Recent Comments

Prev  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  1602  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  Next

Comments 80101 to 80150:

80101. Neven at 06:27 AM on 6 July 2011
       Trouble Brewing in the North
       Why, don't they have any good wine where you live? :-P
80102. Chris G at 06:18 AM on 6 July 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
       TIS, I have some quibbles: a) "When the NH is in summer, the Earth is the warmest." By what measure, total heat content or atmospheric temperature? Oceans have a higher heat capacity than common rocks; it takes more Joules to heat them by mass. The same amount of energy received over the ocean would show less temperature change than it would over land. Plus, oceans tend to circulate more than rock. So, it makes a difference. b) "TSI does not dictate when the Earth is warmest or coldest, only the season of the NH." It would be news to me that a greater or lesser amount of energy coming in has no effect on the energy content (and temperature) of a body. If it is "only the season of the NH", then it is nothing else. c) I think you are arguing against TSI having an effect over many years by showing that it doesn't have much effect within a year. That doesn't make a great deal of sense.
80103. John Hartz at 06:13 AM on 6 July 2011
       Trouble Brewing in the North
       When will the Vikings be able to plant vineyards on Baffin and Ellesmere islands?
80104. JMurphy at 05:53 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       quokka wrote : "You ask what else is wrong with the shopping list of Table 1." Not quite. I asked about the rest of the article.
80105. JMurphy at 05:51 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Mark Harrigan wrote : "I agree it is hard to find reliable life cycle emissions data that most would accept life cycle emissions is one source but many would discount it because it's the industry talking. I think it is pretty reasonable though and here is an independent source that suggests nuclear is on a par with Wind emiisions comparisons" Unfortunately, even your second link could be seen as "the industry talking", stating : Prof Lenzen has just completed a study, commissioned by the uranium industry... And that source differs from the Savacool link given on the German Energy Priorities thread, i.e. : Nuclear 66 gCO2e/kWh Wind 9-10 gCO2e/kWh Different from BBD's figures too - although, presumably, he/she will tell us why he/she is right ! ;-) And it ends with these wise words : Rather than detail the complexity and variation inherent in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the nuclear lifecycle, most studies obscure it; especially those motivated on both sides of the nuclear debate attempting to make nuclear energy look cleaner or dirtier than it really is.
80106. Steve Brown at 05:48 AM on 6 July 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
       I'm afraid that orbital forcing cannot be used as an explanation in isolation for the warming of the Last Interglacial. Feedback effects from vegetation and albedo change as well as GHG composition of the atmosphere will make a contribution. If you read the Crucifix & Loutre paper that I link to, they find from modelling studies that albedo feedback from vegetation changes quadruple the direct effect of the orbital forcing.
80107. les at 05:37 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       260 - now Normal might like to google something like "lyapunov exponent double pendulum" and discover some amazing, real science, behind "unpredictable" chaotic systems.
80108. BBD at 05:32 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom Curtis #150 You say:

       2) Every single claim you have made about me and my beliefs to date has been false. You will no doubt ignore this and continue constructing falsehoods because it suites your debating style. But other participants should be aware that your ability to correctly understand an interlocuter closely approximates zero.

       And also:

       That already exceeds the 0.04 figure. Perhaps the nuclear industry does not count cancer deaths from radiation exposure in their figures. No doubt they will also assure us that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

       Your discussion of an outline plan for renewables generation at (4) is essentially Jacobson & Delucchi, and I linked to a comprehensive critique when I first joined this thread. Coincidentally, new evidence is coming to light about the lacklustre results from the Colorado Integrated Solar Project which has a direct bearing on our disucssion.
80109. BBD at 05:15 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Moderator #148 I stand surprised and corrected. I should have said Janus-headed. My apologies.
       Response:

       [DB] Your link is bad.  Not that any even oblique reference to Janus at all would be needful in a comment thread on climate change.

       This entire tangent of the dialogue is getting out of hand.  All parties, please focus on the topic of the discussion.  Thanks!

