Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 10201 to 10250:

Phaedrus1 at 21:29 PM on 21 June 2019

Holocene Optimum was warmer

From the National Climate Data Center:

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

michael sweet at 20:14 PM on 21 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Richieb1234,

Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 are available at these links (also linked in the OP). The links are free. They are very similar. They are easy to read. I am surprised the NRC is not aware of Abbott. Don't they read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?

Jacobson 2009, cited 1200 times, rates 12 different technologies. Nuclear comes in about 9th for different reasons from Abbott. These issues need to be addresssed.

I remember nuclear proponents claiming that generation III plants would be built much faster because sections would be built in factories, similar to your description of Japan. The plants in Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to demonstrate this success. Obviously this did not happen.

Why should I believe that generation IV will succeed when generation III failed? The fact that nuclear is starting over with generation 4 suggests the technology is too complicated to work.

Some of the plans I have read for future energy systems use electrofuels. Connolly 2016, Smart Energy Europe uses methane (or methanol) as storage and fuel for some parts of the economy. Nuclear power would have to be as cheap as renewable energy and overcome the issues Abbott and Jacobson describe.

In a renewable energy system the most valuable energy is stored energy for windless nights. Most of the time there will be extra energy that needs to be stored for the slow nights. Baseload is therefor low value. Nuclear will be competing at the lowest level of the energy system most of the time. Do they realize they will be bottom feeding and not top feeding?

If nuclear can only generate 2-5% of all power (all power is about 5-6 times current electrical power) is it worth dealing with the problems of uranium supply, safety, waste and weapon expansion? We need look no further than current Iran and North Korea problems to see these future issues.

richieb1234 at 19:13 PM on 21 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Michael Sweet:

Lots of great questions. I will have to do some research to get the answers. And I will have to read Abbott. Here are some partial replies:

"How will the factory be different from the manufacturing unit for the generation III reactors?"

Gen III plants are not built in factories; they are constructed on the site, which is an inefficient, costly and untimely process that involves armies of skilled workers crawling around a hugh site. Some countries, notably Japan, have perfected modular construction techniques to improve the costs and scheduling of construction. The Japanese assemble large sections of the plant in factories on site and lift them into place. I have seen one of these opertions at Shika, where they were using a 1,000 Ton crane! The new modular reactors will be completely assembled in factories and delivered to the site on trucks or barges. The site will require some construction to accommodate the reactor, and I believe the nuclear fuel will not be added until the reactor is installed (although theoretically the entire package could be assembled in the factory, given prior regulatory approval).

"Can you coment on how much it would cost to build a reactor factory?"

"I saw a comment by someone at NuScale that in order to buiild their factory they needed to have a very large number of reactors on order (hundreds of billions of dollars worth), presumably from the government."

I am not familiar with the costs of the factories. I will see what I can find out.

"Can you comment on Abbott's 13 reasons why nuclear is not practical? I am especially interested in Abbott's claim that rare materials like hafnium and beryllium do not exist in sufficient quantity to build out a sigificant quantity (enough to supply more than 5% of all power) of reactors."

"Why has the nuclear industry chosen not to reply to Abbott?"

I will get a copy of Abbott and see what I can find out. Regarding the industry's lack of response to Abbott, that is not surprising. The operating companies are focused on sustaining the viability of the current fleet of reactors in an unfavorable economic environment, and the reactor vendors are focused on getting new construction orders. Starting a dialogue on using nuclear power to address climate change would not be a priority for them right now.

"What fraction of all power (all power, not electricity only) do you think could be delivered by reactors by 2050?"

Answering this question will require some research, which I am happy to do. The concept that I have been reading about is the "carbon-negative" approach, which would use nuclear power plants in remote locations to make gaseous and liquid fuels by combining CO2 extracted from the air with Hydrogen from water. The concept is to keep our current infrastructure for using fuels, but to supply the fuels by recycling CO2. The plan also calls for seqestering CO2 in order to get some reduction in the current atmospheric concentrations. Proponents of this approach believe it is the only way to stop global warming, because they believe that all other plans involve continuing indefinitly to take fossil fuels from the earth. Carbon-negative technology is under development in the UK and in the US/Canada. [I realize that most Skeptical Science commenters are probably already familiar with carbon-negative]

Thanks for the positive feedback. I will be back when I have some answers.

One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 21 June 2019

In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming

nigelj,

I agree, and would add that 'popularity' as a measure of success also shares in the blame for the harmful things that have been happening.

Being Helpful to Others, being altruistic, is a way of thinking and behaving that every human can develop.

Competition for status based on popularity and profitability without Helpful Altruism effectively governing what is going on is destined to develop harmful unsutainable results. And being able to get away with misleading marketing 'unpenalized', can amplify how harmful the results will be, especially by increasing the resistance to correction of awareness and understanding.

Advertising/Marketing/Education (similar things), that helpfully altruisticly honestly improve awareness and understanding are Great. Any other type of promotion/teaching can obviously be incredibly harmful.

The climate science case makes that rather common sense understanding undeniably clear, at least to anyone who is not divisively confirmation biased into motivated reasoning, critically trying to think of a way to get away from that awareness and understanding.

michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 21 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Richieb1234,

It is very interesting to have someone who has reactor experience commenting.

I saw a comment by someone at NuScale that in order to buiild their factory they needed to have a very large number of reactors on order (hundreds of billions of dollars worth), presumably from the government.

Can you coment on how much it would cost to build a reactor factory?

How will the factory be different from the manufacturing unit for the generation III reactors?

Can you comment on Abbott's 13 reasons why nuclear is not practical? I am especially interested in Abbott's claim that rare materials like hafnium and beryllium do not exist in sufficient quantity to build out a sigificant quantity (enough to supply more than 5% of all power) of reactors.

Why has the nuclear industry chosen not to reply to Abbott?

What fraction of all power (all power, not electricity only) do you think could be delivered by reactors by 2050?

Thanks for your help.

nigelj at 07:21 AM on 21 June 2019

In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming

You would think that a fossil fuels company like Exonn knowing there was a global warming problem while knowingly funding think tanks pretending there wasn't a global warming problem infringes some form of law because it's making a misleading representation. I suppose Exonn Mobil would claim they didnt instruct the think tanks on what findings to make and sneak out of culpability that way. Its all so annoying, and some people probably think Exonn was being clever which annoys me even further.

One can infer Exonn thought humanity could live with the warming they predicted, and so decided on a sort of bargain with the devil, but Exonn probably had a very limited idea on the implications of that warming. Only an exercise on the scale of the IPCC can really determine the full picture and we know its worse than originally thought.

