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  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  Next

Comments 102951 to 103000:

  1. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Kaj L @103... Waste is not a problem? It seems to currently be a problem. I gotta say, anyone who claims that ANY solution is a panacea is not serious. These are very complex issues for all the potential solutions. It's going to require encouraging all potential solutions in order to effectively address the issues we face.
  2. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Alexandre #92 - the air car is basically just a less efficient electric car. It's a little cheaper for the timebeing, but it will lose that sole advantage as batteries become cheaper. As a general comment, this article really has nothing to do with nuclear power, and it's kind of aggravating that the comments have been hijacked into a nuclear argument. It's hard to resist, because people are making incorrect statements about nuclear power, and then moving the goalposts so that the argument keeps going. But this really isn't the place to be arguing about nuclear power. Please stick to the topic on hand, which is the ability of renewable energy to provide baseload power, and whether it's even necessary.
  3. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Mikel @69, Thanks. Again, good points. One has to understand that in this case there was a history of people from ClimateAudit requesting information that was (freely) available elsewhere, which ClimateAudit knew CRU were not entitled to release, and even removing data from CRU servers (without permission). Also, the sheer volume of the requests in such a short time indicates that the requests were not legitimate, not to mention the fact that they were all for the same number of stations, many from overseas and at least one request provided no contact details. This is beyond suspicious, especially when one applies context. Given that you are familiar with the ins and outs of the legalities, is there any recourse for UEA/CRU to pursue action (legal or otherwise) against those people known to have orchestrated the requests under discussion? Surely, the FoIA has to be streamlined to strongly discourage such behaviour in the future?
  4. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Folks, Just a heads up that user tt23 may not be the most reliable or reality-based source of information on energy, especially as it relates to nuclear and renewables - although it looks like several of you have worked that out already! One of his classics: "Wind and solar are proven as hypes." He's like the energy equivalent of Anthony Watts. ;)
  5. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Re: Kaj L (103)
    "the waste is not a problem"
     Seriously? Channeling your inner Lang, I see. The Yooper
  6. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Albatross @68 "Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work?" This particular post on this blog has FOI as it's topic and I'll answer the question from that perspective. FoIA/EIR/DPA give individuals the right of access to information. These rights do not come with any obligation to do anything with the information obtained. Any request for information does not have to include any indication of use. Moreover, those dealing with requests are not entitled to ask what use the requester intends, even though that may assist us in helping them with their request. We are expected to provide advice and assistance and we are entitled to seek clarification if it is not clear what information is required. It is not for us to judge whether the information provided has any value. I appreciate that those, including scientists, may find this irksome for their valuable and hard won information to be released in this manner, which is one of the many reasons why professional staff should be used to deal with these requests. Objectivity is essential.
  7. Renewable Baseload Energy
    You could power the whole world with nuclear power for thousands of years. There is plenty of uranium and thorium, and the waste is not a problem. To understand the whole potential of nuclear power, a good place to start is this: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/16/ifr-spm/ Look also "For further reading". We can compare for example wind to nuclear. In France they built 29 nuclear power plants in just 10 years. That was enough to get the same power capacity as with the wind power in the whole world in the same time. http://wp.me/pbZwh-wN There are plenty of pure nonsense out there about nuclear power. The same kind as there are about climate change. You could ask, do they have something in common? Who will benefit of climate inaction and from keeping nuclear out of the business? Hmm...just thinking...
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m @173 Your original point was, as I paraphrased at @152: Since GHG's absorb in the visible (as well as the infra-red), doesn't increasing the concentration mean that the earth receives less energy because the subsequent emission of that radiation scatters some of it into space - back radiation on incoming EM which thus goes into space. To answer to this in @161 you derived two numbers that measured the total visible absorption by the atmosphere of incoming EM by all gases in the atmosphere and the absorption of outgoing IR radiation by only GHGs. Since the numbers the first number was slightly smaller than the first, you then concluded that the magnitude of the difference was small: [Quote from @161] So, yes you are right, the green house house effect is stronger on outgoing radiation though I hardly assume the magnitude of the difference satisfied your strong wording. But the "magnitude of the difference" is not valid because you are not comparing like for like.
