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  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  Next

Comments 103051 to 103100:

  1. 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.
  2. Renewable Baseload Energy
    archiesteel@82: This topic is about renewables/alternatives. We can discuss co2 sensativity on another thread. Thank you
  3. 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 ?
  4. 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.
  5. 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)
  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "Wow, yocta" Double-plus good job! Here are some illustrations of the CO2 molecule's vibrational modes.
  7. 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 :-(
  8. 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.
  9. 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/
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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/
  14. 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.
  15. 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 ?
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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/
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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...
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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*.
  28. 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.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Wow, yocta, that was the best explanation I've ever read! Thanks!
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus @64, You make a claim that large centralized power stations are wasteful because of transmission losses with the implicit assertion that distributed generation by solar and wind will be more efficient from a transmission point of view. This is plainly nonsense due to the huge geographical area required to achieve "spacial smoothing" of variable renewables. In fact centralized power stations sited relatively close to centres of consumption, are more efficient from a transmission standpoint than distributed renewables generation. Why do I need to point this obvious truth out? Because there is a deplorable habit of commentors making wild claims without factual basis, solely because they "sound good". This is not in the spirit of this web site.
  33. Renewable Baseload Energy
    There are a lot of reasons nuclear is not *the* answer. It's relatively expensive and requires massive up-front capital costs. Government loans put taxpayers at great financial risk, and often default due to cost overruns. "CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent." There's the NIMBY problem. There's the fact that it takes about a decade to build a single nuclear power plant. There are terrorism concerns. There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't put all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, especially since we have other available technologies with essentially infinite energy sources, which are already as cheap or cheaper than nuclear power (e.g. wind, solar thermal, geothermal). Diversifying is usually a good idea, and the power grid is no exception.
  34. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Addendum to my previous post: Camburn, look at this link here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf According to this study, Coal & Nuclear power both consume 500 gallons (around 2,000L) of water per MW/h. Combined Cycle gas consumes only 200 gallons (800L) & a Parabolic Trough consumes 800 gallons (3,000 Liters) per MW/h. Dish/Engine systems apparently only use 80L of water per MW/h of electricity produced. Of course, we must also not forget that nuclear power uses a further 700L to 900L of water-per MW/h, for the remainder of the fuel cycle (compared to around 50L to 400L of water for other fossil-fuel sources of electricity). So, Camburn, whilst you might be correct in saying that trough-based solar power uses more water than nuclear power-it is only by a tiny fraction, & nuclear definitely isn't the 2nd most water-efficient power source, as you claim.
  35. actually thoughtful at 16:27 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Been some debate about nuclear CO2 emissions (concrete is VERY CO2 intense). Here is a link that shows nuclear is 10th worst on the list (it is better than coal) - it is at least twice as bad as any renewable, but it is better than all fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions Nuclear has a (small) role going forward. But whatever your choice - get on it! Remember the effect of YOU taking action is much greater than 1000 letters to the editor or to politicians. Your actions speak volumes.
  36. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn: According to this site here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf, just the operation of the nuclear power plant alone uses between 1,500L & 2,800L per MW-h of electricity generated (depending on the technology used). The Olympic Dam mine in South Australia uses 42 *million* liters of water-per day-in its operations (14,000 times more than Australia's per capita water use per day). Yet you'd have me believe that Nuclear Power has one of the lowest levels of water use than any other source of electricity? Well, sure, if you spend all your time reading pro-nuclear propaganda. Also, whereas CSP technologies are actively seeking to *reduce* their fresh-water use per MW-h (by use of more efficient concentrating technologies, different heat-capturing liquids, or by supplementing CSP & desalination), the water use of Nuclear Power remains high compared not only to solar, but also compared to a range of other conventional & renewable electricity sources!
