (such as your CO2 comment in #10 ).
Alas, the Moderators at WUWT are even more sparing : have a look at the comments columns at WUWT ~ where 80 or 90% of comments would get the chop, if moderation were applied by the criterion of common sense.
Dave, you have misunderstood the Moderator's response at #10 . He was not asking for a Gish Gallop. Implicit was the request (in accordance with the Modus Operandi here at SkS ) that you select the individual topics where you think the mainstream science is faulty or tied to poorly-pragmatic conclusions. (And contrary to your "models" comment, the pragmatic conclusions are based on ordinary physics & common sense ~ reinforced by the paleo evidence. None of this "61 floors and okay so far" business. The "models" projections/estimations may or may not give further insights into the climate processes & possibilities . . . but the models are definitely not the foundation of climate science. )
So, please select one individual topic which you believe is "wronged" ~ and discuss that one in the most appropriate thread here at SkS. And when that topic has been suitably discussed/resolved . . . then select your No. 2 choice, and find the right thread for that. And so on.
Good luck. (But it seems you are unaware of the sensitivity of maize yield, to heat waves.) And you may be in danger of becoming a skeptic (and thus with little chance of "life" on the WUWT blogsite.)
-
daveburton at 16:20 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Eclectic, I agree that it's drifting from the core topic, into a discussion of the key assumption behind the core topic, but the Mod asked me for it, so I obliged.
What do you imagine resembles "cherry-picking" in my response to him? I tried to avoid anything which could be considered cherry-picking.
I showed him the highest and lowest temperature indexes. I showed him the effects of eCO2 on the most important C3 and C4 crops. I showed him the best sea-level measurement record in the biggest ocean, which has a very typical trend. I showed him both hurricanes and tornadoes. Etc, etc. What do you think I omitted?
He asked a very broad question. He asked me to provide "creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication" in support of my contention that rising CO2 levels aren't a problem.
To thoroughly answer that would require a full cost-benefit analysis!
That's obviously not doable here. But even to quantitatively address the question of whether or not rising CO2 levels are a problem requires an examination of both costs and benefits. So I touched on all the major supposed costs, and also on the major benefits. I tried to answer his question, as best I could, without writing a whole book, and while providing credible references for every claim, as he requested.
I relied on measured evidence, rather than speculative studies based on models, because, in science, measurements are much, much stronger evidence than modeling. Computer model outputs are just calculations: at their best representing the consequences of robust hypothesis, at their worst representing bugs — and usually, actually, somewhere in-between.Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts, Gish Gallops or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Off-topic snipped; the Gish Gallop comment was removed. -
Eclectic at 15:39 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Very entertaining, Daveburton @14. It's exactly why I enjoy viewing the Motivated Reasoning gymnastics by the regulars at WUWT.
Especially your bit where: "we've raised atmospheric CO2 levels for 61 consecutive years". Reminds me of the old joke about the optimist who fell off the top of the Empire State Building . . . "61 floors and okay so far". (I am sure you've heard something like it.)
Such cherry-picking. (I note cherries are always in season at WUWT.) Though you haven't yet played your ultimate argument ~ the Conspiracy of all the world's scientists, and their faked data. And all that faked paleo data, too.
But you will probably get around to your penultimate argument :- "Forest . . . what forest?"
Still, Dave, this is all a tad off-topic for this particular thread. Find one of the old threads for this old stuff. (And why are you coming out with such old stuff . . . right now? Is it a sign that a seed of genuine skeptical doubt is starting to germinate in your brain? Beware !! )
-
daveburton at 15:34 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Correction:
I wrote:
"So, the 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming (associated with six decades of CO2 level increase) caused, on average, only about a 20 to 68 km growing zone shift (12 - 42 miles)."
That's wrong. It should have been:
"So, the 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming (associated with six decades of CO2 level increase) caused, on average, only about a 40 to 135 km growing zone shift (24 - 84 miles)."
Sorry! -
daveburton at 14:27 PM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
I said that rising CO2 levels aren't a problem, and Mod struck it out and wrote, "If you want to make assertions, then you back them with creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication."
I'm surprised that you want me to do that, Mod, but I'm happy to oblige.
Since you requested it, I hope you won't just delete it.
Moderator Response:[BL]
(Off-topic Gish Gallop deleted)
You are not new to Skeptical Science, although you have not posted here for a while.
Challenging you to provide references for a claim is not an invitation to ignore the Comments policy, which states that comments need to be on-topic. Should you wish to post your comments on appropriate threads, please use the Search tool to find one (or more).
-
Eclectic at 11:24 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Bob Loblaw @12 ,
your criticism is a bit harsh . . . but fair ! Daveburton's "No problem with CO2" was the sort of statement that belongs in the pseudo-science commentary found at WattsUpWithThat blogsite.
Don't get me wrong : as a semi-regular reader at WUWT , I do see occasional bits of real science in the comments columns there (most notably by the excellently-scientific Nick Stokes) ~ but most of the comments are crazy-extremist political stuff mixed with fruitcake anti-science. Still, it's kind of entertaining : especially the utter nonsense there coming from Mr Monckton or the half-nonsense coming from Mr May et alia.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:17 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
"...and even if rising CO2 levels were a problem (they aren't)..."
What a broad, sweeping, unjustified and incorrect statement.
-
Eclectic at 10:16 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
Quite right, Daveburton. Producing/distributing rock dust sounds a very inefficient method of reducing the CO2 problem, at least with present technology.
Perhaps by 2100 the technology of renewable energy will be advanced enough to do it properly ~ but I'm figuring by then it would just be a part of a larger purpose of agricultural soil development. Even so, it would be only one component of the overall effort to get CO2 down to a sensible 350ppm.
-
daveburton at 08:25 AM on 14 August 2020Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
"Treating about half of farmland could capture 2bn tonnes of CO2 each year" — that's only about 5% of current anthropogenic emissions.
Plus, strip-mining basalt, grinding it to dust, trucking it to the hinterlands, and spreading it on fields, all would require the use of fossil fuels, which would release CO2.
