Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 51 to 100:
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 6 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
Regarding prove we are smarts very good link on why people are fooled by misinformation. Its known that is partly because they lack critical thinking skills. I think they lack such skills for the following reason: Our entire society is based on obedience to authority, so of course teachers never taught students how to think critically, because they didn't want students questioning the validity of what they say. This has left entire generations of people vulnerable to misinformation.
The situation is slowly improving with meaningful critical thinking skills creeping into curriculums, at least in the final years of schooling. Websites like this are invaluable because they help inform on such skills.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:37 PM on 5 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
Recent news reports have quoted more than one representative that has admitted that they voted for this bill without reading all of it - and that they are surprised to find sections that they don't like.
With a bill this large, it is obviously difficult to be familiar with everything in it - but isn't that their job?
-
Eric (skeptic) at 21:21 PM on 5 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
There were two deficit hawks in the House willing to vote against the bill: Thomas Massie (KY) and Warren Davidison (OH). A couple others voted present. Massie earned the ire of Trump but Davidson curried favor by introducing a much-needed bill to study Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Massie is a very smart MIT EE grad who bought and repurposed a used Tesla battery to power his off-grid house. As with the bill, and unlike most other politicians, Massie walks the walk: www.leoweekly.com/news/a-conservative-environmentalist-us-rep-thomas-massie-finds-freedom-in-sustainability-15774583
There are a few more deficit hawks in the Senate, led (sort of) by Ron Johnson. Possibility 1 is the Senate kills the bill although there will be pressure to pass it. Possibility 2 is that the Senate alters it to reduce the deficit. In that case it goes back to the House where it will die a miserable death despite lots of yelling. That's because there are enough Republicans in the House who want more state and local tax deductions, who want to restore the Medicaid money, etc. They were only barely convinced to vote for the bill and will use any excuse to kill it.
-
prove we are smart at 10:39 AM on 5 June 2025One big, beautiful, climate-killing bill
This is how it happens/feels theconversation.com/three-scientists-speak-about-what-its-like-to-have-research-funding-cut-by-the-trump-administration-255459
North America isn't the only country now slipping into the corruption of a right wing populous authoritarian government.
I don't know whether it is a moral failure of many of its people and its leaders or perhaps this phys.org/news/2025-02-easily-falls-misinformation.html . I guess its both and when I think of the existential climate crisis I think of this ( maybe not doing what is right for this planet could be called "profoundly corrupt") ? www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fxvhR98eEY
Moderator Response:[BL] When you are providing links to other sites, please make an effort to give a brief description of what people will find at those links and why you think they relate to the topic at hand. This is particularly true of video links, which are not easy to scan quickly to find relevant material.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:36 AM on 5 June 2025Fact brief - Was 'global warming' changed to 'climate change' because Earth stopped warming?
Greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change do indeed have different technical meanings, but common simplified usage does tend to add obfuscation - er, sorry, make things more confusing.
The Greenhouse Effect, as lynnvinc mentions, exists as a natural phenomenon. It relates to the atmospheric influence, as discussed by Charlie Brown, that leads to warmer surface temperatures than we would observe if there was no atmosphere.
It is a somewhat unfortunate term, as "the label "greenhouse" implies a similarity with actual greenhouses - and that was based on a misunderstanding of what keeps greenhouses warm. (Trapping air is more important than trapping IR radiation.)
At times, people have suggested using "the atmospheric effect" instead, but that has never caught on. At times, the human-cause changes in greenhouse gases have been referred to as "the enhanced greenhouse effect", but that is rather cumbersome and the "enhanced" part gets dropped.
As for "global warming" - that is the key easily-observed result of an enhanced greenhouse effect, but also can be caused by other factors. (CO2 dominates the current trends). On a global mean basis, surface temperatures will rise. It is not the only effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect, though. Precipitation changes are also critical. And many other weather phenomena. Seasonal changes and timing. Extreme weather events. Etc. Hence "climate change" is a much broader, more encompassing term. In the Venn diagram of climate, "Global warming " is a subset of "climate change", and "global warming" overlaps both the greenhouse effect and other causes of climate change.
On the myth of "they changed the name...", I took undergraduate climate science in the 1970s. The textbook we used was Sellers, W.D., 1965, Physical Climatology, U Chicago Press. Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are discussed in that book, along with other factors, under the chapter titled "Paleoclimatology and Theories of Climatic Change". My copy of the book is the one that I bought in 1978, so if "they changed the name..." then someone must have taken my copy off my bookshelf, altered the printing, and replaced it without me noticing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:40 AM on 3 June 2025Climate change is making hurricanes more destructive
A very good presentation.
I would add:
Some Americans also believe that the only TCs that matter are the ones that make landfall on US territory. Pacific Cyclones are somebody else’s problem. And if that US territory is a place like Puerto Rico it also doesn’t really matter.
There is also more to say regarding Uncertainty:
Uncertainty, including a lack of awareness and understanding, can certainly be abused to unjustifiably claim that there is no reason to be concerned about any matter.
