Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 Next
Comments 10501 to 10550:
-
sidd at 15:01 PM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Safety standards for nukes relaxed:https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-power-plants-climate-change/
Tell me again about strong safety culture ?
sidd
-
sidd at 14:45 PM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Here is a former chair of NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA) until 2012 : nukes should be bannedhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html
sidd
-
nigelj at 13:33 PM on 24 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
OPOF
"And defending the freedom to get away with misleading political marketing is one of the greatest harms humanity has ever inflicted upon itself.'
Yes however I feel its in the general publics hands. They need to stop voting for ignorant people who have no integrity, and who cherrypick and deceive. The public need to stop rewarding people who are dishonest and incompetent. Political Parties need to put up candidates with a record of integrity otherwise we end up with the absurd scenario last election in the USA where it became the choice of the lesser of two evils. People need to stop seeing elections as a gladatorial contest for their amusement, and realise awful candidates are exactly what they appear to be, awful, and that it will have nasty repercussions for their lives.
-
michael sweet at 09:49 AM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
If you use CO2 from the air to make electrofuels (this could be methane, methanol, gasoline or diesel) when the fuel is burned the CO2 returns to the atmosphere. That is called "carbon neutral" because you do not add or remove CO2 from the aiir. If you capture CO2 from the air and then pump it into the ground, intending the CO2 to stay there forever, that is "removal" of CO2. Removal is often called "sequestering" the CO2.
I misunderstood you when you said "removal" of carbon from the air. Carbon neutral electrofuels seem like a good idea to me although they are not very efficient. (electric motors are over 90% efficient while internal combustion motors are often less than 25% efficient). It is also very cheap to store massive amounts of power as liquid electrofuels.
If you just pump the CO2 into the ground you have no product to sell (except cleaner air) so a tax wuld be necessary to fund the project. Most scenarios that limit warming to 2C or less include massive amounts of sequestering of carbon.
The fracking industry has never turned a profit!!! and here and Wharton. They have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars and make no money. They will never be able to pay back their loans, the wells rapidly go down in production. They must drill more and more wells to keep up production. The entire industry is a big Ponzi scheme. I Googled "how much money has been invested in fracking". Half the articles describe frackig as a scam.
If the money wasted in fracking had been invested in renewable energy we would currently generate most of our electricity with renewable energy. Obviously there is enough money to invest in renewable energy since all the fracking money will be written off in the end.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:07 AM on 24 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
nigelj @5,
I like to pair the explanation that 'everybody's actions add up to be the future' with dramatic but true points made like BBB does.
It highlights that the lack of correction to date is the problem. And a continued lack of correction of how people act continues to rapidly make things worse. That makes it clear that there is never a time when 'it is too late to make corrections'.
The pairing of that type of understanding can also clearly point out that the less corrected people are the 'worse the worst will be' and the more dramatic the required correction becomes. Today's climate impact emergency developed because, 30 years ago, global leadership of the supposedly more advanced nations did not start responsibly leading the understood to be required 'significant correction', because the understanding and correction were easily made unpopular because harmful unsustainable activity had become profitable and popular.
And there in lies the biggest barrier to improving climate science understanding. Understanding what has been happening undeniably requires accepting that freer competition for popularity and profit will develop harmful results that can be very difficult to correct. And defending the freedom to get away with misleading political marketing is one of the greatest harms humanity has ever inflicted upon itself.
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 24 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
DrivingBy @11, good points and I agree.
I feel companies have a moral duty to keep shareholders informed of looming problems like that oil is impacting the climate, but I would agree it is the shareholders decision as to what to do about things.
But companies do also have a legal duty to inform shareholders if there are potential financial implications and I think some oil companies have been sued on their failure to do this. I stand to be corrected.
The oil companies may not have broken the law, and have a duty to shareholders and to maximise profits, but it shows how the profit motive and paychecks crush any idealism and worse is having some real damaging effects on the environment. Perhaps the problem could be solved with laws that require greater transparency with shareholders on problems, and laws that prohibit funding think tanks if there is a possible conflict of interest. However real change is probably going to require a change of attitudes and some way of putting environmental goals on an equal footing as profit goals at the very least. Im not sure if this could be done with the law or is something that may emerge as a more voluntary thing. Some companies are at least trying this.
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 24 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
Regarding BeezelyBillyBub's list of factoids. It creates a graphic picture of our dillema, but it is so "full on" people might say we are doomed, and its pointless doing anything, and this is is why I avoid writing lists like this. I would be interested in what other people think?
If we concentrate on all the considerable challenges in developing renewable energy, the small ammount so far developed, and roadblocks in the way like oil exporting countries, do we risk creating a self fullfilling prophesy of failure ?
I'm not a natural optimist, but I prefer to at least try to take a positive view and solutions focussed approach. And it's definitely not too late to mitigate the climate problem.
However we obviously shouldn't understate the problem either. Fear does motivate people, and people have a right to know about plausible worst case scenarios and can't be treated like children.
Some of the factoids in BBB's list create a false impression. Yes humans are a huge part of the earths vertebrate biomass, so were dinosaurs once, etcetera. So what? We have evolved to be the dominant apex predator and lifeform so we have to manage the situation so as to not wreck the planet in the process. We have no other choice.
Agree with OPOF's comments especially that we need a nuanced and accurate definition of hothouse earth. It's most certainly is a big problem for humanity, but it is better defined as a tropical earth with parts of the earth essentially uninhabitable for humans, but it is extremenly unlikely to turn the earth into Venus. Hyperbole will give denialists ammunition to make scientists look foolish.
We can most certainly still avoid a hothouse earth scenario. My understanding is that for hothouse earth conditions the permafrost and certain other tipping points have to be crossed and this is thought to be at plus 3 degrees c above the pre industrial basline so we still have a chance to stop this.
-
william5331 at 06:31 AM on 24 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
The solution for the sea turtles is simplicity itself, technically, but as usual really hard in practice. Collect eggs from sea turtle beaches and transfer them to other beaches all over the place and make these beaches off limits for people (almost impossible). Presumably the turtles will return to the beaces where they have hatched and some beaches will be at the right temperatures.