  9. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Mikel @66, Thanks for that information. And a question that caerbannog asked is worth repeating: "Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work?" The answer? Nothing of course-- because they were clearly not interested in the data, but rather harassing UEA/CRU in their ongoing vendetta against the scientists there.
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, greenhouse gases absorb 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.
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Camburn (#99): why is it an "either/or" choice? Why does it have to be nuclear, but not nuclear combined to wind and PVs (including from small independent producers, i.e. individuals who sell back power to the utility companies)? "It is time to stop arguing and get moving." It's not the PV/Wind/CPS/Nuclear debate that is slowing things down, but the anti-AGW propaganda pushed by conservative think tanks that are financed by Oil interests, such as the Koch brothers. Our Energy Strategy needs to be multi-pronged: solar (both CPS and PVs), Wind, Geothermal, Tidal Power, Nuclear *and* (to a very limited degree) fossil fuels, at least in the first couple of decades. One of the solutions is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and start transferring those sums to renewables/alternatives.
  12. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Camburn: "This topic is about renewables/alternatives. We can discuss co2 sensativity on another thread." I'm just trying to figure out your position, here. If you don't believe in AGW, why do you care about renewables/alternatives? The only way this would make sense is if you're taking a contrary position on principle, i.e. you will oppose whatever appears to be the most supported position out of a desire for confrontation... Just tell me if you agree with the following statement, which is completely on-topic: "We need to curb our CO2 emmissions, and thus must seriously consider renewables and other energy alternatives." A simple yes or no will sufffice.
  13. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: "If you want to see what is achievable, watch China in the next few years with the construction of standardized designs and increasing engineering experience." The same China who is also putting billions in renewables, to bring them to a level of output similar to their planned NPPs? It seems like the Chinese agree with me and others here, i.e. Nuclear is part of the solution, but far from the only solution.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, my calculations assume nothing except what I wrote they assume which is 1. the assumption that differences between TOA and surface provide a measurement for the green house effect and 2. that the numbers from Trenberth's diagram are reliably correct. Following your argument the first assumption should be incorrect but then I am the wrong man to point your critique at.
  15. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Regarding the data that "skeptics" had demanded access to via FOI requests, it turns out that all of that data had been available to them all along. The data that the CRU refused to release was available for the asking (and signing of nondisclosure agreements) from the organizations that actually owned said data. Now, given the skeptics actions (FOI demands, etc.), one would get the impression that they *really* wanted the data in question and were "chomping at the bit" to do some real work verifying the CRU's published results. Now, can anyone here point to even *one* legitimate research result produced by the "skeptics" who had been pestering the CRU? Mind you, the skeptics have had access to all the data and information they needed to conduct independent checks on the CRU's work, and they've had access to the data/information for *years*. Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work? It's not like you guys haven't had enough time (you've had full access to all the data you've needed for *years*). It's not like you don't have access low-cost computing resources. Hardware these days is dirt cheap, and all of the software that you need is available for free (i.e. Linux, GCC/G++, SciLab, R, etc. etc.). So given all the data, time, and computing resources that you have had at your fingertips for *years*, what have you guys actually done?
  16. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    @KL: " I have never claimed that they had no case - but that the case is more or less exaggerated." Yes, and you have been unable to demonstrate any such exaggeration. It's clear you are here for political reasons, i.e. to continue to muddy the waters and delay any action on AGW. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to figure this out the first time I read one of your posts...