It certainly brings home how companies are driven purely by profit and have no ethical standards or conscience. While I generally support capitalism in principle, all this looks increasingly unsustainable as an economic model.

scaddenp at 06:49 AM on 21 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Richieb1234 - thank you for your insights. Citing supporting literature is very much encouraged but an NRC perspective is welcome.

richieb1234 at 05:29 AM on 21 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Hi: New member here. I have been reading comments and articles on various sections of Skeptical Scientist, and I feel as if I have hit the mother lode of good information on all aspects of climate change.

Regarding "is nuclear the answer," I have some experience and expertise, having served for 25 years on the technical staff of the USNRC, with specialties in engineering analysis, risk assessment and emegency response. I would offer the following thoughts:

1. The current world wide fleet of nuclear plants is safe, but not safe enough to meet the requirements of the climate crisis. Experience of the past decades indicates a core melt frequency of 1 in 10,000 reactor-years if the reactor is operated by a company with a good safety culture and regulated by a competent and assertive regulatory body. Otherwise, the core damage frequency is higher. That is not good enough in a world envisioned to have thousands of reactors. The good news is that there is a new generation of reactors under development with more inherently safe characteristics. One of these, the NuScale small modular reactor is approaching regulatory design approval in the U.S. Other designs based on non-light water reactor physics are in the development stage.

2. The economics of the current designs are not good enough. Recent experience with new construction shows that new plants built with current technology will carry a debt burden that will make them non-competitive. Future plants will have to be built in factories rather than constructed on site. Also future plants will have to be designed so as to justify a less burdensome approach to safety regulation; another reason for the importance of inherently safe design.

3. Many if not most countries lack the technical and industrial infrastructure, and the skilled workforce required to build, maintain and operate a fleet of nuclear plants. That is why nuclear has been confined to a relatively small group of countries. Modular, factory-based construction can help here.

My bottom line would be that nuclear is not ready to meet the climate challenge, but that it could be an important part of the answer in a decade or so if public and private commitment to development is sustained.

[I have tried to follow the commenting rules. I apologize if I still need improvement :-).]

MA Rodger at 04:37 AM on 21 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

Eclectic @74,

This particular "drive-by-er" does have a history in the SkS comment threads. As far as I can see, he doesn't stick around to discuss points he raises but there is perhaps evidence of 'lurking' in this comment as it is replying to a previous in-thread comment.

Ari Jokimäki at 04:01 AM on 21 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Thanks, all! :-)

Let's hope that others will carry the torch long after me.

Jonas at 03:59 AM on 21 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Hooray, it is back again! :-)
Thanks to the SkS team and thanks to Ari!

Eclectic at 21:01 PM on 20 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

MA Rodger @73 & prior,

thank you for the depth of knowledge which you add (to this and other threads) .

Being more than 48 hours, it is very likely that the commenter will not return to elaborate or dispute over his original comment.

( Each time there is a "drive-by" , I am yet again amazed at the chutzpah of a "drive-by-er" who chooses to raise his head above the parapet while possessing only a thumbnail of information/misinformation on the topic in question. How does a large bucketful of chutzpah manage to evaporate so quickly, before the making of a second comment? It seems the liquid chutzpah must be a highly volatile substance.

MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 20 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

With the absence of any further comment from commenter bruce, it might be worthwhile joining a few dots to make sense of his intervention @70.

The insistence that Arcric SIE annual minimums have "not decreased since 2007" follows from denialist insistence that there has been an Arctic version of the 'hiatus' - Arctic Sea Ice has not been diminishing as it did in previous AGW years and the trend is now flat. Swart et ak (2015) 'Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends' has been cited as showing evidence of this 'hiatus' operating over the 6-year period 2007-13 and which is now assertedly extended for significantly more years. Thus the "not decreased since 2007" is not interested in the 2012 minimum as the denialist assertion concerns the multi-year trend not the individual years.

The data used for IPCC FAR Fig20 is described thus:-

"Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinelysince the early 1970s.The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure 7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1°latitude x 2.5° longitude grid."

It is obviously not the best of data given it shows such a small drop in SIE 1979-1990. It may be possible to find this data within literature of the time (the likes of say Mysak & Manak (1998) also use some JIC data) but it doesn't in anyway resemble modern satellite SIE data.

The AMO's "close correlation with Arctic ice" is probably simple nonsense. Even denialists like Connolly et al (2017) found it difficult to fabricate an Arctic SIE racord based on Arctic temperature that was much different to more respectable records using similar methods. The graphic below is from Cea-Pirón & Cano-Pasalodos presented within a Judith Curry blog-comment-thread. SIE records such as HadISST & Marsh et al (2016) developed from historical ice records show significantly higher SIE over the earlier pre-1950 years, perhaps 2M sq km higher. None of these show any AMO-like wobbles.

Arctic SIE based on temperature

But what Connolly et al did manage to achieve was to present a graphic to the world (below) from Alekseev et al (2016) [paywalled] (but without the actual post-1979 SIE data plotted as in Alekseev et al (2015) Fig3b) and without mentioning the finding predicting of an ice-free Arctic summers by 2030.
Alekseev et al Fig

If you are happy with the most basic of similarities being considered as being a "close correlation", the likes of this Alekseev et al (2016) graph may be assumed as an upside-down AMO graph but the assertion doesn't actually pass muster. Firstly the Alekseev et al graph is simply an upside-down version of a rather crude Arctic summer temperature record which are then no more than assumed as a proxy for Arctic summer SIE minimums. And even then, the upside-down AMO does have a very different shape. The 1950 AMO(us-d) was the same value as recent values with a peak inbetween in the 1970s (rather than 1960s) and a 'hiatus' since 1999. So AMO(us-d) is a long way off from being a proxy for Arctic SIE values.

TVC15 at 14:22 PM on 20 June 2019

Climate's changed before

@ 750 MA Rodger

WOW MA Roger what would I do without your knowledge and brilliance?

I immensely thank you for your response!

KR at 13:04 PM on 20 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Thank you, Ari!

barry17781 at 12:42 PM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

My stament was and is

"Typically 6 reactors are nowerdays placed in a facility for infrastructure savings"

Here is a list of sites with 6 operational reactors and with plans or other reactors in construction to make 6 or more reactor.

however Mr Sweet appears to dispute the statement.