80110. Albatross at 05:10 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       OK, Make that tonight, need to take care of some work.
80111. Tom Curtis at 05:01 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       CBDunkerson @149, shutting down the old power stations before you know you can get permits for a new station means cutting of your revenue stream with no guarantee that it can be renewed. It is not a viable business model.
80112. Tom Curtis at 04:57 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Albatross @261, I'll certainly look forward to it :)
80113. Tom Curtis at 04:55 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       DB @148, lest there be any doubt, this is the definition of "two faced" as used in the definition you refer to.
80114. Tom Curtis at 04:53 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD @147 1) I am still not interested in discussing anything with you. You repeatedly ignored my direct statements in previous posts to try to construe me as a straw man. I consider that sort behaviour discourteous, and a refusal of rational debate. Where I a moderator, I would invite you to post elsewhere as the only opposing views you appear willing to respond to are those you construct yourself. 2) Every single claim you have made about me and my beliefs to date has been false. You will no doubt ignore this and continue constructing falsehoods because it suites your debating style. But other participants should be aware that your ability to correctly understand an interlocuter closely approximates zero. 3) In particular your claim about what I have read and haven't read have on all occasions been false. In this particular instance I had read table 3.3, and the introductory remarks. I had followed up on two of the five (or was it six) references, but one was in german, and the other only available on a cd-rom. I intend to follow up on the others tomorrow, time permitting. As it stands, I still have no information as to whether mining and processing costs are included in the lifetime CO2 emissions for nuclear power. Indeed, I have no idea, for it is not specified how the EU Communication Commission took a range of 3 - 40 from their source documents and turned it into a value of 15. Seeing you are either unwilling or unable to cite original studies that actually specify their methodology, you are tacitly arguing from authority, and I will certainly, and happily point that out. 4) (And finally), it is certainly possible to build a power generation system consisting entirely of solar thermal and wind power generation with the following features: a) The solar thermal peak generating capacity can meet the full system needs; b) The solar thermal plants have back-up gas or biofuel heating capable of generating peak capacity; c) The wind capacity can handle 50% of peak load under normal wind conditions; d) When wind power is being generated, solar power in excess of demand is diverted to thermal storage (or pumped storage); e) When wind capacity falls, solar power is picks up the load if possible; f) If combined wind and solar capacity falls below demand, thermal (or pumped) storage picks up the load; and g) When wind, solar and stored capacity cannot handle the load, the auxiliary gas or biofuel is used to meet system load. The system has the virtue that it can always meet designed load requirements, but that it only emits CO2 when renewable sources do not meet current load requirements. It has the further advantage that the gas or biofuel auxiliary, when called upon, is only maintaining heat in a system already brought up to operating capacity by solar or stored thermal, and hence requires no "spin up" time. I make no claim that this is the best or most efficient way to deploy renewables, only that it is possible. Because it is possible, renewables can meet almost all power requirements in most countries, supplemented by either gas or better biofuel. The question is then, not is that possible. The question is is it the best way to go, ie, is nuclear cheaper, and/or does it have a lower emissions profile overall, and/or is it safer. I do not have the answer to that question, though I would like to. On the other hand, I don't need to in that if governments would leave both renewables and nuclear as open options with no subsidies including on research, or equivalent subsidies, and with a carbon price, the power companies will quickly find the cheapest combination of technologies. In the mean time I do not trust nuclear advocates who tell me renewables cannot work, and feed me obviously false data (such as the mortality rate data), and who ignore obvious questions and evade the onus of rationally supporting their views just as I distrust greenpeace advocates who do the same sorts of thing in the other direction (although probably on a larger scale).
80115. CBDunkerson at 04:46 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD wrote: "This is absurd. The main reason older plant is kept running is that anti-nuclear activism makes it difficult to get new plant built." You say my position is absurd... and then seem to agree with it. Yes, nuclear power companies are continuing to use outdated power plants because they want to make money and can't get newer ones built... because a few of the outdated ones have had nuclear accidents which have turned many people against nuclear power. If you want people to trust that your technology is safe you shouldn't continue using older versions of it which are known to be unsafe long after they were supposed to be decommissioned. What part of that (seemingly obvious) analysis is to you "absurd"?
80116. Albatross at 04:26 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Hello Tom et al., With reference to the ongoing confusion about thunderstorms...I'll write up something this afternoon that I hope will clarify matters.
80117. BBD at 04:05 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Moderator While I am well aware of the likely counter-productive results of arguing with you, I am baffled here. No accusation of deceit was made. Another analogy might be 'two sides of the same coin'. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding?
       Response:

       [DB] This (the exact term you used) is what I based that on.

       "two-faced; hypocritical; deceitful"

       To use the term that you used is to invite any of those three interpretations, including deceit by implication.  Clarity is best, leaving naught for misinterpretation.
       

80118. BBD at 03:59 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom Curtis #145

       Given that, claims that CO2 emissions for nuclear are a third of that for photovoltaics, and a ninth of that for concentrated solar need to be defended. And simply citing a table with no detailed methodology is not a defence.

       You will be relieved to know that the EU doesn't formulate pan-European energy policy on the basis of guesswork. Please see p13 III in the linked document, which you evidently have not read. It is a synopsis of the methodology. There, you will be referred to Table 3.3, which in turn will direct to to the relevant sources and references in the literature.
80119. BBD at 03:49 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Mark Harrigan # 144 30% by 2050 is essentially the conclusion of the recent IPCC SRREN study. This is broadly in line with other projections. Unfortunately, the elephant remains firmly in the room. WRT TC's comment on spin-up is puzzling.In fact I can't really make clear sense of it. What happens at the end of a cloudy week of relatively high demand? Molten salt is a clever idea for thermal storage, but not a free pass to unlimited backup. This kind of plant design strategy is going to lead to capacity shortfalls. Baseload capacity shortfalls. I completely agree with you that this is an invitation to do more research. I completely disagree that it will ever make renewables suitable for large-scale baseload.

       Tom @ 139 I think makes a couple of good points. One is that the debate is made poorer by campaigners from any side (nuclear, anti-nuclear, renewable, anti-renewable, denialist etc) overstating issues to shore up their perspectives.

       TC is, in my view, being disingenuous. He is clearly anti-nuclear and continuously deploys FUD in furtherence of his stance. And he also seems to be treating you exactly as he treated me when I disagreed with him upthread. I will restate what I said above: Anti-nuclear sentiment is ( -Snip- ); its other aspect is ill-founded renewables advocacy. The policy 'missing link' is the frankly naive claim that western democracies will somehow turn to austerity and energy poverty and deindustrialise to make it all work. It's wishful thinking on a par with AGW scepticsim - and similarly dangerous. You conclude with a commendable appeal to reason:

       But let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good - or to extend the phrase - can we take what is good in any option and strive through logic and reason to make it better? (sorry - I'll stop preaching now ;-)

       This is laudable, but there are constraints. We do not have unlimited budgets, and the problem of opportunity cost must be addressed before a major policy mistake sends us down the wrong track. Not only can we not afford to do the whole thing twice, once for renewables, once for nuclear, the projected acceleration in warming does not allow the luxury of time. This is why I (and many others) argue that unless renewables can absolutely confound their critics and achieve near-physics-defying efficiency improvement within the next decade, they will at best give us 30% of the global energy mix by 2050. Coal is projected to be a big player - ca 40% or higher - and that's simply unacceptable. So what's on the table? Nuclear. I wish we could power a world of ca 9 billion in 2050 with renewables and fairy dust, but we can't. And this requires urgent but absolutely logical consideration.
       Response:

       [DB] Accusations of deceit are a Comments Policy violation (unless you have incontrovertible proof).