  17. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Use your imagination: The year is 2020. Compromise was effected in the year 2010. (I am talking only the US here) We look out on our vast nation with pride. CPS is being utilized, within practical restraints in the South West. The rest of the country is being supplied with electricity from regional nuclear. Co2 emissions are virtually nill for each kw of elec produced. By using regional nuclear, a huge infrastructure of new power lines has been eliminated. Scenerio 2: It is the year 2020. People are still arguing that pv/wind is the solution. co2 is being emitted with each kw of elec produced. The solution is before us folks. It is time to stop arguing and get moving.
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    yocta, in my post #148 my question was "what specifically makes green house gases so special". Which means: What effects do green house gases produce that other gases don't? I am sorry and apologize if my initial phrasing led to any misunderstanding. When you state at the beginning of your post you are going to answer the question "Why is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" clearly indicates some sort of misunderstanding must have taken place.
  19. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Some further legal clarifications, seeing as some commenters persist in making inaccurate statements. Firstly, in the UK, a person is presumed innocent of an offence until proved guilty in a court of law. As far as I can ascertain, the only police investigation is into the access to the CRU server and I presume that this could result in a charge under the Computer Misuse Act. I am not aware of any investigation into an offence under the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner (ICO) has stated that the time limit has expired for any prosecution under Regulation 19 of the EIR or Section 77 under the Freedom of Information Act. The ICO has therefore ruled out any investigation as to whether an offence under R19 or S 77 has been committed. The Muir Russell report stated that "we have seen no evidence to delete information in respect of a request already made." Conclusion: Professor Jones stays innocent. Incidentally, the law may be changed to remove the time limit and the ICO will be more circumspect in dealing with the media! Whether others think the requests were "vexatious" or manifestly unreasonable, UEA did not reject those requests on that basis. The clear inference is that the requests, as far as UEA was concerned and they would be the ones affected, did not fall under those exemptions. UEA/CRU sought permission to release the data from those supplying it and only withheld the specific data when permission was denied.
  20. Renewables can't provide baseload power
    I believe the answer to utility scale electricity storage is at http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid-scale-electricity-storage.html Pumped Hydro Storage is generally accepted as the best way of storing electricity. The problem is you need a mountain and mountains are usually (and quite rightly) stoutly defended by the environmental lobby. Gravity Power ticks all the pumped storage boxes PLUS it can be sited almost anywhere with minimal environmental issues. It can store GW scale power over hours or even days if necessary and at a fraction of the cost of traditional PHS. It can be used as load follower or peaking plant and it can mitigate for the variability of wind and solar.
  21. Renewable Baseload Energy
    archiesteel@82: This topic is about renewables/alternatives. We can discuss co2 sensativity on another thread. Thank you
  22. Renewable Baseload Energy
    quokka wrote : "If you have some evidence of unsafe practices in the construction of Chinese NPPs then out with it. Otherwise these type of comments belong in the "doubt is our business" bin." Not wishing to go any further off-topic, all I have to say is that if you have to try to ignore the problems involved with Chinese construction projects generally (especially low wages and less concern for regulations), then you just want to ignore any problem (especially political, and those to do with waste-disposal) just so you can say that nuclear is the answer come-what-may. It isn't - it is part of the answer but not one that we should rely on to a greater extent than renewables as a whole. Maybe your comments belong in the "complete faith in my business" bin ?
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m @161 Your calculations are not correct because they assume that scattering of incoming UV-visible EM and outgoing IR are done by the same molecules in the atmosphere. The largest contributor to scattering UV-visible light is, in fact, Ozone (O3) which is contributing a substantial proportion of your 1.48 figure. You are, in effect, comparing apples with oranges.