Uncertainty results in a range of expectations. And uncertainty understandably means that things could be better or worse than any expectation in the range of expectations (speculations). The reality can be outside of the likely range of possibilities.
In business and engineering uncertainty is reason to avoid doing something unless actions are taken that are certain to significantly reduce the potential for negative consequences.
The problem is leadership contenders, in business or politics, who think, correctly, that they can temporarily benefit from gambling that they will not personally face serious penalties when the uncertainty is reduced by future evidence and their misleading marketing efforts become undeniably understood to be harmfully incorrect.
And that understanding of the problem leads to understanding that the root of the problem is the ways that many people can be tempted to be willing to be less aware or misunderstand things.
The anti-woke, those who resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others, are certainly ‘The root of almost every serious problem’.
-
Charlie_Brown at 06:57 AM on 2 June 2025Fact brief - Was 'global warming' changed to 'climate change' because Earth stopped warming?
There are, or at least there should be, technical differences between the terms. The greenhouse effect results from the presence of greenhouse gases and natural concentrations keep the Earth from being an ice rock planet. Global warming results from increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. It upsets the global energy balance and results in accumulated energy. Climate change results from an uneven distribution of accumulated energy around the globe. Major atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns are changed. There have been large climate changes in history from natural causes, but this time the cause is emissions from anthropogenic use of fossil fuels and fossil rock. Severe weather results from localized and sudden changes in the uneven distribution of energy.
Depending on the message, the terms global warming and climate change might be used interchangably, but I prefer being clear with the technical distinction. Sometimes it seems appropriate to use them together, as in increasing GHG concentrations cause global warming and climate change.
-
lynnvinc at 01:28 AM on 2 June 2025Fact brief - Was 'global warming' changed to 'climate change' because Earth stopped warming?
It was also called "The Greenhouse Effect" earlier, but I think that was replaced with global warming because it might be confused with the natural greenhouse effect. But I sort of thought climate change was preferred by Bush and those skittish about global warming because it detracted from the warming aspect, made it easier for deniers to claim the climate has always changed, as if "no problem."
I still use the terms somewhat interchangeably, but opt for global warming when I want to stress the warming aspect, climate change when I want to bring in enhanced storms, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, etc.
-
MA Rodger at 09:10 AM on 1 June 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
tder2012 @5 & Bob Loblaw @6,
Ah ha!!. That button "on the left side at the bottom" does allow you to see annual values. The 'All Years' option displays the seven annual values 2017-24 (and this 'All Years' option can be pre-set in the URL) with the 2024 value showing as 175g(CO2eq)/kWh. (And being a lucky smarty pants, I see 175 is what I reckoned it being @4.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:37 AM on 1 June 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
tder2012 @ 5:
January 2024 to January 2025 is 13 months...
Assuming that the slider in your link selects the entire month chosen - i.e, choosing January 2025 includes all 31 days in January - then January 2025 selects a 12-month period from February 2024 to January 2025.
Selecting December 2024 would cover the 12-month period ending December 31. If I set the slider that way, then the balloon pop-up on the map gives a Great Britain value of 176 CO2eq/kWh. This agrees with the last value MA Rodger reports in his 12 individual months in his second paragraph. The same 176 value is also visible on the upper left of the page, under "Total electricity mix, December 2024".
The page does not appear to be displaying 12-month averages, even though it lets you make that selection. As I move the slider from May 2024 to December 2024, I see the monthly value changing in the upper left display with exactly the numbers MA Rodger reports for those individual months. (I did not sign up for an account to download the CSV file with the data.)
-
tder2012 at 02:36 AM on 1 June 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
MA Rodger from electricitymap, on the left side at the bottom, you can change from a 72 hour period, to a 90 day period to a 12 month period, etc and then I slid the month over to January 2025, so the 12 month period would be January 2024 to January 2025, this is the worst case scenario, which needs to be dealt with. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/GB/12mo/monthly
-
MA Rodger at 05:47 AM on 31 May 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
tder2012 @3,
First point to make is my use of g(C)/kWh which is a lot different to g(CO2)/kWh. To convert the former to the latter you need add the weight of the O2 by multiplying by 3.664. (My working in C rather than CO2 is a climatology thing.)
At that ElectricityMaps webpage, the 226 g(CO2eq)/kWh figure you quote I read as being the carbon intensity for Jan 2025 alone. I read the webpage data showing the individual months of 2024 running Jan-to-Dec 227, 180, 172, 135, 172, 145, 164, 124, 169, 189, 227, 176. I was thinking you shouldn't really average these as the electric use (they average 173) with the summer-use being a lot different from the chilly winter months, but GridWatch graphs UK electric use through 2024 and a back-of-fag-packet adjustment doesn't make that much difference (average 175g(CO2eq)/kWh = 48g(C)/kWh).
My number was taken from a CarbonBrief article which sports this graphic which shows the same as the article says 2024 =124g(CO2)/kWh = 34g(C)/kWh.