80120. John Bruno at 03:20 AM on 6 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       I mean their inference matched their results. They did not try to make points about time periods not covered by their data. They didnt engage in unsupported arm-waving. Regarding the longer-term decline on the GBR, they did not come to the same conclusion as Sweatman et al. I was trying (sorry if I was not clear enough) to respond to the query by jmsully (#2): "My initial thought was that it focused on too narrow a question, but otherwise seemed OK. Of course this is being used by denialists to claim that "coral reefs are OK! Nothing to worry about!", but I'd be interested in your take" I agree jmsully. Fine paper. Reasonable interpretation. Everything OK. Yet, the paper - neither the text nor the results - support the argument that "coral reefs are OK! Nothing to worry about!" UNLESS you assume that the GBR was pristine 1995. And why on earth would anyone do such a silly thing? Sound familiar? Cherry picking a very short time period to argue no change has taken place, period? Inferring the absence of statistical evidence for change over a short time period means there indeed was no change (falsely assuming failure to reject the null is support for the null). Assuming 1995 (or 1998 as in surface temps) is the "baseline"?
80121. Tom Curtis at 03:18 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Mark Harrigan @142, please note again my final @138:

       "Please note that these costs to health and in CO2 emissions pale in comparison to equivalent figures from coal. There is no basis from these considerations to get rid of nuclear power in favour of any fossil fuel, or to not introduce nuclear power as a substitute for fossil fuels. But the selective statistics used for comparison data make a proper comparison between nuclear and renewable options difficult, and significantly overstate the advantage of nuclear, if any."

