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

Settings

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.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  Next

Comments 102901 to 102950:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #174 Tom Dayton you wrote :- "wavelengths of radiation that are plentifully emitted by the Earth but only weakly emitted by the Sun, thereby acting as a partially closed valve that traps energy below the top of the atmosphere" A (partially) closed valve? The absorbed insolation is converted to heat, it warms the soil, water, atmosphere etc. A (partially) closed valve is not an idea that applies to radiation, even the IPCC doesn't mention this idea! Now this soil, water, atmosphere etc. only emits radiation when it is above 0K, whereas it absorbs radiation regardless of its temperature. For example Earth can absorb microwave radiation very efficiently but the whole point of microwave ovens is that their radiation does not have thermal properties, it is "monochromatic" with a wavelength many orders of magnitude longer than IR. Starting from 0K the temperature of material receiving radiation (of any sort) can only rise and as it rises it starts to emit radiation, eventually reaching a temperatures at which it emits as much radiation as it absorbs - it has nothing to do with the wavelength of the incoming radiation. However if you want to assign a temperature to your source then you must choose a source with a thermal spectrum, a spectrum that follows Planck's radiation law; it must not be monochromatic like a laser, a microwave oven or any other non-Planckian spectrum, only then can you speak of a temperature.
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    KR, I suggest the following draft http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf Claes Johnson, relating to classical harmonic oscillator with radiation and dissipation, forced by an incoming wave, shows in a straightforward manner that the energy is transferred only from warmer to cooler and the back radiation isn’t able to heat the planetary surface. Up to now, I didn’t know this very fine detail!
  3. It's not bad
    Re: Albatross (81) Old family saying:
    "The slow go hungry."
     Heh. The Yooper
  4. actually thoughtful at 04:19 AM on 30 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka: "You are comparing the US economy now to France thirty years ago" Just to be clear - the "you" that you refer to is Sailrick - who made a comment that I didn't understand, so I did some research and shared what I learned. Quokka: "What exactly does 90 GW of solar mean?" Still not reading what I write, are you? I don't mind debating, but it really not much of a challenge when you don't bother to READ what I post. Do you want to try again?
  5. It's not bad
    # 73 Argus and #74 Yes it is unusually cold in Scandinavia for the moment, but take a look at Greenland. Yesterday they had +11C in some parts. Link It is rather well known that cold weather in Scandinavia means warm weather in Greenland.
  6. It's not bad
    Sorry Daniel...
  7. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (78) I had a real nice comment all lined up but I see Albatross beat me to it... :) Ah, well. Despite the focus on individual cooling trees (the weather), the forest surrounding us is still heating up nevertheless. The Yooper
  8. It's not bad
    It is winter again, and so the cherry-picking of cold temperatures, some of theme records, begins. Global warming, for now, does not mean the cessation of cold weather. Nor does it mean the end of winter (the planet is still tilted from the vertical)or that no record cold temperatures will be measured anywhere. What is does mean is that the planet as a whole is warming, and that fewer record lows will be set. That is a fact, and is exactly what has been happening. Another fact, until recently, 19 countries around the globe had set all-time record high temperatures in 2010, compared to zero record cold lows. See here. Maybe we will hit 20 before the year is out....
  9. Renewable Baseload Energy
    SNRatio #153 Adding to your argument, there's a study that I've posted before, but I think is still worth some attention: Czisch & Ernst 2001 High wind power penetration by the systematic use of smoothing effects within huge catchment areas shown in a European example They conclude it's possible to smooth out even seasonal variation with a large enough integrated area.
  10. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    RE: #33 Paul , I might try and explain too! (repetition, but with different words). The most important effect on heat balance is ice cover in the summer. Since 'change in heat balance' = 'change in albedo' x 'heat coming in' and 'heat coming in' is biggest in summer. In summer, Antarctic sea ice retreats to the edges of the continent, which is generally covered by ice too thick to melt away. So changes in summer will be a tiny change in total area. Meanwhile, there is still sea ice left in the Arctic in summer. NSIDC minimum extent for Antarctica has been pretty constantly around 3 mil sq km since satellite records began. So there has been little change in heat balance. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 2.5 million sq km and there is still another ~5 mil sq km left to go in summer. To offset the decline in Arctic ice we've already seen, you'd need a 75% or so increase in Antarctic summer sea ice.
  11. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Guys, the greatest Arctic sea ice trend is observed when comparing September minima across years. In fact, the greatest anomaly is occurring later in September than previously. The most important time with respect to albedo is June. The trend observed (so far) for June is quite a bit less than for September. Likewise, wrt albedo, the austral summer solstice is most important, and at that point the ice has not melted back to the continent. If it is slow to melt back and there is more reflective material around Antarctica in December and January, I think it should not be arm-waved away. There may be calculations that show the Arctic trend is much more important for planetary albedo than the Antarctic trend, and given the effect of angle of incidence, etc, those quantitative results would help greatly in supporting the intuitive argument.
