Recent Comments

Prev  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  Next

Comments 105501 to 105550:

105501. Alexandre at 00:35 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        quokka #50 Very interesting graph, thanks. Eyeballing it, I'd say it's as variable as weather. Local wind farms are indeed very variable. What I said is that this variability is climatologically predictable in the long term and meteorologically predictable in the short term, allowing you to manage the various sources. And if you have a extensive grid, say covering all Australia, you could smooth out most of the variance. Ok, I don't know much about Australian winds, but that's what I conclude from this study, about an extensive grid over Europe and northern Africa, that could smooth out even seasonal variability. They mention energy costs within the range of 3~4.5 Euro cents per kWh. High wind power penetration by the systematic use of smoothing effects within huge catchment areas shown in a European example Anyway, of course you cannot rely only on wind energy. You will need the occasional backup. But it can be an important part of the final mix, significantly lowering emissions.
105502. KR at 00:29 AM on 29 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        The line "greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is indeed not from G&T. The quote this is based upon, from the introduction of their paper, is: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. While much shorter, I think the abbreviated line accurately conveys the meaning of G&T's quoted words, although the shorthand line skips major portions of G&T's strawman argument. Berényi - do you indeed feel that the greenhouse effect does not exist?
105503. muoncounter at 23:51 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #90: "these fuels have high energy density and are readily prepared from abundant crude oil, which exists free in Nature, " False on two counts; crude oil is not abundant any longer and its most definitely NOT free. Perhaps the illusion of 'cheap oil' came from generations of allowing consumers and producers to get a free pass on cleaning up their own waste products: ie, pollutants including CO2. #91: "The reason big oil and many mining companies are quite skeptical of cilmate change is because they have not experiend any at their field site." Nope again. The oil companies I worked for are skeptical of climate change because it threatens their bottom line.
105504. muoncounter at 23:37 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        #71: "For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans and variable (unknown) outputs from various sources, such as wetlands." There's little or no empirical evidence that ocean outgassing makes a measurable contribution to atmospheric CO2 increase. Compare the monthly MLO record to landlocked stations along the same latitudes -- all the way around the globe -- and you see no differences. But 'unknown outputs'? No doubt those will be hard for you to document. "Land use change wasn't mentioned." And a good thing too, as land use change is now removing terrestrial carbon sinks. As far as increasing rates of change in atmospheric CO2, all the graphs of the annual data I've seen are concave up. That means the slope is increasing.
105505. Ann at 23:27 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I will also post an on-topic comment :-) As much as I think we need to invest in renewable energy to replace fossil fuel based energy, I think this in itself is not going to stop climate change. It is even dangerous to put too much trust in the whole renewable energy story. The problem is that all renewable energy plants are just installed in addition to the existing power plants, until now – as far as I know – they have never actually replaced fossil fuel based plants. All measures that are taken to fight climate change should deal directly with the problem. Encouraging renewable energy, reducing ecological footprint are indirect methods at the best. It is like trying to stop a leak not at the source, but way downstream. The real issue is the extra carbon we bring into the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels, carbon that otherwise would stay buried deep down in the earth’s crust. The carbon is exchanged between the atmosphere, the oceans, plants, rocks etc, and temporary shifts may take place (f.i. through deforestration or reforestation), but what matters in the long run is the total amount of carbon that is circulating in the system. None of the current initiatives to stop global warming prevent the further addition of carbon to the carbon cycle. If we continue like this, eventually all carbon that is now stored as fossil fuels will become part of the carbon cycle. It may take a bit longer (if we decrease our energy consumption and use more renewable energy) or shorter, but this will the end result. So, for me the viable options are: - encourage energy companies somehow to keep the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. I am really phantasizing now, cause I don’t see that happening. I think we have to calculate with the assumption that every last drop of petroleum and every last lump of coal will eventually be burnt. - carbon capture and sequestration : harvest the energy of fossil fuels, but keep the carbon behind and store it back in the ground. - mechanical trees: actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and sequester the CO2. - reforestation is a short-term solution, as in the long run forests emit just as much CO2 as they absorb. But short-term it can be part of the solution and buy us more time. Regarding geo-engineering: these are short term and emergency solutions at best. I wouldn’t like to live in a world that is only able to survive because we are constantly controlling and readjusting the climate.