-
richieb1234 at 05:16 AM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I cannot keep up with all the traffic. I have lost the thread completely. :-) Nevertheless, I am getting great insights from everything I see on this site.
"The problem with removing carbon is the immensity of the task and you do not make any money sequestering carbon."
I have seen papers that claim fuels from recovered CO2 can make money by competing with fossil fuels. But I have not seen any analysis to back that up.
"They think the fracking scam will go on forever."
Why do you say fracking is a scam?
Best regards
-
michael sweet at 03:27 AM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
From your post 65:
I have to be optomistic or it is hopeless. There is no question that the situation is much less hopeless today than it was ten years ago.
I am not very familiar with the IEA. The US Energy Information Administration outlook 2019, linked in the OP, is even worse. The USEIA has consistently been years behind the curve on the adoption of renewable energy and the collapse of coal. They think the fracking scam will go on forever. I hope the IEA is also too conservative.
The IEA report clearly states that current efforts are too little. 10 years ago I do not think they would have made such a strong claim. Authorities now recognize there is a problem although they have not taken serious action.
The Lazard 2018 report (also from the OP) has a better reputation for accuracy and forecasting future trends. This graph
Shows that in the USA total renewable energy costs less than most coal and nuclear operation and maintenance costs with no mortgage. Coal and nuclear also receive very large subsidies so I think comparing subsidized renewable to the coal and nuclear is fair.
Worldwide numbers are harder to glean from Lazard but renewable is cheapest in most locations world wide. It seems to me that a carbon tax or similar regulations are very likely to be implemented in many locations in the next 10-20 years. That makes renewable the clear choice for future energy builds. Fossil plants planned 10 years ago are being finished but few new builds are starting that are not renewable.
Here is Lazard's cost comparison for all technologies:
The fact that renewable energy is the cheapest makes me hope the market will start to help correct the problem. When renewable energy was more expensive it looked hopeless.
Every year for the past 10 years I am amazed at the decline in renewable energy costs. The IEA report thinks renewable can continue to decline for more years. The lower renewable energy gets the faster it will replace fossil fuels.
I agree that we need agressive regulation to adress this emergency. Vote Climate. Carbon negative actions may make sense after all carbon generating activities have been superceded. I think wind and solar will be much cheaper to use for those activities. The problem with removing carbon is the immensity of the task and you do not make any money sequestering carbon.
I have seen a picture of the sculpture you describe. It is only too true.
-
DrivingBy at 03:00 AM on 24 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
"You would think that a fossil fuels company like Exonn knowing there was a global warming problem while knowingly funding think tanks pretending there wasn't a global warming problem infringes some form of law because it's making a misleading representation."
They were following the law which requires them to act as fiduciaries to those who buy shares of the company. I don't like their conduct in this instance and I believe they could have followed the fiduciary law without contributing to denialist think tanks, but they aren't free to publicly disparage their own product.
If Exxon had began a campaign which had the affect or even intent of convincing the public to not buy their product, management would then be putting their interests above the people that entrusted their cash to the company. Such managers would be self-branding to jump ship to the next generation of energy company, whatever that turned out to be, while trashing the value of share investors bought. The company belongs to the owners (anyone who buys shares), which is in turn mostly retirement funds. Managers are prohibited from working against the shareholders.
Fiduciary duty doesn't, at least in my mind, require political action using misleading or deceiving tactics to promote the shareholder's interests, and I think that people in responsible positions have a moral duty to interpret the laws in a moral way, e.g. "Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no", etc. Unfortunately the idea of being honest and placing anything above material success, fame or reputation is considered horribly old-fashioned, possibly racist or at least colonial now.
From my idealist perspective, Exxon made a sad turn. In contrast, the company has an excellent record in their core business. Exxon began a comprehensive safety culture after the Valdez grounding and are known to have above-industry standards for drilling and shipping of oil. They could have complemented that by starting a renewables division while removing themselves from the public discussion of the climate issue. But ideals like that melt pretty fast in the heat of politics and paychecks, it was probably never going to happen.
-
Daniel Bailey at 02:55 AM on 24 June 2019Planetary health and '12 years' to act
Global temperature reconstructions show this to be untrue.
"how can anyone conclude this current round of warming is entirely manmade?"
Because actual scientists, using the well-understood physics of our world, have established that it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed warming can be explained.
Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Forcings, per the NCA4, Volume 2:
Fun Factoid: Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.
By comparison, human activities warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).
"What also troubles me is the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was written out of the history books by the IPCC hockey stick graph. As well the impact of the 500 year period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age"
Another meme. Here's the "Hockey Stick For The Most Recent 1,700 Years", from the Trump Administration in 2017:
"the Earth was a lot warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland and Iceland"
Alreay refuted, but here's global temperatures with the period of the Viking occupation of Greenland highlighted:
And here's the temperatures from the GISP2 core from Greenland, with the instrumental temperature measurements taken from that same location added in for context:
"the Earth was a few degrees warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today, then the polar ice cap was smaller and thinner than even now"
Your temperature claims were already refuted, but we have observational data to 1850 and proxy data going back millennia documenting Arctic sea ice extent changes over time.
For example, here's the last 1,500 years, from NOAA's Arctic Report card 2017:
You'll need to raise your game to compete in this venue. In this venue, the onus is on YOU to be able to support your claims (each claim) with source citations, preferably to credible sources. Further, many of your claims are already refuted on separate posts here (thousands exist, use the Search function to find the most appropriate post to make your claims and to stake your reputation on).
I'm sure that the moderation staff would prefer to not intervene here, but I'm equally sure that they will if you continue to post what is essentially a Gish Gallop of memes refuted many times before (PRATT).
Read the Comments Policy and construct your comments to comply with it and my advice to you and all will be fine.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:41 AM on 24 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
BeezelyBillyBub,
Improving awareness and correcting understanding need to be understood to be the objectives (of every person who is trying to be helpful).
Try to avoid using terms that are open to too much interpretation. Divisive resistance to correction and improvement thrives on opportunities to make-up misleading claims that would appeal to people who are inclined to dislike their awareness and understanding being improved in a way that would challenge their developed perceptions of status (prosperity, helpfulness, opportunity for more personal benefit, ...), for themselves or any sub-tribe of global humanity they identify with.