Even if those additional CO2 releases would be less than the CO2 removed from the atmosphere (which is unclear), and even if rising CO2 levels were a problem (they aren't), this proposal would not be a solution.Moderator Response:[PS] Blatant sloganeering. A reminder (again) of the comment policy operating on this site. If you want to make assertions, then you back them with creditable evidence, preferably peer-reviewed publication.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:16 AM on 14 August 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
postkey @10,
Indeed that is an example. The other references I listed provide more details to help better understand why and how that harmful unsustainable result develops, not just in the USA.
-
Postkey at 18:38 PM on 13 August 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
"The best that can be done is to develop and present what appears to be the best explanations of what can be observed to be going on . . . "
Like this?
“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595 -
One Planet Only Forever at 01:17 AM on 12 August 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
The follow-up to my earlier comments regarding this book can be distilled to primarily referring to the following informative books:
- "The Age of Sustainable Development", by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University Press, 2015 (also MOOC with the same name).
- "Reasons and Persons", by Derek Parfit, Oxford University Press, 1984
- "Capital and Ideology", by Thomas Piketty, Harvard University Press, 2020 (original French book published in 2019 by Éditions du Seuil)
- "Manufacturing Consent" Edward S. Herman, New York: Pantheon Books, 1988 updated 2002. (Movie of same name 1992)
- "Propaganda in the Information Age", by Alan MacLeod, Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group), 2019 (Update regarding the "Manufacturing Consent" Propaganda Model)
This set of references establish understanding that applies to a vast range of subjects, not just climate change.
It is possible to understand the unacceptability of the stories made-up by the likes of Shellenberger, Lomborg, Moncton regarding actions required to limit harmful climate change impacts on future generations (and people like Pinker regarding other issues who defend the developed economic system and the glory of technology as the solution for everything). And that explanation also applies to almost all resistance to the understanding of the need for major systemic corrections to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals. And it is undeniable that the best possible future for humanity requires achieving and improving on all of the Sustainable Development Goals, the sooner the better. Read "The Age of Sustainable Development" by Jeffrey D. Sachs to obtain a broader understanding of how harmful and unsustainable the current developed activity of humanity has become.
A major problem is the pursuit of knowledge for personal benefit, which is an aspect of the problematic pursuit of personal benefit (Self Interest). It is almost impossible to research the motives of people who present stories (any and all information presentation is storytelling - even science research reports). The best that can be done is to develop and present what appears to be the best explanations of what can be observed to be going on resulting in the best science, news reporting, fiction, documentaries, opinions, etc.
In "Reasons and Persons" Derek Parfit presents a robust evaluation concluding that allowing self interests to govern behaviours cannot be expected to produce good sustainable results. In "Capital and Ideology" Thomas Piketty presents the history of unsustainable incorrect and misleading self interested storytelling that is made up by the winners of wealth and power. And in "Manufacturing Consent" Edward S. Herman presents the Propaganda Model which explains how free market systems can develop harmful misleading incorrect storytelling to excuse the harmfully incorrect desires and actions of the wealthy and powerful. In "Propaganda in the Information Age" Alan MacLeod presents an update regarding the Propaganda Model showing that the internet and social media have not corrected the problem of harmfully misleading storytelling.
Unsustainable and harmful ways of doing things are almost always quicker, easier and cheaper than the sustainable less harmful alternatives. Cost as a primary driver of deciding what is liked (popular and profitable) makes it harder to limit the harm done by pursuers of personal benefit, including making it harder to limit the harmful making-up of stories that excuse unsustainable and harmful activities, increasingly hard to do as things become more popular and profitable.
Climate change is only one of many examples of that conflict. That conflict exists regarding almost every action that would help achieve and improve the Sustainable Development Goals. And that conflict includes academic-type stories being made-up that are not accurate helpful explanations of what is really going on or the required helpful harm-reducing corrections of what has developed popularity or profitability.
-
nigelj at 12:06 PM on 11 August 2020Cranky Uncle cartoons available as PPT slides
"A grinding "Gish gallop" of grubby governance."
Nice alliteration. Try a cascade of complete c**p.
-
michael sweet at 11:24 AM on 11 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Philippe,
I am sorry, I linked the same page as you. In the upper right corner is a link for a PDF of the paper (it took me a while to find the link).
-
michael sweet at 11:21 AM on 11 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Philippe Chantreau:
I found a link to a free PDF of teh Vidal paper from Research gate.
-
michael sweet at 11:05 AM on 11 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Nechimide:
The Vidal paper you cite is a commentary that cites previously published information. As I read the paper, it states that the materials will be available but we need to carefully plan for such large amounts of materials use.
The abstract of the Vidal et al commentary reads in full:
"Renewable energy requires infrastructures built with metals whose extraction requires more and more energy. More mining is unavoidable, but increased recycling, substitution and careful design of new high-tech devices will help meet the growing demand." My italics.
This indicates to me that renewable supporters are trying to plan for possible future problems. Vidal et al do not say that they think there will not be enough materials to build out. They say we have to plan carefully.
Scientists are concerned about a lot of non-renewable materials that might run short if everyone wants to live like Western culture. Lithium for batteries and phosphate for fertilizer come to mind. Careful planning will be needed for many materials.
-
Doug Bostrom at 09:53 AM on 11 August 2020Cranky Uncle cartoons available as PPT slides
Unfortunately Pruitt's replacement Wheeler has floated above scandal, allowing him to proceed with "Bizarro Superman" EPA.
Today, "rolling back" (degrading) regulation of methane loss from liquid and gas petroleum extraction. Last year, paving the path to the Pebble Mine at Bristol Bay. In between: examples too numerous to keep track of— which of course is the general MO of the administration in all spheres.
A grinding "Gish gallop" of grubby governance.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:05 AM on 11 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258514690_Metals_for_a_low-carbon_society
This page seems to contain all of the Vidal 2013 paper. It does not contain anything like the language in #18 above. It shows charts of the projected total output of some raw materials under the WWF energy production scenario; however, it does not differentiate what proportion of these materials will be exclusively devoted to renewable energy infrastructure vs the rest of raw material consumption. The paper does not seem to contain projections of future demand under different scnenarios, even though it is to be expected that demand will rise under any scenario, even those including low use of renewables.