Can anyone tell me with the following list in which way is my statement incorrect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

1/ Pickering 6 operational

2/ Bunce 8 operational

3/ Changgian 2 operational + 4 more planned

4/ Frangchernggang 2 operational 2 under construction 2 more planned

5/ Fuqing 4 operational 2 more planned

6/ Haiyang 2 op 6 more planned

7/ Hongyanhe 2 op 6 more planned

8/ Ningdel 4 op 2 more planned

9/ Quinshan 7 reactors

10/ Tianwen 4 oper, 2 under construt, 2 more planned

11/ yangjiang 5 operational 1 uner construction

12/ Gravelines 6 operational

13/ Paks 4 operational +2 planned

14/ Kaiga 4 operational + 2 planned

15/ Kudankulan 2 operational +2 under construction + 8 more planned

16/ Rajastan 6 operational + 2 more planned

17/ Kashiwazah 7 on shut down

18/ Thyspunt 2 operational + 4 more planned

19/ Beloyarsk 2 shut down +2 operational + 2 planned

20/ Hanbit 6 operational

21/ Hanul 6 operational

22/ Shin kori 3 operational + 3 under construction

23/ Zaporizhia 6 operational

barry17781 at 11:30 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

barry at 10:27 AM on 14 June, 2019
Michael,
Abbott is not a definitive paper, it is an engieering "solution".
his 20.5 km^2 number as the requirement of a single reactor is false. It is based 70 % of the area being a buffer Zone, It also is based on only one reactor being placed in this site,
The paractce is much higher and a single reactor is the exception. Typically 6 reactors are nowerdays placed in a facility for infrastructure savings. He also does not take into account hat this buffer Zone is only applied in the USA not in the rest of the world.
Please could you be more circumspect when quoting Abbott
Work it out yourself
0 0
Moderator Response:
[PS] We are desparately wanting an definiitive paper. Abbott is best we have unless you can provide something else. You are also making statements without providing sources to back them. Any further posts without supporting publications will be deleted.
[JH] Argumentative statement struck.

Moderator could you please tell me where in this statment have I not been justified?

Moderator Response:

[PS] Moderation complaints are always offtopic. However, I ampleased to see a better approach to stating your case.

barry17781 at 11:27 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

his topic is about whether nuclear energy can be answer to global warming. Economic and technical aspects are welcome. Particularly welcome would be a peer-reviewed response to Abbott from the industry but apparently you are also unable to find one.

Ah but original source material is being found and we did find that Abbotts area is not traceable.

barry17781 at 11:23 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

"You are apparently arguing that renewables cannot generate enough power so we are stuck with nuclear. This is a completely false argment. Even if renewables could not generate enough energy that does not mean that nuclear can."

No I am not, please show your evidence for such an inflammatory and scurrulious remark or withdraw it.

thank you

RBFOLLETT at 10:06 AM on 20 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Wow, that is a lot of research and reports, but just the tip of the iceberg I would guess of the tens of thousands of other Global Warming (GW) ongoing research studies that seem to fall mainly within the following three main GW Study Areas.
The first of these Areas would probably fall under "PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING" with ongoing studies of global temperature rise, sea level rise and increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Thousands of scientific research studies, costing billions of dollars around the world, just to PROVE Global Warming is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Secondly we would likely have the "RESULTS OF GLOBAL WARMING" with ongoing research that essentially lays out what they think will happen to people, animals and the environment IF we allow Global Warming to continue. Again thousands of ongoing scientific studies and research and billions of more to PREDICT what COULD happen.
And finally we would have "STOPPING GLOBAL WARMING" with all the ongoing scientific research and recommendations on simply how to REDUCE anthropogenic CO2 emissions or more simply how to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. I am now guessing we are into the trillions of tax dollars and private funding on these avenues. So those are the main 3 areas responsible for 99.9% of ALL the ongoing scientific research and spending on the current Environmental Crisis of Global Warming. Billions and Billions, maybe even into the Trillions of dollars spent into the Scientific Study and Prevention of Global Warming caused solely by the suspected burning of fossil fuels.
I did however almost forget that stupid fourth" NOT ONGOING" study, covering the "CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING". That would be the more than a century old "Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory" that, maybe because it was so old, there was thought to be NO NEED to do further scientific research and study of it. NO, they have a very good "EXPLANATION" of how the Theory works and pretty well all the GW Climate Scientists agree with an overwhelming consensus of the "EXPLANATION" that it is causing some amount of warming, they just don't know admittedly "HOW MUCH". And it seems they don't want to know how much or even do any further research to "prove it" or spend another dime on it. When was the last time a scientific research study was conducted to "Quantitatively Measure Global Temperature Rise with Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations"? Billions of dollars spent on thousands of scientific studies to prove the Existence and Results of GW and not a single dime to prove the one thing that everything hinges on.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Nothing but sloganeering.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

14 Jun 2011, 02:19:15 GMT

scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

in no way is this peer-reviewed, but here at least is one attempt to answer Abbott.

scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

I would offer this paper as another source for land source usage by nuclear plants.

Summary point:

"Nuclear energy has the lowest land requirements, if we do not consider the land required for long-term waste disposal. The inclusion of this use of land would seriously increase the land requirements, because a small area of land is needed, but for many thousands of years. For example, if 0.1 km/TWh is required for waste disposal, multiplied by 30 000 years, applied to 30 years of generation, the factor would increase from 0.5 km/TWh to 100 km/TWh)."

barry17781 at 07:06 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

It seems that ABBOT 1 and ABBOTT 2 are the topic and that economics is elsewere

"Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 doesn’t think so but perhaps there are better analyses? For discussions of economics, levelized cost estimates of various electricity technologies can be found here and here".

I also seem to have had a photo of Graveslines deleted, could anyone give reason

Moderator, could you be specific?

barry at 08:32 AM on 19 June, 2019

0 0
Moderator Response:
[PS] Over the line. Note comments policy on No inflammatory line. You have pushed this hard enough.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Your comment was deleted because of your inflammatory discussion style. Michael Sweet identified your photo as Gravelines before it was deleted and provided detail on typical no. of reactors which you did not appear to have read. You attacked a strawman. Other comments in inflammatory style have also been deleted.

This topic is about whether nuclear energy can be answer to global warming. Economic and technical aspects are welcome. Particularly welcome would be a peer-reviewed response to Abbott from the industry but apparently you are also unable to find one.