  37. actually thoughtful at 16:07 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka: "There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP. I was referring to grid storage not CSP. As I already explained grid storage IF it were economic, would be very useful in meeting peak demand in conjunction with coal or nuclear - so yes there has been a "need" for it. Please stick to the point." Ironically - as you attempt to tear apart my message - the one point you overlook is molten salt - AKA grid storage. If YOU won't stick to your point, why should I? OK one more time - "always on" technologies - coal and nuclear, don't really need storage - they need consumption. So your "point" is not entirely valid to start with. As for being in dense housing - the relevant point is to use EXISTING technology - available NOW, to solve the CO2 crisis - not pie-in-the-sky "to cheap to meter" nuclear, not some future "clean coal." At the risk of being a nag (but realizing that the only way we can accomplish what MUST be done, given that governments are pinned down by the ignorance of their people) - have you asked your landlord to install PV or solar thermal or a ground source heat pump? He/She will benefit from increased property values, you could agree to have the landlord pay for heat/cool, and pay your old rent + your old heating/cooling bill. There are lots of ways to solve the landlord/tenant renewable problem (with willing parties). I am not a huge fan of PV (after we have gone over the world once with solar thermal, lets pick up PV on the second pass - but every bit we put in the grid now both proves out renewables and reduces CO2. I am sorry for the typo - I meant energy destiny. It is actually a very powerful position to be in - controlling you own heat/power locally. It is yet another subtle (and strictly positive) result of the switch to renewables. The main point remains - action will solve this problem - not endless debate (even amongst people who "get it"). As I posted in another comment - let's leave nuclear at 20% and get rid of coal. Then we can look around and see if it is smarter to expand natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. We have plenty of work to do just displacing coal.
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Ron, I mention biomass frequently. Gas generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste-at such locations as farms, plantation forests, land-fill sites & sewerage plants represents a readily available source of energy, whilst significantly reducing the amount of CO2-equivalent released into the atmosphere (as methane is a more potent Greenhouse gas than CO2). Not only that, but bio-sequestration of CO2, from existing Gas & Coal fired power stations, using high-density algae, also represents an excellent source of biomass energy.
  39. Renewable Baseload Energy
    'Enhanced geothermal systems' are also sometimes called hot rock technology. South Australia has one of the most promising areas in the world for this type of energy, due to the presence of highly radioactive granites deep in the subsurface, and favourable overlying lithologies. It is believed by some that Australia's precious opal deposits have formed ultimately from this rare geology; deeply sourced heat from underlying radioactive granites below the Great Artesian Basin have breached the surface, interacting with microorganisms in the subsurface to create the opal deposits in extinct hot spring zones. The source of this energy is large, safe, constant and entirely sustainable. Granites are large bodies of heat, U and other radioactive elements decays to produce a constant supply of heat. It is large enough to potentially supply much of Australia's energy needs. The problems include: 1) the technology and very high cost of deep drilling and 2) various energy transfer/extraction issues. One promising area of research is to reduce the very high costs of deep drilling. Currently laser drills (a drill with a powerful laser out in front which weakens and breaks up the rock before the drill bit hits it) are being developed which could significantly speed up and reduce the costs of deep drilling. The deeper one goes the more expensive it becomes, and the hotter the rocks get. Drilling is a highly technical and expensive science which still has a long way to go. If one can reduce the costs of very deep drilling, where there has been little research/work, (because nobody historically wants to mine that deep down, and deep oil drilling technology wasn't ever set up/researched for such purposes), there is enough heat down there to supply baseload power in specific areas. There is virtually nothing known about some of the very deep rocks beneath our feet. In many areas, we know more about the moon then about some of the rocks more than just a few kilometres beneath the earth. Some of these areas have high heat flows. If the technology becomes much more efficient (think computers in the 1980s compared to now), areas with less radioactive granites and lower heat flows etc can become viable. Drilling is an ancient art that has more potential to develop and become cheaper. Dont under-estimate the miners and their drills-they know about the earth and this field of science may provide answers to future energy needs. PS. Traditionally, there has been virtually no government subsidies/grants or research into improving drilling methods, because these are associated with what is viewed as 'non-green' technologies, and moreover this is something which is largely viewed as something industries/market forces will naturally address. However, mining and oil companies have no real incentive to drill very deep holes historically, other than for oil and gas. This is largely still the case; and most of the research money into sustainable energies has gone into more obvious 'green technologies' not related traditionally to something like mining.