And it is more helpful to point people to more robust presentations of understanding like the Sustainable Development Goals.
It may take more words to describe things in more detail, but when trying to be clear, fewer words can result in run-away popularity of misleading counter-claims. Less detail can make it easier to abuse motivated reasoning or confirmation bias to dismiss a presentation of information. I support the presentation of 'worst case future results', but only with a detailed presentation of the basis for the worst case.
"Runaway hothouse earth" may be interpreted as "Earth becoming Venus".
The nasty thing about global warming impacts is indeed the way that exceeding each tipping point starts something harmful that adds to the total impacts even without more impact from humans, and may be practically impossible for humans to completely stop or reverse (unlike the ending of fossil fuel use and other harmful developed human activities). However, my understanding is that the best developed understanding is that Earth is almost impossible to be impacted by human impacts to a degree that triggers tipping-points that would result in Earth becoming like Venus. And my understanding is that the tipping-points will not do what you have claimed (5 triggered below 2.0 C warming that are unstoppable and inevitably trigger the other tipping points in a runaway warming leading to Venus-like conditions on Earth).
I see the simple undeniable beauty of the other brief points made. But the 'runaway hothouse earth' and 'runaway mass extinction' points need more details or a different simple wording (I do not have alternative simple wording alternatives to offer)
What needs to be presented is how the amplification of the feed-backs of each of the tipping points will add up, how each one takes away the potential for human corrective actions to reverse what has been done.
That concern may be well explained by starting with the understanding that future reality is the sum of the actions of every person through the string of progressive moments in time. Everybody's impacts add up. Any harmful impact that accumulates collectively contributes to the "Harm Done". That is why people cannot be allowed to 'believe what they want and do as they please' (even though that understanding is understandably unpopular). Helpful people may even be able to substantially remove CO2 from the atmosphere or other corrective actions, but if harmful people are still able to be harmful the Helpful people's actions are just attempts to try to limit how much worse things will be, not able to 'make things better'.
Every person choosing a harmful action makes the problem worse, no matter how much the helpful people reduce their own impacts. That leads to the need to explain why less fortunate people should be allowed to create impacts and must be helped by the more fortunate to live at least basic decent lives that are not harmful to the future of humanity. Claiming that the supposedly less advanced, less fortunate should know better and behave better before "all" of the more fortunate people behave more helpfully (less harmfully) is 'absurd'. Which leads to the need, and opportunity, to explain that Helpfully Altruism must Govern and Limit the behaviour of everyone, especially Governing the actions of the supposed winners/leaders (if they did not and do not Self-Govern by Helpful Altruism they do not deserve their status).
Each tipping point has a "life of its own", adding to the collective impacts. But, unlike human impacts that can be reduced and even reversed by helpful human actions over-powering the harmful impacts of Others, tipping points can be harder for humans to "put back in the box they came out of". An example is the way that changes of Ocean Chemistry due to the human production of massive amounts of excess new CO2 are very hard for humans to reverse. Even reducing atmospheric levels of CO2 would not significantly reverse the Ocean chemistry changes, or the related impacts on Ocean Biodiversity.
And added information that could be helpful would be the detailed presentation of the likely amplification of global warming by each tipping-point triggered result.
That is a lot more difficult to present than saying 'Runaway hothouse Earth'. But it can short-circuit any attempt to create a potentially popular misleading counter-claim. The refutation of the counter-claim would likely be able to be shown to be part of the initial presentation of information that the person is trying to discredit.
However, I can suggest a simple brief comment that is difficult to create misleading counter-claims of. I recommend pointing people to more robust presentations of collective understanding of what is required for the future of humanity. People should be pointed to the Sustainable Development Goals, which includes a Climate Action Goal which has things like the IPCC Reports as 'part' of its basis. The SDGs are open to improvement, but they are undeniably what need to be Governing human activity, especially the activity of Winners/Leaders who want to sustain their developed perceptions of Status.
-
michael sweet at 02:40 AM on 24 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
In answer to your post 63:
Re: proliferation. I think most opponents of Nuclear think proliferation is an important point while supporters think it is not a problem. We will have to disagree. Any nuclear facilities make proliferation easier. It is extremely difficult to justify building a centrifuge facility if you do not have any civilian reactors. I agree with you that it is not one of the most important reasons to not build nuclear.
I think the point is that there are a lot of problems with nuclear. Do we really want to deal with the hassel? Look at current problems in Iran.
Your comments on breeder reactors seem simiilar to my feelings. I have noticed that all estimates of the cost of breeder reactors do not include the reprocessing plant. I have heard that the process of repurification is not complete. It would be a lot of radiation to work with.
I think Thorium reactors are all breeder reactors. Does that mean you think thorium is unlikely to be widely used?
-
Philosopherkeys at 01:15 AM on 24 June 2019Planetary health and '12 years' to act
Being that the ice core samples from Greenland show that over the last 10,000 years, the earth has been on average 3 degrees celcius warmer than today, how can anyone conclude this current round of warming is entirely manmade? What also troubles me is the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was written out of the history books by the IPCC hockey stick graph. As well the impact of the 500 year period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age was not acknowledged by the hockey stick graph. Brian Fagan in his book, "The Little Ice Age" describes how glaciers in the European Alps or New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere began growing once the earth began to cool. Entire villages and swaths of rainforest were obliterated by advancing glaciers. The hockey stick graph ignores the fact that the Earth was a lot warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland and Iceland. If as the ice core samples show, the Earth was a few degrees warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today, then the polar ice cap was smaller and thinner than even now and quite possibly the alarm being sounded by certain climate scientists is uncalled for as this is a normal cycle that goes back and forth.
-
richieb1234 at 22:50 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
Thanks for the link to the IEA executive summary on renewable energy.
You concluded, "We should put all our money on the cheapest energy today: wind and solar PV. Using existing gas peaker plants 90% of electricity can be generated using wind and solar. Then we convert all cars, industry and heat to electric. Once we have 90% of the economy renewable we will have to figure out the last 10%. Perhaps some electrofuels."