The NESO does a monthly analysis of GB monthly electric stats (Apr25 & links) and there does seem to be a discrepancy between the numbers from NESO and that ElectricityMaps webpage with NESO giving Apr25 at 133g(CO2)/kWh and ElectricityMaps 174g(CO2eq)/kWh.
Why the difference?
Speculating, perhaps the imported electric is seen as zero carbon due to it being emitted abroad. Perhaps something else. -
Paul Pukite at 03:12 AM on 31 May 2025Fact brief - Is the climate as unpredictable as the weather?
The category of climate also includes the predictable seasonal changes and the daily swings. So in that sense, climate is much more predictable than the weather. I can guarentee the climate next winter will average below freezing in Minnesota, even though it is averaging room temperature now.
-
tder2012 at 01:53 AM on 31 May 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
MA Rodger, I am curious what your source is for "In UK the carbon-intensity of electricity has dropped by 75% since 2010 (136g(C)/KWh to 32g(C)/kWh in 2024)". In the 12 month period January 2024 to January 2025, the UK emitted 226 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, according to app.electricitymaps.com. In 2012, according to this link, the lowest CO2 grams emitted per kilowatt-hour was about 440. Good reductions for UK, for sure. However, Paris climate targets call for electricity grids to emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis.
-
BaerbelW at 15:11 PM on 30 May 2025The Weather & Climate Livestream
Until Sunday June 1 when the livestream ends, the earlier parts can be watched via this playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDEU7mKb6z0RD8V9eXw8TH_qJ1Jtb5u_
They also plan to create individual videos of talks where the scientists presenting them are okay with that. This could turn out to become a very valuable resource based on what I've been watching from the livestream.
-
MA Rodger at 02:25 AM on 30 May 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
Charlie_Brown @1,
The brave new world of net zero brings with it many transformations which people appear to find difficult to normalise and set out rationally.
Be warned!! This is a subject I can drone-on about for hours. But picking up on a couple of things you address....Ⅰ Back in the day when I was still a car owner, I was rather vocal with the message on EVs - 'As the electric grid decarbonised, the emissions from an EV will diminish. For a petrol-engined vehicle it will be fixed until the day it is scrapped.'
And back then I was also vocal about the fuel-efficiency of petrol-engined vehicles which were (and are) continuing to spew that darned CO2 into the atmosphere. I reckoned efficiency (mpg) should be increasing far more quickly than was/is the case** yet nobody seemed to care. My last car (20 years ago - I'm now car-free) did 70mpg. Back then I was asking 'Where are the 100mpg cars? The 150mpg cars?" Such efficiencies are not beyond the wit of man***.
And the graphic comparison in the above OP (that seems to address your objections, "seems" because the links to sources cited by the OPs Ref4 are not working for me): the OPs graphic would be transformed by improving mpg. Given the numbers presented in the OPs graphic, the point where an efficient petrol-engined vehicle becomes less carbon-intensive than the compared EV is 85mpg. But importantly, and petrol-heads be warned, that assumes the carbon-intensity of the grid doesn't reduce, an assumption which is not the case. In UK the carbon-intensity of electricity has dropped by 75% since 2010 (136g(C)/KWh to 32g(C)/kWh in 2024).
(**Latest govt number (for 2020) show the UK's average new petrol car with 52.4mpg & diesel 56.1mpg. That was rising on average by a paltry 0.8mpg/yr back during in the 2000s. That annual increasing efficiency doubled 2010-15 but since then the growth of the SUV sees the average efficiency getting worse, hopefully a temperary phenomenon.)
(*** Apparently petrol or diesel car still doesn't do much more than 70mpg. A lot of the lost mpg is because many are aren't so small and today small cars require reinforcing so they don't get flattened by the bigly SUVs & 4x4s swarming around them.)
Ⅱ Your comment also reminds me of an enquiry I made about an EV a little more recently. I was trying to get the CO2/mile numbers (along with a lot more) from Nissan who were presenting their much-advertised & wondrous EV - the Leaf. It was evident they had no idea what I was on about. They could tell me how cheap it was to run (£/mile) but stuff like carbon intensity or energy intensity didn't register as something they understood.
Evidently, they just wanted to sell cars and for them the USP was the wonderful £/mile.
-
BaerbelW at 05:17 AM on 29 May 2025The Weather & Climate Livestream
The livestream can be watched via this link:
-
Charlie_Brown at 02:36 AM on 29 May 2025Electric vehicles have a net harmful effect on climate change
Unfortunately, a key phrase was dropped from the source reference footnote [4] which makes the sentence in the green box for “What the Science Says” misleading. The reference says “EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid (underline added) to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” The source of power for EVs is not included in Eisenson, et al. “Electric vehicles have lower lifecycle emissions than traditional gasoline-powered cars because they are between 2.5 to 5.8 times more efficient.” Larson, et al., Final Report, p. 40, also compares units of electricity to units of gasoline. Furthermore, the articles do not define efficiency, whether it is g CO2/mile, g CO2(eq)/mile, or BTU/mi. Where coal is the power source for the grid, CO2 g/mi is about the same for EV and ICE. Where natural gas is the source, CO2(eq)/mi is close to the same after accounting for methane leakage from production and transport. Most simplified analyses use the source power mix from the regional grid. When the incremental power source to meet added demand for EVs (and other demands such as AI and growth), the situation is much more complex.