If you are going to continue posting here, then I suggest a change of tone and more emphasis on substance and published reviews. Your style so far does the nuclear argument no favour

barry17781 at 06:15 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

NO I AM NOT, I AM LIMITING MY DISCUSSION ENTIRELY ON THE ABOTT PAPERS

THE ABBOTT PAPERS ONLY MENTION RENEWABLE?SOLAR IN PASSING, SIMILARLy WITH ECONOMICS/COSTS THEY ARE ONLY IN PASSING.

If you stuck to the Abbott and did not spread about spurious arguments we could proceed.

NOW TO THE POINT did you see the Graveslines photo

1/ six reactors

2/ no buffer zone

Both of which those who recklessly quote Abbott completly ignore do not consider.

Moderator Response:

[DB] All-caps usage and inflammatory tone snipped. If you wish to re-post it without the all-caps, please do so.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

michael sweet at 00:52 AM on 20 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry,

The Wikipedia article you linked has the warning

"This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (June 2016)
This article needs to be updated. (October 2013)"

This Reuters report from January 2019 shows that in 2018 Renewable energy generated over 40% of electrical power in Germany. Coal generated 38%. Nuclear was obviously very low.

You are apparently arguing that renewables cannot generate enough power so we are stuck with nuclear. This is a completely false argment. Even if renewables could not generate enough energy that does not mean that nuclear can.

According to the Lazard report added to the OP, renewable energy has only been the cheapest option for a couple of years. Utility companies did not inistall renewable to replace fossil fuels becasue it cost too much.

The situation is completely different today. Renewable energy is the cheapest option. Experience has shown that up to 80% renewable energy can be added to existing grids using existing gas peaker plants for storage and production on windless nights. Most currenty building plants are renewable wind and solar. In the future virtually all new build will be renewable since it is cheapest.

The question is: how long will it take for renewable energy plants to replace existing fossil and nuclear plants? Existing gas peaker plants will likely be kept as storage for windless nights.

According to the Lazard report linked above, new build renewable energy includig the mortgage is currently cheaper than about half of existing nuclear that has no mortgage. (Nuclear with a mortgage is triple the cost of renewable energy). Probably all the single reactors i the USA are not economic. Future builds of

barry17781 at 19:44 PM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear power, biomass (wood and biofuels), wind, hydro and solar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

Mr Sweet sre you aking us to depend on Brown Coal?

nigelj at 13:37 PM on 19 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Oh whew, its back. Much appreciated.

scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

With discussions touching economics, I have added links to the two studies of LCOE that I know of which include nuclear to the article.

michael sweet at 11:11 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

You posted "The industrial group Uniden said that the [France's] proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s." my emphasis

That I must agree with. Higher prices for nuclear are not generally considered a positive trait. In the USA we prefer lower prices.

As of April 2018 there were 449 reactors operating in the world with a total power rating of 394 GW source. The same source lists all plants by country and location. There are 7 locations with 6 or more reactors operating. A total of 46 reactors. There are 46 locations where a single reactor is operating. You can hardly claim that 6 is normal. Both Hinkley and the cancelled Wales reactor stations only had 2 reactors. Your photo must be at Gravelines, the only location in France with 6 reactors.

It is my understanding that locations with only one reactor lose money even faster than locations with multiple reactors. The 46 locations with only one reactor are probably all on the chopping block.

Just for fun I worked out how much cooing water 6 1000 MW reactors need. (If this was your question about Abbott it is answered). The World Nuclear Organization says a 1600MWe nuclear plant in the UK uses 90 m3/sec. (In warmer locations more water is needed). To generate 6000 MWe you would need 340 m3 per second. The average flow of the Thames river is only about 97 m3/sec so you could not even cool one 1600 MWe reactor during the dry season from the Thames. France had to shut down at least 4 reactors last summer and France, Spain and Germany in 2003 , and Illinois and Michigan 2006, and France 2009, and Browns Ferry USA in 2011 because high water temperatures and drought meant enough cooling was not available. So much for "on demand power".

With six colocated plants only ocean front and a few very large lake locations are practical. Low lying areas like Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh and the Nile delta are threatened by sea level rise and unsuitable. Please describe where you woud find sufficient locations for 4,000 plants in the USA that are not near a city, are on beach front and not threatened by sea level rise. The enormous thermal pollution would require that the plants were not too close together or the 9,000 GWth of heat from one location would prevent cooling at the nearby plants.

Renewable wind and solar are cheaper than new build gas and coal in 2/3 of the world today. Even with no subsidy or carbon tax. Joe Rohm does not even bother to mention nuclear because it is so expensive.

nigelj at 11:08 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

3-d construct @3

Well said except the amoc has already slowed but not so much because of melting ice yet, but this will happn increasingly in the future. It's more because of the decreasing temperature differential from equator to poles.

3-d construct at 10:53 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

Sorry about the drift and some characterizations in the previous post. I can understand your postion.

Informed and appropriate national policy along within a global framework is essential to implementing adequate responses. Unfortunately there is a lot of backsliding instead of needed cooperation. Certainly this is now so in the U.S.

Outside of the U.S. 500 coal plants are about to be and another 1000 are slated to be constructed globally. The stated total is down 100 plants from two years ago. Perhaps the 350 organization and others, working to promote alternatives are having a crucial positive effect. I have read some that were started in India have become stranded assets. The new Australian President wants to build more. Without adequate energy storage or other national resource alternatives, Germany, unwisely, is replacing nuclear with coal for base load and load following for its misapplied solar technology. Following Fukushima, Japan is replacing its nuclear with coal. On top of wind and solar strides, China and India are domestically building more coal plants. The national government claims that these are local departures from national intentions. Disturbingly, two large Chinese companies are promoting outdated technology, coal fired plants to other developing regions under the aegis of Xi Jinping’s One Belt One Road’s commercial expansion. The new Brazilian president has pledged to increase the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