  24. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    There's a paper in JGR Oct 2010 Associations of diurnal temperature range change with the leading climate variability modes during the Northern Hemisphere wintertime and their implication on the detection of regional climate trends. Qigang Wu doi:10.1029/2010JD014026 While claiming to measure part of the DTR as coming from external forcing (anthropogenic or natural - no claim here of a human fingerprint) they assign most of the Tmax and Tmin warming trend and the decreasing DTR trend to by internal climate variability modes. Here's their numbers "Approximately 87%, 76%, and 43% of the total Tmax, Tmin, and DTR trends over NH land are accounted for by the three climate indices together [AO,PNA,PDO], respectively; these numbers drop to about 13%, 38%, and 62% represented by the AAO index over the SH land. At the global scale, 1.41 K of 1.60 K [88%] of warming of Tmax, 1.64 K of the 2.02 K [81%] warming of Tmin, 0.25 K of 0.43 K [58%] of cooling of the DTR during JFM of 1951–2000 is linearly congruent with the indices of four circulation modes considered here." (I added the square brackets)
  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Wow, yocta" Double-plus good job! Here are some illustrations of the CO2 molecule's vibrational modes.
  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    addendum to yocta @167 Its also true that the asymmetric isotopic variants of O2 and N2 absorb ever-so slightly in the IR: N14-N15 for example. This is because the stretching vibration becomes ever so slightly asymmetric because of the differing weights of the two nuclei. Because the dipole moment change is so small, and the proportion of isotopes so small, and the frequencies at which these vibrations occur is outside the range of "earthlight" their contribution to the GHE is effectively zero. Nevertheless there was one contributor to this site trying to argue the case a few months back :-(
  27. The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
    PC #158 Physics based models still make a host of assumptions. All the forcings used to calculate the TOA imbalances have variably wide error bars. eg: Cloud albedo and the reflectivity of the planet is assumed to be about 30% of the imcoming TSI. What if this is 1% in error ie. 29.7 to 30.3% - that alone accounts for 1.0W/sq.m and either doubles of wipes out the current estimated TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m Can you then cycle your 'physics' based models 50 years (or 600 months) and still assume that reflection is 30% in every cycling? Again a 1% error in this factor alone would end up at 64% if cycled 50 times. ie. 1.01^50 = 1.64 A simple example but input this into a difference or sum equation and the result could be vastly amplified.
  28. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Agnostic (#83) Geothermal has one caveat which is sustaining the heat since the cooled water must be pumped back down into the formation. What it means is that each geothermal design is unique and somewhat unpredictable. "Injecting this water in the right place at the right depth is the most critical component of the project, to assure long-term viability of the project." http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/
  29. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    archiesteel #100 "Uh, by analyzing it? I mean, that is the logical thing to do. On the other hand, if we were to apply your logic to professional climate deniers like Singer, Lindzen, Watts and McIntyre - who have been shown to be wrong over and over again - then none of them should have *any* credibility left, and you should criticize them as much as you do actual climate scientists." Thats exactly what we are doing here - analysing the science as 'modestly informed' non-expert professionals. I don't rely on Singer, Lindzen, Watts or McIntyre for information - although I have read some of their stuff it is not for some time. In fact I have not looked at WUWT for months. There is more than enough grist to be milled in these threads. It is much more satisfying examining the AGW (via CO2GHG) protagonists arguments and seeing if they are internally consistent and fit with other AGW data. I have never claimed that they had no case - but that the case is more or less exaggerated.
  30. Renewable Baseload Energy
    JMurphy
    Amazing what you can do with cheap labour and a government that decides what laws (especially health and safety ones) can be disregarded for the sake of the party/country. Perhaps you want the UK, USA, etc. to do the same, but this time for the good of the free-market ? Or shall we buy off Russia too, if it's going to be cheaper ?
    If you have some evidence of unsafe practices in the construction of Chinese NPPs then out with it. Otherwise these type of comments belong in the "doubt is our business" bin. Or you could look at the costs of Sth Korean reactors which are only a little higher cost than the Chinese ones in domestic builds. Yes, I think buying NPPs from China may well be a serious possibility with ten years and quite possibly in as little as five years. One of the preferred Chinese designs is the Westinghouse AP-1000 Generation III+ advanced pressurized water reactor which the Chinese have acquired the intellectual property rights to. If you are in the market for NPPs then you could a lot worse than this design.