I am a strong supporter of EVs and I love my new car. To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, transition to EVs is needed. The electric power grid also needs to reduce fossil fuel generation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:59 AM on 26 May 2025Learning what's at stake with the Weather & Climate Livestream
Regarding: “It's not the place of Skeptical Science to tell anybody whether ignorance is strength or not, but we encourage you to learn that answer for yourself.”
Anyone wondering how ‘ignorance could be strength’ should check out the Wikipedia entry for Ignorance (linked here). It includes the following well-reasoned point:
“Ignorance can have negative effects on individuals and societies, but can also benefit them by creating within them the desire to know more. For example, ignorance within science opens the opportunity to seek knowledge and make discoveries by asking new questions. [2]”
A key requirement is for people to wonder what they are unaware of and be curious about changing their mind by becoming more aware of well-reasoned evidence-based understanding.
However, it can be challenging for people to change their mind, especially if they believe they will benefit from a misunderstanding.
Hopefully this event will cause some people who have been inclined to misunderstand things to learn that they need to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated and misled by Merchants of Misinformation (the larger group of harmful misleaders that includes the Merchants of Doubt (Wikipedia linked here) – Oreskes and Conway deserve credit for the name)
An internet search for Merchants of Misinformation will find many informative items.
Awakening from Ignorance and becoming interested in freedom from misunderstanding can be very powerful.
-
prove we are smart at 00:26 AM on 25 May 2025Learning what's at stake with the Weather & Climate Livestream
Ignorance means you can be fooled,there is nothing accidental about climate denial-its always been about the politics. The far right tsunami sweeping through North Americas freedoms has caught its scientific agencies now. I wish "The Weather & Climate Livestream" a ground-swell of persuasion.
They say "when America sneezes,the world catches a cold", I certainly hope it is not contagious. We need science and scientists as a remedy to help the dire situation our world is facing. Just one current example, here along the southern coast of my Australia, a massive algae bloom has formed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2os3AhY30IY Similar to other affected coastlines world-wide, it is a truly massive bloom phys.org/news/2025-05-toxic-algae-marine-life-australian.html We need climate scientists more than ever and so many other academics in specialized fields.
-
michael sweet at 07:28 AM on 18 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012:
We agree that decarbonizing as rapidly as possible is the target.
Oil is primarily used for transportation. As cars are switched to electric oil use will start to go down. Trains are already switching to electric (except in the USA). Electric trucks are being tested on the road. The cost savings for trucks switching to electric are substantial.
I understand electric freighters are economic up to about 1500 miles and some are being manufactured in China. Google says that some river freighters and ferries are the largest currently in service. Additional batteries can be loaded as containers on the freight deck and connected to the ships power, then switched at the next port.
Small planes have been built that are electric.
The key is to build out carbon free electricity as rapidly as possible and tax carbon emissions. As cheap electricity becomes more widely available and carbon more expensive, more users will switch to electric.
Vote for politicians who support more carbon free electricity!!
-
tder2012 at 11:03 AM on 17 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
I don't care how grids get decarbonized, just get it done NOW. France did it 40 years ago by accident, only because they wanted energy security and independence, no fossil fuels to extract in France. Australia wants to do it with wind, solar, batteries, synchronous condensors, etc. I say go for it, get 'er done! Here are a few sites you can watch AUS grid generation mix, import, export between states, prices, etc (you can find sites like this for many other countries, states, etc but I like electricitymaps best as I am very concerned about CO2 and ghg emissions and I find its the best for showing that data. Also, it is a "one stop shop"). https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem & https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=7d&interval=30m&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed & https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/
Clean energy hits many roadblocks, often people ideologically opposed to them, we see this with solar, wind and also with nuclear. The No Nukes in the USA in the 70's were successful at blocking the build of nuclear power plants, but look at this article from US Energy Information Administration and see how much coal was built after 1980, fortunately they haven't build much since 2013. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50658
We are only really talking about electricity here, which is 20-25 % of global energy production. Oil is barely a blip in global electricity production (mostly diesel generators in small remote communities and islands). New England in USA uses oil occasionally, they seem to encounter natural gas supply issues more than typical, this is an article on the New England Independent System Operator (NEISO) website. "Nuclear, oil, and coal generators are critical on the coldest winter days when natural gas supply is constrained (as shown below). Coal- and oil-fired resources also make valuable contributions on the hottest days of summer when demand is very high or major resources are unavailable".
Anyway, the point I want to make is that oil is barely a blip in global electricity generation, yet it is the number one source of energy generation in the world, as you can see on this Our World in Data website https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?time=1970..latest Much decarbonization all over the world needs to be done in very short order.