My reading of the IEA report and similar projections is not as optimistic as yours. IEA projects a 20% growth in renewables' share of global energy usage in the five year period from 2018 - 2023, which would then total 12.4% of global energy. That is equivalent to doubling renewables' share every 18 or so years; i.e. a 25% share of global energy usage by 2040. One might speculate that renewables will grow more quickly in the years after 2023. But renewables are already subsidized and/or mandated in developed countries like Germany, and even in the US, where federal and state incentives have been important drivers for renewables.
There is a sculpture in Berlin that depicts politicians debating climate change in water up to their ears. This summarizes my confidence that we will solve global warming through international commitment to conservation, efficiency, and converting our energy infrastructure to renewables. I am beginning to lean towards those who think we should aggressively pursue carbon-negative technology powered by an energy-intensive, carbon-neutral electricity source like nuclear.
Best regards
-
michael sweet at 22:33 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Postkey:
Your link is a really good reference for coal plants. An OP on SkS would be worthwhile. Even just a simple OP like this one.
You quoted the first paragraph of the article. The second is:
"More recently, 227GW has closed due to a wave of retirements across the EU and US. Combined with a rapid slowdown in the number of new plants being built, this means the number of coal units operating around the world fell for the first time in 2018, Carbon Brief analysis suggests." my emphasis.
There are too many items for me to copy them all, I urge anyone interested in coal plants to read the article, it is easy to read.
There are discouraging builds of new plants. There are many more encouraging instances of plants closing or planned plants being cancelled, even a few finished plants not opening. I prefer to see the glass as mostly full.
I stand behind my statement:
"energy planing is generally long range. It takes 5-10 years to build baseload fossil and nuclear plants. That means it takes 5-10 years to stop the train and get renewable energy on board. Renewable has only been cheapest for 3 or 4 years. No-one anticipated the phenominal drop [in price] in wind and solar power." in price added.
While we would all prefer for all fossil to be replaced today with renewable, it takes time to make such a change. Since building and operating a new renewable plant is cheaper than simply running a coal plant in many areas (in a short time it will be everywhere) it is only a matter of time. Pray it is sooner rather than later.
If the USA takes a lead in changing to renewables instead of dragging everyone else backwards we have a chance. The technology exists, nothing needs to be invented.
Encourage everyone you know to VOTE CLIMATE!
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 22:29 PM on 23 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
If you are 15 years old, emissions rose 30% in your lifetime.
If you are 30 years old, emissions rose 60% in your lifetime.
In the next 10 years, emissions will rise 10% at least.
After 30 years of trying, solar and wind are 2% of total world energy use.
To avoid 2 C, emissions must drop 50% in 10 years, and 100% in 20 years.
5 of 13 major tipping points are triggered like dominos below 2 C.
When these 5 tipping points begin, they reinforce each other and trigger the other 8.
Runaway hothouse earth cannot be stopped or reversed once started.
The earth will take many, many thousands of years to recover.
Runaway mass extinction cannot be stopped or reversed once started.
The earth will take many millions of years to recover.
Nobody wants to admit it.
There are 25 billion chickens on earth.
Humans and livestock are 98% of all land vertebrate biomass.
10,000 years ago, humans and livestock were 0.03% of all land vertebrate biomass.
All male vertebrates are being biologically emasculated, feminized, sterilized, stupified and crazyfied.
If you want tons of data on how and why, go to Loki's Revenge Blog and read: The Withering Bones of Humanity
-
richieb1234 at 20:47 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
"Ten years ago I had little hope for change. The situation has completely changed because wind and solar energy are now the cheapest energy on the planet."
I hope you are right.
"If you could comment on one more section of Abbott each week we eventually would have discussed them all."
Here are my views on Abott's issues VII "The Prolifieration Problem" and XI "Fast Breeder Reactors."
In the late 1970s at Los Alamos, a group of us did a comparative analysis of nuclear fuel cycles including the current light- water once-through; the plutonium breeder; the Uranium-Plutonium-Thorium hybrid; and the fusion-fission hybrid. We looked at technical feasibiity, economics, environmental factors, proliferation and societal issues such as public acceptance. Unfortunately the reports are not publically available and some of the analyses are out of date now. However, there are two conclusions that have held up.
Regarding proliferation, we concluded that reactors would not be the preferred route to proliferation in the coming decades. Although proliferating countries had used reactors combined with reprocessing in the previous decades, we felt that the coming availability of centrifuge enrichment technology would give proliferators an equally attractive option of enriching Uranium. That seems to be borne out by experience since then. In today's world, I believe proliferation is now a political problem, not a technical one. So I do not consider proliferation a convincing argument against nuclear power.
Regarding breeder cycles in general, we noted that they all require a sustained national commitment to assure the high degree of coordination required among breeder reactor, burner reactor and reprocessing plant construction, including regultory approval for all facilities. A high degree of national commitment is not the hallmark of democratic governments except in time of war. The Clinch River demonstration breeder reactor was cancelled in 1983. So I agree with Abbott that implementing a breeder cycle to capture the benefits of U-238 fissionable material is not a likely outcome.
Best regards
-
Postkey at 19:08 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
“Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,000 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 236GW is being built and 336GW is planned.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened link breaking page formatting. In your link, the question mark and everything to the right of it were extraneous.
-
bozzza at 18:29 PM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
"I'll be be back!" (..in amonth, lol!)
Moderator Response:[DB] Please limit image widths to 450.
[PS] This is also somewhat offtopic. The weekly news roundup thread would be more appropriate.
-
barry17781 at 12:05 PM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The reference to the quote seem to have dropped off
"The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod
-
michael sweet at 11:15 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Ritchieb1234,
Ten years ago I had little hope for change. The situation has completely changed because wind and solar energy are now the cheapest energy on the planet. Very few new coal plants are being started. Unfortunately, coal plants planned 5-10 years ago are being fiished.
Even with Trump trying to support coal, more coal plants have shut down in Trumps first two years than Obama's first 4 years. Gas is only cheaper because of fracking. I think fracking is a Ponzi scheme, they have never made a profit. Once fracking crashes, renewable will be by far the cheapest energy.
As you know, energy planing is generally long range. It takes 5-10 years to build baseload fossil and nuclear plants. That means it takes 5-10 years to stop the train and get renewable energy on board. Renewable has only been cheapest for 3 or 4 years. No-one anticipated the phenominal drop in wind and solar power.