This is crazy stuff that promotes warming and changes in the oceans. Thermohaline (temperature and salinity) mixing and overturning currents in the oceans have significant systematic influence. Wind driven currents producing cyclonic and anticyclonic gyres, also, play an important role in determining local climate aberrations. The Coriolis Effect has a role in shaping some of these currents. As water cools or salinity increases it becomes denser. Historically, there are flushing areas in the North Atlantic and off the coast of Antarctica where these qualities are abundantly present and large columns descend to the ocean floor and continue to flow down to deeper waters directed by topographical features there. Similarly, this water eventually ascends to the surface, circuitously, flowing back to flushing points. Coldest water temperatures occur in the high latitudes and it’s there that salinity can be increased when sea ice freezes, ejecting brine into local sea water. Less freezing ice and injections of fresh water from melting ice or rivers can reduce salinity and retard flushing. Such haloclines currently determine other local stratifications and will reinforce future widespread oceanic stratification. Similar mechanisms in the Antarctic will more directly affect circulation in other oceanic basins. The occurrence of these factors are now increasing and noticeably reducing the strength of north AMOC. It is projected to reduce the strength of the Gulf Stream and subsequently, produce local cooling of climate in areas now warmed by it. Congruently, colder North Atlantic and warmer South Atlantic sea surface temperatures resulting from the overall disruption of the AMOC by the above described fresh water input could have remote consequences. This could indirectly promote increased annual additions of CO2 of about 0.3 ppm up to a total of 40 ppm as happened 16,000 years ago. Intensified circumpolar wind pushed closer to Antarctica by a restructured pressure gradient would dredge up CO2 from deep southern oceanic waters to the atmosphere. Generally a slowdown of deep ocean circulation will affect the all oceanic basins ability to absorb and store heat and CO2 long term. Also, as formerly stated, uptake of these important factors will be diminished by reducing the active sink volume. Expanding areas of stratification will develop and support eutrophic conditions. Deep water oxygen depletion will also increase.

In the Arctic ocean , the rapid loss of sea ice there is a major concern. Albedo loss and precipitous reduction of the endothermic summer melt will greatly add to SSTs there. Without the ice, looping feedbacks will ensue. Rapid warming of the water and subsequent discharges of CO2 and added evaporation will increase the greenhouse effect. This will oppose the Polar high pressure down flow. Subsequently, with major regional impacts the Polar Weather Cell may shift 15 degrees south to a colder high pressure center over Greenland as long as there is sufficient remaining land ice present. This will wrack both the Polar and Ferrel Cells and further derange both the Polar Jet and Vortex, while impacting the most heavily populated areas of the Earth, the north mid-latitudes. If there is no shift, it will weaken to the point that both the jet and vortex will become extremely deranged and ineffectual, further impacting both the Arctic and mid-latitudes. This will accelerate CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions with further feedbacks and will have warming impacts extending all of the way to the South Pole. Greenland would lose its ice and Antarctica’s loss would accelerate.

Oceans are becoming more stratified so that areas of deep water are becoming more hypoxic or anoxic. The Baltic Sea has long presented expanding areas of hypoxia associated with nutrient inputs and eutrophic phytoplankton blooms. 70,000 square kilometers were affected including areas of severe hypoxia, anoxia and euxinia in 2018, four times that of 1950. Eight thousand square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and an average of about 7 % of the Chesapeake Bay present large seasonally enhanced hypoxic, anoxic and euxinic dead zones. These water bodies do not emit hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere. Their affected bottom waters are capped by a metal ion strengthened chemocline layer. Numerous aquatic areas are now being similarly challenged globally in roughly 400 maritime locations, largely at river mouths and in numerous fresh water bodies.

Recent emergence of purple surf along parts of Oregon’s coastline is indicative of purple sulfur bacteria thriving at the base of the surface waters on a source of hydrogen sulfide that is developing within deeper benthic zones. Occasionally, there are discharges of the highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. In a similar fashion, the only other oceanic location where this also occurs is along the coast of Namibia. The Oregon emissions are likely enhanced by the stalling polar jet and associated weather systems to be later discussed. The affected area is large, 40 by 200 km (8,000 sq. km) that has in recent years become seasonally more and less hypoxic containing areas of anoxia on the continental shelf along the Oregon and Washington coastline. There may be some association to numerous recently discovered methane hydrate seeps at about 500 meters depth in the same area as methanotrophs, also, consume oxygen in order to oxidize methane until shifting to sulfate reduction and promoting euxinia. However, it is reported that low oxygen, nutrient bearing, upwelling caused by more persistent northerlies is there promoting depleted benthic oxygen levels compounded by aerobic microbes there consuming the organic matter that descends from phototropic plankton blooms at the surface.
With some interruptions, deep water in meromictic lakes, certain fiords and the Black Sea have been completely euxinic for a long time (7,500 hundred years without hydrogen sulfide emissions for the later), but this is due to morphological and halocline peculiarities.

barry17781 at 08:32 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

I gravlines

I seem to be able to count six reactor buildings, mr Sweet how many do you count? some where in France

Moderator Response:

[PS] Over the line. Note comments policy on No inflammatory line. You have pushed this hard enough.

barry17781 at 08:06 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

If you want to talk economics talk to the French

The low cost of French nuclear power generation is indicated by the national energy regulator (CRE) setting the price at which EdF’s electricity is sold to competing distributors. In 2014 the rate is €42/MWh, but CRE proposed an increase to €44 in 2015, €46 in 2016 and €48 in 2017 to allow EdF to recover costs of plant upgrades, which it put at €55 billion to extend all 58 reactor lifetimes by ten years. In November 2014 the government froze the price at €42 to mid-2015. This Arenh re-sale price has represented a long-term floor price for EdF’s power, and is nominally based on the cost of production. The industrial group Uniden said that the proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

Moderator Response:

[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link editor in the comments editor.

barry17781 at 08:01 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

It demonstrates prefectly why nuclear is being abandoned: nuclear is not economic.

we are not talking about the economics sweet

Moderator Response:

[PS] in interests of productive discussion, please note that commentator's handle is Michael Sweet. And the economics of nuclear is absolutely up for discussion.

barry17781 at 07:49 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

PS] As indicated, I am cutting and pasting the numbers directly from Jacobson to save people looking it up and to give the complete picture about what Jacobson is stating. The units are ha yr/GWh. Ie the consumption of land per year for each GWh of electricity produced. Jacobson is also simply using numbers from other studies.

So Hinkley C is 3.2 GW (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

a year is for production say 270 days at 24 hours = 6480 hours,

at 3.2 GW the station in one year produces 6480x3.2 = 20736 Gwh

so in one year you /Abbott and Jacobson are saying that at 0.08 ha we get 0.08 x 20736 =1658.9 ha

and for say 40 years of operation we get 40 x 1658.9 = 66 000 hectares

Is this your figure?

Moderator Response:

[PS] Obviously not but it is not "my figure" but jacobson, I am only quoting. Since Jacobson comes up with sensible no.s, a better interpretation is needed. If you believe Jaconson's source to be wrong, then perhaps you can supply a better one for mining and waste area use?