-
David-acct at 08:47 AM on 17 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Quite a bit of useful information in the Electricmaps.com which you can dial in most every country .
Thanks for providing
I have previously used the EIA grid monitor for the US (also quite informative) along with the German version. The link provides the source data which helps understanding the stability and reliability issues.
For those countries that periodically achieve 100% or near 100% electric generation from wind and solar also have frequent periods of 10-30 days where fossil fuel electric generation comprises more than 50% of total electric generation. This points to the need for significant redundancy of renewable capacity and storage capacity necessary to achieve stability and reliability with wind and other renewables. -
One Planet Only Forever at 07:05 AM on 17 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012,
Reading this item and the comments I have learned and understand the following:
- There is no reason to doubt the ability to have reliable electricity grid operation with totally sustainable renewable energy generation that includes a significant amount of wind generation.
- There is reason to be concerned about the lack of progress by the supposedly most advanced nations towards reducing their electric system harmfulness to 100 grams of CO2 per kWh. Zero ghg emissions is the end objective for every nation. But getting down to 100 g per kWh is an important measure of advancement. Note: rich nations failing to reduce their harmfulness are incorrectly perceived to be more advanced/superior.
- People should be very concerned about the likely magnitude of harmful climate change consequences due to continuing failure of the most harmful to reduce how harmful they are (impeding the building of wind generation). The poorest who are negatively affected by the increased climate change harm, and people who try to sustainably improve living conditions for the poorest, should be angry about misunderstandings that impede the building of wind generation even if their anger is perceived as unnecessary panicking.
-
tder2012 at 12:28 PM on 16 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
"Don't panic" good to know, I wasn't aware of anyone panicing, but spendid advice nonetheless. So also no need to panic about the Paris target for electricity grids to emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, correct? See all electricity grids here https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly this link specifically highlights Germany at 344, China is at 489, India varies from 560 to 750, Indonesia is at 640.
-
nigelj at 05:55 AM on 16 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Drax in the United Kingdom use carbon neutral thermal turbines burning wood pellets to contribute to grid stability (voltage and frequency). Read something on it years ago. They have a great article in laypersons language on the whole issue of grid stability here:
www.drax.com/power-generation/great-balancing-act-takes-keep-power-grid-stable/
Blackouts attributable to renewables in places like the UK with considerable renewables in the mix are uncommon. This is quite impressive with new technology. So the doubters claims of disaster have consistently failed to materialise. Spain has just had a big blackout that might have something to do with renewables but its rather unclear what caused it. But its the first such event. These things are clearly very uncommon.
There are obvious known technologies that help renewables grids remain stable. They will be added as required as renewables expand. Grid operators are not actually complete idiots. The public wont tolerate significant numbers of blackouts and neither will politicians so there will also be lots of pressure to make the system work seamlessly. Dont panic.
-
michael sweet at 04:07 AM on 16 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012 at 4:
Your linked presentation does not say that a renewable energy grid cannot be controlled. It says that the current grid models need to be adjusted to work with grid inverters. No-one is surprised that when they change the hardware the grid runs with you need to change the software you use to run the grid.
At one of your links I saw an article that said grid forming inverters stabilize a renewable grid while grid following inverters destabilize the grid as renewable percentages get high. Apparently in many grids they are currently required to use grid following inverters because of the legacy of fossil fuels. As the grid switches to renewable the hardware to support the grid will have to be changed.
My understanding is that the existing turbines of thermal energy plants can cheaply be converted into synchronous condensers. Doug Bostroms' post at 3 appears to suggest that in Australia they have converted closed thermal power plants into synchronous condensers. Googling "thermal power plants into synchronous condensers" gives many hits saying it is cheap to convert closed thermal power plants into synchronous condensers. You need to find another tree to bark up.
-
lynnvinc at 00:14 AM on 16 May 2025Fact brief - Is the climate as unpredictable as the weather?
I'd also say "no," since I've used a geography map book from 70 years ago and their climate maps are still sort of valid even with climate change. I've seen elsewhere (like when to plant) that the zone lines have moved a bit with climate change, but not much.
Climate (which is an aggregate of a lot of data over many years) is what you expect, weather (a particular local, short-term configuration) is what you get. I live in what is known as a humid subtropical climate near the Rio Grande Valley, and it's been that way for a looooog time, and is quite different from a trundra climate. I did a calculation and we are getting a bit warmer over the past several decades, but not a huge amount.
In sociology over 100 yrs ago Durkheim noted that suicide rates (aggregate stats) were about the same year to year, and that while one cannot predict at the individual case level who will commit suicide (tho psychology can help), it is "social facts" (his term, which also includes "cultural facts") that determine suicide rates & whether they slightly go up or down.
I'm also thinking brownian motion — can't predict where each molecule will go, but on aggregate at a more macro level things become more predictable.
-
tder2012 at 23:48 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Yeah, those plans might be doable for South Australia, but SA is 7% of Australia's population, so hopefully they can do your plans on a much larger scale.
-
Eclectic at 22:39 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Tder2012 @5 :-
Thank you for the "electricitymaps.com".