Over 50% of all new electricity in the world in 2017 was renewable energy IEA report for 2018. 10 years ago that looked impossible. Plans like Jacobson 2018 and Connelly 2016 linked above show that it is possible to generate all power using renewables. It saves money compared to BAU!! More heat and industry is being converted to electricity. The IEA report linked describes large increases in bioenergy which Jacobson does not use at all (he thinks it is too polluting). I like the idea of electrofuels to store excess power long term and power industries like airplanes and ships.
Renewable energy also avoids much of the pollution we are exposed to every day. That is especially important in developing countries and is a great reason by itself to convert to renewables.
I think that if we go all in with renewable energy we can reduce the damage caused by fossil fuel use. The sooner we start the more damage we dodge. Unfortunately, the Republicans stand in the way. Every record hot day in summer or record flood more people are convinced we need to do something. Will it be enough by 2020??
I do not think nuclear will be able to help out. It is too costly and takes too long to build. Even if NuScale works out it will be 2030 before they are in limited production, and I doubt it will be as cheap as solar and wind. That is too late. I think Abbott is correct that enough materials to build the plants do not exist. If nuclear provides less than 5% of all power it is simply a distraction. (currently nuclear is about 2-3% of all power).
We should put all our money on the cheapest energy today: wind and solar PV. Using existing gas peaker plants 90% of electricity can be generated using wind and solar. Then we convert all cars, industry and heat to electric. Once we have 90% of the economy renewable we will have to figure out the last 10%. Perhaps some electrofuels.
-
barry17781 at 11:00 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My considered comment
"as for hafnium in civilian reactors I stand by it that it is currently not used to any significant extent"
Barry 6:25 11 June 2019
Yet Mr sweets comment were
"Your primary objeciton to Abbott and here 2011 is your claim that hafnium is not used in civilian reactors.
michael sweet at 21:28 PM on 14 June 2019"
A compete distortion of my post which was to point out that halfnium was just one element that can be used as a control or scram rod and there were pleanty of other materials available and boron was cheap cheerful and abundant, and readily obtainable, and so there was no restraint on the availbilty of absorber materials, which seemd to go agaist the preconceptions that if it was mentioned in Abbott, peer review paper then it must be essential!
"The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors."
Indeed we may well regard ourselves be in asituation, now in where Halfnium being limited simply by the military having the first pick and deeper pockets than the civilians
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:45 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
OPOF is right, it is impossible to predict the minimum extent that far in advance with any kind of accuracy. From what I have seen while following sea ice over the years, it appears that weather events, especially winds that scatter the ice and flush it to the South, are major determinants of the final minimum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:29 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
bozzza @3,
I check the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis reasonably regularly, particularly their Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph. And I occasionally look at the Arctic ROOS data presentations.
Comparing the current year at this date with other years in the easy to work with Charctic interactive tool, this year at this time is very similar to 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
Each of those years have very different final minimums. And some years that had less ice area loss by this time of year ended up with very low minimums (2015 and 2007).
A lot of variation of rate of ice loss can happen. This year's ice area loss rate recently levelled off from June 12 to June 17 (almost no change of extent through those dates. So if you were looking at data before June 12 it certainly would have looked like 2019 was on track to have a lower minimum than 2012.
A long time ago I read a caution about forecasting sea ice minimums based on the data up to this time of year. I would wait at least one more month before feeling fairly sure about what the minimum would likely be this year.
-
barry17781 at 10:06 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Mr sweet,
"As you can see from Barry and Dpeppigrass's posts on this thread, the normal level of discussion of nuclear on line is very low. In my mind it makes nuclear look bad when the only people who favor nuclear are so uninformed. If the nuclear industry wants to start over they need to address people like SkS who want to make informed decisions."
Mr sweet , I am a nuclear engineer with over 35 years experience as an advisor in the industry in 5 countries, yet your great experience seems to be in holding a yttrium source in the hand and distorting any viewpoint that you do not like.
I am afraid that your continued insulting and misepresentationhas not had any usefull ness in raising the tone of this what you would loosely call a discussion, but seems to be a platform for your prejudiced views.
Richie has not yet referenced a singe Peer reviewd
-
nigelj at 08:11 AM on 23 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
Corn based ethanol and similar crop based ethanols look increasingly like a failed idea. Looking at the article above the majority of the studies appear to suggest corn ethanol has no advantages over other options, or at best a small advantage. Displacing millions of hectares of forests and other crops for at best a possible small advantage looks like insanity to me.The risks of losing considerable areas of cropland and forests do not justify this.
Corn is claimed but not proven to sequester good levels of carbon, and is also used as cattle feed in intensive farming, but there is also some evidence that the alternative of feeding cattle on open grasslands with rotational grazing sequesters soil carbon and is an alternative to corn feed. So this alternative should at least be considered in the 'modelling'. Of course it does put pressure on land so this needs to be also considered.
We need to be asking what do we 'really' need biofuels for? Perhaps aviation fuel, and to power shipping and long haul trucking because electrifying these things is going to be challenging. Blending corn ethanol in petrol for cars is stupidity, because we have electric cars and once you get above a token blend of about 20% ethanol engine's cant handle it. Token blends simply dont achieve anything of significance to my way of thinking.
We have other options for biofuels that don't compromise forests and crop lands. I recall reading biofuels can be made from scrub grown on waste land, harvesting grasses, growing algae and from various other waste materials. This may not be as economic short term as corn biofuels, but in the long term this doesn't disrupt other essential land uses. It may be enough to fuel things that cannot be electrified. Someone needs to work that one out, and it will give a better picture of whether corn biofuels are of any use.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Bozzza @5: There is nothing normal about this. The immense area of free water North of Siberia, the one next to Severnya Zemlya, all of the Alaskan and Yukon coasts ice free, most of that of the Northwest Territories except for the vicinity of Victoria Island. Although things slowed down a bit in June this year, the extent is pretty much on par with the 2012 extent after it had experienced its abrupt June decline. Add to that the nearly absent ice in the Bering sea through the winter. As NSIDC says, the stage is set. Even though it is early in the season, it is hard to see how this year could not be very close to 2012. Any major wind event will likely yield to a new record low.