It is therefore not possible from the data in the paper to draw the following conclusion: "According the the Vidal et al. paper, renewable energy projects (by WWF in the example) would consume the entire annual copper, concrete and steel production by 2035 at the latest, hoard all currently produced aluminum by around 2030, and use up all the glass before 2020."
The paper does contain some interesting stuff and their figures certainly merit attention and further study. They make a compelling point for recycling metals and mining locally with modern methods.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:14 AM on 11 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
The Vidal paper is unfortunately behind a paywall. I'm not entirely sure about the characterization offered by Nechimide, because the short abstract linked at #18 gives a much less pessimistic view:
"More mining is unavoidable, but increased recycling, substitution and careful design of new high-tech devices will help meet the growing demand."
-
Daniel Bailey at 22:53 PM on 10 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Even upon a superficial review, since glass is still available, this claim is invalidated.
-
Nechimide at 19:58 PM on 10 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
@14
"I linked the incorrect Jacobson paper on materials for renewable energy. It is actually Jacobson 2011. He shows that all materials for a renewable energy system exist. I believe this paper has never been challenged. Please provide data to support your deliberately false claim that not enough materials exist for a renewable system."
Vidal et al (2013) has for more recent data on renewables' material requirements. Briefing here with original graphs and comparisons with WWF’s prediction for wind and solar energy production reaching 25 000 TWh by 2050 (I've read the original Nature paper and the brief appears to be correct).
According the the Vidal et al. paper, renewable energy projects (by WWF in the example) would consume the entire annual copper, concrete and steel production by 2035 at the latest, hoard all currently produced aluminum by around 2030, and use up all the glass before 2020. And WWF plans still have a lot room for biomass, which is not renewable in the strictest sense. -
nigelj at 08:48 AM on 10 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
OPOF @2, fwiw I think Pope Francis is the best Pope the church has had.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:36 AM on 9 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
nigelj,
Pope Francis may not be a scientist, but he is a Jesuit which means he is open minded about correcting beliefs based on evidence that justifies correction of established beliefs. In that way he is like a scientist, but is constrained by popular opinion among his flock.
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 9 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32
"The encyclical was seen in some camps as an attack on capitalism, and it made some Catholic Republican leaders squirm, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in 2015 observed that the pope "is not a scientist."
The pope is not a scientist. Yes Mr Bush, we know that. The Pope is not claiming to be a scientist. He is not making up his own science. He is not twisting or interpreting the science. Hes quoting the majority view in the scientific community. Plenty of consensus studies show what the vast majority of scientists think documented here.
-
michael sweet at 20:32 PM on 8 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka:
Your posts are too long to reply to all the misleading errors and half truths. I will reply to the biggest ones.
This Al Jazeera article gives some background on the Barakah plant. It appears a lot of people are not happy with how the plant has been built.
Eclectic above was concerned about terrorists. The Barakah plants are built without the "Generation III Defence-In-Depth reinforcements to the containment building to shield against a radiological release resulting from a missile or fighter jet attack." They also do not have a "core catcher" to contain a meltdown as occured at Fukushima. It would be illegal to build these plants in the USA or EU.
Why leave out crritical safety features? To save money.
In addition part of the reason they are 3 years behind schedule is that hundreds of counterfeit control valves and other components were installed. Apparently the Korean suppliers routinely fake certifications. All four of the containment buildings have suffered severe cracking. Perhaps the people who approved the lack of protection from terrorists think the repairs are good enough. Who would want to live near them?
On the issue of timeliness, these plants were supposed to connect to the grid in 2017. Being only 3 years late on a 5 year build (assuming they connect to the grid before 2021) is fast for nuclear.
The budget for the plants is secret so it is difficult to determine the true cost.
As far as the pudding argument, these plants were ordered in 2009 when nuclear was cheaper than solar, as long as you do not install a core catcher. Since then
"Between 2009 and 2019, utility-scale average solar photovoltaic costs fell 89 percent and wind fell 43 percent, while nuclear jumped 26 percent, according to an analysis by the financial advisory and asset manager Lazard"
KEPCO, the contractor building the plant has exactly zero (0) orders for additional plants. Looks like no-one enjoys pudding with fake valves.
Meanwhile the UAE is installing larger and larger amounts of solar.
I will not reply to your calculations except to note that you count only the build time for nuclear while counting the planning, biddiing and build times for solar. They initially installed small solar systems as pilot plants. Currently they are installing larger and larger solar units. No additional nuclear is planned.
Large installations like nuclear and coal power plants require at least 10-15 years to plan and build. Renewable energy has only been the cheapest option for about 5 years. Power plants planned more than 5 years ago are still being completed. Completing a unit planned 11 years ago does not mean they are competitive now. Coal and nculear builds world wide are being cancelled because now renewable is cheapest.
Suggesting a plant announced in 2009 answers the pudding argument shows how barren the nuclear argument is.
-
Eclectic at 07:20 AM on 8 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston, thank you for that information. (btw, I myself was not so much concerned about "proliferation" per se, but rather the underlying vulnerabilities.)
Love your quote : "a problem that can be solved with money is not a problem". Petrodollars or no petrodollars. And in my mind's eye, I can see the response by every economist ever born ~ the living ones are frothing at the mouth, and the dead ones are spinning in their graves. Cruel of you, Preston. ;-)
-
Preston Urka at 04:17 AM on 8 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
There was a post a while back that solar on residential rooftops and use of useless deserts for solar PV was great. Here is a note from use of residential rooftops in useless deserts!
Basically, they moved the panels off the rooftops to the ground as it is easier to clean them.
This is what I find hard dealing with super-pro-wind-and-solar people; you guys don't really think about the practicalities. I am pro wind and solar, but I am not such a starry-eyed optimist that I refuse to see the real issues involved in adopting them. In contrast, the only real issue with nuclear is the high capital costs of construction. However, a problem that can be solved with money is not a problem, imho.