  12. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    #32 Muoncounter I have calculated trends for both extent and area of NH and SH ice. I find that the increase in SH ice extent as well as area is statistically significant at the 95% level. Here is a plot with trend estimates and 95% confidence limits: Please note that the units are given as K/year where K=millions square km's. Tamino finds a similar result: "But if one uses data for all months, the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 is statistically significant." From here I remember having read somewhere that this is related to increased precipitation. As temperatures continue to rise this positive trend in ice area and extent will at some point reverse and become negative
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #166 archiesteel you wrote :- "@damorbel: the graph serves its purpose. It is not misleading to anyone with any kind of base scientific knowledge." A diagram without any temperatures? Telling us that the surface is warmed? This is not scientific, the thread is about the 2nd Law of themodynamics which is about how heat moves between places with different temperatures; I am curious to know how you find a diagram without any temperatures on it AT ALL "serves a [useful] purpose" in this regard.
  14. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Oh Jeez Rob, you posted that while I was typing my response. OK, we seem to be on the same page though. Good point about the impact on albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet.
  15. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul @33, I could be wrong. So major caveat emptor ;) The slight increasing trend in Antarctic ice during the austral winter is not as important or critical as the loss of summer ice up north (during the boreal summer). The reason being that changes in albedo are not really an issue, if at all, during the austral winter. In contrast, the rapid loss of ice during the boreal summer does have a large positive feedback because of the very important impacts of changes in albedo between snow/ice and ocean water. On another note. In recent testimony to congress, Dr. Alley said that the slow increase in Antarctic sea ice will change soon. Now Dr. Alley is a paleo scientists, so I do not know what he means by "soon"-- decades, centuries? My guess is decades.
  16. It's not bad
    Talking of record colds... Quote Cold Record in the Antarctic Minus 50.2 degrees Celsius. 1:20 PM, JUL 22, 2010 • BY JOHN ROSENTHAL Courtesy of /.../ (NOAA), the news media has been full of reports in the last few days about last month being the “hottest June” yet recorded and 2010 being on track likewise to be the hottest year. /.../ When, however, actual temperature readings reveal record cold, this apparently is not news. So it was in May, when much of Europe was experiencing unseasonably cold weather. Germany, for instance, was hit with major snowstorms in May. In the middle of the month, the German Weather Service quietly acknowledged that the country was experiencing record cold: some 3-5 degrees Celsius below the long-term averages. And so it was also last week, when the Georg von Neumayer polar research station on the Antarctic coast recorded the lowest temperature reading since the station was first established in 1981: minus 50.2 degrees Celsius. Unquote
  17. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul Barry.... I'm not an expert on Antarctic ice by any means but I believe the idea here is that summer sea ice loss in Antarctica is going to have very little net albedo change. The ice melts back pretty much to the continent as it is in the summer months. Whereas in the Arctic when sea ice melts we are left with open ocean, in the Antarctic we still have the Antarctic continent covered with ice and almost no net change in albedo.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - IR at greenhouse frequencies gets absorbed and re-emitted within about 100 meters. That means the surface is facing an atmospheric IR emitter at 14C, not -50C. The -50C is reached through atmospheric lapse rate temperature drop, until the altitude where lowering pressure reduces IR absorption enough to radiate to space. Now, realize that without the GHG absorption and emission at 14C we would instead be radiating those bands directly from the surface to space, which is (if you include microwave background radiation) at -269C? I suggest you think about sitting (a) in a room at 14C, then try (b) sitting in a cryo-fridge at -269C, and consider what kind of body temperature you could maintain in those two circumstances. Wear warm socks.
  19. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Thanks, CBDunkerson. That's one possible source of confusion out of the way. I have no desire to attack this article (the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, I believe) - but it is, unlike most articles I read in Skeptical Science, far from easy to follow. Again, this sentence is a bit of a non sequitur:"Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged." Is more sunlight not absorbed by the oceans when Antarctic sea-ice melts? Why not - the fact that it "normally melts each summer", as the above states, tells me nothing about why it is different to the Arctic - the arctic does the same, does it not? Why does this leave energy balance unchanged? Can somebody explain to me what I need to grasp to make this logical leap (or suggest a clearer way of expressing the above) Thanks in advance. Great site!
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #167 yocta you explain that CO2 etc, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb radiation in the IR band. I have never heard this disputed, do you think that those who question the GH effect actually question this? I certainly don't. Do you know that GHGs also radiate IR? The most common explanation for the GH effect is that this radiation causes the surface to get warmer somehow; this thread is about how GHGs which are between cold and very cold (-50C) in the upper atmosphere can warm Earth's surface which is normally between +30C and -30C. It is rather like claiming that if you are cold (+10C) you can get warm by taking your clothes off and hugging a snowman at -3C but much, much worse! The snowman hugger gets cold because his body heat, at 10C transfers to the colder (-3C) snowman, melting part of the snowman meanwhile making the hugger quite a few degrees colder. This is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about. The explanations of the IPCC claim that GHGs in the troposphere warm Earth's surface at 255K by 33K to 288K, that's a lot of warming!