  31. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @88 The Ville at 20:44 PM on 28 November, 2010 Please do read the law by yourself. It states clearly the vendor has to pay the government, in order for the govt. to guarantee the loan in case of regulation or litigation delaying construction etc. If the issue is under the sponsor's (the plant owner's/vendor's) control, there is _no_ guarantee. Here is a link for your convenience: Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 638 http://www.ne.doe.gov/doclibrary/epact2005.html
  32. Renewable Baseload Energy
    I would like to bring your attention to the following peer reviewed paper which was just published: "Nuclear is the least-cost, low-carbon, baseload power source" http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/28/nuclear-is-the-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source/
  33. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Great post, thanks Dana. There are two seemingly far-fetched solutions that I've been following up for some time. Can anyone tell me how viable or realistic they are? Or are they just a crock? Solar tower - Air is heated by the sun over an area in the ground, then forced to rise convectively through a huge chimney, rotating a turbine on the way up. Compressed air car - compressed air is stored in a tank with very high pressure, then it's released to move a piston motor.
  34. Renewable Baseload Energy
    quokka wrote : "If you want to see what is achievable, watch China in the next few years with the construction of standardized designs and increasing engineering experience." Amazing what you can do with cheap labour and a government that decides what laws (especially health and safety ones) can be disregarded for the sake of the party/country. Perhaps you want the UK, USA, etc. to do the same, but this time for the good of the free-market ? Or shall we buy off Russia too, if it's going to be cheaper ?
  35. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus @79
    Oh dear Quokka, the point is that you can build renewable energy plants at a much smaller size, with no loss of overall efficiency, to meet the needs of smaller geographical areas-especially if coupled with effective storage systems & a decent back-up base-load supply (i.e. biomass gas/natural gas). So the spatial distribution needed for renewable energy is not nearly as great as you claim, & certainly much less than the geographic area required by most centralized power plants.
    You are either exceedingly ill informed or being disingenuous. All the of the grand plans for renewables require very significantly expanded grids with large deployment of new HVDC transmission lines. Precisely to avail themselves of spacial smoothing. This is what the leading renewables advocates are saying. Don't believe me? - then go and read the ZCA2020 plan.
  36. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus @80 and @81 The IEA 2010 report tabulates the overnight costs and LCOE for nuclear power for most nations with NPPs. The overnight costs vary from $1,763 per kWe (China CPR-1000) to $5,858 per kWe. (Czech Rep). http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/09/ieaoecd-projected-nuclear-costs-for-14.html These are the figures used to compile the IEA report. Notice the overnight costs and LCOE costs for China, Sth Korea and Japan. If you are truly interested in the actual costs in Asia, rather than rambling on about what happened in the Philippines in the 1980s, this is what you must deal with. China has recently upped it's target for nuclear power to 112 GWe by 2020. This is a trebling of the target in just a couple of years. If you want to see what is achievable, watch China in the next few years with the construction of standardized designs and increasing engineering experience. The US DOE/EIA 2010 estimated LCOE for various generation resources is provided here. Notice that nuclear is cheaper than wind or solar. In fact solar is simply uncompetitive. The EIA estimates are broadly in line with the the IEA estimates with respect to the relative costs of nuclear and wind. If you want to stop nuclear power in SE Asia, you are out of luck. Vietnam has an agreement for Russia to build 2.4GWe of nuclear capacity and longer term plan of 15GWe by 2030. Bangladesh has also signed an agreement with Russia for two reactors this year.