That shows Tasmania State as leading the nearby states by a country mile, so to speak. But Tasmania uses a colossal amount of hydro + a bit of wind power. Almost totally "renewables".
The South Australia State is doing fairly well, without hydro ~ but I see from other sources that the State's renewable electricity is usually in the 20-90% renewables range. Though sometimes poor [mid-evening with low wind . . . and yet sometimes around 90% with wind, mid-evening]. Daytimes well carried by solar. That State also has several synchronous condensers. My impression is that they would do well by doubling solar capacity, and quadrupling battery storage. Which sounds quite feasible over 10-20 years ~ since we can reasonably expect sodium-type storage batteries to become much cheaper during that time. (And nuclear plants remaining quite unnecessary.)
-
tder2012 at 21:25 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
I watch to see how electricity grids are meeting the Paris target of less than 100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't care how this target is met, South Australia is close (160), but you see BESS is barely a blip there and the rest of Australia is so far away from this target. So hopefully Australia can deploy much clean energy extremely quickly. They'll need copious quantities of synchronous condensers, flywheels, grid forming inertia, synchronous converter application, etc in very short order. See SA grid, along with the other grids in Australia, showing grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis and the sources of electricity generation here https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU-SA/12mo/monthly
-
tder2012 at 21:11 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Have you read this report presented at the 2025 Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference "Assessing Inverter-Based Resources Modeling Gaps in Commonly Used Short-Circuit Programs". Cristian Paduraru P.E. (Experienced Transmission Relay Settings Engineer) provide this comment on LinkedIn "Just a heads up on what's coming if RE contribution will continue to increase: no ECHO logic will work as there will not be any strong source.
Also, the output will significantly be affected by load which is impossible to be properly captured in current short circuit programs.
Also, the simulaton in CAPE/Aspen may be irrelevant in absence of proper implementing the exact control algorithm in IBRs, generic models are a disaster, here's a paper just presented at Georgia Tech on this" here is the link to the paper https://www.ap-concepts.com/2025_PRC/modules/request.php?module=oc_proceedings&action=summary.php&id=73&a=Accept Do you have any comments on this?
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:12 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
"I know synchronous condensors, flywheels, grid forming inertia were mentioned in references, but these are not currently available at scale."
Synchronous condenser deployment scaling is limited only by our hazy and insufficient impressions of energy economics, which have been warped and shaped by inexpensive but ephemeral and (we belatedly discovered) harmful fossil fuels. Leaving aside short-term thinking of this sort which precludes stable and sustainable civilization of the kind we'd like to imagine possible, synchronous condensers are a mature technology ready for use, and have been for decades.
Synchronous condensers are a potentially ideal marriage with modernized energy sources such as PV and wind, which each with appropriate control feedback are natively able to respond to fluctating demand more rapidly than primary generation needing a throttle of some kind, whether that's control rods or a steam or natural gas valve.
Meanwhile, the cost of upscaling synchronous converter application pales in comparison to the capital needed to substantially expand our nuclear generation fleet. On a bar chart the difference would be instantly and starkly apparent. As well and thanks to fossil fuel legacy we already have a leg up on this— if we're smart like Australia where generators formerly spun up by combustion are now being used as synchronous condensers, conjoined with modernized primary energy supplies.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:50 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
michael sweet @418 provided a good response to your response @414 to my comment @413. I will add the following:
There may be some ‘new nuclear power systems’ built due to misguided leadership actions supporting bad bets. But they will almost certainly be expensive, or less safe, and be too late to help limit global warming impacts.
I understand that limiting the negative impacts of wasteful and harmful, but popular and profitable, developments in self-interest driven socioeconomic-political systems is a constant challenge for people who try to sustainably develop improvements, especially improvements for the poorest. Misleading marketing fuelled pursuits of popularity and profit in misguided competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others has a proven history of developing and excusing a diversity of unsustainable and harmful activities.
Some people have invested significantly in developing new nuclear power systems. They can be expected to try to profit from their investments. People invested in the belief that ‘new nuclear will be cheaper and built fast enough to help keep human global warming impacts significantly below 2.0 C have tragically misdirected their efforts.
The evidence is now clear that there are many better ways than new nuclear power to sustainably achieve that important objective. And most of the options that are more sustainable and less harmful than ‘new nuclear’ are also less expensive sources of energy.
It is understandable that people invested in a bad bet will try to argue against the reality that they have made a losing bet. Some of them will even try to claim that their investment (bets) ‘need to pay off to help the poor’ (a version of the non-sense theory of trickle-down economics).
-
michael sweet at 03:47 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Responding to post 424: so for you a higher capacity number is more important than the cost of production. New nuclear power currently costs ten times more than new solar power.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not provided any data to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
-
michael sweet at 03:40 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Responding to post 423: linking a blog post in response to a National Academy of Science consensus report makes you look bad. Nuclear supporters have challenged the BIER VII report ever since it was released. When the National Academy of Science decides to write a new consensus report come back here and we can talk about it.