  21. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981 (#140), "Over the 10 year lease, it roughly breaks even with what I would have paid otherwise to my electric utility, despite the fact that my house has very low energy consumption" Are there subsidies for the lease (i.e. is it based just on capital costs of the equipment)? Also how much are you being paid for the electricity that you don't use? Can you give us a comparison to peak and off peak wholesale and retail rates for your area? Thanks very much, I also have some solar for incidental use plus glass mat batteries for storage. No subsidies and not breaking even in the least. I did it just as a hobby.
  22. Renewable Baseload Energy
    From a European point of view, I think this discussion is lacking quite a lot. First, wind energy can cover much of base load when the generators are integrated over a sufficiently large area. Like a system of offshore wind power generators from Norther Norway to Portugal/Southern Spain. Simply put, the wind always blows _somewhere_, and the speeds needed for wind power generation are rather small - smaller than many think, I guess. Wind power is not so well suited for local generation as for integration in regional (world-wise) systems. Second, the potential role of hydro-electric power as equaliser is little investigated and even less exploited. In Europe, there is currently about 170 TWh magazine capacity, and in principle, this capacity could be utilized for a very high peak power output. Combined with pumping when wind and solar PV produces surplus energy, it is in principle possible to base a rather high total consumption entirely on wind, simple solar PV and hydro, provided wind and solar gives a sufficient and reliable output. Third, electrifying transport will both reduce the total energy consumption, make more "opportunistic" energy use possible (for instance switching between battery and fuel cells and coordination of domestic and transport energy use on household level), and free up lots of fossile fuels for co-generation, easing transition problems in the development of more sustainable energy systems. Fourth, the impact of ordinary PV is so far to a large degree unknown. The EU parliament has decides that within 10 years, all new EU houses shall be "plus-houses", over their life span generating more energy than they use. In most cases, this will probably imply both a tremendous focus on domestic energy-efficiency and a multiple eploitation of solar energy, both passively through building construction, and actively through PV and solar heating. There are several combinations possible, only starting to get into development and use now. Basically, when buildings are appropriately designed, most of heating needs in most of Europe can be covered by solar and heat pumps with rather high efficiency. There is no question whether the basic renewable technologies deliver. They do, and the challenge is to find good ways to optimize and integrate them.
  23. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    #31: "So, the increase of Antarctic sea ice " If by increase, you mean the vaguely positive trend in the red graph shown in the figure below (NSIDC): How do you spell 'not statistically significant'?
  24. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    So, the increase of Antarctic sea ice is also antropogenic? This looks like immunization of the AGW-theory. It does not matter which new evidence is found, it always supports the theory. When a theory reaches this stage, there is no need for further research. The billions of dollars can better be used to build dikes in Pakistan.
  25. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (76) Thanks for the link. Ironically, another sign of a warming world: when the Arctic Oscillation goes negative, the Arctic experiences above-normal temps, enhancing the overall ongoing warming there. The downside, of course, is Europe and the UK gets hit with the cold polar airmass displaced from the Pole. Source here. The Yooper
  26. It's not bad
    Daniel Bailey #74: Do you have sources for those "cold records"? I quote from Met Office: "Last night saw November minimum temperature records fall across the country. Most notably both Wales and Northern Ireland recorded the coldest November night since records began. In Wales, temperatures fell to -18.0 °C at Llysdinam, near Llandrindod Wells, Powys. Northern Ireland recorded -9.5 °C at Loch Fea." Or check he article for yourself: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101128.html
  27. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (73) You may wish to reconsider that wish for an additional 6 degrees (I assume you mean C). Here's the latest, which says we're on track for 4 degrees C - by the 2060s. This means the 2 degree C target for organizations like Copenhagen or 350.org or CO2Now is impossible. Maybe you're unfamiliar with what effects a 4 degree C rise will entail. Let me refresh your memory:
    "At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed, it could happen much earlier. (This reinforces the determination of many environmental groups, and indeed the entire EU, to bring us in within the two degrees target.) This moment comes as the hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities. No one knows how rapidly this might happen, or what its effect might be on global temperatures, but this scientific uncertainty is surely cause for concern and not complacency. The whole Arctic Ocean ice cap will also disappear, leaving the North Pole as open water for the first time in at least three million years. Extinction for polar bears and other ice-dependent species will now be a certainty. The south polar ice cap may also be badly affected – the West Antarctic ice sheet could lift loose from its bedrock and collapse as warming ocean waters nibble away at its base, much of which is anchored below current sea levels. This would eventually add another 5m to global sea levels – again, the timescale is uncertain, but as sea level rise accelerates coastlines will be in a constant state of flux. Whole areas, and indeed whole island nations, will be submerged. In Europe, new deserts will be spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara will have effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. In Switzerland, summer temperatures may hit 48C, more reminiscent of Baghdad than Basel. The Alps will be so denuded of snow and ice that they resemble the rocky moonscapes of today’s High Atlas – glaciers will only persist on the highest peaks such as Mont Blanc. The sort of climate experienced today in Marrakech will be experienced in southern England, with summer temperatures in the home counties reaching a searing 45C. Europe’s population may be forced into a “great trek” north."