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 23 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Washinton Post :Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting
Sure is quite something. Seems to be a big stationary high over the arctic. I wonder if the reduction in temperature differential from equator to the arctic due to climate change is causing highs to build up and hang around over the arctic? Absolute pure speculation.
-
richieb1234 at 06:46 AM on 23 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I am on a steep learning curve. I started out to create a simple course on climate change for my 12 year old granddaughter, but I keep getting more deeply interested in the science.
Since my retirement from NRC, I have done extensive consulting and training in developing countries and at the IAEA. The perspective I have is that the interests of climate change activists, and those of reactor vendors and those of countries looking for future energy do not necessarily line up. I don't see any of these countries buying a Gen IV reactor until it has been successfully operated in a country with real nuclear experience. Each country has its own decision process, its own regulatory process and its own financial challenges. As you know, there is no global authority empowered to deal with global warming.
Call me a pessimist, but global warming is not going to be on a fast track to resolution in the next decade. It would not surprise me to see CO2 emissions rising every year from now until then. In the meantime, the vendors and the potential customers will pursue their own interests, not solution to warming. If nuclear can be added to plans like the Green New Deal, I would suggest the most productive area of emphasis would be aggressive regulatory reform; i.e. to develop a regulatory framework designed for a climate change strategy for nuclear rather than an electicity grid strategy for nuclear. By a climate change strategy I mean large numbers of nuclear plants sited in remote locations for the express purpose of producing synthetic fuels from CO2 in the atmosphere.
I need to sign off now. I would be interested in your view of that perspective.
Best regards
-
michael sweet at 22:52 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richied1234,
I look forward to your responses to Abbott's paper. I have grave doubts that NuScale can deliver on their claims. It will be interesting to see what the response is to Abbotts remaining issues.
As you can see from Barry and Dpeppigrass's posts on this thread, the normal level of discussion of nuclear on line is very low. In my mind it makes nuclear look bad when the only people who favor nuclear are so uninformed. If the nuclear industry wants to start over they need to address people like SkS who want to make informed decisions.
I have only read a handful of academic renewable all power plans (like Jacobson 2018, Connelly 2016 and Aghahosseai et al 2019 (Connelly and Aghahosseai use electrofuels). My impression is that all of those plans incorporate zero nuclear power. If all the long range plans by skilled engineers omit nuclear it is hard for me to see a path where significant nuclear is used. An industry that can lose $2 billion on the cancelled Wales plant Barry references and $1.5 billlion on a plant at Crystal River, Florida (near where I live) where they never even applied for a permit to build, should be able to find a few million to produce academic papers that show it is a real option for the future.
Many newspaper articles I see make nuclear builds look like a giant scam to rip off utility customers (for example Crystal River and large numbers of generals selling nuclear plans to Saudi Arabia).
I think the logarithmic relationship of CO2 concentration to temperature comes from Beers Law. Concentration = k[-log(transmission of light)]. There are some different formulations of Beers law, the key is log transmission is proportional to concentration. (Absorbance is directly proportional to concentration).
One important point to recognize is the concentration of CO2 at the surface is not as important as the concentration at the escape altitude of radiation (about 10 km up in the atmosphere). The escape altitude is very important.
-
richieb1234 at 22:11 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
"In your first post you said the current fleet of nuclear reactors has an accident rate of 1 per 10,000 reactor-years."
I believe there are two tiers of operating Gen III plants: those where the operating company has a strong safety culture, and the regulatory body is independent and competent; and those where these two criteria are not met. In round numbers, I think operating experience justifies a core damage frequency in the range of 1 in 10,000 reactor years for the former group and 1 in 1,000 reactor years for the latter group. The historical data includes full and partial core melt accidents, as well as precursor events; i.e. close calls. The TMI, Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents fall into the second category. So, I am in general agreement with Abbott. I believe that most nuclear countries today fall into my first catagory, but I cannot provide evidence to support that claim. I am pretty confident that the curent situation in the US is favorable, and there is good reason to believe the US Gen III plants can complete their life cycles wihout another core damage accident. [But I have been wrong before. :-)]
"If you built out 50,000 modular reactors with an accident rate of 1 in 100,000 reactor years, you would have a big accident every other year somewhere. That would be 100 times safer than Abbott claims. How safe are those modular reactor designs?"
My basis for believing that [at least some] small modular reactors are qualitatively safer than GEN III plants is outlined in previous posts; i.e., elimination of the most challenging accident sequences, much slower accident progression and heat removal by natural processes.
Yes, with a postulated 50,000 plants spread around the world, it is easy to imagine core damage accidents occurring on a more regular basis, although I would be reluctant to assign a frequency number. As I have said elsewhere, I believe the greatest threat to SMRs is deliberate sabotage. Great pains will have to be taken to assure security.
Best regards
-
bozzza at 17:37 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Should fast-ice along the north eastern sea route br disappearing this fast?
-
bozzza at 17:11 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
I will note, however, that the volume figures don't seem as bad- which I must admit I can't explain.
-
bozzza at 17:06 PM on 22 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
Has anyone seen the Global Sea Ice figures lately? I think we should call 911 ...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:08 PM on 22 June 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #24
An enlightening item in BBC June 21 discusses a rather effective representation of global warming thta was developed by Prof Ed Hawkins of Reading University.
The chart that defines our warming world by Jonathan Amos, Science and Environment, BBC, June 21, 2019.
-
richieb1234 at 12:12 PM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
"If you could comment on one more section of Abbott each week we eventually would have discussed them all."
I have enjoyed the dialogue with you, and I will be happy to take a stab a some of the other topics.
"Does Nuscale have more data that was not available to the French in 2015? Does the US NRC differ from the French analysis?"
I retired from NRC in 2007, so I am not in on the most recent thinking. However, I know that NuScale Power has submitted its application for Design Certification. The application covers every aspect of reactor safety and comprises multiple volumes of information. The contents of the application are specifically mandated in NRC documents RG 1.71 and RG 1.205. The NRC has nearly completed its technical review of the NuScale application in accordance with the agency's Standard Review Plan (SRP). The SRP is an exhaustive procedure for reviewing a design, comprising thousands of pages of guidance and covering nearly 300 distinct technical topics from reactor physics to materials effects to radiation protection. The safety review takes three and a half years and involves dozens of technical experts. I will see if I can get my hands on the NRC's preliminary safety evaluation report (SER).