  40. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RE#148 h-j-m. Drawing on these texts [**] I’m going to attempt to answer this question: Why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Introduction... Gas molecules whether they be CO2, N2, O2, CH4, CO, H2, He, Ar etc will all interact with light at specific frequencies. So for example if a single photon is absorbed by one of these gas molecules the absorption or emission of a photon will be accompanied by a change in the internal energy state of the molecule. This is a consequence of Quantum Mechanics that a molecule can only take on values drawn from a finite set of possible energy states. The distribution of which is determined by the structure of the molecule. The energy states involved in infrared absorption and emission are connected with displacement of the nuclei in the molecule, and take the form of vibrations or rotations. So how does the number of atoms in a molecule and its geometry effect this? The noble gases like He, and Ar are have one atom (monatomic) and have only electron transitions, so are not active in the infrared. And indeed QM calculations and lab experiments verify this. A molecule with two atoms (a diatomic molecule) eg CO, O2, N2 amongst others has a set of energy levels associated with the oscillation caused by pulling the nuclei apart and allowing them to spring back and forth. Now triatomic molecules (like CO2 or H2O) have an even richer set of vibrations and rotations, especially if their equilibrium state is bent rather than linear. What specifically then, makes one type of gas molecule more infrared active than another... For a molecule to be a good infrared absorber and emitter, it is not enough that it have transitions whose energy corresponds to the infrared spectrum. In order for a photon to be absorbed or emitted, the associated molecular motions must also couple strongly to the electromagnetic field. You can classically think of the infrared light as providing a large scale fluctuating electromagnetic field which alters the environment in which the molecule finds itself in, and, exerts a force on the constituent parts of the molecule. This force displaces the nuclei and electron cloud, and excites vibration or rotation. The strongest interaction that will happen between an electromagnetic field and a particle is one where the particle has a net charge. A charged particle will experience a net force when subjected to an electric field, which will cause the particle to accelerate. In relation to Earth's atmosphere... Ions are extremely rare in the atmosphere. Thus molecules involved in determining a planet’s energy balance are almost invariably electrically neutral. So where does this leave us? Ok we have now elimated charged particles…so what’s the next best physical property of a molecule that will make it a strong infrared active one? Why molecules that have a dipole moment! (This is when we have a disproportionate part of a molecule’s negatively charged electron cloud bunched up on one side, while a compensating excess of positive charged nuclei are at the other side.) Does our atmosphere have a molecule that fits this criteria? Yes! Good old CO2! CO2 is a linear molecule with the two oxygens symmetrically lying about the central carbon. Whilst a uniform stretch of such a molecule does not create a dipole moment, a vibrational mode which displaces the central atom from one side to the other does. Addionally, the bending modes of CO2 have a fluctuating dipole moment, which can in turn be further influenced by rotation. Modes of this sort make CO2 a very good greenhouse gas. Here you might ask, but the atmosphere is full of O2 and N2 and there is only ppm concentrations of CO2? Many common atmospheric molecules have no dipole moment in their unperturbed equilibrium state. Such nonpolar molecules can nonetheless couple strongly to the electromagnetic field. They do so because vibration and rotation can lead to a dipole moment through distortion of the equilibrium positions of the electron cloud and the nucleii. Diatomic molecules made of two identical atoms, do not acquire a dipole moment under the action of either rotation or stretching. Symmetric diatomic molecules, such as N2, O2 and H2 in fact have plenty of rotational and vibrational transitions that are in the infrared range. However, because the associated molecular distortions have no dipole moment, these gases are essentially transparent to infrared unless they are strongly perturbed by frequent collisions. This is why N2 and O2, the most common gases in Earth’s atmosphere do not contribute to Earth’s greenhouse effect. However, it