     Remember that 2 degrees C means Middle Eastern summer temps for Europe and guarantees the eventual loss of the GIS and the South American glaciers. Three degrees C risks the loss of the Amazon to fire. Don't think for a second that it will stop there, at 4 degrees C. 4 by the 2060s means 6 by 2100 and an eventual methane clathrate/hydrate release. Think PETM... Beware of what you wish for. The Yooper
  28. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul Barry, it means southern hemisphere summer... so December. Nothing counter-intuitive. Ice in both hemispheres grows during the cold months and shrinks during the warm months.
  29. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (73) Do you have sources for those "cold records"? The Yooper
  30. It's not bad
    After 2-3 of months that you could call summer, and 3 months of autumn when it just gets progressively colder and darker, winter has now struck my home country (Sweden). Six degrees warmer would be very nice now (actually would be nice the whole year around), but it still would not take the temperature above freezing in Stockholm - and I don't have the time to wait for it another 100 years for it to happen... And with the present rate of 0.016 degrees per year the promised change would hardly be noticed. Yes, I know there are places on the earth where it is too hot, but it is hard to believe right now. New cold records were just set in Wales (-18C) and in Northern Ireland. In northern Sweden we have had temperatures around -30C for about a week already.
  31. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    I just have a question about the original post. I'd just like to get a clearer understanding of the following from the beginning of Robert's article which I may have completely misunderstood. It says: "Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged." Is the summer in Antartica in this case understood as December or June? Are you saying that most sea ice builds up during the warm months? If so, is there a simple explanation for this counter-intuitive phenomenon? Thanks for all the posts.
  32. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    dhogaza @74 Agreed. It would appear that UEA information compliance staff have been dealing with requests for information held by CRU from early 2007. The record for the request log starts from 2005 and the first entry is dated 25/1/07. I daresay there will be further discussion when the Information Commissioner publishes their Decision Notices relating to appeals.
  33. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    It seems that Robert & Camburn are a bit like ships passing in the night. The papers I've read give the EAIS barely detectable losses (or even not detectable losses), whilst WAIS loss is detected with good confidence. Which is what Camburn is saying. Overall, Antarctica is losing mass and most of this is from the WAIS. Most papers agree that overall there is net ice loss (e.g. Camburn's Allison et al) and it is a small portion of total loss. Which is what Robert is saying and Camburn isn't disagreeing with. The worry is that many models don't capture ice sheet breakup and in some increased precipitation outweighs it. Now it looks like ice sheet breakup is faster than models expect and as Robert pointed out, a 1% loss of Antarctic land ice would approximately double the IPCC sea level rise projections whilst Greenland is also falling apart more quickly than models expected. This supports the results of Vermeer & Rahmstorf etc and suggests the upper bound of sea level rise is probably 3-4 times larger than IPCC, 2007. Of course, maybe it's natural noise and that's what we should pray for.
  34. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981 #115 "This is a rebuttal of the 'skeptic' argument "Renewables can't provide baseload power". The gist of which is basically says it doesnt cut it. At least that's the overall impression you give. And with words like an "ideal world", it doesnt take much imagination to assume what real solutions involve. You cannot separate these two issues, as they intimately related. All designs, whehter buildings, cars, buses, planes, whatever, imply a finite number of people to board, occupy etc. As to what other posters have said, and no lack of sincerity, it is precisely the great energy associated with fossil fuels that led to the population explosion in the first place. So any plans about moving to alternate energy supplies without including some mention in consideration for stemming population are incomplete or at least appear very distorted.
  35. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually thoughtfull @145
    (so rounding out sailrick's comments - the French built 29GW nuclear in 10 years, USA built 18GW solar in two years - blow it out and we see that we could build 90GW in the time it took the French to build 29GW - and not have any nuclear waste to deal with). [wind may have some problems scaling, but hasn't shown any yet (run out of "good" wind, transmission lines, intermittent supply]
    Let's deconstruct this: 1. You are comparing the US economy now to France thirty years ago. Just what would the ratio of the two GDPs be? Well, lets have a look here GDP France 1985: $543 million GDP US 2005: $12,600 million The US economy in 2005 was over 23 times the size of the French economy during the nuclear build out! 2. Lets compare apples to apples. What exactly does 90 GW of solar mean? As the type of solar is not specified, lets just call the capacity factor 20%, which is pretty generous for PV and lets call the capacity factor for nuclear 85%. So we "normalize" the capacity of the actual French 29 MWe nuclear to a notional value of 24.6 MW continuous and the US 90 GW solar to 18GW continuous. In other words, per unit of GDP, France built nuclear power (24.6 / 18) * (12,600 / 543) = (1.36 * 23) = 31 times faster per unit of GDP than the US is deploying solar. If anything this comparison flatters solar as it is not truly baseload. Your quote does not show what you think it does.