       (emphasis added) Your response seems to me to spend most of its time arguing against a position I explicitly disavow. I have to say that for you to follow BBD's example of arguing straw men as a substitute for actually reading the post that is supposedly being responded to is not a good sign. Please do not continue doing so as I find it very uninteresting to discuss issues with people that discourteous. When it happens once, I assume it was just an error. If it happens repeatedly, I assume the person is incapable of a polite and reasoned discussion. Having said that, I agree that mineral mining is safer than coal mining, and open cut mining safer than underground mining; but was unable to get figures for open cut mineral mining (which would be directly comparable). I can say from experience in the mining industry that deaths from mining are comparable in rate to deaths from surface workings (concentrators, smelters,maintenance facilities), so while the figures are inaccurate, they will be of the right magnitude. That however, is not the point. The point is that even deaths from Chernobyl alone more than exceed the listed deaths per terraWatthour you listed. Arguably the deaths from construction equal or exceed those listed. Deaths from mining and processing are also likely to be a significant fraction of those listed, and possibly exceed them. Consequently the value listed is simply not plausible. Because the value is much smaller than the value for coal, these problems are not a problem in that comparison. However, they call into question the very dubious (IMO) claim that Nuclear power is eleven times safer than Photovoltaic Solar power, and nearly four times safer than off shore wind. With regard to emissions, I am less sure the comparisons made are inaccurate, and would not question them except for the repeated examples of glib dismissals of any concerns by nuclear advocates (not to mention the attempts to shoe horn anyone who raises concerns as a greenpeace radical). However, there is a distinct difference between wind and solar power and nuclear. They both have CO2 emissions from construction, and these emissions can in principle be eliminated (except perhaps from concrete construction). But in addition to that, nuclear has a fuel cycle, which wind and solar do not. Given that, claims that CO2 emissions for nuclear are a third of that for photovoltaics, and a ninth of that for concentrated solar need to be defended. And simply citing a table with no detailed methodology is not a defence.
80122. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 03:18 AM on 6 July 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
       I am going to disagree that the difference in insolation was not sufficient to cause the warmer Eemian Interglacial. We agree at the 14% higher summer insolation that took place 126,000 YBP. You state that TSI is not sufficient to account for the warming, but that ignores the geographical bias that currently exists for the temperature of the Earth based on where the peak energy intersects the Earth's surface. Under the current orbital parameters the peak energy takes place on January 5th. The minimum energy is taking place right around today (July 5th). The difference is about 6% in total TSI between those two points. So in about a month the Earth should be at it's coldest point of the year if TSI was the determining factor. It should be noted that today is the coldest day on the Moon because TSI is the main factor there. The Moon will be about 6K warmer on January 5th when it is closest to the Earth. So TSI only would dictate that the Earth behave in the same manner, but the Earth's temperature cycle is independent of TSI and is dependent on the season of the NH. When the NH is in summer, the Earth is the warmest. When the NH is in winter the Earth is the coldest. TSI does not dictate when the Earth is warmest or coldest, only the season of the NH. The 65N simply acts to amplify the effects of the natural temperature cycle that the Earth currently displays. That 14% higher summer insolation would have caused the summer time temperatures to be MUCH higher than the NH experiences today. Jones Annual Temperature Dr. Jones is the one that described the annual temperature swing of the Earth and it is strictly seasonally based and not TSI based. The Milankovitch cycle really just amplifies the natural cycle that exists each year by either increasing the decreasing the amplitude of the yearly cycle. The peak summer energy 126,000 years ago is more than sufficient to fully explain the much warmer temperatures at the time.
80123. Mark Harrigan at 02:57 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BDD @ 136 Thanks for your comments I think an important point to pursue in any discussion of safety is the separation of risk from hazard. Too often they are conflated and mean the discussion gets derailed. Regardless of how much lower risk new technology is (and I agree it is) the hazard is not really mitigated. I think we are in agreement the real issue to make Nuclear an acceptable option is that management and regulation must be rigorous, transparent and accountable. In my opinion until that happens, and is proactively addressed by the Nuclear industry the politics against it as an option will simply prove insurmountable. A pity but that's the political reality. On renewables and what sparked this whole thread I may share your views about the current state of renewable but the 30% limitation you mention seems somewhat arbitrary to me? Tom @ 139 I think makes a couple of good points. One is that the debate is made poorer by campaigners from any side (nuclear, anti-nuclear, renewable, anti-renewable, denialist etc) overstating issues to shore up their perspectives. I would like to move beyond that insofar as it is humanly possible. I also think his framing of the "spin-up time" issue makes good sense. What is needed I think is a "utility" that uses a mix of wind (with intelligent predictive anemometering) and solar thermal supported by gas/biofuel turbines (or similar) to manage the variability.(gasp - they might even have some nuclear too!) The trouble is (as I see it - so just a hunch) that everyone wants to push their own barrow and there's very little evidence of anyone using a multi-pronged approach There is a plan in Australia (one I think that makes some brave/unrealistic assumptions and is way beyond our current capital investment capabilities) here beyond zero which has been thoroughly critiqued here beyond zero critique Does that mean the idea is dead in the water? No, it means it needs more work. My point is that our challenge in the debate is not simply to point out what is wrong with any proposal (though that is important) but to use our skills and creative energies to try and suggest better ways to move forward and create improvements. We need to move past everyone just pushing their particular hobby horse of a solution. Given that we can move past the denialist vs AGW is real debate (which is maybe only just starting to happen in Australia I'm sorry to say), the problem in the debate moving forward , as I see it, is that (as I said above in #142) we need to acknowledge that the world is full of lesser evil choices. Wishful thinking for renewables don't make them any more real but also just attacking renewable options doesn't make them any better. Similarly denying the nuclear option based on FUD seems unwise to me but we also need to confront the difficulties head on. I am interested in Mark Diesendorf's proposal (the article that sparked this whole thread) because it is a serious attempt to do that - I agree it may not be perfect (probably far from it). But let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good - or to extend the phrase - can we take what is good in any option and strive through logic and reason to make it better? (sorry - I'll stop preaching now ;->)
80124. KR at 02:40 AM on 6 July 2011
       It's the sun
       JoeRG I believe the correct Stott reference is to Stott et al 2006, Transient Climate Simulations with the HadGEM1 Climate Model: Causes of Past Warming and Future Climate Change. A very similar work, although more focused on predicting than back-casting, that isn't pay-walled is Stott et al 2006, Observational constraints on past attributable warming and predictions of future global warming. Figure 1 of the second link shows a similar pattern, with current warming not explainable without anthropogenic influence. "...you argued -using this figure- that the models are 'excellent'. I showed -using the same figure as well- that they are not, at least if modified by the IPCC, because of mismatches to reality and, as shown by pointing out the difference to Stott, wrong adaptations." The models, with anthropogenic forcings included, track observed temperatures quite well. They seem to include a fairly accurate internal representation of the physics and the effects - I don't think you have any basis for stating otherwise. As to ocean warming (a completely different topic, mind you, and you should look at the appropriate links using the Search box), keep in mind that (a) our measurements of OHC are far from complete, especially at depth, and (b) circulation variances in the oceans are expected to show variations on a 5-10 year timespan.
80125. BBD at 02:27 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       CBDunkerson #140

       If they instead continue to operate poorly designed reactors decades past their originally intended 'end of life' more nuclear accidents, and thus continued public opposition, are guaranteed.