-
Preston Urka at 04:15 AM on 8 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Proliferation Progress (for Eclectic's concerns) via Barakah
Although the UAE had ratified the NPT in 1995, it strengthened the world's non-proliferation efforts when adopting civilian nuclear power by:- Ratified a safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 2003
- Joined the IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety in 2009
- Joined the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in 2009
-
Preston Urka at 04:14 AM on 8 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Been quite busy lately, but I ran across a note on the Barakah plant which lead me to a fantastic comparison of nuclear build vs. wind/solar build, with shades of the Pudding Argument.
The UAE is transitioning from an electricity generation system nearly 100% powered by gas power plants (2010) to 100% powered by low-carbon resources (2050). This background is what makes this nuclear vs. wind/solar perfect - there is no installed base on either side.
Some might argue that the UAE's plan is flawed, but I give deference to the politicians and bureaucrats who are taking care of their country. We should assume they have good intentions for their country and have embarked on a proper plan to do so.
In comparison, I find it hard to say the same of Germany - the Germans have clearly made progress towards their goal of high penetration of wind and solar. However, the German goal has historically not been a goal of reducing GHG emissions and it is clear the Germans are not making much progress in reductions. The Germans have knowingly built more coal plants and knowingly plan to continue to run them until at least 2038, despite the known deaths and disease coal causes, in addition to GHG emissions.
Somewhat damaging to the Pudding Argument is the UAE decision to go ahead with nuclear - remember this is the site of the .03USD/kWh solar PV bid in 2016 - my conclusion is the nuclear pudding is fairly tasty!
With that context, back to Barakah:
Barakah 1 start: 2012 online: 2020 8y
Barakah 2 start: 2013 online: ~2021
Barakah 3 start: 2014 online: ~2022
Barakah 4 start: 2015 online: ~2023
nameplate capacity: 5380 MW (1345 MW each) over 11y
75% capacity factor (using APR-1400 c.f. from Shin Kori)
25% of United Arab Emirates electricity (from 2023 onward)- Barakah NPP
- Build Time 11 y
- individually 1,105 GWh/y
- collectively 3,215 GWh/y
- percentage-wise 2.27 %/y
UAE's Wind/Solar progress
Dubai Clean Energy Strategy has to goal (from start of 2013? or 2015? year is unclear, but we will use 2015 as is more favorable to Wind/Solar):- 7% from 2015 to 2020: 1.40 %/y
- 25% from 2015 to 2030: 1.67 %/y
- 7 years slower than same generation as from nuclear
- 75% from 2015 to 2050: 2.14 %/y
Note the solar/wind rates are all slower. GWh/y is harder to calculate as I don't have a list of the proposed solar/wind projects over the next 35 years. Nor do I have a good list of the existing plants, but presumably 7% is reliable, so you can back it out.
-
John Hartz at 01:11 AM on 8 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Suggested supplemental reading:
How to drive fossil fuels out of the US economy, quickly by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Aug 6, 2020
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:53 PM on 7 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Michael, Nigel.
Both of you have a respected background of commenting here, and you're now both pleading to moderators. I am not a moderator, but perhaps you should both take a cool-down period and remember that you are not in a discussion with Preston Urka any more.
I'd hate to see either of you disappear from this forum, either from moderator action or your own volition. Put the buns down.
-
prove we are smart at 21:11 PM on 7 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31, 2020
Great, thanks for link-I'd forgotten how short lived water vapour is in our atmosphere. Sceptical Science has been so helpful for explaining to me the very basics to a more intimate understanding of AGW. A clued up moderator keeps everyone honest-good news with your new partners..
-
nigelj at 17:35 PM on 7 August 2020Why we don't act: Climate Change Psychology
More related to this theme which shows what a challenge we face.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483
"Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert argues that humans are exquisitely adapted to respond to immediate problems, such as terrorism, but not so good at more probable, but distant dangers, like global warming. He talks about his op-ed piece which appeared in Sunday's Los Angeles Times......"
One disagreement with the video. Its wrong to say the world has not responded strongly to covid 19. Plenty of countries have responded robustly and at least moderately quickly particularly Europe and Australasia, and have supressed the curve for months now. This is exactly what professor Gilbert would expect. This has not been quite the case in the USA which appears to this outsider to have a disjointed approach to the problem related to the leadership. If you can call it leadership (sarc).
-
nigelj at 08:01 AM on 7 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Michael sweet @14
"You are not familiar with scientific discussion. In a scientific discussion I say "this paper supports my position". Then you say "this paper supports my position".
Please don't be ridiculous. Yes its good to quote papers when appropriate, but It's possible to have a scientific discussion without having to mention papers. It happens all the time all over the place and by highly qualified people. Realclimate.org a highly reputable leading edge climate website and they dont demand that people posting comments have to quote scientific papers. It would just shut down discussion. People dont always have the time and relevant papers might not exist.
That said, I post references to peer reviewed papers quite often, with respect to this websites rules, and because it is good to back up claims with a source, but its absurd to have to constantly quote scientific papers all the time. I notice you never demand it when people make claims about the benefits of renewables or expound on the dangers of climate change. You appear to apply double standards.
You have also utterly ignored what I said. Sometimes there are valid criticisms of a scientific issue and no relevant published research to quote in support.
"In this discussion I have provided a paper that supports my position, Abbott 2012. You say you do not like that paper and we should all agree with you. You have provided no reason why we should all agree with you."
I did not say that.
"You must support your claims with at least white papers from industry. "
I provided a white paper above at comment 12 being a lengthy criticism of Jacobsons work. I provided a published study on renewable energy. I provided entirely credible material on why nuclear projects are being built. So why do you go on misrepresenting me?
Regarding Abbot, there is no need to provide studies on the known scale of earths mineral resources, this is common knowledge easily googled. Do I need to provide studies that the moon goes around the earth?
"Your unsupported opinion as a person who claims no training or professional experience in the field"
Where do you get that from? I have never claimed that. I have said several times on this website I did physical geography at university, which covers the introductory basics of weather and climate. I also have a design degree in architecture and I may have mentioned that here, cant remember. I also did psychology and some basic maths and chemistry at university. Not that any of this makes me right or wrong about anything, but since you raised the issue I have to correct your error.