  36. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Bibliovermis #114 "Anthropogenic waste heat contributes 1% of the warming" OK, so instead of changes within 100 years it will take 1000. The problem remains.... no to mention all that spent nuclear fuel. The only thing that does make sense is the implied assumption that by then people will not continue to be fooled by all this tommy rot.
  37. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @147 actually thoughtfull at 17:28 PM on 29 November, 2010 >> me: "However I maintain that nuclear is not only the cheaper option than the presented alternatives (nuclear electricity in the US is actually the cheapest one, cheaper than coal right now), but that is the only one which can get the job done at the scale necessary to replace coal/gas (and eventually oil with electric cars)." > I provided facts a few pages ago that refute the claim that nuclear is cheaper than coal, gas or wind. I said: "Nuclear electricity in the US is actually the cheapest one, cheaper than coal right now." See the plot which demonstrates this: http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/US-Electricity-Production-Costs-1995-2008.png Obviously, this is due to the fact that most of these nuclear plants were build decades ago, and are largely amortized by now. The hotly debated subject is the cost of the new plants in the US, for which we only have various estimates, not real life data. (I should add that the single plant in construction in the US is indeed on schedule and on budged, so far.) > While some of your points are valid - fixating on nuclear at the exclusion of renewables simply doesn't make sense. Having nuclear in the mix makes sense. Having nuclear as the only option does NOT make sense. I agree. In particular I don't want to get rid of existing hydro (~8% of US electricity), and I think there are places for wind, solar, geothermal etc., but I do not think they will ever constitute more than few percent each in the overall mix. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything persuasive yet, or at the horizon :)
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @122 Nick Palmer at 10:53 AM on 29 November, 2010 > Oh dear. Perhaps Quokka does not comprehend what the word "directly" implies? Perhaps Q can tell us what will prevent an unscrupulous regime (see below) from using ordinary chemical separation methods to separate and purify the mixed actinides? I do not think it would be great idea to export solid fueled fast breeders (FBRs) to "unscrupulous regimes", I actually suggested DMSR for such purposes, where all the elements (U and Pu in particular) are kept at weapons-useless levels at all times, so chemical separation would not do a thing. (LEU; Pu with a large part of 238, 240, and 242 isotopes, so that a weapon physically cannot be constructed out of it in any way). However, there is a larger issue than that: this is not up to us (or US) to decide anymore. India is building their indigenous FBRs, China is building FBRs using the Russian design, Japan restarted their own FBR prototype this year, South Korea is developing an FBR for export. Us (or US) had already lost its technological leadership in this area, and consequently lost the control over who buys this technology. There is a small chance that US could develop something so much better than FBRs, such as the molten salt reactors - LFTR and DMSR-like, that other countries (in particular the "unscrupulous regime" ones) would voluntarily decided to avoid FBRs, and used proliferation and tamper proof US designs, but as it stands now this is not much likely. In particular as far as the "unscrupulous regimes" are concerned. *** Please do understand this very clearly: nuclear weapons are over 60 years old technology, physics and chemistry of which is well known and documented in textbooks and other public sources, including detailed blueprints of tested working designs. This may sound disagreeable and scary, but it has been a fact of life for some time by now. Any country which decides to pay the material and political price to develop them - will, if it has nuclear power reactors of any kind or not. Even the isolated and starving North Korea did exactly that! (NK has zero power reactors). If the US or Europe builds PWRs, FBRs, or any other reactors, it does not change the above any bit in any way. Claiming otherwise is maintaining dangerously mistaken and even somewhat arrogant attitude, which has already been decisively demonstrated as FALSE by the example of the starving and isolated North Korea. *** # >> "However most people live in places which already have nuclear weapons, so even if the "plutonium economy" was a reality, this does not add to weapons proliferation in any way." > Really? You just haven't thought about the way the world works enough. Oh thank you! Did you notice that large majority of the poeple you talked about live (and will live) in China and India, both of which already have nuclear weapons? For countries where one is worried about possible weapons proliferation, there is DMSR. This would not stop any determined rogue nation (as the easiest way to produce nuclear weapons does not involve any power reactors, but small and special low flux reactors which do not produce any electricity), but it would set our hearts free that we don't provide them with any conceivable avenue for proliferation. Despite what I wrote above, this seems to be a political necessity nowadays, and it is well feasible technologically, so not a big deal. > You're assuming that all these newly developing nations will choose the tech that you have faith in, rather than a tech that can be used to siphon off fissile material. Why do pro-nuke shills have such a childlike, but dangerous, faith in the innate goodness and morals of megalomaniac dictators? 