105506. h pierce at 23:11 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        The reason big oil and many mining companies are quite skeptical of cilmate change is because they have not experiend any at their field site. Many of comapnies have had operation in the field for over a century. Moreover, they don't want the boys in Brussels taking over and running their companies.
105507. h pierce at 23:04 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        RE: Fossil Fuel Are Forever! Harold the Chemist says: Boats, planes, freight trains and trucks, military and emergency vehicles, heavy machinery used agriculture, construction, forestry and mining, cars and light trucks, recreational vehicles, and so forth will always require and use hydrocarbon fuels because these fuels have high energy density and are readily prepared from abundant crude oil, which exists free in Nature, by fractional distillation and blending of the distillate fraction, low energy processes which do not involve the breaking of chemical bonds. Even catalytic cracking of the heavy ditillate fractions into lighter fractions for fuel formulation is a relative low energy process. In the heavy industries, only fossil fuels can supply the heat energy and high process temperatures either directy or indirectly (e.g. the electric furnace) required by lime and cement kilns, smelters, steel mills, foundries and metal casting planets, all facilities manufacturing ceramic materials (glass, bricks, tiles, porcelin ware, etc), refineries and chemical plants and so forth. Diesel-electrical generating systems are used extensively throughout the world for primary and back-up power and for power generation in many delveloping countries and at remote locations (e.g., diamond and gold mines, resort islands, drilling rigs, movie sets, etc). Electrical generators using gasoline are quite portable and are used for small snd modest power requriments. Many processes in food production require large amounts of heat for baking, cooking and steam for sterilization, etc which can provided economically by fossil fuels. Drying of grain for storage requires enormous amounts of heat which can only be provided economically by fossils fuels. Energy for space heating especially in cold climates and hot water production and for electricity generation, in particular for refrigeration, communication systems, hospitals and emergency services, is provided most reliably and economically by use of fossil fuels. FYI: A Boeing 747 takes off with 346,000 US gallons of fuel for a long intl. fight. At large airports big jet are more numerous that house sparrows. The largeset cruise ship ever built, the Oasis of the Ocean can carry about 6,000 passengers and 5,000 crew members. These large cruise ships cary enormous amounts of fuel. The most wasteful use of energy is diamond mining. Tons of ore are sometimes processed to obtain a few carats of rough diamonds. About 80% of gold production goes to the jewerly industry. Who among you wants to tell the ladies, "No more diamonds, gold, sliver, platinium, rubies, emeralds, etc for jewerly because we must save the planet from over heating." They would become outraged, ponce on you, take off the Pradas and pound you into hamburger which they would feed with glee to the dingo dogs! I don't want read any more foolish comments about getting rid of fossil fuels. Ain't ever going to happen.
105508. adelady at 22:40 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        daisym "But nobody will tell us how much of a temperature reduction to expect from government’s solutions. Why is this so? Why are scientists silent on this?" Why? Because the very, very unpleasant truth is that we've really mucked it up for this and the next couple of generations. We can reduce our emissions instantly - meaning over the next 20 years. We can set some clever energetic people onto the task of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (not from using geological carbon fuels) but actually extracting some of the surplus CO2 'pulse' we've injected into our oceans and atmosphere. But in the end, temperature is set to keep on rising for quite a while even with instantaneous cessation. The reason people don't talk about it? Because making that sort of thing the general topic of conversation can lead to despair and hopelessness. People need to feel that they can do some good. We need the occasional blast from the likes of "Storms of my Grandchildren" James Hansen. Mostly we need to keep plugging away at politicians on renewable power, urban design, public transport and all the rest of it.
105509. Ann at 22:39 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Regarding the safety of nuclear energy: I recently saw a television program about the French nuclear power plants. Title of the program: “Nothing to report”. Ever since nuclear power plants in France have been privatised, the operators cut corners wherever they can to save costs. Regarding the risk of nuclear pollution, instead of the “zero risk” policy from earlier days, they have adopted a “calculated risk” policy. The replacement of parts that are past their usable lifetime is delayed. Instead of a fixed staff, temporary workmen are hired from subcontractors, people who don’t have the necessary skills and don’t have a clue about the risks they are running. If anything goes wrong, the subcontractors take the blame. Nuclear inspectors are put under pressure to put “nothing to report” in their reports, even if they find flaws in the installation. What was most striking for me: this isn’t propaganda from the anti-nuclear lobby. These words and criticism came from people who have worked for many years in the nuclear industry, who used to be proud of their work, and have seen the situation deteriorate, and the risk of disasters increase. And this is France, for Gods sake. A highly developed and technologically advanced country . It makes you wonder what happens with nuclear power plants in developing countries like India, where environmental rules are not that strict, where public health is less protected, where low cost is even more a driver for all decisions. For me, fighting global warming with nuclear energy is like choosing between pest and cholera.