"Bringing in information that you pick up in unmoderated forums on the web also does not advance the discussion."
This is not a valid argument. Its illogical, and pretty much an ad hominem. Whether a forum is moderated or not clearly does not make information either right or wrong.
And you are wrong to claim Realclimate.org is not a moderated forum. It has a moderation policy, and comments get deleted, or sometimes thrown into the junk file.
"Clack 2016 does not rebut Jacobson 2018."
Whatever. Who cares. Maybe its because hes tired of arguing with Jacobson. Maybe he's got better things to do.
"If you cannot find published critism of someones work then you must look harder for support for your wild claims. "
Ridiculous statement.
"Since you have no training or experience in any power systems, and you refuse to read the published literature on the topic, why should I care what you think?"
I have read some of this material. I have told you that already. I'm trying to find the time to read more.
"If you want to speculate on these topics many non-scientific boards, like the unmoderated thread at RealClimate, exist."
All threads at RC are moderated as per previous comments. More lightly than here but they are still moderated.
"The moderators want to encourage discussion of nuclear power so they have allowed nuclear proponents to make many wild, unsupported claims. I respond to these claims. Since you make many unsupported, uninformed claims I respond so that casual readers do not think that your arguments have merit."
People make wild unsupported claims about renewables and other matters on this website. I never here you complain about that. You apply double standards.
"I linked the incorrect Jacobson paper on materials for renewable energy. It is actually Jacobson 2011. He shows that all materials for a renewable energy system exist. Please provide data to support your deliberately false claim that not enough materials exist for a renewable system."
I have never disputed this so why do you keep implying otherwise.? My point was whether they would last for a thousand years. As far as I can recall Jacobson never considered this. Its a discussion we should be having.
"Your point that renewable energy projects use more tons of concrete and steel than nuclear power plants was popular with nuclear supporters in 2005 (I remember when they first used this argument). Since Jacobson 2011 was published, all informed people know that it is a false argument. You show your lack of preparation when you cite an argument that is 10 years out of date."
I never said that. I said renewables look like they use a larger volume of all materials in total, so concrete, steel, copper, fibreglass etcetera combined.
"By contrast, Abbott 2012 described the lack of rare materials used in the constructions of nuclear plants (especially uranium and "unobtainium"). ..... All known uranium reserves will only produce 5 years of power for the world. "
I assume you mean land based reserves. Uranium is abundant in sea water, with billions of tons enough to power the world for many centuries assuming we can extract it. Table of quantities here. Uranium has been experimentally extracted from sea water here. Even if the costs are high they would inherently form a very small proportion of the costs of running a nuclear power plant. Abbot looks like it might be out of date in respect of this.
"Renewable systems use little of the rare elements,"
That is just a huge understatement, and ignores other materials in relatively limited supply like copper and aluminium ( bauxite reserves could all be gone in a century or two) required for generators and a vast network of new trasmission lines to enable power to be shared regionally.
I was not going to respond to you, but I dont like it when people missrepresent my position hence the response.
Moderator. I have a history here of quoting studies, more so than other people. Indisputably so. I will make the effort to quote more papers bearing in mind there are only so many hours in the day.
However I'm getting really tired of the way M Sweet repeatedly and blatantly 1) puts words in my mouth (hes done it to others as well) and 2) missrepresents my position and 3) misrepresents by background and 4) intellectually bullies people he doesnt agree with, and 5)falsely accuses me of making things up. And the way you let him get away with it.
Moderator Response:[PS] I acknowledge your record in quoting papers. However, the discussions at Skpsci have a much stricter comments policy than realclimate.org. Of course you can have a discussion about interpretation of observations and logic without recourse to papers. However, you cannot make assertions of facts here without providing evidence to support them. That is sloganeering.
-
michael sweet at 05:37 AM on 7 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Nigelj,
Skeptical Science is a scientific site. Apparently you do not understand the method of scientific discussion. This is common with nuclear supporters. On the other nuclear thread at post 14 I described the scientific method of discussion to Barry:
"You are not familiar with scientific discussion. In a scientific discussion I say "this paper supports my position". Then you say "this paper supports my position". Then I provide more papers to support my position and show why it is more accurate. You provide papers to support your position. Others read the papers and decide who they think has the best argument.
"In this discussion I have provided a paper that supports my position, Abbott 2012. You say you do not like that paper and we should all agree with you. You have provided no reason why we should all agree with you."
You should read the entire post linked above.
You must support your claims with at least white papers from industry. Your unsupported opinion as a person who claims no training or professional experience in the field does not contribute much to the discussion. Bringing in information that you pick up in unmoderated forums on the web also does not advance the discussion.
You linked the Clack et al paper which actually is a peer reviewed criticism of Jacobson 2015. It is common in science for papers to be rebutted in this way. Clack disagreed with Jacobson on the use of hydro power, the most flexible renewable power. Jacobson responded with his 2018 paper (linked above) and answered all the questions that Clack raised. I have not seen any references to any criticism of Jacobson 2018 so I conclude that Clack felt that Jacobson et al 2018 answered his questions. Clack 2016 does not rebut Jacobson 2018.
If you cannot find published critism of someones work then you must look harder for support for your wild claims. Since you have no training or experience in any power systems, and you refuse to read the published literature on the topic, why should I care what you think? If you want to speculate on these topics many non-scientific boards, like the unmoderated thread at RealClimate, exist.
The moderators want to encourage discussion of nuclear power so they have allowed nuclear proponents to make many wild, unsupported claims. I respond to these claims. Since you make many unsupported, uninformed claims I respond so that casual readers do not think that your arguments have merit.
I linked the incorrect Jacobson paper on materials for renewable energy. It is actually Jacobson 2011. He shows that all materials for a renewable energy system exist. I believe this paper has never been challenged. Please provide data to support your deliberately false claim that not enough materials exist for a renewable system. If you cannot find data to support your wild claims stop posting here.