I have worked with IRSN during my NRC tenure, and it is a very credible organization. But I cannot speak to which design they were discussing.
"The Union of Concerned Scientists was concerned that safety is not much better in modular reactors. The savings in manufacture and operations came mainly from leaving out current safety mechanisms"
Some of the savings in small modular designs are probably from eliminating safety systems that are designed to respond to specific accidents. But if those accidents are precluded by the design, it makes sense not to design for them. For example, the most challenging accident in a GEN III plant is the postulated rupture of one of the 30" diameter reactor coolant pipes, and the provisions to mitigate this accident are a major part of the safety design. The NuScale design has no reactor coolant pipes. I think it is safer to eliminate a challenging accident than to have a system to mitigate it.
Best regards
-
barry17781 at 10:30 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Halfnium is neutron absorber, it says so in Abbott
Beryllium is a reflector likewise.
There are well over a dozen other neutron absorbers available boron is probably the commonst used.
There i hardly any shortage of boron and it can be readily extracted from the sea water
-
michael sweet at 10:23 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
In your first post you said the current fleet of nuclear reactors has an accident rate of 1 per 10,000 reactor-years. Abbott claims 11 accidents (before Fukushima) in 14,000 commercial reactor years so his rate is about ten times yours. How many reactor years do you use for your calculation? It must be much higher than Abbott's number. Just Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is 5 accidents.
If you built out 50,000 modular reactors with an accident rate of 1 in 100,000 reactor years, you would have a big accident every other year somewhere. That would be 100 times safer than Abbott claims. How safe are those modular reactor designs?
-
michael sweet at 09:50 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb 1234,
They are now much more water stressed in Arizona than they were in 1988 when the Pao Verde plant was built. From your reference:
"Palo Verde is the only nuclear generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large body of above-ground water."
As water is running low in most locations I doubt that many plants like Palo Verde will be built in the future. They would repurify the water and drink it today.
There is a small nuclear plant in Siberia that is completely air cooled. It is cold in Siberia.
I cannot imagine building 12,000 small nuclear plants in the USA. Most would have to be built on ocean front property that is not threatened by sea level rise. Even with 20 reactors per site it would be hard to find enough locations.
-
michael sweet at 09:48 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
Thank you for your informed comments. I think you can contribute a lot more to the conversation. We have great difficulty finding anyone who can comment positively on nuclear and make sense.
Your approach of posting on one topic at a time works very well. If you could comment on one more section of Abbott each week we eventually would have discussed them all.
On safety I have these two references. In 2015 the French Nuclear Regulatory Agency (IRSN) said:
"At the present stage of development, IRSN does not have all the necessary data to determine whether the systems under review [generation IV reactors] are likely to offer a significantly improved level of safety compared with Generation III reactors"
The Union of Concerned Scientists was concerned that safety is not much better in modular reactors. The savings in manufacture and operations came mainly from leaving out current safety mechanisms.
What do you think about these positions? Does Nuscale have more data that was not available to the French in 2015? Does the US NRC differ from the French analysis?
-
richieb1234 at 04:53 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
Thank you for bringing my attention to the Abbott 2011 paper. I have tried to comment on those ares where I have expertise and leave the rest for others to evaluate. Nevertheless, I can see that the paper outlines many important problems which must be addressed by anyone advocating a nuclear solution to climate change.
My original reason for seeking out Skeptical Science.com was to find out the basis for the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature, but got diverted when I saw the commenting on nuclear energy. I want to get back to that original question. I will continue to follow the nuclear energy string, but will probably not be a prolific commenter.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 04:38 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I continue to study Abbott 2011. Here are my commens on his topic VI: "The accident rate problem." In this section, Abbott uses historical accident data from the nuclear industry to conclude that there would be a full or partial core melt accident every month if nuclear plants were used to meet the entire worldwide energy demand. I think the rate would be closer to one accident a year, but that is still unacceptable. Thus, Gen III nuclear reactors should not be used to address the global warming issue.
Gen IV reactors are qualitatively more safe. They do not used electrically powered systems to respond to accidents, as Gen III plants do. They do not even use passively powered systems, as Gen III+ plants do. They respond to accidents with natural cooling. No systems are used. A well designed Gen IV plant requires little or no intervention.
For these reasons, the principal threat would be deliberate acts of sabotage. It is difficult to estimate the likelihood of these because they are inherently non-random. Security measures would/will be most important for these plants. This includes design measures as well as a security force.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 01:35 AM on 22 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet
I am still studying Abbott 2011. Here are my views on topics III: "The Embrittlement Problem" and IV: "The Entropy Problem."
These two topics focus on materials issues with nuclear power, and conclude that these issues will limit average life of a plant to about 50 years.
The situation related to materials issues is not as alarming as it might seem. The embrittlement problem relates only to older plants. Changes to weld metallurgy have solved it for new plants. Other cracking mechanisms are managed via non destructive examination during outages. For metal-cooled reactors, there is no pressure in the vessel, and experience with sodium cooled reactors has been that degradation is not a problem. Gas cooled reactors are at high temperature and pressure, but the cooling medium is Helium, a non-reactive gas.
Nevertheless, Abbott is right, the lifetime of a facility will be measured in decades [although probably longer than 50 years]. And then it becomes a decommissioning problem. If each reactor is only 300 MWe, there would be 50,000 reactors worldwide. That would mean between 2 and 3 reactors going into decommissioning every day!! I don't see how that would be sustainable. Maybe someone can correct my math or my logic.
Best regards
-
richieb1234 at 23:06 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet:
I have read Abbott 2011 several times since my last post. It is very well researched and well written. It will take me a while to get up to speed. I will add Jacobson to my reading list.
"I am surprised the NRC is not aware of Abbott. Don't they read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?"
The NRC is not concerned with the development of nuclear power, just the regulation of safety, security and emergency response. Under US law, the Department of Energy is concerned with nuclear development.