105510. Tom bond at 22:07 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Argus (No 84 ) said "To the moderator: What happened to the principle of keeping comments relevant to the current thread, and deleting any off topic comments? About 90% of this thread is a detailed discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power and its economy. Hardly relevant to the title "What should we do about climate change?" " I think you have missed the intent of the pro nuclear commentators. All are very passionate about climate change and are actively researching the best way to reduce CO2 emissions without destroying our very high standard of living. The only example of a large developed country reducing carbon emissions without compromising living standards is France. In just 20 years France constructed 58 nuclear power stations replacing almost all its fossil fuel generation. Today France has low carbon emissions (per capita) compared to all other G20 countries, a strong economy, exports 4B euros of non carbon energy energy annually to Britain, Germany and Italy, has a social welfare and health system that is the envy of Europe and their citizens retire at 60. If all G20 countries had followed France's lead 30 years ago climate change would not be the issue it is today. Thus the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power is very relevant to what we should do about climate change.
105511. quokka at 21:48 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #81 adelady With respect to geothermal, nobody doubts that there is a huge amount of heat in granite rock a few Ks below the surface. Engineered Geothermal is a great story - huge reserves, potentially baseload power, small environmental footprint. The problem is that no electricity generation on a commercial scale has even been demonstrated and at best is several years away. Geodynamics was said to be the company closest with it's facility in the Cooper Basin in SA, but they have had their share of problems, are well behind schedule and still are to make a decision on a proposed 25 MW commercial scale demonstration plant. They have had federal govt. financial assistance. It's worth following developments, but far too early to make a judgment as to whether EGS is going to be any more than at best a bit player. I hope it is, but at this stage it would be folly to bet the future on it. It's worth keeping an eye on Geodynamics
105512. John Chapman at 20:53 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I'm a bit behind... but in response to #9 (waste + terrorists). It might not take much nuclear waste to make a bomb, but the issue is the technology. For the 400+ power stations in the world and the plethora of terrorists, none have succeeded (or even tried?) yet. And what if they did fly a plane into a nuke power station? My point is that such scenarios are still a better option than global warming - unless there is a viable energy alternative. That debate is above. For waste, digging numerous great holes in geologically stable Australian outback, suitable encasement, etc would do the trick nicely. We don't seem to have worried about the typical 4 tonnes p.a. of U238 each coal-fired power station emits from their chimney stacks! As for #14 - curbing population growth. Removing benefits to 3rd-plus-more child would be a start (as I gather Germany does). A taxi driver I had the other day was onto his 8th child and wanted more because his father had had 12! In this country Canberra will happily pay benefits for those children, education, health, housing benefits, etc. (Am I allowed to say he was from Africa?) Anyway, I'm not sure if I have the answer, but at least it should be raised as a serious issue in politics and solutions explored.
105513. skagedal at 20:27 PM on 28 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        I have the same experience as fredb. I use Firefox 3.6.11 on Windows XP. Are there blocking calls in the code...? Seems like a very cool thing!
105514. Argus at 20:15 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang (#58): "What is the basis for implying that the nuclear figures are over-optimistic" --- Just take alook at Marcus (#51)! Those are the real costs. Your figures are pure fantasy. The poor Finnish people will have to pay forever for the scandalous new Olkiluoto 3. Building the plants is one thing. Then we have to take care of the radioactive waste 'forever'. That is going to cost as much as building the plants, but that will be our grandchildren's worry, not ours, right? To the moderator: What happened to the principle of keeping comments relevant to the current thread, and deleting any off topic comments? About 90% of this thread is a detailed discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power and its economy. Hardly relevant to the title "What should we do about climate change?"
        Moderator Response: The current topic does include the possibility of nuclear power as an option. All comments are still moderated for compliance to the comments policy. If you wish a more in-depth discussion of, say, solar power or geothermal or tidal, please kick start the flow of discussion with a comment in that direction. That way we all can benefit.