-
tder2012 at 02:41 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"[BL] You were wrong." Thank you for the explanation, I will strive to be more careful with my posts.
-
tder2012 at 02:37 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
comment 422, interesting. So in 2024, wind produced 2494TWh from 1.017TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 28%. In 2024, solar produced 2131TWh from 1.419TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 17%. In 2024, nuclear produced 2768TWh from 0.39TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 81%. For perspective, in 2024, BESS produced 363GWh from 150GW of capacity according to the Volta Foundation.
Capacity numbers from wind and solar are from Our World in Data. Nuclear capacity number is from this link https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-power-capacity-additions/.
-
tder2012 at 00:50 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
comment 417 about the BIER VII. BIER VII was published in 2006. Since then, there have been at least eight reports that have been published. In addition "we know far more about DNA damage and repair than we did in 2006. Hundreds if not thousands of papers on the subject have been published. In 2015, three Nobel Prizes were awarded for describing how our bodies repair DNA damage. We now know that normal metabolic damage to our DNA produces 200 to 5000 times as many Double Strand Breaks as background radiation. We have considerable evidence that closely spaced Double Strand Breaks are the one form of damage which our amazingly effective repair processes have a problem with. This argues for a highly rate dependent harm process". This author thinks these eight new reports published after BIER VII, in addition to this quote I included, should be incorporated into a BIER VIII report, thus this post "Is it time for BIER VIII?"
-
michael sweet at 00:38 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Your graph uses arcane units (ten year average MWh per capatia) designed to make nuclear power look good and stops at 2020 before most of renewable energy was installed. A single nuclear plant opened in a small country like Sweden appears to be a lot of nuclear.
Let us look at terrawatt hours of power produced in the entire world.
In 2024, according to Ember, wind produced 2494 TWH of electricity, solar 2131 TWh, and nuclear 2768 TWh. Since you like 10 year results in 2014 solar produced 198 TWh, wind 706 TWh, and nuclear 2499 TWh. I note that nuclear has been flat for 20 years while solar increased 1,100% and wind increased 350% over 10 years.
Wind and solar combined produced approximately 650 TWH more in 2024 than in 2023. The largest increase in nuclear power was in 1985 when 234 TWh were added (Our World in data) Wind and solar will increase more this year since more factories are being built. In the 1980's people realized that nuclear is not economic and stopped building most new plants.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not pprovided any data to support your wild claimm that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
-
tder2012 at 00:32 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I thought the fact that I used the text "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation" and the descriptions on the x and y axis of the picture would have been clear enough, sorry.
Moderator Response:[BL] You were wrong.
We can't see the axis labels until after we follow the link. And when you link to something like a Google doc, there is a risk that the link will lead nowhere at some time in the future when others read the thread.
You should help the reader by stating something like "this graph shows [something] plotted against [something else]". And then explain what feature you think the graph shows that pertains to the discussion.
The same applies to links to other web pages, documents, or reports. Explain what the document contains, which portion of it you want the reader to note, and why it is important to the discussion.
This is particularly true when people are finding parts of documents you link to that refute the claim you are trying to make. Unless you state what part you read to get your interpretation, we can't tell if you are just not reading the entire document, or you are misunderstanding the document. (Both may be true.)
-
tder2012 at 20:00 PM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
for comment 409, sorry I had forgetten about this chart until now "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation"
Moderator Response:[BL] Once again, the Comments Policy states "No link or picture only". You were previously warned that when you provide a link, you should provide some sort of text telling readers what you want them to see in that link.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to provide explanatory text, why should readers bother to take the time to follow your links in search of relevant information?
If this pattern of behaviour continues, expect to see portions of your comments deleted - or even entire comments.
-
michael sweet at 07:23 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I am sorry, I made a math error. 1320 plants devided by 15 yrears is only 88 plants per year or1.7 plants per week.
-
michael sweet at 06:19 AM on 14 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012:
You made almost the same post on the solar thread. The answer is the same here. Batteries can be fitted with grid forming inverters that have synthetic inertia. The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery in Australia, one of the first big batteries, provided frequency and inertia protection to the grid at a cost 90% less than previous grid support. The inverters needed do not add much cost to the system.
Your first link says
"AEMO [Australian grid operator] expects a diversity of market incentives and new technologies to solve such challenges, but at present the pathways to a solution are not yet clear."
Hardly proof that renewable grids cannot be built.
I note that the second link you have says
"I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE [renewable energy]"
Obviously this guy is not an electrical systems engineer or he would have known that. Why should I listen to a blog by a guy who has had his head in the sand for the past 5 years?
Your last link says "I do not believe this would have made any difference". Please provide links to people who know what effects would actually happen, not people who are speculating about what might happen. The cause of the Spainish blackouts has not yet been publically announced. Reading your link it appears that electrical engineers disagree on what needs to be done. Future research will determine the best way forward.
You have stilll not provided any evidence at all to support your claim your claim that it would be faster to build out a renewable plus nuclear power system than a renewable only system. You demanded that I provide evidence to you, although I already cited two peer reviewed papers supporting my claims, and you have only quoted hearsay.