is important to recognize that situations exist in which diatomic molecules become good greenhouse gases are in fact quite common in planetary atmospheres. When there are frequent collisions, such as on planets with high density atmospheres like Titan and on all the giant planets, diatomic molecules will acquire enough of a dipole moment during the time collisions that are taking place ,and the electromagnetic field can indeed interact with their transitions quite strongly. This makes N2 and H2 the most important greenhouse gases on Titan, and H2 a very important greenhouse gas on all the gas giant planets. I don't think I even scratched the surface, but hooray for physics! [**] Principles of Planetary Climate, R. T. Pierrehumbert Molecular Quantum Mechanics P. W. Atkins (Author), R. S. Friedman An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics. T. Hill
  41. Renewable Baseload Energy
    I believe the most important renewable resource for this list is Biomass - apparently unmentioned by the author or any above comment. Biomass is larger than even hydropower around the world - especially in developing countries. It is unique by virtue of easily providing a means of energy storage - so that it can back up solar and wind. But even more important is that when employed as Biochar, all forms of biomass can provide carbon negativity. The sun produces annually (via photosynthesis) about 8 times more carbon than we presently emit via fossil fuels. This is a huge untapped resource that should be endorsed by all SkS readers. See www.biochar-international.org. Ron
  42. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually thoughtfull @58
    Research how much CO2 is in concrete. Then how much concrete goes into a nuclear power plant.
    There are some comparative estimates here giving the steel, concrete and land requirements for CSP, Wind and Nuclear. The figures are remarkably lopsided - in favor of nuclear: Energy system build rates and material inputs
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus: I posted a link earlier. The Indians are just behind the Chinese in building nuclear power plants. CPS and water? CPS uses more water per mwh than any other source of power. Nuclear is the 2nd lowest, wind is nill and the lowest. The northern zones of the US have ample water. The southwest does not. The southwest has sun for CPS and will have to figure out how to provide enough water for CPS. My cousin is a quality control engineer at a nuclear power plant. IF we decided to use thorium, it would not be a problem. There may be wasted elec from base stations, but at least there WOULD be electricity.
  44. Renewable Baseload Energy
    So, Quokka, why don't you petition your landlord to install PV's or hot-water systems? There are a lot of rental houses in my area, & most of them have PV's that were installed, by the landlord, out of their own pocket, because it made long-term sense. I mean, *yes* if you want to continue to let some CEO dictate the price you pay for electricity, if you want to pay for the 10% extra electricity that gets sent to you, but you never receive (due to T&D losses) & if you want to continue subsidizing the massive glut of electricity generated during off-peak periods, then by all means keep spruiking large, inefficient & expensive nuclear power.
  45. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    Re: eco-kowana (48) Here's your answer to that. The Yooper
  46. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Water limitations, Camburn? So what about the water needed for a Thorium Reactor? Not just the water needed to generate the steam to make the electricity, but also the water needed for the *entire* nuclear fuel cycle? Face it, *all* forms of nuclear energy require far more water to operate than even Coal-& far more than Gas or any of the renewable energy sources. As water becomes even less widely available, I'd argue that nuclear power is going to be even *less* feasible* than it is now. Especially when one considers the wasted electricity generated by large, overly centralized power stations (10% losses from transmission & distribution & the over-supply during off-peak times). As I said, the Indians have *not* shown Thorium to be technically or economically viable *yet*-though maybe they will down the track. Even so, the Indians are investing *far* more time & effort into the various forms of renewable energy than they are into Thorium, & the *experts* in the US & Europe have only started talking about Thorium for the first time in the last 18 months. Sounds like they don't have a huge amount of faith in this "proven" technology either.