105515. Peter Lang at 19:42 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Nuclear costs much more than it should and could cost in the Western democracies. This is mainly because ofd the regulatory impediments we have built up over the past 40+ years. Some examples of the sort of impediments and regulatory distortions to the market that are blocking nuclear in Australia are: 1. nuclear power is prohibited 2. high investor risk premium because of the politics 3. Renewable Energy Targets 4. Renewable Energy Certificates 5. Feed in Tariffs for renewables 6. Subsidies and tax advantages for renewable energy 7. Subsidies and tax advantages for fossil fuel electricity generators 8. subsidies for transmission and grid enhancements to support renewable energy 9. massive funding for research into renewable energy 10. massive subsidies for research into carbon capture and storage(CCS) 11. Guarantees that the government will carry the risk for any leakage from CCS 12. No equivalent guarantee for management of 'once-used-nuclear-fuel' 13. Massive subsidies and government facilitation for the gas industry, coal seam gas and coal to gas industries (despite the latter putting toxic chemicals into the ground water and the Great Artesian Basin water) 14. Fast tracking of the approvals process for wind power, solar power, gas industry, coal industry while nuclear industry remains prohibited from even fair comparative studies by Treasury, Productivity Commission, ABARE, Department of Climate change and more. We can just imagine what the approvals process would be like for a nuclear power plant!!
105516. scaddenp at 18:10 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Ned - Richard is a NZ skeptic. You can imagine the conversations. Lately to accuse NIWA of fraud about NZ warming. Richard, without a reference to contradict the established carbon accounting, what is your point here? Ned provides the evidence for acceleration by the way though I think that pretty irrelevant - 1960s rates are scary enough.
105517. johnd at 17:30 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard Treadgold at 16:05 PM, regarding land change use, in particular deforestation which has been ongoing for centuries. From 1100 to 1500 significant deforestation took place in Western Europe, global deforestation accelerating from the mid 1800's with the result that only about half of the Earth's original mature tropical forests remain. It is also clear how seasonal plant growth causes significant variation in CO2 levels globally, with dramatic annual variations regionally. The question that needs to be answered, is, is that CO2 that would have been sequestered by the now missing forests being considered as a forcing, and has it been adequately accounted for given that considerable deforestation took place before 1750, particularly in the northern hemisphere, 1750 being the base from which the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are referred back to.
105518. Sciguy420 at 17:19 PM on 28 October 2010
        It's the sun
        OK, so your graphs show basically nothing. They either cover too short of time so that a supposed correlation or lack there of is most likely a figment of one's imagination... OR ... they lack a 'key' as is the case with the graph labeled "reconstructed temperatures" which makes it a bunch of squiggly lines... one marked 2004 one marked medieval warming. If the lines represent different ways of measuring the temperature of the past? why the difference? Shouldn't we be focusing on data that has been reliably taken... not theoretically? Can't we agree that regardless of how steep the upward trend of some graph is that our actions are not helping?
105519. gallopingcamel at 17:12 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        lin (#79), That is a really good question. Today's nuclear power plants consume about 0.7% of the Uranium in the fuel. While this is pretty inefficient it still makes sense in a world where Uranium costs $106 per kilogram and even after processing, reactor grade Uranium costs only $2,500 per kilogram (cf. Gold at $42,000/kg). Thanks to Jimmy Carter, NPPs in the USA use a "Once Through" fuel cycle so 99.3% of the fuel ends up as high level nuclear waste. Even so, the cost of the fuel is a tiny part of the cost of generating nuclear power. According to the EIA, NPP fuel averaged $0.00529/kVAh in the USA (2008): http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html Even with a "Once Through" fuel cycle, proven reserves of Uranium and Thorium will last thousands of years. Fortunately, 4th generation fission reactors are capable of burning over 99% of the fuel which means that we can expect the Uranium and Thorium reserves to last at least 100,000 years. To get a feel for the issues involved in a rapid expansion of NPP generating capacity, you should spend some time on "Brave New Climate". This is a web site run by Barry Brook who is a "general all around egg-head" (I mean that in the nicest possible way). This link should get you started: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/14/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p3/
105520. fredb at 17:11 PM on 28 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        I think this is great ... but have a problem. After installing (Firefox 3.6.12 in Ubuntu 10.10), my firefox tab freeze for extended period and it all becomes unusable. Disabling the add-on, all works fine again. :(
105521. adelady at 16:38 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I like this as a summary. Got to page 7-8 and check out the estimates on geothermal and solar. Compare to the estimates in the upper section of p7. http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ch_1.pdf
105522. quokka at 16:32 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #79 lin How long will the uranium last? Try here: are uranium resources sufficient? The answer is, at the very least more than long enough until the next generation of reactors with advanced fuel cycles dramatically reduce the need for mined uranium. A recent MIT study came to the same conclusion. As for thorium, there is substantially more thorium than uranium available.
105523. Richard Treadgold at 16:05 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        scaddenp, The assertion was straightforward, as I quoted it:

        the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels

        Land use change wasn't mentioned. No, I can't supply a reference for what you ask. But I didn't mention it either. You forgot my question: What is the evidence for an acceleration in the rising atmospheric level of CO2? When you say "temperature-induced rises in CO2 are feedbacks, not forcings", does that mean they don't form part of the increased amount in the atmosphere? But of course they do, and they are not anthropogenic, so they ought to be deducted from the anthro emissions budget. That's all I meant. Cheers.
105524. Ned at 16:00 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard Treadgold writes: It's incorrect to assert that the whole increase comes from fossil fuel use. For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans Richard, there are two problems with this. First of all, the oceans are a net sink of CO2. That is, the net flux of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean, not the reverse. See lots of papers on the subject, including Takahashi 2009 and Sabine 2004. Secondly, we know the total fossil fuel flux to the atmosphere quite well, and it's clearly larger than the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, fossil fuels account for more than 100% of the atmospheric increase (with the excess being taken up by oceans and the biosphere). Richard also writes: It's also incorrect to assert that the increase in atmospheric concentration is accelerating. The Mauna Loa record shows no sign of that. In fact, graphing the yearly change (the data given at the Mauna Loa site) shows that since about 1998, the rate of increase has actually slowed. So would you cite your source for the acceleration, please? From the Mauna Loa data, the linear trend in CO2 for each of the past decades is as follows: 1960-1969: +0.8 ppmv/year 1970-1979: +1.2 1980-1989: +1.6 1990-1999: +1.6 2000-2009: +2.0 That is a very clear acceleration. It's a bit disturbing that someone acting as "Convenor, Climate Conversation Group" would be so seriously mistaken on multiple basic facts about CO2 in the Earth system. What kind of "climate conversations" are you having, and who are you having them with? Somehow, you seem to have picked up a lot of misinformation.
105525. lin at 15:49 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        If we start building a lot of uranium powered stations, how long until we start running out of uranium? How long would thorium last if we started building them?
105526. quokka at 15:41 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #74 lin

        Can anyone tell me if a nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been successfully decommissioned yet? If so, how much did it cost?

        Yes. Nuclear decommissioning It's also important to understand that a lot of consideration is given in the design stage to decommissioning for modern nuclear power plants and they will be much cheaper to decommission than for example, the old Magnox reactors in the UK.
105527. Peter Lang at 15:30 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        This compares six options for cutting Australia's CO2 emissions from electricity generation. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/ The six options compared are: 1. Business as usual Replace coal in the BAU case with 2. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) 3. CCGT and nuclear 4. Wind, CCGT and Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT) 5. Solar Thermal and CCGT 6. Solar Thermal, Wind, CCGT and OCGT The options are compared on the basis of: a) CO2 emissions avoided compared with BAU, b) capital expenditure c) electricity cost (for the replacement technologies) d) avoidance cost (cost per tonne of CO2 avoided) Nuclear is by far the least cost option. All Australia's coal fired power stations could be replaced with nuclear by about 2035 to 2040. Then we'd be replacing gas power stations. If we want to make substantial cuts to CO2 emissions from electricity generation, want security of supply, want low cost electricity so electricity can displace fossil fuels used in heat and transport, then we need to embrace nuclear power.
105528. Daniel Bailey at 15:21 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: lin Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant at Charlevoix, Michigan (USA) was decommissioned, starting in 1997 and ending about 2003. Costs were $390,000,000. See quokka's link above for some valuable info as well. The Yooper
105529. scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard, I believe the assertion is that the cause of CO2 rise is anthropogenic. That's fossil fuel and land use change. Temperature-induced rises in CO2 are feedbacks, not forcings. Now can you please supply a reference for the relative percentage of CO2e (not CO2 as that doesnt tell the whole story) that comes from fossil use, agriculture, and feedbacks? I would be very surprised if feedbacks are much of a issue yet.
105530. archiesteel at 15:09 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @Peter Lang, you're forgetting an advantage Solar has over Nuclear: its scalability. It's easy to envision a large number of private utility clients generating power through local PV installations with the possibility of selling excess power. It's a lot harder to envision people having miniature nuclear reactors in their backyard... That said, Nuclear Power is safer than it used to be, and we shouldn't necessarily shun it (as long as stringent safety protocols are followed and proper disposal is carefully monitored). It should be part of a mixed energy strategy that needs to continue promoting renewables (which will push the technology further and drive down costs).
105531. quokka at 15:08 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #51 Marcus

        like it or not, many of the life-time electricity costs for nuclear power are based off the assumed capital cost of $1,990/KWe-which comes directly from the World Nuclear Federation.