  37. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt23: "1) Nuclear loan guarantees are not expenditures, companies applying for them have to pay hefty sums to get them." US department of energy: "A loan guarantee is a contractual obligation between the government, private creditors and a borrower—such as banks and other commercial loan institutions—that the Federal Government will cover the borrower’s debt obligation in the event that the borrower defaults." The reason for the need of government guarantees is because the private sector is unwilling to fork out the dosh for the capital costs and the risks involved. Nuclear energy suffers the same problems as renewables in that when fossil fuel prices drop no one will make the long term investment in nuclear. http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/02/26/nuclear-renaissance-will-take-more-than-loan-guarantees/
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    quakka: "When considering grid storage, it must be realised that grid storage is not something that is uniquely applicable to variable renewables. It would be just as useful in conjunction with coal or nuclear for meeting peak demand. This surely leads to the obvious question of why, other than pumped hydro, grid storage is not currently used on any significant scale?" Which suggests that you don't understand how the current system has developed and the marketing involved. You shouldn't be asking the question here, go and ask a historian. If you have an abundant supply of fossil fuels and can develop an infrastructure to feed large power stations, you can store the fuel with the energy embedded in it. No need to develop energy storage, if you can stick the fuel in a pile or a big tin can. When demand goes up, you bring on line spinning reserve and you can do that because the fuel is cheap. Engineers developed this idea from scratch many decades ago, as someone else has said, you seem to ignore the fact that these ideas didn't once exist, they had to be invented by people with different skills. Why do we need energy storage now? Well you know very well why, you answered it in your comment. Because unlike what you have claimed, history provides the context of why storage is UNIQUELY now required for renewables.
  39. Renewable Baseload Energy
    > President Obama has also proposed to triple nuclear power loan guarantees to over $54 billion in 2011 - loans which put taxpayers at risk if the energy companies default, which often happens on nuclear projects. Nuclear projects so far defaulted due to government policy, which prevented the already build and certified power plants from operating, see Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island for example. Long Island now gets 60% of electricity from burning oil (!!), and 35% from burning gas. Companies providing heating oil for Long Islanders were instrumental in this political hatched job. Due to this history of government forcing nuclear projects into default (and thus making profits for coal, oil, and gas competition), none sane in the US is going to build any nuclear plant without the loan guarantees. Much of the same applies in the Western Europe. If you compare this with situation in Japan, South Korea, and China, where energy policy is not swayed by fossil fuel interests, the situation looks very different. Reactors are build on time and on budget, often within less than 5 years per reactor. Someone took the pain to create a nice table demonstrating this, so here is the link: http://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/eciy6/rep_jay_inslee_dwa_attacks_antiinnovation_gop/c173ww4
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @dana1981 at 06:15 AM on 28 November, 2010 > t23 - like The Ville, I don't even know where to start. I guess the easiest claim to debunk is that nuclear power receives no subsidies. The EIA found in 2007 nuclear power received $1.27 billion in subsidies that year alone (compared to $740 million in 1999). Dana you are arguing against something I have not said. I specified that running nuclear reactors get no subsidies, which is true. Unfortunately it lumps everything related to nuclear physics as a "nuclear R&D" subsidy, which can hardly be the case, and I would argue that we should invest much more than we do into real nuclear energy R&D. > President Obama has also proposed to triple nuclear power loan guarantees to over $54 billion in 2011 - loans which put taxpayers at risk if the energy companies default, which often happens on nuclear projects. 1) Nuclear loan guarantees are not expenditures, companies applying for them have to pay hefty sums to get them. 2)Loan guarantees only remove the risk related to GOVERNMENT regulatory screwups beyond the control of the vendor, not to vendor screwups, or normal business risks. Even at that, it only covers 90% of the costs which may be incurred by govt. screwups. Please do read the respective law (Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 638). > As for claiming the article is full of "half truths", those blue words are links. I suggest reading them if you don't believe what's said in the article. Every claim is supported by various studies or real-world examples. Yes I read the links, and it does not change my criticism: CAES is still only a more efficient use of natgas (the least sustainable resource, unless we go for frackgas), which you failed to mention. > tt23 also made a comment about geothermal not being available anywhere, which again indicates that he didn't really read the article, which specifically discusses EGS which could work basically everywhere. EGS does not alleviate the real-world concerns I mentioned, namely earthquakes and pollution leeched from the underground rock. IT actually shares a lot of risks associated with fracking, as the technologies are similar. In summary, our choice is gas dependence and fracking under the guise of renewables - or nuclear. I'm all for nuclear.