       This is absurd. The main reason older plant is kept running is that anti-nuclear activism makes it difficult to get new plant built.
80126. Mark Harrigan at 02:19 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @Tom 138 I'm sorry Tom but it is totally fallacious to extrapolate from an average figure of deaths for all mining to a figure for uranium mining. All mining profiles are different but perhaps the most important is that the majority of Uranium mining is either open cut (stripping off overburden and refining) or in-situ leaching as opposed to Under Ground (such as in long wall coal mining). Underground mining is inherently more dangerous. So I dispute your figures - they are not logical I agree it's hard to get precise figures but even if you allow a significant increase in the figure I quoted - and say it is wrong by a factor of 100 - it is still two orders of magnitude better than coal. And this doesn't take into account the 100,000's of early deaths the UN attributes each year to the use of extractive fossil fuels. So I do not think you can pretend that Nuclear is a real problem on the basis of its comparative mine safety. As to my statement "The technology is CO2 free in operation" - well - it IS. I meant exactly what I said - the issues you raise of CO2 emissions relate to extraction (which I made clear) so I feel you either misunderstood or are being disingenuous. The Green movement often slanders uranium as somehow producing more CO2 than alternatives over the lifetime of the plant by pumping up figures involved in mining and processing. Really this is a furphy. Of course there are emissions associated with mining and extraction - just as there are associated with the extraction of metals and refining, forging and fabrication of Wind Turbines and Silicon for Solar Panels (which is actually quite energy intensive!). That all depends on what methods you use to power those processes and should really be the subject of a separate comparison. What matters is that once the Nuclear Plant is in place it is essential CO2 emissions free. I agree it is hard to find reliable life cycle emissions data that most would accept life cycle emissions is one source but many would discount it because it's the industry talking. I think it is pretty reasonable though and here is an independent source that suggests nuclear is on a par with Wind emiisions comparisons Regardless I think it is hard to conceive of any logic that would make Nuclear a "bad" CO2 option - I think it's a furphy raised by those who are ideologically opposed to nuclear power - It's the same sort of misrepresentation that denialists use only from a different direction. I prefer to be data and logic driven and not come from an ideological view point of support or oppositiion The real issue with Nuclear as an option is, I believe, as I have stated. On the plus side it's reliable and will contribute to enormous CO2 emissions reduction - It's proven technology and generally able to be implemented in most geographies (excluding those that are seismically at risk) - which put' it ahead of hydro and geothermal which have severe geographical limitations. With modern technology designs the risk are frankly extremely low BUT - the hazard is enormous -and if something does go wrong humans have not demonstrated an ability to manage it. This compounded with the human fallibility issue I mentioned earlier is a very big negative. The only way I can see forward for nuclear is if it is highly regulated AND the industry steps up to the plate and imposes on itself a rigorous accountability, management discipline and transparency to better manage itself. I'm not sanguine about that happening but I see it as the only way forward for Nuclear if we want to reduce CO2 emissions by as much as the science says we need - because (as I will post elsewhere) renewables are simply not (YET) up to the task - or at least it is not proven that they are - again part of the debate that is needed The cold truth is that the world is full of lesser evil choices. We need the debate to mature to that fact and have a sensible informed discussion about the nuclear option and renewable options- not one based on fear or poor logic or data or wishful thinking.
80127. BBD at 02:17 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       dana1981 #31 It's also vital to consider what is coming. Electrification of personal transport (with overnight charging the norm) and increased use of day/night AC in cities will drive baseload demand upwards significantly. High-renewables scenarios invariably require much reduced demand in order to 'work'. It's another reason to be extremely sceptical of such claims.
80128. Tom Curtis at 02:16 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       quokka @33, what is the discount rate? Also, I consider the idea of discounting future costs for calculation of levelized costs dubious. Assuming we are looking at a long term energy solution, then eventually power plants will exist in all phases of their cycle in about even numbers. Therefore the ongoing cost of the industry will include all features including decommissioning at current values, and that is the cost we are interested in. In this our perspective is different from that of an investor (for whom discounting is appropriate).
80129. JoeRG at 02:15 AM on 6 July 2011
       It's the sun
       ... in (a) as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 models with both anthropogenic and natural forcings. ... The simulated global mean temperature anomalies in (b) are from 19 simulations produced by five models with natural forcings only. Well, this is taken from the caption of the figure (and I do not expect that all of the models were made by the autors). So what would you expect from one who's reading this, unable to find any description (because of dead links, just a hint that leads to Stott) and finally realizing that the graphs did match neither the original model nor the physical behaviours that are to expect? Should he say "hurray, it's from the IPCC, it's fine"? Of course, very amazing. I suggest you check the various reports for links to the original works. I would, if you can give me the list of the used models. I can't get it from the IPCC page. Regrettably there is no 'Appendix 9C' -for whatever reasons- where the underlying papers/reports would have been listed. Besides, you argued -using this figure- that the models are 'excellent'. I showed -using the same figure as well- that they are not, at least if modified by the IPCC, because of mismatches to reality and, as shown by pointing out the difference to Stott, wrong adaptations. (Of course, it's a completely different topic.) Back to topic. You are right, the flares are quite a hypothesis. But, perhaps you can give another possible explanation (eventually a paper) for the needed ~3W/m² of positive radiative imbalance. With the value of Trenberth 2006/2009 (0.8..0.9W/m²) it would need about 5 years to get the observed OHC-rise (by 6*10^22J) that obviously occured within a single year - given that the measurements are correct.
80130. BBD at 02:10 AM on 6 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom Curtis #138

       So, do you know of any reliable source that budgets nuclear operational CO2 emissions including the entire fuel and waste cycle?

       See EU figures from Energy Sources, Production Costs and Performance of Technologies for Power Generation, Heating and Transport accompanying the Second Strategic Energy Review 2008. See Table 2.1, which shows lifecycle emissions as follows: [kg CO2(eq)/MWh] Natural gas OCGT: 640 Natural gas CCGT: 420 Oil CCo-fT:585 Coal PCC: 820 Coal CFBC: 960 Coal IGCC: 855 Nuclear: 15 Wind on-shore: 11 Wind off-shore: 14 Solar PV: 45 Solar CSP: 135 Not really game-changing numbers when it comes to evaluating nuclear against wind (especially offshore) are they? And SPV and CSP do not emerge as quite so green as many suppose. You say:

       Please note that these costs to health and in CO2 emissions pale in comparison to equivalent figures from coal. There is no basis from these considerations to get rid of nuclear power in favour of any fossil fuel, or to not introduce nuclear power as a substitute for fossil fuels.

       Then why are you devoting so much time to discussing them? You go on:

       But the selective statistics used for comparison data make a proper comparison between nuclear and renewable options difficult, and significantly overstate the advantage of nuclear, if any.

       The limitations of renewables are examined in some detail upthread. It's the engineering argument that gets ignored every time: Nuclear power is superior to renewables because is it a proven, scalable, mature baseload generation technology that can - and will, given the chance - significantly displace coal from the global energy mix. Renewables are fundamentally unsuited to baseload, extremely expensive, extremely low density, untried at large scales and fraught with uncertainties we have neither the budget (opportunity cost) nor the time (AGW) to explore. Finally, there is no excuse whatsoever for this:

       That already exceeds the 0.04 figure. Perhaps the nuclear industry does not count cancer deaths from radiation exposure in their figures. No doubt they will also assure us that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

80131. BBD at 02:04 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       dana1981 #31

       I think it's worth noting that baseload power is generally inefficient power, because much is wasted during off-peak hours.