  47. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Camburn, There is currently a thread for discussions on early 20th century climate, and your other points are also already addressed on this site. argument #38: "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" What caused early 20th Century warming? & argument #36: "We're coming out of the Little Ice Age" What ended the Little Ice Age? & argument #10: "We're heading into an ice age" Are we heading into a new Ice Age? argument #5: "Models are unreliable" How reliable are climate models? That Manhattan quote is taken from a Salon interview that Hansen gave in 1998 & Watts popularized last year. Watts then goes on to claim, wrongly as usual, that there is no trend in sea level increase. argument #21: "Sea level rise is exaggerated" How much is sea level rising? & argument #74: "Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century? You are correct on your last point. This thread is now off-topic and should move to a different area of the site.
  48. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually thoughtfull @55
    I will take this at face value. There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP.
    I was referring to grid storage not CSP. As I already explained grid storage IF it were economic, would be very useful in meeting peak demand in conjunction with coal or nuclear - so yes there has been a "need" for it. Please stick to the point.
    So then your next sentence:"Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable." Makes no sense (it never did). By your logic we could never have been to the moon - the technology was not in use at the time - therefore it was not viable. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Going to the moon was done for political reasons - there was never any need to for it to be economic. It is utterly irrelevant.
    But even your weak conclusion (it isn't viable) isn't supported by the evidence. I have dozens of customers NOW who have cut their home heating bills (in a winter climate) by 75%. With today's "non-viable" technology.
    What on earth has this got to do with grid storage? If you are commenting on what I wrote, why don't you stick to the point?
    But to insist on that, when we have very GOOD energy sources (wind, solar, wave) ready - RIGHT NOW is just silly.
    Oh really? Why don't you tell me how much wave power is being generated world wide, or how many coal fired power stations that have been shutdown because PV panels have made them redundant?
    Go install solar panels on your roof (PV, solar thermal or both). Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density. Of locally produced energy. Reflect on peak oil/gas/coal/nuke, on pollution in its various forms, on terrorists funded by the energy YOU buy.
    I live in a rented house. I have not the slightest intention of installing PV panels. Many people are in exactly the same position. As are people who live in high density/high rise housing. It is plainly obvious that high density housing is environmentally beneficial. In any case I take strong exception to the moralistic overtones of your comment. I also take exception to squandering public money on ridiculous feed in tariffs, that benefit only the better off and shift the cost of electricity to the less well off and achieve absolutely no meaningful reduction in GHG emissions. But they do provide a political fig leaf for the continuing large scale burning of fossil fuels. I am almost (but not quite) lost for words when I read "Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density". I really have very little interest in "my energy destiny" or the "experience" that may or may not accompany such. I do however care about the world that my daughter will live in and I would rather not have the planet experience a mass extinction event. Mitigating warming requires critical thinking about energy and collective action to implement feasible solutions. If I want a sales spiel for PV panels, I can get it from one of the door to door PV sales persons who I regularly turn away. I steadfastly refuse to suspend my critical faculties just to feel "green".
    While you are hand-wringing and fearing it can't be done
    It can be done, but it requires nuclear power and even then the task is huge.
  49. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:54 PM on 28 November 2010
    Climategate: Perverting Peer Review?
    The professional deniers are whiners as part of their act. The main item here was and is Soon & Baliunas 2003. It was so bad (and the journal publisher refused to print a rebuttal) that Hans von Storch (more or less a lukewarmer) resigned even though he had just become chief editor. Before long four other editors also resigned. If the deniers has a scientific case to make they could just make and would not have to complain.
  50. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus: Here is my take: In the southwest, water limitations taken into consideration, CPS power plants are a no brainer. Other areas of the country that right now rely heavily on coal or natural gas, nuclear is the only other option. Thorium is the best option. The Indians have shown that thorium is viable. The US has thoriumm for 1,000's of years. PPV is too expensive. I could put one on my roof but the cost per kwh would exceed 1.15 cents. I can't afford to erect a tower high enough, even tho I live in an area 5 wind zone, to produce wind power. And even if I could, I would have to keep my current infrastructure as at times the wind just does not blow. There are ways to reduce co2 quickly and effectively. No one seems willing to compromise enough to do so.

Prev  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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