Your point that renewable energy projects use more tons of concrete and steel than nuclear power plants was popular with nuclear supporters in 2005 (I remember when they first used this argument). Since Jacobson 2011 was published, all informed people know that it is a false argument. You show your lack of preparation when you cite an argument that is 10 years out of date.
By contrast, Abbott 2012 described the lack of rare materials used in the constructions of nuclear plants (especially uranium and "unobtainium"). Renewable systems use little of the rare elements, unlike nuclear plants which depend on these rare materials. 100 million tons of concrete is a small amount compared to world production of 10 billion tons. All known uranium reserves will only produce 5 years of power for the world.
-
MA Rodger at 23:12 PM on 6 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31, 2020
prove we are smart @1,
Congratulations.
You have spotted a soil scientist who is in denial with regard to the causes of AGW. I suppose soil scientists are not a million miles from geologists who often are found on record misrepresenting AGW. At 1:11:20 in the video you link-to we hear:-
"0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Do you really think that's changing global climate? [Murmurs heard from the audience including 'yes'] Really? There is absolutely no science behind that at all to show. Yes, it [CO2] is a GHG and so is N2O and so is CH4 and so is water vapour. Those molecues all have the potential for what we call radiative forcing. But when it's 0.04% of the atmosphere it contributes very very little to global climate."
The slides had previously shown this slide:-
This graphic is the work of Fred Singer, a well-known aged denialist who died earlier this year. It originates from this denialist webpage and is saying that the human impact on the GH-effect is no more than 0.28% but gives zero references to support such a crazy assertion.
The webpage tries to make the case for CO2 having increased from 288ppm pre-industrial to 368ppm (which dates the webpage to perhaps 20 years ago as today CO2 is at 410ppm) , an increase of (364-288=) 80ppm but with the bold assertion that only 12ppm of this increase is due to mankind. So from all this we should not be surprised by any denialist outrage.
The pre-industrial GH-effect boosts average global temperature by something like 33ºC. About three-quarters of this is due to water vapour and clouds and 20% due to CO2. But without the CO2 and other long-lived GHGs, the levels of water in the atmosphere would soon crash (it would take a couple of decades) leaving a snowball (or more accurately 'iceball' earth.
The speaker in the video does make a stab at a man-made cause of AGW. A graphic @1:11:20 in the video shows two paths to 'temperature warming' - CO2 emissions from soil degradation and H2O emissions from warmer soils. But the speaker insists it is the H2O that is the dominant warming agent:-
1:03:13
"And when we lose carbon, we lose moisture because that's what gives us our moisture holding capacity. All this moisture, extra moisture, is evaporating and going up into the atmosphere. And it's increasing the temperature, hugely.
"This is, to my mind anyway, the chief cause of the climate instability that we have at the moment. Because what happens is if you heat something it evaporates, like you put a saucepan of water on the stove and heat it up, it evaporates.
"So these soils get a lot hotter than these covered soils and we now have huge amounts of water vapour up in the atmosphere that weren't there a couple of hundred years ago. We have to look at the whole system..."It would be good if the "whole system" were considered as we would be saved having to listen to the likes of the dysfunctonal account of AGW in this video.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed image display issues. The Geocraft pages are not secure.
-
gseattle at 21:56 PM on 6 August 2020Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
Earliest for this quote so far is 2004.
Does anyone know of a scientific paper this might be from?"It is estimated that between 150 and 200 species become extinct every day."
Moderator Response:[DB] Link breaking page formatting shortened and hyperlinked.
-
prove we are smart at 17:26 PM on 6 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #31, 2020
I hope this is the correct area to ask this, but I was reading this 2020 soil health conference and very informative about soil microbes etc. However when giving the closing 15mins, Dr Christine Jones explaines the major driver of climate change is the increase of water vapour from evaporation from depleted and cleared soils/land, moreso than our increasing co2. I always thought it was mainly the ppm of co2 causing gw? Is the Dr right in blaming our land use which is increasing the amount of water vapour and is then the primary ghg? Can someone review the last 15mins and advise, thanks..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4uVKIGBk2s
-
nigelj at 09:33 AM on 6 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Addendum. "Renewables like solar panels and wind farms use a much larger volume of materials in total than nuclear power plants.
-
nigelj at 08:23 AM on 6 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
michael sweet @11
"I note that you have provided no references, even to industry propaganda, to support your wild claims. "
There is detailed criticism of Jacobsons work easily googled. I didnt think I needed to quote that which is easly googled, but here is some material. I do not accept all the criticisms, but some look credible.
I do not know of an actual peer reviewed published study attempting to refute Jacobsons or Abbots work. My undertanding is that most published studies including ones that turn out to be wrong, are not specifically refuted by other published studies. That doesn't make the original published study correct as M Sweet seems to believe.
If I'm not allowed to criticise someones work, or at least express doubts, because there is no relevant published study I can quote that is refuting the work, then that is clearly and indisputably absurd nonsense, and it is scientific censorship. If people cant express opinions or thoughts without a bibliography of references, that is also quite absurd.
"You have just made up your 20% claim. "
Apologies. That was a typo. I confused the 5% with a 20% number you quoted.
"It is possible that in 5,000 years steel will run out and we will have to all go back to using stone. I doubt it. You are simply speculating without any support. "
Where did I quote just steel? You are putting words in my mouth again. Renewables use copper, aluminium, and dozens of other relatively scare materials. Its well known that some of these materials are scarce. There is no need to provide references for common knowledge.
Renewables like solar panels use many more materials than nuclear power plants. This is kinda obvious when you look at the size of solar and wind farms, but I have a reference here to satisfy the nit pickers. I'm just suggesting this is something that needs consideration in a world where we are using resources very fast. It doesnt make renewables a bad thing, but it does suggest we combine a wide range of options.
"Nuclear plants are being shut down worldwide because nuclear is not economic."
Unsupported assertion made with no references. Talk about hypocrisy. And more importantly its an unbalanced comment. At least some nuclear plants are shut down due to panic about safety, eg in Germany and plenty of nuclear plants are also being built here.