       First, can you show from actual national-scale grid load curves where you get this? Second, you are miscasting the way baseload is provided to a correctly balanced grid. The day/night variation is managed by intermediate and peaking plant. The vast majority of baseload is consumed 24/7/365. So baseload is both efficiently generated by plants running at optimum capacity 24/7 and efficiently consumed. The rest of what you say, presumably based on the report, is not (how shall I put this?) widely accepted.
80132. Tom Curtis at 02:02 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       michael sweet @28, the 4000 thyroid cases where for Chernobyl, not Fukushima. It is unlikely that the health impacts of Fukushima will be anywhere near as large due to the prompt evacuations and cautious approach in dealing with the situation. Even the economic impact will be small compared to that of the tsunami, or compared to the overall production of power by nuclear power plants. Even assuming the economic cost runs to 1 trillion dollars, the cost per kWh based on Quokka's estimate of cumulative power production runs to only 1.5 cents per kWh. I share your concern about the pollyanderish attitudes of nuclear proponents, the patently inaccurate statistics sometimes presented, and the distorted claims they make about renewables. Never-the-less, I think we should keep things in perspective, and in perspective nuclear power including Fukushima is safer for the Japanese than car travel, and probably also than train travel as well.
80133. quokka at 01:58 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       #26 JMurphy You ask what else is wrong with the shopping list of Table 1. Try this sort of stuff:

       A shortage of key components and skilled labor could result in increased costs for nuclear power plants and /or slow any transition to a nuclear renaissance

       Which may be paraphrased as "if bad things happen, then it would be bad" but quantifies nothing. You could say the same thing about any expansion of any heavy industry. Undoubtedly it takes development of the supply chain, contractors need to adapt to the special requirements, training and education takes time and so on. Nobody doubts this. We do know however that the problems are surmountable because we have an existence proof in the case of France which did manage to overcome such problems. This is not to claim it is necessarily easy or inevitable. But nothing is easy or inevitable when it comes to clean energy. or this:

       Decommissioning costs can sometimes be greater costs than the costs of building a plant in the first place

       Possibly, but not for plants that are built today and almost certainly not for the existing fleet of water cooled, water moderated reactors. And that is what counts - not the cost of decommissioning cold war era dual purpose facilities. The IEA estimates decommissioning at something like 15%-20% of the original capital cost. It has surprisingly little effect on the Levelized Cost of Electricity because it is discounted well into the future. See my link above for IEA estimates.
80134. Philippe Chantreau at 01:51 AM on 6 July 2011
       Glaciers are growing
       NikFromNYC, you need to look at the story closer. As I recall, the 2035 claim was discussed on this site. The search engine works well. It turned out to be another molehill made into a mountain through the usual disingenuous methods. Tom addressed the Antarctic cooling canard. Overall, your post adds little that is of value for one seeking good information. Your claim that the Himalayan temperature increase is due to land use changes is not only unsubstantiated but unplausible considering how much is actually there to use and how long it has been used in one way or another. It's not like forests are being cut down on the icy slopes. As for what is useable, it is scarce and has been used by the locals for a very long time. Ramanathan has shown that, at the altitudes where the brown cloud aerosols are found, they exert a strong positive radiativce forcing. This forcing is a much better candidate for the temperature increase than your land use hypothesis. The glaciers get a double whammy from the black carbon deposited on their surface and the atmsopheric BC heating them up.
80135. MichaelT at 01:43 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       There is an interesting report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change, an advisory council to the German government. An English version can be found here: A Social Contract for Sustainability It shows in detail the path to a carbon-free economy. It is quite a good read. I think it has not yet been mentioned here that the German plan also includes CO2-emission reduction by an overall reduction of energy consumption and an increasing energy efficiency. So phasing out all the nuclear plants does not mean that you will have to substitute their absolute share in today's energy production. So even replacing old coal and nuclear power plants with new coal and gas p/p may not have as negative an impact as some may think.
80136. Riccardo at 01:40 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       In support to what Dikran wrote on the predictability of the double pendulum, a nice animated gif: it shows two solutions differing by 0.001 degrees in the initial conditions of the second mass.
80137. Tom Curtis at 01:33 AM on 6 July 2011
       Glaciers are growing
       NikFromNYC @16, I am unsure what point there is to your post other than to sow confusion. The topic of the main article above is the ongoing retreat of glaciers world wide, something you do not dispute. You do attribute the retreat of Himalayan glaciers to black carbon (soot) from the Indian industrialisation, and indeed that is probably a factor; but it is hard to dispute that they would continue melting in a warming world, even in the absence of black carbon. More importantly, the ongoing retreat of Andean, African, North American and New Zealand glaciers shows the primary cause of retreat is a global factor, specifically the rise in temperatures through the 20th century. You throw out a couple of of topic canards. First you suggest that Antarctica is cooling. In fact it is warming: The map on the left is from O'Donnell et al, a team closely associated with Climate Audit, and one of the very few pieces of actual science produced by people associated with Climate Audit. It is not without its problems, including a number of methodological choices that introduce a cooling bias to their study, but even so it shows a clearly warming Antarctica with some cooling regions. You also mention the IPCC's error with regard the Himalayan glaciers. The incorrect prediction of glacial melts was made by the IPCC Working Group 2, which looks at the impacts of global warming, not the science of global warming. It therefore is no reason to call into question the very high standard of the IPCC Working group 1 reports. What is more, it is just one error from among tens of thousands of factual claims across 3000 pages of the IPCC report. An error rate of less than 1 in 10,000 is no reason to doubt the general reliability of the IPCC. In contrast, many of the more highly touted denier documents struggle to keep their error rate down to 1 per sentence. Having said that, may I suggest you take comment about that error to the appropriate topic (which I suggest you read).
80138. dana1981 at 01:31 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       I think it's worth noting that baseload power is generally inefficient power, because much is wasted during off-peak hours. In one of the German reports linked in this post, they discuss that once there is a certain level of renewable penetration, it will actually become cost ineffective to build new baseload power plants. Essentially the combination of intermittent renewables plus peak generators (i.e. gas turbines) is more cost effective and efficient than a bunch of baseload sources.
80139. quokka at 01:25 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       @michael sweet You make completely unsubstantiated assertions about "20-30 years of underestimates of problems and overestimates of reliability" and declare you no longer "trust" nuclear proponents. This kind of dialog is simply not good enough. It is perhaps even more important to examine all of the evidence in matters of energy than in matters of climate science because only through understanding the realities of energy is there any hope of having any chance of even containing the climate problem. In well managed nuclear fleets there is an undeniable trend to greater reliability over the decades as operational experience and knowledge has been achieved. In the US fleet, capacity factor has been at around 90+% for the last decade. This is an excellent result. You could hardly ask for better, although from memory I think Sth Korea does do a little better. See here and open the PowerPoint presentation. I presented a scenario to examine the proposition that the Fukushima accident is "proof" that nuclear power is too expensive and put some numbers on it. This meme echos around the blogosphere just like climate denialism. I was not making any attempt at an accurate estimate of costs which in any case are not well known at this time. But what I did show, I believe, is that the meme has little basis. This is what we should all do when confronted with such claims. First ask the question - do they make any sense? Are the numbers anywhere near the ball park? If you want to put some numbers together, the go ahead, but do not ask me to do it for you.
80140. BBD at 01:14 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Tom Curtis #24