"Why should I believe that generation IV will succeed when generation III failed? The fact that nuclear is starting over with generation 4 suggests the technology is too complicated to work."
The new nuclear technologies are far simpler than the Gen III designs. They use far fewer systems, have eliminated the most challenging accident sources and use natural cooling processes. Here is an overview of the NuScale system: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview. Time will tell whether these innovations lead to commercial success. That kind of question will be determined over time by free markets. There are dozens of companies in several countries who are betting their own money and effort that GEN IV has a bright future.
Getting back to Abbott 2011, here is my view of his first objection to nuclear power; namely that there are not enough sites in the world with large enough water supplies. The Palo Verde plant in the southwest US has 4,200 MWe of installed nuclear power on a desert site. It uses municipal wastewater piped in from nearby cities for process water and emergency cooling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station. The Gen IV plants have low capacities (300 MWe or less) and can be installed in clusters that are sized to the available water sources. Where there's a will, there's a way.
This is great fun. I will continue to study the many excellent issues that Abbott has raised, and I will take a look at Jacobson.
Best regards.
-
Phaedrus1 at 21:29 PM on 21 June 2019Holocene Optimum was warmer
From the National Climate Data Center:
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them. It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period
-
michael sweet at 20:14 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Richieb1234,
Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 are available at these links (also linked in the OP). The links are free. They are very similar. They are easy to read. I am surprised the NRC is not aware of Abbott. Don't they read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?
Jacobson 2009, cited 1200 times, rates 12 different technologies. Nuclear comes in about 9th for different reasons from Abbott. These issues need to be addresssed.
I remember nuclear proponents claiming that generation III plants would be built much faster because sections would be built in factories, similar to your description of Japan. The plants in Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to demonstrate this success. Obviously this did not happen.
Why should I believe that generation IV will succeed when generation III failed? The fact that nuclear is starting over with generation 4 suggests the technology is too complicated to work.
Some of the plans I have read for future energy systems use electrofuels. Connolly 2016, Smart Energy Europe uses methane (or methanol) as storage and fuel for some parts of the economy. Nuclear power would have to be as cheap as renewable energy and overcome the issues Abbott and Jacobson describe.
In a renewable energy system the most valuable energy is stored energy for windless nights. Most of the time there will be extra energy that needs to be stored for the slow nights. Baseload is therefor low value. Nuclear will be competing at the lowest level of the energy system most of the time. Do they realize they will be bottom feeding and not top feeding?
If nuclear can only generate 2-5% of all power (all power is about 5-6 times current electrical power) is it worth dealing with the problems of uranium supply, safety, waste and weapon expansion? We need look no further than current Iran and North Korea problems to see these future issues.
-
richieb1234 at 19:13 PM on 21 June 2019Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet:
Lots of great questions. I will have to do some research to get the answers. And I will have to read Abbott. Here are some partial replies:
"How will the factory be different from the manufacturing unit for the generation III reactors?"
Gen III plants are not built in factories; they are constructed on the site, which is an inefficient, costly and untimely process that involves armies of skilled workers crawling around a hugh site. Some countries, notably Japan, have perfected modular construction techniques to improve the costs and scheduling of construction. The Japanese assemble large sections of the plant in factories on site and lift them into place. I have seen one of these opertions at Shika, where they were using a 1,000 Ton crane! The new modular reactors will be completely assembled in factories and delivered to the site on trucks or barges. The site will require some construction to accommodate the reactor, and I believe the nuclear fuel will not be added until the reactor is installed (although theoretically the entire package could be assembled in the factory, given prior regulatory approval).
"Can you coment on how much it would cost to build a reactor factory?"
"I saw a comment by someone at NuScale that in order to buiild their factory they needed to have a very large number of reactors on order (hundreds of billions of dollars worth), presumably from the government."
I am not familiar with the costs of the factories. I will see what I can find out.
"Can you comment on Abbott's 13 reasons why nuclear is not practical? I am especially interested in Abbott's claim that rare materials like hafnium and beryllium do not exist in sufficient quantity to build out a sigificant quantity (enough to supply more than 5% of all power) of reactors."
"Why has the nuclear industry chosen not to reply to Abbott?"
I will get a copy of Abbott and see what I can find out. Regarding the industry's lack of response to Abbott, that is not surprising. The operating companies are focused on sustaining the viability of the current fleet of reactors in an unfavorable economic environment, and the reactor vendors are focused on getting new construction orders. Starting a dialogue on using nuclear power to address climate change would not be a priority for them right now.
"What fraction of all power (all power, not electricity only) do you think could be delivered by reactors by 2050?"
Answering this question will require some research, which I am happy to do. The concept that I have been reading about is the "carbon-negative" approach, which would use nuclear power plants in remote locations to make gaseous and liquid fuels by combining CO2 extracted from the air with Hydrogen from water. The concept is to keep our current infrastructure for using fuels, but to supply the fuels by recycling CO2. The plan also calls for seqestering CO2 in order to get some reduction in the current atmospheric concentrations. Proponents of this approach believe it is the only way to stop global warming, because they believe that all other plans involve continuing indefinitly to take fossil fuels from the earth. Carbon-negative technology is under development in the UK and in the US/Canada. [I realize that most Skeptical Science commenters are probably already familiar with carbon-negative]
Thanks for the positive feedback. I will be back when I have some answers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 21 June 2019In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
nigelj,
I agree, and would add that 'popularity' as a measure of success also shares in the blame for the harmful things that have been happening.
Being Helpful to Others, being altruistic, is a way of thinking and behaving that every human can develop.
Competition for status based on popularity and profitability without Helpful Altruism effectively governing what is going on is destined to develop harmful unsutainable results. And being able to get away with misleading marketing 'unpenalized', can amplify how harmful the results will be, especially by increasing the resistance to correction of awareness and understanding.
Advertising/Marketing/Education (similar things), that helpfully altruisticly honestly improve awareness and understanding are Great. Any other type of promotion/teaching can obviously be incredibly harmful.
The climate science case makes that rather common sense understanding undeniably clear, at least to anyone who is not divisively confirmation biased into motivated reasoning, critically trying to think of a way to get away from that awareness and understanding.
Prev 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 Next