3-d construct at 05:25 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

On the face of it Bernie is the whole package. He is said to be too old, and seems to lack the command of many younger Democratic contenders who have over time demonstrated a commitment to effectively handling our climate issue as well. However, freeing governance from the toxic, persistent and mounting dire effects of big money is something that, as far as I know, only he alone has been striving for from within the government. Hopefully, others are doing so as well. More has to be exposed about this. In order to produce change that spans across election cycles this issue is at the very core of our current very distressing predicament. Otherwise, insidiously, we will continue to be controlled by sellouts who are only truly responsive to avaricious perceptions of a miniscule but powerful minority. They so act while manipulating to instill illusions that the vital concerns of their voter base are being served when just the opposite is in fact being played out. By ignoring the noise it is easy to see and the proof is in the pudding.

Here in the U.S. compulsive attention to budget sapping preparations and adventures of international interference, falsely being represented as national security operations, are disabling our ability to adequately respond to the very real and rapidly mounting monumental global threat of climate change.

Apart from this, in our winner take-all electoral system we are always being controlled by a minority. Many are compelled to vote defensively, not in accord with individual preferences. Therefore, the winner gains support from those whose heart lies elsewhere. Many despondently do not vote or are inhibited from voting. Therefore, with even an apparent large majority bringing candidates into office, they only, in spoken promises, represent a small minority.

Furthermore, reactive voting resonates to polarize us and drive the persistent two-party duality and inherent unresponsiveness. This is bad enough, but the foregoing is unacceptable.

Let me know if you consider others to be viable candidates.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Please be careful with political comments. It is not appropriate for this thread to degenerate into a discussions of US 2020 election candidates.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:05 AM on 19 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

My comment @7, and earlier presentations of my developing understanding (seeking feedback to improve it), may appear to require 'almost impossible expectations of humans' because of incorrect beliefs about the fundamentals of human nature.

An improved awareness and understanding of the nature of humans is that the behaviour of each human is based on a 'potential diversity of starting dispositions initially present in varying degrees (selfish, altruistic, inquisitive, cautious, reflective, impulsive, and so many more)' that their experience (especially education, formal as well as personal pursuits) can significantly alter (through learning choices).

What I point out being required can be learned by every human. The wealthier or more influential they are, the more they should be expected to understand it and act accordingly as Good Helpful Altruistic Examples - acting with Humanity (the poorest can be excused if they act more selfishly trying to survive). It is the basic requirements of a responsible professional engineer, and any other responsible person applying their better understanding to helpfully govern and limit what is going on, even if it angers a client.

Constant pursuit of improved awareness and understanding of all areas of application of understanding is essential to the sustainability of that activity and its helpfulness (non-harmfulness), to the future of global humanity. Governing and limiting potentially more popular or more profitable, but harmfully incorrect, interests is essential to the future of any culture or institution.

Increasing that awareness and understanding to the point where Good Helpful Altruism effectively Governs and Limits potentially harmful more selfish short-term interests is a requirement for Humanity, or any subset of humans, to have a future. Without that being the ruling consideration, devolution to Harmful Divisive Competition for Perceptions of Status (defence of understandably unacceptable aspects of the Status Quo or desired Status Quo) can be expected.

Tragically, in supposedly more advanced societies, Humanity can be seen to be significantly challenged by the incorrect over-development of many harmful activities and attitudes. The improvement of awareness and understanding and the required corrections face powerful resistance due to incorrectly and unsustainably developed perceptions of prosperity, opportunity and status that are the result of Too Much Winning of Status through understandably harmful actions.

The incorrect continuation of over-development of fossil fuel abuse through the past 30 years proves that point rather conclusively. It has gotten so bad that many people in supposedly more advanced nations now vote to support 'protection of harmfully incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity, opportunity and status' that would have to be given up if the harm being done to the future of humanity was to be responsibly limited. The result is irresponsible harmfully misleading leadership increasing their chances of winning by appealing for votes of harmfully correction resistant people.

Many nations, businesses or people who are 'supposedly more advanced' especially dislike the following points of the fundamental understanding that was established more than 30 years ago as the basis for the corrective Climate Actions. The more developed and wealthier nations, businesses or individuals:

owe a debt for the harm done by the impacts of their 'advancement through the harmful use of fossil fuels'.
must lead the correction (curtailing their benefit from fossil fuel use) and provide the good example of ways of behaving that the less developed can aspire to develop towards.
must help the less fortunate more directly develop in the correct direction, limiting how far they follow the incorrect harmful development paths of the current day Winners.

My MBA education in the 1980s included the awareness that misleading marketing can be a powerful way to temporarily attract support and appear to be successful. It is clear that international abilities to penalize misleading marketing will probably become a requirement (international penalties on wealthy and powerful nations, corporations and individuals for failing to properly Govern marketing). It would be best if everyone simply chose to improve their awareness and understanding and helped rather than harmed the achievement and improvement of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially the wealthier and more influential. But that clearly will not 'naturally develop' as long as misleading marketing can be gotten away with uncorrected.

None of this is new understanding. What is new is the growing popularity of resistance to improving awareness and understanding which is incorrectly encouraged by people who support things that do not deserve to be supported because they desire something that does not deserve to be desired.

Among the most harmful are the voters who harmfully like a Political Party because of One Main Personal Interest that over-powers their awareness of all the other harmful things they actually also support by supporting the Party. They may be aware of the need to do something about climate change impacts, but they will have a more powerful excuse to vote for a Party that resists those corrections. And in some cases that incorrect excuse is a desire to support Free Market Economics (without including the understanding of the importance of every aspect of that activity being Governed and Limited by Good Helpful Altruism).

One Planet Only Forever at 00:42 AM on 19 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

Mal Adapted @6,

You appear to be missing the majority of my point.

Improving awareness and understanding and striving to help develop a sustainable and improvable future for humanity includes everything 'helpful'.

And helpful things include any and all actions that help achieve any of the Sustainable Developoment Goals (SDGs) and not supporting any group that tries to impede achieving and improving on any of the SDGs:

no longer considering voting for a political party that has a history of some of its members incorrectly resisting the improvement of understanding regarding climate science.
Understanding what economic activities are harmful and no longer supporting them.
helping others increase their understanding that achieving and improving on the SDGs is the only viable future for humanity.
Being willing to Govern and Limit the behaviour of Others even if they angrily resist being corrected.

That last one is the hardest part, but is essential. It requires an end of believing that compromising and pragmatism are helpful. It also requires the open admission that without altruism governing and limiting what is going on harmful unsustainable activity will become popular and profitable and develop powerful resistance to correction.