       It does, I think, call into question the claimed superiority of nuclear power to renewable power claimed by "nuke boosters". Nuclear power is superior to renewables because is it a proven, scalable, mature baseload generation technology that can - and will, given the chance - significantly displace coal from the global energy mix. Renewables are fundamentally unsuited to baseload, extremely expensive, extremely low density, untried at large scales and fraught with uncertainties we have neither the budget (opportunity cost) nor the time (AGW) to explore. I seem to recall that we've been through this in detail already.

80141. KR at 00:47 AM on 6 July 2011
       It's the sun
       JoeRG - "The IPCC did run 14 'anthro+nat' models and only 5 'nat' models... " That would be quite amazing, considering that the IPCC collected data and science from many contributors, but did not run any research itself. I suggest you check the various reports for links to the original works. You appear to feel that 'solar flares' have a much larger effect - but unless you can point to some data, perhaps a paper or two, that supports your hypothesis, preferably with some suggestion as to mechanism, it's just an unsupported opinion, not science.
80142. KR at 00:41 AM on 6 July 2011
       Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
       Ken Lambert - "Please expand on the 'cooling' we have seen over the last 'few hundred' years and the reasons for same." I believe you are being disingenuous here, Ken. I would point out the Little Ice Age - volcanic and solar forcings identified as major factors, as in Free and Robock 1999, and the mid-20th century cooling - primarily due to aerosol effects outweighing other factors from the 40's to the early 70's. Not a single 'cooling', but rather multiple ups and downs over the last few hundred years. There is no ongoing baseline TSI imbalance that we have not accounted for - we have data covering both climate warming and cooling, meaning imbalances both postive and negative, and there is no leftover such as the one you have (repeatedly) postulated.
80143. NikFromNYC at 00:35 AM on 6 July 2011
       Glaciers are growing
       Glaciers hold only 1% of the planet’s ice. Antarctica and Greenland hold the rest, with the greatest amount in glaciers being in the Himalayas. I don't know how Cogley weighed his data. That the vast majority of glacial volume is in the Himalayas and that soot is causing more melting there than warming (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/03/03/soot.packs.a.punch.tibetan.plateaus.climate) provides additional pause. A map is here: So, a chart of a sampling of ice loss from glaciers world wide says very little about what to expect from what really matters: temperature or sea level rise. That we are in a temperature peak that I believe to be mostly natural makes loss of loss from tiny glaciers that lack thermal inertia in extremely cold locations in isolated climate zones does not impress me as much as the idea that world sea ice is starting to melt in an actually meaningful manner. That the IPCC claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035 means that unless those who allowed such a claim to pass through their peer review process need to go or I have little trust in current claims of impending doom. Addendum: The 5x5 temperature grids around the Himalayas actually do show a hockey stick shapes, adding a whopping 2 degrees since 1990!: http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climap.aspx?area=china http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climapgr.aspx?statid=N5:25-30N:85-80E http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/climapgr.aspx?statid=N5:25-30N:90-85E So no wonder glacial melt is surging. Local heating over the Himalayas. This has been suggested to be due to local land use changes as a sudden 2 degree jump certainly isn't due to a local spike in CO2. Can I find this warming in a map? Nope! Evidently it must be a very local effect then if it doesn't show up as a very large super red region above India: http://i45.tinypic.com/n6szgh.jpg But boy oh boy look at the extreme *cooling* in Antarctica where 90% of world ice is contained!
       Response:

       [DB] Nice Gish Gallop.  This thread is on 'Are glaciers growing or retreating?'; please stay on-topic to ensure your comments do not get deleted.