  41. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Nick Palmer at 04:12 AM on 28 November, 2010 > Then we would have to deal with the consequences of a very widespread plutonium economy. Just imagine what might happen if Iran, North Korea, Chechnya etc had easy access to tonnes of the stuff. This is strawman. Please read about how modern breeders (such as the IFR) work - they breed new fissile in place, and the reprocessing is done at the site. Once started, only U238 is fed into the system. Anyway if you are objecting to U/Pu cycle, then we can use thorium as fertile nucleus, or even approaches which allow for no proliferation avenue at all even in principle, such as the DMSR(*), for countries which are at risk. 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. (*) Concerning DMSR, read the papers attached here: http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28633
  42. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Australia has the hottest, most accessible granites in the world, at depths of 4,500-5,000m. where temperatures are 250-300C. At shallower depth (2,500-3,000m) temperatures of 135-150C are sufficient to generate electricity. Over 30 companies are currently engaged in exploring for and mining heat in Australia. The most advanced of these is Geodynamics (GDY) which is currently drilling wells in the Cooper Basin, north of SA and Hunter Valley in NSW. It has already drilled into and fractured hot rock at 4,500m, creating a heat exchanger, and drilled production wells bringing super-heated water to the surface. It has developed and applied the technology needed to extract emission free geothermal heat for electricity generation. GDY has installed a 1MW test generator which it expects to commission in 2011 and intends following with a 25MW power station in 2013 and thereafter a series of 50MW power stations feeding into the National Grid. GDY estimates that its Cooper Basin tenement contains sufficient economically recoverable heat to generate 6.5 GWe and that by 2020 it will be generating 500 MWe from this source alone. Australia is endowed with sufficient accessible geothermal energy to replace all of electricity now being generated by burning fossil fuels. Why then does it boast the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world and operation of the worlds dirtiest power station? There are several reasons why geothermal energy has not developed more rapidly. Foremost among them is: • government failure to place a price on carbon, • reluctance to withdraw subsidies for production and use of fossil fuels and • commitment to on-going use of coal using so called clean coal technology. These are all tied to an unsubstantiated and dubious belief that Australian industry would become uncompetitive were it faced with higher electricity costs. That belief is vociferously advocated by the mining industry, electricity generators and other vested interests, particularly the NSW and QLD State governments that are increasingly dependent on revenue derived from mining. Once a price is put on carbon (2011/12?) and raised by the market in response to emission reduction targets, capital will be attracted to investment in the most efficient fossil fuelled power stations and, increasingly, to investment in clean renewable energy, particularly geothermal. A price on carbon will also increase the price of electricity generated from fossil fuels, reducing then reversing the price differential between it and electricity produced from wind and geothermal heat. Domestic use of coal will then contract and government subsidies, currently estimated to exceed $1 billion/annum will be withdrawn as the workforce now engaged in mining is progressively retrained and employed elsewhere. Lack of political will rather than any economic imperative is responsible for failure to use renewable energy sources more rapidly and extensively in Australia. See various publications at http://www.geodynamics.com.au or google the topic.
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Camburn: "There are ways to reduce co2 quickly and effectively. No one seems willing to compromise enough to do so." So, you agree that we should reduce CO2 emmissions, then. On other threads, you seemed to dismiss the existence of the greenhouse effect...
  44. Renewable Baseload Energy
    BTW, The Philippines tried to go nuclear in the 1980's. The result was massive cost & time overruns, before they finally abandoned the project & installed a gas-powered turbine in its place. Indeed, as far as low-CO2 resources go, most SE Asian countries would be better off switching to Geothermal Power, rather than nuclear, due to the Geologically Active region they live in. Indeed, that same Geological Activity is why I-as an Australian-do *not* want to see any SE Asian Countries going nuclear in the near future.