1) Please keep your ad-hominem attacks to minimum, it is not that funny. 2) Megalomaniac dictators or any other rulers do not need any nuclear power reactors to produce their weapon-grade plutonium, as neither USA nor USSR nor India nor even starving North Korea needed any to begin with. Perhaps you forgot that nuclear weapons predate nuclear power reactors. Suggesting that commercial nuclear power plants aid proliferation of nuclear weapons in any way is incorrect, at odds with facts of recent history, and perhaps even dangerously delusional: In an energy starved world the probability for a regime to turn unscrupulous, and put together some graphite and uranium slugs, is much higher than in a world with plentiful, on-demand, scalable, economic, and clean power. [There are efficient ways of limiting proliferation of weapons, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion.] # > France has 60 million people and 60 nukes. A back of the envelope calculation speculation shows that if we were to power the world in 2050 with the universal European living standards needed to stabilise population - with the same size plant as France currently has - we would have to have around 9,000 nukes spread out in every one of the 200 countries in the world. Better pray that they are all run by selfless saints... I very much agree with you concerning stabilizing of the world population. 9000 GWe of nuclear capacity sounds about right. Thanks for bringing up the example of France. Most of their reactors were built within about two decades, demonstrating we can actually switch over to non-fossil sources in this rather short time frame using nuclear power. The similar experiment was done by other countries deploying wind/solar sources (Denmark, Austria, Germany, Spain), in some cases for about he same time of two decades. A brief look at where the electricity comes from in these countries, along with the respective gCO2/kWh (which I already posted earlier), clearly demonstrates which of these two approaches actually achieves the stated goals of eliminating CO2-intensive electricity generation, and reduces the emissions. BTW: Since when exactly is France being run by selfless saints? Or India, China, South Korea, Japan, US, Switzerland, Sweden, UK, ...?
  39. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Camburn's statement about the trashing of Steig (2009) is incorrect. It was attacked, unsuccessfully, by Steve McIntyre. There's a decent review, including a post by Steig, from the period - here:- http://www.masterresource.org/2009/01/the-buzz-about-antarctica/
  40. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    In my opinion it's not the March and September ice distributions that are important. For energy balance, it's the amount and distribution of ice at the height of summer that we should focus on, rather than the extent or area at the end of the melt season. So what's happening to Antarctic ice in December? Also, Tamino recently had a post about sea ice in which he mentioned Antarctic sea ice, although recently increasing, was previously much less. I haven't seen this mentioned on any of the other blogs I follow. I'm looking forward to his follow up on that. Congrats on the progress you've made on the basic versions. Cheers.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Again I am getting accused of denying the existence of back-radiation, saying CO2 is no green house gas and for my incorrect understanding of physics as well as refusing to accept science. I thought of having gained some patience during 60 years, but now it is wearing really thin. So far I have taken on any concrete counter argument and refuted it with evidence. So far I did not recognize that someone offered evidence for his counter arguments which makes the whole event somewhat lopsided. Nevertheless I tried and hopefully managed to keep calm and polite. But having to deal any other reply with, as it meanwhile seems, wilfully misreadings or misinterpretations of what I wrote is getting at my nerves. Then there are explanations like that of yocta, really helpful. It is as if you go to your car mechanic and ask him why the cylinder-head of your vehicle broke and he answers with a detailed description on the metallurgic composition of the cylinder-head. I'm too old for this crap. Good bye.
  42. actually thoughtful at 17:28 PM on 29 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    "However I maintain that nuclear is not only the cheaper option than the presented alternatives (nuclear electricity in the US is actually the cheapest one, cheaper than coal right now), but that is the only one which can get the job done at the scale necessary to replace coal/gas (and eventually oil with electric cars)." I provided facts a few pages ago that refute the claim that nuclear is cheaper than coal, gas or wind. While some of your points are valid - fixating on nuclear at the exclusion of renewables simply doesn't make sense. Having nuclear in the mix makes sense. Having nuclear as the only option does NOT make sense. Indeed, given the well known, discussed here already negatives of nuclear - it makes more sense to work renewables until you hit a stopping point (at least a decade away unless we suddenly get serious about it). If we can push the envelope of renewables and not add any more nuclear - the world will be a better (and cheaper!) place to be. That said, in the US at least, we should start a few nuclear plants now - it takes over a decade to get one going (being charitable - I am in AZ - the home of mesa verde - check it out - what a disaster) and we may need a few in the 2020s. Also, read my post just above yours - US is building wind at the rate of 90GW per decade. That crosses out your argument that only nuclear can scale fast enough.