"Nuclear proponents have been saying that in 10 years they will have solved all nuclear's problems ever since I was born and I am an old man now. "
I agree and Im older now and I've certainly observed this. However not all the renewables problems have been solved either, and most of the plans that they can be solved are speculative or have not been scaled up, just like the nuclear industries speculation and promises and experimental plant.
All I'm saying is I think theres room for many clean zero carbon energy sources. Some countries could elect to use renewables and clearly are doing this. Others might use nuclear power. Countries could mix both perhaps in different parts of the country. Countries already mix various energy sources like geothermal and hydro. Its not clear to me why everyone would have to just use solar and wind and why nuclear must be excluded. Purists and dogmatic people get on my nerves.
I will not be commenting futher on all this.
-
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 6 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Nigelj:
I note that you have provided no references, even to industry propaganda, to support your wild claims. I have directly cited at least 3 peer reviewed papers in this thread and in the past I have given you many more peer reviewed papers to read. I recognize that you claim you do not have enough time to read peer reviewed papers and prefer to read the unmoderated forum at RealClimate to get information.
Your claim that nuclear power will be comparable in price to renewables plus storage is completely false. You rely on unsupported industry propaganda for your nuclear estimates. Connelly et al and Jacobson et al 2018 show that renewables are at least a factor of three cheaper than nuclear power. I note the largest pumped hydro storage plants in the USA were all built to store excess nuclear power. You have not added in the necessity of storage for nuclear power in your wild claims.
Abbott showed that no more than 5% of All Power can be generated by nuclear. You have just made up your 20% claim. Abbott showed that a 100% nuclear system would use up all known uranium reserves in 5 years. That means for a 20% system the uranium would run out in 25 years, way before fossil fuels.
It is possible that in 5,000 years steel will run out and we will have to all go back to using stone. I doubt it. You are simply speculating without any support. Jacobson 2009 showed all materials exist for a renewable system. Since then renewable systems are built with less materials so even less materials would be used.
Moderators: it is very tiresonme to have to respond to Nigelj's false posts every time nuclear is mentioned. I understand that you want to promote a nuclear discussion but allowing repeated postings of completely unsupported falsehoods is sloganeering. Nigelj should be required to support his claims like everyone else.
Nuclear supporters commonly make the false claim that renewable energy cannot generate enough energy (or is too expensive, etc) and then claim that we have to use nuclear instead. This is a false argument. Even if renewables could not supply enough future energy that does not mean that nuclear would work.
Nuclear plants are being shut down worldwide because nuclear is not economic. Nuclear proponents have been saying that in 10 years they will have solved all nuclear's problems ever since I was born and I am an old man now. Jacobson 2009 shows that any money spent on nuclear increases carbon emissions since that means less money will be spent on cheaper wind and solar power that can be built much faster.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:54 AM on 6 August 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change using multiple lines of consilient and converging evidence, including the slow, long-term changes in the Earth’s movement around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles or orbital forcings), and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed and ongoing warming since 1750 can be explained.
Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Forcings, per the 4th US National Climate Assessment, Volume 2, in 2018 (orbital forcings shown in the top frame):
-
Eclectic at 23:35 PM on 5 August 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Approximate figures (as I recall) quoted are :-
A gradual global temperature fall of 0.7 degreesC over the past 5,000 years, but a rapid rise of 1.2 degreesC over the past 150 years.
-
michael sweet at 21:23 PM on 5 August 2020Milankovitch Cycles
My understanding is that the current Milankovich forcing is to make the temperature go down. So since temperatures are going up it cannot be due to Milankovich forcings.
-
scaddenp at 13:28 PM on 5 August 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Hmm I think Hansen & Sato calculated this and reported in AR4. More like 4% for global solar change, 21% for albedo change and remainder from GHG (CO2 + CH4). However, locally (65N) the milankovich forcing is very high, enough to determine whether snow melts out in summer or not and so trigger the large scale albedo changes.
-
nigelj at 08:27 AM on 5 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Michael Sweet @8, I never said in my post that storage for renewables would be expensive. I suggested its unlikely that there would ultimately be much difference between the costs of nuclear power generation and renewables generation. Renewables have to be able to deal with about two weeks of low wind and cloudy days and big diurnal and seasonal variations in demand, which means either a big overbuild, or masses of some form of storage or carbon capture .Yes it can be done eventually and economically with mass production, but I think you would have to be crazy to believe it will end up lower cost than nuclear power. The research paper you quoted saying "They show that a well designed All Power system might require zero storage" is little more than speculation based on various assumptions, the word 'might' gives it away.
The nuclear power advocates dont all suggest the entire energy system of the world rely on just nuclear power. Many accept we need biofuels and pumped hydro and so on. So your comments are a bit of a strawman.
Yes nuclear power faces big resource constraints with supplies of uranium, but that is not a compelling reason not to build any nuclear power at all. Even if Abbot is right and theres only enough uranium to power 20% of the world ( and this has been heavily contested) thats still 20%.
And my point was that renewables also face resource constraints. I actually never said there were not enough resources to build renewables at scale, simply that this probaly wont "last forever". From my recollection, Jacobson only found that there are enough resorces to build the first generation or two of renewables at scale. We have to be able to keep this going for thousands of years, and even with recycling that will be challenging. Let me remind you the earths mineral resources are finite, and rich seams of even common minerals are actually quite rare. Therefore it might make sense to mix both renewables and nuclear power.
Of course reserves of fossil fuels are even more limited, with credible estimates suggesting light crude oil has already peaked in terms of supply, and America may only have 50 years of economically recoverable coal left, and obviously oil and coal cannot be recycled. Once they are burned they are basically gone for good, so the use of fossil fuels is fast nearing the limits. At least the sun and wind are essentially unlimited and most metals can be recycled. All the more reason to adopt renewables, but maybe nuclear is ok as well.
A few of us think more in terms of a combination of systems or a hybrid system, while most people seem to take firm sides on the nuclear versus renewables thing, but to me this doesnt look terribly science based and more like its based on emotion and hype.