        I'm assuming that you are referring to the World Nuclear Association. You can read what they actually have to say here, and it is not what you are claiming: The Economics of Nuclear Power This piece draws heavily on the IEA 2010 Projection of Electricity Costs report. One thing is very clear is that the cost is highly dependent on region and that China and Sth Korea are doing it at low cost - from around $1.4 to $2.0 billion max per GWe. This in itself raises interesting questions. As the piece states, cost is a complex issue. In particular it is misleading to quote cost for first of a kind projects such as the Finnish EPR and claim they representative. The experience gained with first of a kind will most likely result in more efficient subsequent builds. This is not unique to nuclear. Finally, if a project is poorly executed or delayed, costs will blow out. Again, this is not unique to nuclear and can apply to any large civil engineering project. A representative view on cost is essential, and we have to look to authorities such as the IEA. By all means criticize their figures from an informed basis if you wish, but let's try to stick to the facts.
105532. lin at 14:56 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Can anyone tell me if a nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been successfully decommissioned yet? If so, how much did it cost? And how much to permanently store the high level waste?
105533. Richard Treadgold at 14:55 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        

        The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

        Yes, the atmospheric level is rising. To say it is "building up" could be an emotive way of saying the same thing. It's certainly a slow rise, at an average over 51 years of about 1.43 ppmv per year. It's incorrect to assert that the whole increase comes from fossil fuel use. For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans and variable (unknown) outputs from various sources, such as wetlands. It's also incorrect to assert that the increase in atmospheric concentration is accelerating. The Mauna Loa record shows no sign of that. In fact, graphing the yearly change (the data given at the Mauna Loa site) shows that since about 1998, the rate of increase has actually slowed. So would you cite your source for the acceleration, please? Cheers, Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group.
        Moderator Response: See the post CO2 is not increasing
105534. Daniel Bailey at 14:48 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: daisym (69) OK, I'll take a crack at this:

        "Why won't government and scientists prepare estimates of global temperature reductions to be expected by replacing SOME of our carbon fuels energy sources with power from windmills and solar panels?"

        The rise in temperatures seen is driven by an energy imbalance. Due to the rise in human-emitted CO2 (a greenhouse gas), more energy is being retained in the lower troposphere than before the extra CO2 was released; this extra energy retained mostly (93% or so) has gone into the oceans, the rest into the air. Due to the immense thermal mass of the oceans, heating has been unequal. If no more extra CO2 were injected into the carbon cycle, the temperatures would eventually stabilize (after about 30 years or so). It's kind of like eating an extra 100 calories a day. Doesn't seem like much, eh? An extra pound or two a year, who cares? Work it off next year or two...but after 20 or 30 years, you have an extra 40-60 pounds, much tougher to lose. Until the calorie budget gets balanced, either by eating less, exercising more or a combination of both, none of the extra weight will be lost. CO2 and temperatures work much the same way. As long as humans inject extra CO2 into the carbon cycle, the energy imbalance continues, the climate warms, the weather patterns destabilize, Arctic ice melts, glaciers melt, more moisture enters the air (about 4% extra [the equivalent of the volume of Lake Erie] moisture is now carried in the atmosphere due to the warming of 0.8 C), etc. So the short answer is: temperatures will not start to plateau and then go down. Not until the extra CO2 causing the rise in temps gets removed through natural processes. Which takes time: Centuries to Millenia time; effectively, we have wrought a permanent change on our world. But if we don't stop emitting fossil fuel derived CO2, temps will continue to rise...

        "Carbon fuels have been laid to blame by scientists for causing global warming, yet government has yet to unveil a plan to show a timeline for how and when we can effectively discontinue their use."

        Fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions are indeed to blame for the warming seen. Government has been dragging its heels as few in power have the political spine to walk away from the enormous dollars the fossil fuel industries represent. And then there is the potential damage to the economy it is felt will result without a viable replacement alternative. Business As Usual in Washington is safest, politically. The rest of your comment addresses why governments do or don't do things and energy alternatives; areas in which I typically don't delve. Hope what I did offer made some sense. The Yooper
105535. Peter Lang at 14:47 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Regarding solar PV, the pannels are only part of the cost. The total cost of average power for the new PV poewer stations (just commissioned) at Windora, Queensland is $110,000/kWy/y. Compared with $4,400/kWy/y for nuclear (based on the recently signed UAE contract). [Windora cost $4.5 million for 130kW, expected generation = 360MWh/y, = 32% capacity factor. Cost per average power = $109,500/kWy/y.]
105536. Peter Lang at 14:25 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus@29, you said: "By contrast, Andasol-in Spain-has an installed capacity of 100MW & cost US$380 million-or a cost of $3800 per MW of installed capacity." There severl inaccuricies in this statement. Firstly, Andasol does not have a capacity of 100 MW. It has a capacity of 50MW. It has only just been completed. They recently started development of a second plant of 50MW. So to say it 'has' a capacity of 100MW is false. Secondly, the cost of Andasol 1 was 300 million Euro (US$400 million) (50MW) or $8,000/kW, not $3,800/kW. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=3 Thirdly, it is wrong to compare capacity of solar and nuclear. Nuclear provides power whenever the demand calls for it, 24/7/365. Solar provides power when the sun shines, in the day time and mostly in summer. Without storage it has a capacity factor of about 13% to 20%. With storage, at huge cost, this can be increased somewhat. The claim that solar thermal with energy storage is a baseload power station is not correct. Therefore, nuclear and solar must be compared on a properly comparable basis. The proper way to do this is with levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). However, that is complicated. For simplicity, let's compare Andasol 1 with a nuclear plant on the basis of the average energy they can supply per year. I'll use the contracted cost for the new nuclear plants being built in the UAE because it is from a recently signed contract, and the power station is the 'first in country' (which is higher cost than the 'settled down cost'). The cost is $20.4 billion for 5,400 MW, or $3,800/kW. Based on experience with the units in Korea they expect a capacity factor of about 90% (use 85% to be conservative). The cost of average power is $4,400/kWy/y. What about Andasol 1? 50MW (rated peak capacity), $8,000/kW capacity factor = 36% ('expected' but will no doubt be much lower in practice) cost of average power = $22,000/kWy/y On the basis of that rough calculation, the cost of electricity from solar (unreliable electricity at that) is 5 times the cost of reliable electricity from nuclear. Levelised cost of electricity: nuclear = $60-$100/MWh (of electricity that is always available) Andasol 1 = $400/MWh (for electricity that is available part time) On this more accurate basis, the cost of electricity from solar is 4-7 times the cost of solar. If we want to cut CO2 emissions, we must embrace nuclear - like France has. France has about the lowest cost electricity in Europe, by far the lowest CO2 emissions from electricity of any major country, exports more electricity than any other country (which demonstrates it is cheap and reliable). 76% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power.
105537. daisym at 13:35 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        The article tells us that: "Firstly, we should either use less energy, or use renewable energy sources, like solar-thermal generators..." What comes after that? While “Firstly” has a ring of common sense, I wonder what effect this will have on reducing global temperatures. Why won't government and scientists prepare estimates of global temperature reductions to be expected by replacing SOME of our carbon fuels energy sources with power from windmills and solar panels? If worthwhile temperature reductions from these actions can be shown to consumers, it would go a long way to enhance public support. Of course, if estimates of temperature reductions are disappointingly low, that would explain why we’re not being told. Carbon fuels have been laid to blame by scientists for causing global warming, yet government has yet to unveil a plan to show a timeline for how and when we can effectively discontinue their use. Government hasn't seriously funded R&D to find a full time replacement for carbon fuels. Wouldn’t this be the cornerstone of a comprehensive national energy policy? Given government’s “solutions”, why isn’t the public being told where this is taking us? Government tries repeatedly to pass Cap and Trade. If it comes to pass, carbon trading will create a $10 trillion per year industry, depending where government sets the threshold to require use of carbon credits. One may argue the money involved, but how can such an industry reduce carbon fuel dependency? Obviously, the carbon trading industry would become too big to fail. The carbon trading industry would require continued use of large quantities of carbon fuels to survive. To me, it seems that the money from carbon trading will come from the pockets of consumers (through higher prices on all commodities), and do so without reducing global temperatures in any meaningful way. This is only a guess, since we haven’t been told. Government has surely calculated the tax revenues to be derived from, say, a 30% tax on Cap and Trade revenues. Given this, why would government WANT to replace carbon fuels? What would happen to the trading value of carbon credits if someone actually discovered the Holy Grail of energy that gives us a full time replacement for carbon fuels? It seems that government is betting the farm on wind and solar to save humanity from the threat of carbon fuels. But nobody will tell us how much of a temperature reduction to expect from government’s solutions. Why is this so? Why are scientists silent on this?
105538. muoncounter at 12:55 PM on 28 October 2010
        Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
        Welcome to the future... Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records Since winter storms form in response to the atmosphere's need to transport heat from the Equator to the poles, this reduced [due to global warming] temperature difference reduces the need for winter storms, and thus the models predict fewer storms will form. However, since a warmer world increases the amount of evaporation from the surface and puts more moisture in the air, these future storms drop more precipitation. During the process of creating that precipitation, the water vapor in the storm must condense into liquid or frozen water, liberating "latent heat"--the extra heat that was originally added to the water vapor to evaporate it in the first place. This latent heat intensifies the winter storm, lowering the central pressure and making the winds increase.
105539. Steve L at 12:46 PM on 28 October 2010
        Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
        Hi John, the one-liner for "Hide the decline" (#78) says that Mike Mann was quoted out of context. But isn't it Phil Jones's email that's being quoted?
        Response: Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Have fixed the line.
        