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @120 MattJ at 10:39 AM on 29 November, 2010 > The flimsiest is your claim that all these technologies were abandoned because they were too expensive. No this was not the crux of my argument. It was that these technologies do not scale due to fundamental limitations which I discussed, the price being just one of them. I was complaining that natgas burners with compressed air storage (CAES) are incorrectly presented as a renewable, without even mentioning the necessity of burning the gas. I was complaining that the environmental impacts, which already did kill several projects of the kind mentioned, were not considered. I was complaining that EV battery storage is not feasible due to battery technology we have. I was complaining that the largest, the most efficient (at the scale of hundreds of MWs), and so far the cheapest electricity storage technology at this scale - pumped hydro - was not even mentioned in the article. > You must have been living in a cave all these years. The whole POINT of the switch to low-carbon, renewable sources is that once the TRUE cost of carbon emission is taken into account, no, they are NOT too expensive. On the contrary: it is sticking with carbon that is far, far too expensive. I agree, and I would add that it is not only the cost of carbon (dioxide) emissions which should be factored in, but the cost of other externalities/emissions as well. Coal in particular produces quantifiable externalities of about $8/MWh according to EU study ExternE - http://www.externe.info/ This is about the price of the coal electricity itself! However I maintain that nuclear is not only the cheaper option than the presented alternatives (nuclear electricity in the US is actually the cheapest one, cheaper than coal right now), but that is the only one which can get the job done at the scale necessary to replace coal/gas (and eventually oil with electric cars). @121 MattJ at 10:43 AM on 29 November, 2010 I agree that the Indian way with solid fueled fast breeders is not optional, and there is a much better, safer way, the molten salt reactors, actually developed in the US. This talk is a brief primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk Gore details here: http://energyfromthorium.com/ Concerning thorium - to power the whole civilization on thorium one would need to fission about 7 000 tonnes per year in a LFTR-type of reactor. Thorium is chemically similar to rare earth elements (REE), so it is often collocated with REE. As of now, there is no economic value in thorium, actually it presents an obnoxious waste which REE extraction has to deal with, therefore many places where the is a lot of thorium admixture are avoided. I asked a friend of mine who is in REE business, and he said that if there was any positive value of thorium, nearly all of the needed 7000 t/y (to power the whole planet), would be extracted as byproducts from existing scale of REE mining... The point here is that thorium is not an Indian specific thing. Actually the reason is the opposite: every large enough country has plenty of thorium, but India had very little uranium, and due to its opposition to NNPT used to be (until very recently) considered as a bad boy country which nobody could sell uranium (or other nuclear tech) into.
  44. actually thoughtful at 17:10 PM on 29 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    I started out wondering the average size of a nuclear plant (1GW). I found this article - a great rundown on wind, solar and nuclear output (we ALREADY have wind output in the USthat equals US + France total nuclear output!) http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1178&Itemid=204 The power of using technology we have now! (so rounding out sailrick's comments - the French built 29GW nuclear in 10 years, USA built 18GW solar in two years - blow it out and we see that we could build 90GW in the time it took the French to build 29GW - and not have any nuclear waste to deal with). [wind may have some problems scaling, but hasn't shown any yet (run out of "good" wind, transmission lines, intermittent supply]
  45. actually thoughtful at 16:50 PM on 29 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka - how can you be in favor of nuclear but against a beefed up grid? It just doesn't compute. I am not arguing for starting an electron's flow in the Keys of FL and sending it to Anchorage, AK, then back to the Keys. But any non-stone age future for mankind will rely more heavily on electricity. You want to rule out local use (ie solar PV on rooftops, backyard wind). So we will have, in your world, larger plants. In the absence of a beefed up grid - how will you pull that off? In the presence of a beefed up grid - why can't renewables benefit? I am not sure if you have created a straw man (renewables don't need a better grid) or a logical fallacy (nuclear doesn't need a better grid). It is hard to envision any future that doesn't include a much more reliable, smarter, more robust electrical grid. In fact, the only way to avoid that is to go whole hog on backyard wind and solar - and be willing to forgo lights, heat, internet, etc from time to time when no one locally is adding any power to the grid. Now, once you have backyard solar/wind, and you throw in some CSP, utility wind and some of these grid storage concepts (some are proof of concept, some are done already, some are possible now due to materials sciences advances not available when the grid was first developed, some are clever ideas no one thought of before (and many more ideas will come into being once we put a rational price on carbon)) - THEN you could potentially make do with smaller grid interconnects. But you will have them anyways because in between those two times you have a period when you need to be able to move electricity around long distances. And when you factor in that wind rules the heartland, and solar the southwest, and many loads are in the NE and West - you can see that a stronger grid is a MUST - no matter which vision of the future comes into being. PS - I was thinking perhaps you meant that King Island is not a city, rather than disputing its location. The 2007 population was 1,723 according to Wikipedia. So providing power for 50% of that through grid storage is pretty cool. Maybe we should be thinking in units of 2,000 people. I am somewhat tongue in cheek here, but also quite serious that it will take new approaches in thinking to bring about a successful carbon free future. It isn't just replace coal with nuclear, next problem please. Renewables are different, and the more local they are, the more power you have over your energy destiny - which I think is a notable improvement over greedily sucking on the electric utility teat.