       For the casual reader, appinsys is well-known to be a site of active disinformation on matters related to climate and climate change.  The other graphics that Nik provides to further his narrative are of unknown provenance and should be regarded as questionable.

       A reliance on primary sources is best.

80144. michael sweet at 00:27 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Quokka says "Most of their value is depeciated away already. In themselves they are not a huge loss." These reactors had value even if the owner has written it all off. You are arguing tax law to underestimate the loss from the accident. The loss should reflect the replacement value (or perhaps what they could have sold for before the accident), not the tax value. It is clear that it is difficult to estimate the value of a nuclear accident. My very strong impression is that nuclear supporters consistently underestimate their problems. This makes it difficult for me to understand what the costs really are. After 20-30 years of consistent underestimates of problems and overestimates of reliability, I no longer trust nuclear proponents. I think this is a general problem that the nuclear industry has. Have they figured out where they are going to put all their waste yet? You have still not estimated the value of the loss of 1,000's of square km that have had to be evacuated (for years if not decades), the loss of value of homes near other nuclear plants, since no-one wants to be exposed to such a problem themselves, and the value of the 4,000 non-fatal throid cancers (and other cancers) documented previously in this thread. It appears to me that you are greatly underestimating the economic effect of this disaster. Saying I can double or triple them does not make me feel better. This is why I no longer trust nuclear proponents estimates. It appears to me that the Germans also are tired of incorrect estimates of reliability and cost. That is why they are leaving nuclear.
80145. Eric (skeptic) at 00:07 AM on 6 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Thanks for the reply Tom. It still seems like a big leap from average to local. How do we know that an increase in convection on average will yield locally severe convection? An alternative outcome is wider areas of diffuse convection rather than narrower areas of concentrated convection. The average convection can still rise without a rise in strong convection and locally severe weather.
80146. John Brookes at 00:07 AM on 6 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       The current ITER project for fusion power could solve most problems by mid century. Its certainly one option which should have money put into it, along with the renewables.
80147. CBDunkerson at 23:45 PM on 5 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       According the the EIA's latest Monthly Energy Review the United States now generates 11.73% of its energy from renewable sources vs 11.10% from nuclear power. Until now, nuclear had exceeded renewable generation since the 1960s. Also see this news article on the report. To me it seems likely that this trend of renewable energy production growing faster than nuclear, and surpassing it in total power generation, will continue for at least the next twenty years. Quite simply there is too much public opposition to nuclear. Famous nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011) keep the dangers of radiation exposure fresh in people's minds. Probably the best thing the nuclear energy industry could do for their cause would be to shut down every nuclear power plant with a design similar to those which have failed in the past. Indeed, they should have done so twenty years ago. Let the newer designs prove their safety record, without it being wrecked in the public consciousness by problems at older plants, and in another twenty years or so people might be ready to accept nuclear on a large scale. If they instead continue to operate poorly designed reactors decades past their originally intended 'end of life' more nuclear accidents, and thus continued public opposition, are guaranteed.
80148. Eric the Red at 23:43 PM on 5 July 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
       Stevo, The leaning is that warming will lead to more frequent and stronger El Ninos, with fewer and diminished La Ninas. But as scaddenp stated, the jury is still out.
80149. The Skeptical Chymist at 23:02 PM on 5 July 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Ari The 2010 paper "Expert credibility in climate change" is duplicated in the database. Also, once a paper has been added to the database, is it possible for anyone with the firefox add-on to add that paper to extra myths/arguments? The add-on looks like it should work for this but I find you can't send the report
80150. Tom Curtis at 22:47 PM on 5 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric (skeptic) @256, as I stated in 232,

       "1) Increased temperature implies increased specific humidity; 2) Increased specific humidity implies more water condenses as a result of cooling due to updrafts or frontal systems; 3) More water condensing implies more latent heat released; 4) More latent heat released implies a stronger updraft generated which: 4a) Results in greater cooling, with more water released; and 4b) Results in more air being drawn into the updraft, carrying more water with it."

       I was focussed on the prediction regarding precipitation, but to make it more general I should probably add: 4c) A stronger updraft results in stronger local winds; and 4d) A stronger updraft carries precipitated water to a greater altitude, giving it a chance to freeze and fall as hail. Also of relevance is: 5) The greater the rate of condensation, the larger the drops of condensate, which increases the risk of large hail. All of these follow straightforwardly from the increased specific humidity with increased temperature. The effects are also observationally verified by the global pattern of thunderstorms, with (contrary to Norman @252), the strongest and most frequent thunderstorms forming in the tropics. This can be seen on this plot of the average number of lightning strikes per year for the years 1995-2003 from NASA: Lightning is a good proxy for the intensity of thunderstorms, including wind strength. From my experience living in equatorial Africa (the southern end of that orange blotch) and in tropical and sub-tropical Queensland, it is also a good proxy for hail frequency, intensity and size (all much larger in Africa than in Queensland), but there may be an increased frequency of large hail in more temperate regions. As Norman correctly points out, humidity alone is not enough for a thunderstorm; but heat and humidity are both definite factors in the strength of thunderstorms. If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms. As it happens, increased warming is also expected to increase Convective Available Potential Energy, another key factor (see maps in my 246. Consequently, every element of "severe" thunderstorms, with the possible exception of tornadoes, is expected to increase globally with a warming climate, though not in all regions. That is, we can expect more damaging winds, more large hail, more flash floods, and more lightning strikes. And tornado frequency is also predicted to increase, though I can't lay out the logic of it the way I can for thunderstorms in general.

Prev  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  1602  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  Next