Compromise and pragmatism can harmfully excuse resistance to correction of harmful unsustainable beliefs and activities. The Green New Deal more directly addresses the problem, with little compromise or 'pragmatism'. It is very helpful at raising awareness of the unacceptable reality that has been developed, even though it jarringly angers the harmfully correction resistant. The worst of that group are determined not to change their minds. But many supporters of that political attitude are just 'harmfully naive'.

The USA Republicans and Democrats have compromised and pragmatically given over degrees of leadership of their party to harmful correction resistance. The Republicans have almost completely abdicated helpful leadership. The elderly among the Democrats coyly limit how much they allow helpful altruism to Govern and Limit their political marketing and actions.

The understandable threat to the future of Humanity is Limited Altruistic Governing. And the major cause of that developed problem is a lack of penalty for developing and delivering misleading marketing appeals that encourage correction resistance, are harmful to achieving and improving on any of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Misleading marketing produces harmful unsustainable results in competitions for status where value or worthiness is not effectively evaluated based on Helpful Altruistic Merit. That is especially true of competitions for popularity and profitability that do not have effective penalties for misleading harmful correction resistant marketing, particularly political marketing, resulting in powerful resistance to correction of harmful developments.

Everyone familiar with what has been happening regarding improvement of awareness and understanding of climate science and the required correction of developed beliefs and actions in the global population (those wanting to improve understanding as well as those who are correction resistant), can see what I am pointing out. But some people will resist accepting the understanding because of a powerful developed liking for something that does not deserve to be liked so much.

MA Rodger at 21:12 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

bruce @70,

May I add some numerical bones to the comment from Eclectic @71,

DMI Arctic Sea Ice plots the 2016 minimum as being 1.7cukm below the average minimum 2004-13. Using PIOMAS monthly data the 2016 minimum sits 2.2cukm below th 2004-13 average, this not a great difference given the measurements being undertaken. So your assertion that one of these must be wrong requires some explanation.

You further assert that 2007 provides the lowest annual minimum for Arctic Sea Ice Extent in JAXA, DMI, NSIDC & MASIE when all these show the minimum year as being 2012. A plot of rolling 12-month averages (as per the graph in the OP above) shows a reasonably constant reduction in Arctic Sea Ice Extent, from 12.3M sqkm in 1979 to 10.3M sq km today. The lowest annual average Arctic SIE occurred in 2016.

You assert solely on the basis of IPCC FAR Fig 7,20a (below) that 1979 saw "probably the highest extent since about 1910." Fig 7.20a does show a downward wobble in 1974 prior to the satellite era (as does the graph in the OP above) but this is small relative to the reduction in SIE over the satellite era. The 1974 dip, all of 0.3M sqkm, is shown in the graph in the OP above which also shows the reduction in SIE over the satellite era, something not well set out in Fig 7.20a.

IPCC FAR Fig7.20a

Finally, while values for the AMO does have reasonably uncontroversial sources, this is not the case for all sources of 20th century Arctic SIE records. Perhaps you could thus be clear as to your source of 20th century Arctic SIE data.

Eclectic at 19:39 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

Bruce @70 ,

I presume you are talking about Arctic sea ice volume. Ice volume is distinctly more important than ice extent, in showing which way things are trending ~ particularly the summer minimum (for obvious reasons!).

PIOMAS shows a huge decline in summer ice volume over 40 years.

DMI shows the summer minimum volume for 2015 thru 2018 as being below the 2004-13 average. And 2019 YTD is also below the average.

( Sea ice extent in the 1920's and prior, was poorly monitored, for obvious reasons! We won't mention the war . . . or the Titanic. )

Bruce, I must confess I don't see what point you are aiming towards. Please go into details, if possible. Were you leading towards a Pacific oscillation?

bruce14421 at 17:51 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

Japanese (JAXA), Danish(DMI), US (NSIDC) and US MASIE data show minimum Arctic ice extent has not decreased since 2007.

DMI shows minimum Arctic ice volume has not decreased since 2003 when readings first began, however PIOMAS shows a decrease. One is obviously wrong.

The first IPCC report in 1990 showed sea ice extent from the early Nimbus satellites from 1973 to 1990. (Observed Climate Variation and Change chapter 7) Ice extent grew 500,000 square kilometres from 1973 to 1979 which was probably the highest extent since about 1910.

Ice decreased significantly in the 1920's through to the 1950's and increased until 1979. The current satellite monitoring started in 1979 but if it had started in in the 1920's, it would probably would be about the same as now.

If you look at the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation index, you will see that there is a close correlation with Arctic ice

Mal Adapted at 13:34 PM on 18 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

OPOF:

People should choose to improve their awareness and understanding and strive to help develop a sustainable and improvable future for humanity. The alternative is Harmful. There is no compromise space. A person being less helpful than they can be is being harmful.

WRT climate, anyone who transfers, or causes to be transferred, any fossil carbon to the atmosphere is being harmful. But how many people are prepared to go wholly off grid and be self-sufficient in all their requirements? In economic terms, AGW is a Drama of the Commons, that has already turned tragic for multitudes. Individual, voluntary internalization of marginal climate-change costs may detectably reduce fossil carbon emissions, but can't overcome the free-rider problem. Only collective action can. Collective actions on multiple scales are implemented by government. In the USA, nominally, you and I would muster a voting plurality for an effective national carbon price. How do we do that?

One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 18 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

In your efforts to identify people needing to be corrected regarding their position on climate science, including what political parties a claimed supporter of climate science would consider supporting, I suggest the following connection to Ocean concerns:

If you encounter an Ocean-liker, especially someone who agrees with this concern about climate change impacts on the Ocean systems, ask them if they are aware of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And help them understand that the SDGs connect the corrections of developed attitudes and activities that are harmful to the future of Humanity, including protecting the Oceans and addressing Climate Change impacts.

Then ask them which political parties they 'consider voting for'.

Be familiar with all the Political Party positions related to all of the SDGs and point out the Parties they are considering that have actually resisted, claimed the need to harmfully compromise, the required corrections that would reduce the harm done to the Oceans, including resistance to climate change impact corrections.

Then ask them if, based on their improved awareness and understanding, they would still consider supporting the Parties that are understandably harmful regarding those 2 of the 17 SDGs.

If they still would consider those parties ask them specifically why. They may not initially offer the answer, but they may offer a main issue that they 'like' the parties position on.

This is when being familiar with all of the Sustainable Development Goals and the corrections of developed harmful popular and profitable attitudes and activities is important.