You said "This article is just nuclear industry propaganda uncritically presented. " Yet the article fully ackowledged the considerable challenges facing the nuclear industry. I think the article bent over backwards to be accurate and balanced, and covered as much as it could within a one page format.
-
bbrowett at 05:01 AM on 5 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Recognizing that I am broadening the discussion beyond the narrow focus of the article. The issue is not whether renewable generation is better than nuclear, but remains whether nuclear should be considered to be part of the future energy mix. What is lacking in the article is a discussion of values.
In one sense I agree with the title of the article: “We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy”, since the article overlooks the intergenerational responsibility and consequence of the use of nuclear power. This issue of kicking down the raod the responsibility for waste, proliferation, environmental damage, and threats of nuclear terrorism has plagued the nuclear power debate since the beginning of the nuclear age.
For the moment, setting aside the obvious problems with the article that implicitly accepts that energy narcissism/inequality is acceptable, the promotion of technical fixes to first “Climate Change”, and now the “Climate Emergency” has always been self-serving for the nuclear power industry. This industry needs to be rescued from the failed experiment that it is.
The Canadian nuclear industry, like the USA industry, has recently been pushing for small nuclear reactors … as well as newer large reactor designs, in an effort to retain some relevance … and especially to mask the legacy of the proliferation of the failed experiments of the old boiling water technology of the 1960s and 1970s designed reactors. …
Nuclear Waste (low and high level), … The plans basically amount to requiring future generations to clean up the mess from our and previous generations that benefited from the energy, but refused to take responsibility for the long-term radioactive wastes … This legacy continues.
Nuclear proliferation (extraction for bombs or creation of dirty bombs), … Curiously, perhaps this generation is just numb to the existential threats of nuclear weapons, and the potential for extraction of radioactive materials to produce weapons. Perhaps this generation has bought into the myths of limited nuclear war, and that they will be among the survivors. Perhaps there is a belief that there will be good procedures that will maintain control over the nuclear waste stream as reactors are deployed around the world … Perhaps the central White House figure should be a cautionary tale for those who believe that good leadership will always control the management of nuclear power, nuclear materials, and nuclear weapons.
Nuclear environmental damage … Throughout the nuclear life-cycle, especially the fabrication processes, through the history of nuclear power … a great deal of radioactive material has been generated: from old dump sites (land and sea) to old reactors sites and components to accident sites. Given the storied history of misadventure and mismanagement, I would have thought that some humility with respect the pollution that has been generated would have been reflected in the article.
Nuclear threats of nuclear terrorism … i.e., non-governmental actors as well as rouge governments. Given the decent in to autocratic malevolence that we are seeing throughout the world, it seems oddly irresponsible to promote a wider distribution of such lethal technologies at this time, and sadly ironic as we collectively try to fend off the environmental damage caused by the irresponsible use of fossil fuels. In many respects the irresponsible responses of governments to the Climate Emergency and pushing responsibility to future generations look similar to the issues of nuclear proliferation and terrorism …
Yes, we will need technical fixes to the Climate Emergency that has been caused by fossil fuel use. However, these technical fixes must be combined with deep social changes that are more substantive than the suggested ‘politics’ in this article. This generation in its responses to irresponsible fossil use, should not be adding to the burden of future generations by promoting additional nuclear power use. If the nuclear power industry was to be responsible, I would expect that if would put all its resources into cleaning up the messes of the past and current of nuclear power use and developing responsible nuclear power policies …
“But taking one step farther back, a few things are glaringly obvious: Smart planning, big investments, science-based strong leadership, and a motivated populace are precisely what’s needed. While we can argue about the details ad infinitum, perhaps we can also agree to stay focused on the end goal, dream big, and move forward boldly.”
The bold step back … would be to accept that nuclear power should not be part of the mix of future energy sources. A bold step would be to address the social changes and technology changes that are needed to address the energy narcissism/inequality that will only be made worse if we focus only on technology … and worse the technologies that benefit only this generation.
-
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 5 August 2020We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
Nigelj:
At post 3 you say: "For example, Nuclear power is expensive compared to wind and solar and gas, but probably cost competitive with wind and solar and mass storage, at current costs of mass storage."
Connelly et al 2016 (reviewed at SkS here) and the references in it show that the bigger the system the lower the storage cost. This means that an electricity only system requires relatively much more storage than a system that provides all electricity, heating, transportation and industry. That means a system that provides ALL POWER requires much less storage than an electricity only system. They show that a well designed All Power system might require zero storage. Obviously if we want to get to zero carbon dioxide emissions we require an All Power system. Electricity only systems, as nuclear supporters describe, are not helpful in reaching zero carbon emissions.
I wrote that summary specifically to address your complaints that storage for renewable energy would be too expensive. Nuclear supporters, like those on the RealClimate thread you frequent, do not discuss All Power systems because electricity only systems make renewable energy look more expensive. The OP has the same problem since it is written from a nuclear point of view.
I have shown your claims of expensive storage are false as described in the peer reviewed literature. If you want to claim expensive storage you need to find peer reviewed sources to support your repeated, false claims.
Your claims at post 3 " Nuclear power relies on a non renewable fuel, but several of the metals used to make wind and solar power plants will obviously not last for all eternity either" are also false. I have referred you repeatedly to Jacobson 2009 which shows that all the materials to build out renewable energy exist is adequate amounts, except for rare earth elements in the turbines. Since then the turbines have been redesigned so that they do not use excess rare earth elements. By contrast, Abbott 2012 shows that many rare elements in nuclear plants, including uranium, do not exist is sufficient amunts to build out more than 5% of All Power. The nuclear industry has not replied to Abbott which shows they agree with his assessment. In general, renewable plants use common materials which are not in short supply. By contrast, many exotic materials are used in nuclear plants to attempt to counter the extreme conditions of heat, corrosivity and radiation field found in nuclear plants.
If you want to contradict the accepted, consensus science you need to provide references to support your wild claims. Constantly repeating false claims does not make them true.
Nuclear supporters constantly repeat false claims about renewable energy. It does not make nuclear look better to falsely claim renewables have problems.
Prev 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 Next