When you demand evidence you must provide evidence. Changing the topic is conceding that you were worng.
-
tder2012 at 04:10 AM on 14 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
One major aspect of grid reliability that is not mentioned very much, except by professional power engineers, is synchronous inertia, which is required for the frequency and voltage to remain in tolerance. Synchronous inertia is build in with hydro, nuclear, gas and coal. Wind, solar and batteries general do not have this. I know synchronous condensors, flywheels, grid forming inertia were mentioned in references, but these are not currently available at scale. These are discussed in the following Meeting the Challenge of Reliability on Today’s Electric Grids: The Critical Role of Inertia and "I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix. It's well known that during the event RE did not come to that party, no inertia, it provided little to zero voltage support which is essential in maintaining the stability of the grid" and "Virtually all the IBR’s are grid-following at this time. While there is a push to move to grid-forming IBR’s, I do not believe this would have made any difference in this event as they still do not provide the needed inertia. There is a major difference between rotational and synthetic inertia"
-
michael sweet at 01:05 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder at 414:
While a number of countries have signed on to the pledge to increase nuclear by 2050, very few are actually building new plants. According to your link above if we tripled nuclear power there is only enough uranium to last 30 years, hardly a good long term solution.
A simple timeline analysis indicates that this pledge is extremely unlikely to be realized. It takes 9-15 years to plan and build a nuclear plant (when existing designs are used, longer for new designs). If we started planning today it would be 2035 before the first plants came online. There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation. Most will close before 2050 due to old age. They would have to comission 1320 new plants to triple capacity. That would be about 264 per year or one plant every 1.4 days in the 15 years remaining after 2035. Currently about 2-6 plants are opened per year.
At the end of this build there would be enough nuclear for about 10% of all needed world power. The other 90% would be renewable. Since nuclear and renewable energy do not add we would need enough renewable energy for about 95% of all power.
Please do not respond that undesigned plants will be built much faster and run on no uranium. I have heard those promises from nuclear engineers for over 50 years and they have never panned out.
I have already addressed your desire to thermally polute rather than use cheaper renewable energy.
-
michael sweet at 00:48 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 412:
We have already extensively discussed LNT on this thread. Part of your homework is to read the earlier posts so that you do not bring up items that have previously been resolved.
The BIER VII report by the National Academy of Science, using only recently obtianed data, states that the LRNT model is the accepted scientific consensus. Your book by someone who has no papers on Google Scholar regarding radiation safety and no advanced degree at all is simply trash. I note that Ed Calabrese, whose name is on the cover of the book as having read it, was a member of the Academy of Science committee that concluded LRNT was the scientific consensus.
I note that I have years of professional experience handeling very large amounts of radiation and have spent weeks in professional radiation safety training. I do not like internet educated noobies lecturing me about radiation safety.
-
michael sweet at 00:37 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 410:
You are Gish Galloping again. That is a techniquie used by nuclear supporters when they realize thay have lost an argument.
Regarding the Barakah nuclear power plant. Planning for the plant began about 2005 and the first power was generated in 2020, 15 years. In 2005 solar was more expensive than nuclear power and a nuclear reactor might have made sense.
Today nuclear power is 10 times more expensive than solar on a GW generated basis and a solar farm takes only 2-4 years to build from initial plans. The carbon dioxide released in the 10-15 extra years it takes to build the nuclear plant is enormous and counts as emitted by the nuclear plant.
i note that no additional power plants using the Barakah plans are being built anywhere in the world outside of Korea. They are not legal to build in the EU and USA since they do not meet safety regulations. They are not economic, people are building solar and batteries instead.
Your comments on Bangaledesh power usage are off topicc. In any case, nuclear power will not lift the poor out of poverty since it costs ten timesw as much as solar.
-
michael sweet at 00:23 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tdder2012 at 410:
Regarding The Solutions Project claiming that in 2050 societies will use much less energy and you being unwilling to use less energy.
Nuclear power plants waste 70% of the energy they generate as thermal pollution of the environment. This pollution is very distructive to the environment. If we switch to renewable energy no waste heat is generated. That means if we switch from nuclear to solar power we reduce energy usage by 70%.
Likewise electric cars save 80% of the energy since ICE engines are so inefficient that most of the energy goes out the tailpipe. Heat pumps are 3-4 tmes more efficient than thermal furnaces saving 60-70 percent of the energy. Overall energy savings from more efficient renewable energy are about 40% when you count the storage costs of renewables.
I think it is interesting that you prefer to pollute the environment with heat than to save money.
-
Jim Hunt at 17:32 PM on 13 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Although it's not specifically about misrepresentation of the IPCC ARs, I suspect that the audience here will be interested in watching this video:
"How To Fight Online Climate Denial""Tom" spends a lot of time fighting climate denialism on X, formerly known as Twitter. He calls out everyone, from members of the far-right to mainstream politicians, debunking their climate disinformation.