Knowing the Party positions regarding all of the Sustainable Development Goals you can probably point out that their main reason for considering the harmful Party is actually a harmful impediment to achieving another of the integrated Sustainable Development Goals that undeniably need to be achieved collectively for humanity to have a better future.

Even if they will not offer up 'their main reason' for continuing to consider voting for the Ocean harmful parties, you can point out that the Ocean concern they have is one of the integrated Sustainable Development Goals. And you can point out how many other ways the Ocean-harming Party they are willing to still consider voting for is deliberately and misleadingly harmful to the achievement of other Sustainable Development Goals.

My developed understanding is that the Populist United Right movements growing popularity around the world abuse the power of misleading marketing to prey on people who are easily impressed to support an actually harmful attitude or action, people who will incorrectly apply confirmation bias and motivated reasoning to try to justify their interest in supporting that understandably harmful development that requires correction.

Increasing and improving awareness and understanding of the harmfulness of political leadership, like the people who have taken over Conservative Parties and turned them into harmful United Right correction resistant parties, is a required correction of what has developed. And the SDGs are a robust basis for pointing out the harmful unacceptability of popular or profitable attitudes or actions, particularly for pointing out which groups, political parties or businesses, should not be considered to be potentially acceptable winners/leaders.

Climate Action can only grow leadership action support if people who understand its importance are educated to keep them from being easily tempted to have a poor excuse for considering supporting a harmful political or business group.

MA Rodger at 23:32 PM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

TVC15 @745,

Your denier is of course spouting nonsense. But perhaps it would be helpful to know how to respond to him other than just asking him to generally explain his nonsense.

I would ask your denialist troll how long he expects the effects of AGW to last. Does he expect CO2 levels to remain for ever? That would be very wrong. Or perhaps only a few tens-of-thousands of years which would be more correct? That, of course, is the time-scale that ice-ages operate on.
Ice ages are, of course, mainly driven by changing albedo (due to the changing levels of ice reflecting changing amounts of sunlight back into space). CO2 is not the primary driver.

For a bit more background, we can look back at those ice-age CO2 levels.

During the last interglacial (the Eemian) the measured peak-CO2 was 287ppm back 128,400 years before present. (This is from EPIC Dome C ice core data.) From this peak, CO2 dropped to 262ppm in the following 1,240 year, a drop which was the first part of a set of oscillations measured between 280ppm and 260ppm that continued for 15,000 years after the peak. It was only following those oscillations that CO2 began to fall back towards 200ppm, the bulk of this decline (a drop to 230ppm) taking 7,500 years.

We can compare the drop from that ice-age driven CO2 pertubation with the expected future of our own CO2 anthropogenic pertubation. That ice-age pertubation was (287 - 195 =) +102ppm over 8,000 years while out anthropogeinc pertubation is so-far (410 - 280 =) +130ppm over roughly 100 years.
The likes of Archer et al (2009) 'Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide' suggest that roughly 80% of an instant CO2 pertubation would be absorbed into the oceans in roughly 1,000 years. (Lord et al 2016 Fig 4 suggests it would be a little higher for our present 600Gt(C) level of emissions, perhaps 87%.) About 55% of our anthropogenic pertubation has already been absorbed so if our CO2 emissions stopped we would expect today's CO2 levels to drop roughly 70ppm over 1,000 years or so, being absorbed mainly within the oceans. But the rise of the ice-age pertubation of the Eemian was far slower than our pertubation (8,00y against 100y) so we can simplistically assume that all the +102ppm represents that remainng 20% of the actual ice-aged-forced emissions. (In reality, much of the CO2 in the ice-age pertubation has been driven from the oceans so will not be re-absorbed there over such timescales.)

That remaining 20% (& bulk of the Eemian +105ppm) is expected would slowly be absorbed over following millennia, but surely not as quickly that 7,500 year Eemian period which saw perhaps a 10% drop (of the assumed total ice-age pertubation). This would concur with the proposed reversal of much of the pre-Eemian ice-age driven CO2 increase as the new ice-age develops, when the oceans begin to re-absorb CO2, along with a whole lot of other mechanisms that operate on CO2 through the ice-age cycles.

michael sweet at 20:20 PM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

So nothing peer reviewed to support nuclear power. Your inability to find anything peer reviewed to support your claims tells me a lot.

My handle is Michael Sweet. It is disrespectful to use something different.

You have made approximately 13 posts on the subject of reactor station area. Your claims hinge on your interpretation of a single line of Abbott 2012. We differ in our reading of Abbott.

Frankly, I have never before seen anyone argue that nuclear power plants occupy too much land. Even Jacobson, who does not like nuclear, only counts land area as 3% of his rating system. Examining figure 6 of Jacobson 2009

jacobson graph

I see that area is only an issue for biogenic ethanol. Nuclear area is small. If this is the most important issue you can find I think we can all reach a conclusion.

You have made your point, I have made mine. Everyone reading will be able to judge our arguments. It is long past time to move on to new issues.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Standing back for a moment. Barry, I believe you are trying to dispute the validity of Abbott's objections. Abbott raises the land area issue (and especially the need for a particular type of land) using Jacobson's figure for area based on plant, buffer zone, mining and waste requirements. Abbott states a figure of as much as 20km2 per plant (ie a maximum of 20km2). Abbott is not disproved by showing some plants are smaller (especially if your examples fail to account for mining and waste area as well). Furthermore, as Michael Sweet has pointed out, the land area is a rather trivial issue in the context of Abbott. I would prefer to see more substantive issues addressed if there is to be a case made for nuclear energy.

barry17781 at 18:43 PM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

moderator, your units for appear not to make sense

are you able to convert and show how to convert your figure of 0.08 ha yr Gw h^-1

yr h-1 is a trivial number the number of yearsper hour ie 1/8760

then when we put this into the unit we are left with 0.08/8760 ha Gwatt.

ha Gwatt does not mahe sese.

I would be pleased if you could solve this riddle, putting it as ha per GW h

comes out with a ridiculous answer 500 km^2

Moderator Response:

[PS] As indicated, I am cutting and pasting the numbers directly from Jacobson to save people looking it up and to give the complete picture about what Jacobson is stating. The units are ha yr/GWh. Ie the consumption of land per year for each GWh of electricity produced. Jacobson is also simply using numbers from other studies.

bozzza at 16:08 PM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

TV- he's using flawed logic from word one... your denier pal is not entertaining complexity and (supposedly, lol) thinks the world works in straight lines. Just a rich idiot who does know better because when it comes to money all of a sudden he understands there are multiple factors at play...

bozzza at 16:00 PM on 17 June 2019

State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019