  46. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Regarding nuclear, while it may be a necessary part of the overall solution, I think Nick Palmer @ 122 has some good points. What I always question, is not so much the technology, but human nature. Human error, whether of the willful sort, as in terrorism, or unwitting sort. We've all seen plenty of examples of the latter, in the fossil fuel industry and to a lesser extent with nuclear. And there has been some of the former, like Saddam Hussein setting fire to the oil wells in Kuwait, and stolen nuclear materials from the former USSR. KajL "In France they built 29 nuclear power plants in just 10 years." In the U.S. over 18 GW of wind energy were built in two years. 2008-2009 And the French don't know what to do with the waste any more than we do.
  47. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @124 Marcus at 11:18 AM on 29 November, 2010 > What we see, though, is that China's "cheap" nuclear power stations are the exception, not the rule. Actually the same cheap nuclear plants have been built recently in countries as different as Japan, India, South Korea, and even the Czech Republic. This shows that there is nothing expensive with nuclear fission energy as such, but the problem is in the way nuclear plants are "built by lawyers" in the US. There is clearly an effect of economy of "mass" production, that is after several few plants are build many issues get ironed out, everyone knows what to do etc., which lacks in most places in the West right now after the decades of no new nuclear builds. Even that is hard to justify the difference, in particular considering the costs such as the completely new nuclear plants in UAE build by Koreans. See here for some relevant info, pages 74-77: http://www.asmeconferences.org/ICONE16/pdfs/NewPlantsBeBuilt.pdf
  48. Renewable Baseload Energy
    "grand plans for renewables require very significantly expanded grids with large deployment of new HVDC transmission lines. Precisely to avail themselves of spacial smoothing" One of my points was that renewables can also enable spatial smoothing, by contributing to the grid, particularly large scale solar thermal following the load. If you don't have to fire up a peaker gas plant because you have some saved up energy from wind or solar, isn't that contributing to the grid and reducing emissions? Or do you think it all just flows toward backing up the renewable sources? Solar mostly provides power when you need it most.
  49. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn #127 - "A lot of posts on this topic show that co2 is not an immenent threat to climate at all." Funny, I haven't seen a single example of this. Perhaps you're seeing what you want to see. "There are leakage losses with long line transmission no matter what current tech is used." High voltage direct current lines only lose about 3% per 1,000 km. "PV on a roof sounds noble, but in reality is expensive per kwh. The rich folks can do this and feel good." I'm not rich by any means, but I've leased PV for my roof. Over the 10 year lease, it roughly breaks even with what I would have paid otherwise to my electric utility, despite the fact that my house has very low energy consumption. And PV prices continue to drop. "There has to be baseload generating stations." That's what the article is about.
  50. Renewable Baseload Energy
    johnd Thanks for the response. I get what you are saying. I don't think there's any one size fits all solution utilizing CSP. Each power company would decide how best to use it to suit their needs. One company may just want CSP for peak demand, without the heat storage, while another may have a different situation that calls for heat storage. Another power company may choose to couple CSP with natural gas, if it better suits their needs. Storing heat is far more efficient and cheaper than storing power in batteries. In the areas most likely to have CSP built, it is a good match, since the biggest nearby demands are in summer for air conditioning. And it is possible to build enough heat storage into a CSP plant to run all night, if that is what you need. It should also be possible to add heat storage to an existing parabolic trough CSP plant at a later date, if deemed worthwhile, or needed. Long story short, I don't think its an either or question of CSP with heat storage verses storing hydro power, or other alternatives. We'll likely need all this and more. Same goes for the PV verses centralized CSP argument that I hear sometimes. We need them both IMO, distributed as well as utility scale solar. All in all, I still think CSP is a very versatile and useful technology. But thanks for showing me the utility of using hydro as storage, particularly over long periods of time. The nine NREL pilot plants in the Mojave Desert were orignally built with heat storage. I believe oil was used, maybe water. They were able to provide power to SoCal cities in the evening, when demand is still pretty high. Of course, molten salt is a much more efficient storage medium. They were later converted to co-firing with gas, not because the heat storage wasn't working, but because they wanted to experiment with co-firing gas, and couldn't do both. If permitting and such goes well, there are 15 GW of solar thermal ready to be built in the southwest, which is not a bad start. There is about 6 GW already undederway if my memory serves. That at least partially answers quokka's question about solar replacing coal. I'm not saying it has resulted in coal plants being shut down, but 15GW is equivalent to about 23 coal plants at avg. nameplate generating capacity. (650 MW coal plants) or roughly - 6.46 coal plants @28% capacity factor for solar thermal, 11.5 coal plants @50% cpacity factor for solar thermal with heat storage. Lets call it 7 and 12, since I didn't adjust for coal's less than 100% capacity factor. :-) CSP plants can be up and running in three years, or less, from inception. It's biggest drawback is that it's captial intensive up front.

Prev  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us