  45. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka, did you even *bother* to read Actually Thoughtful's post? The EIA says lifetime costs of new nuclear power stations are $60/MW-h, assuming an overnight construction cost of less than $2,000/KW. Of course, history has shown costs of closer to $4,000 to $6,000/KW for a conventional power station. Newer, more radical designs (gas-cooled, pebble-bed, fast-breeders) will probably carry a much higher price tag. Of course, given the fossil-fuel dependence of nuclear power (specifically diesel & other forms of petroleum), how much more expensive do you think nuclear will become-compared to less CO2 intensive technologies, over a lifetime? Meanwhile, Wind & Biomass Gas are already cost-competitive with Coal-without a carbon tax-& the various solar energy technologies are rapidly coming down in cost, & will probably be cost competitive with Coal within the next decade-assuming economies of scale are achieved.
  46. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Oh dear Quokka, the point is that you can build renewable energy plants at a much smaller size, with no loss of overall efficiency, to meet the needs of smaller geographical areas-especially if coupled with effective storage systems & a decent back-up base-load supply (i.e. biomass gas/natural gas). So the spatial distribution needed for renewable energy is not nearly as great as you claim, & certainly much less than the geographic area required by most centralized power plants. Nor could you answer my other point-namely the huge amount of *waste* electricity generated during off-peak hours due to the large size of nuclear power stations needed to achieve acceptable levels of thermal efficiency. So yet again your claims sound like nothing more than Nuclear Industry propaganda-unsubstantiated by anything approaching actual *facts*.
  47. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    For those still following this thread. Aside from the constant shifting of the goal posts and failure to concede anything, also please note the appearance of numerous red herrings and stereotypical "skeptic" speaking points once the "arguments" made by skeptics, concerning the FoIA's and them supporting the vexatious FoIA requests by ClimateAudit, were repeatedly refuted. For example, Camburn claims that "Models and certainty. You base your 2.0 to 4.5 C increase in temps on model runs. The scientist who produced the model seems to have made you certain of this." The above statement is very misleading. Not all estimates of climate sensitivity require climate models. Knutti and Hegerl (2008) have an excellent summary in which they discuss the multiple, independent lines of evidence which support the range for climate sensitivity stated in AR4 (2007). Also see the work of Annan and Hargreaves to quantify the uncertainty, examples here, and here. There is more misinformation in Camburn's posts, but Bibliovermis and Archiesteel did a fine job addressing those pedestrian "skeptic" myths. Also, the "skeptics" have done a fine job undermining their case on this thread, betraying their true beliefs and demonstrating their ignorance of climate science. Sorry to be harsh, but sometimes one has to call a spade a spade, and I suspect that such candid discourse is the only way of connecting with the "skeptics". I for one, am certainly looking forward to the return of more SkepticalScience posts on climate science.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Wow, yocta, that was the best explanation I've ever read! Thanks!
  49. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981 @75 Your link is broken. One authoritative source for the costs of electricity generation is the IEA Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2010 Edition It's quite clear that with the assumed $30 per tonne CO2 price, nuclear is competitive everywhere and in Asia is cheaper than anything by a substantial amount. The significance of the assessment for Asia should be very obvious.
  50. actually thoughtful at 16:55 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    "The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[38] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate, as much higher cost was found for recent projects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Cost_per_kW.C2.B7h So what about Solar PV? http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/06/solar-photovoltaics-pv-is-cost-competitive-now (I know the source looks biased - read the article and decide for yourself). OK, convert the .10-.40/kWh to per MW·h as above = kWhX1,000 = $100-$400 per MW h (note that these come from different sources - so it looks like apples-to-apples but it might be crab apples-to-granny smith apples.

Prev  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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