105540. muoncounter at 12:35 PM on 28 October 2010
        Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
        #28: "If we assume that the temperature varies linearly with latitude," Unfortunately, I don't think that's a safe assumption due to Arctic amplification. Figure 2 in Graverson 2008 shows that for 1 degree of Northern hemisphere temperature increase, north of 65N there's a 2.5 degree increase. It is also notable that during the same period observations solely from Arctic land stations reveal an amplification of the temperature trend during the dark months, November–February (Fig. 2). This amplification cannot be explained by snow-cover changes, as the albedo effect is practically absent during this dark period. Moreover, the heat flux from the ground is very small. So 2 degrees bad... 6 degrees worse.
105541. Peter Lang at 12:29 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus, More misrepresentation. You say: "Peter Lang, if "Renewables are Unproven" is your only criteria for dismissing it, ..." No, I did not say that. The reasons renewables are uneconomic and cannot meet our requirementsd are many: 1. they are very costly - far more coslty tnan uuclear 2. cannot provide reliable power 3. do not avoid much if any emisisons (so why do it) 4. require hufe subsidies per MWh (unlike nuclear which has to subsidises renewables 5. require far more mining, materials processing, manufacturing, fabricating, construction, decomissioning and waste disposal than nuclear 6. require far more land area In short, there really are no advantages of renewables over nuclear. The point about renewables are umnproven related to the cost projections. Nuclear is proven so the cost projections are based on actual costs over a long period of time. Non-hydro renewables are un-proven so the costs are little better than a guess. Over the past 20+ years the projecxtions of the cost of renewables, and when they would be economic, have been completely wrong - always!. So why would we expect that to change in the future. Google "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - Critique" to see just how ridiculous are the whishes, hopes and claims of the rnewable energy advocates.
105542. scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        If this was a science question, we would be looking for peer-reviewed papers on the relative economics, which would in turn point to auditable, verifiable data. We'd be discussing relative merits of methodology and assumption and proposing way to settle discrepancies with empirical experiments. As it is, we have a whole lot of contradictory information being presented and little way of doing verification. I'd like to see economics done like science. I was persuaded from reading MacKay's Sustainable energy without all the hot air that some countries would find it very tough to meet energy needs (especially to power transport too) without nuclear, though I strongly doubt Australia would be one of them.
105543. quokka at 11:54 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus, Nuclear plants in the US and Sth Korea currently operate at over 90% capacity factor. There has been a steady increase in nuclear capacity factor over the last three decades as a result of the increased operational experience. And importantly, much of the downtime for refueling and scheduled maintenance can be planned for. You are whistling in the wind if you wish to dispute this. "I'd agree that nuclear power *is* proven-a proven WHITE ELEPHANT!" Let's have a look at what this white elephant has done for CO2 emissions in some selected European countries: Per Capita CO2 Emissions France has mostly nuclear, Sweden and Switzerland have a mix of hydro and nuclear and the rest are principally fossil fueled. The message is crystal clear - you cannot make meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions without displacing fossil fuels from base load electricity generation. And that includes Denmark despite the considerable effort put into wind power.
105544. Marcus at 11:32 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Joe Blog-from what I've read, even a gas-cooled nuclear reactor (the best design currently available) still only has thermal efficiencies of about 50%. Good, but hardly great (Coal & regular water-cooled reactors have a thermal efficiency of around 35% to 40%). Like I said, these efficiency gains have taken 60 years of intensive research & development to achieve, & come at a significant dollar cost for construction compared to lower tech reactors, whereas the achievements of photovoltaics have been done whilst simultaneously lowering the unit cost of the cells-& has been done on the funding equivalent of "the smell of an oily rag"!
105545. Marcus at 11:27 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        A couple of points Quokka. Number 1, we're not talking about replacing coal-fired electricity in the next 5 years. I'm an optimist, & even I recognize that a switch to a 100%low-carbon, decentralized electricity grid will probably take on the order of 20-30 years to achieve, possibly longer. In the meantime, however, a reduction in our dependence on coal from 80% to around 60% is entirely achievable within the next 10-15 years *if* the political will exists. Number 2, there are currently half a dozen sites in the world where Vanadium Redox Batteries are being used to supply a regular source of electricity-with another one on the drawing board in Ireland. Its worth noting that a lot of the whizz-bang technology cited by pro-nuclear advocates has still not seen the light of day-in spite of being patented more than 30 years ago (Gas Cooling & Pebble-Bed come to mind). Number 3-even if you ignore Redox Batteries, other sources of rechargeable storage have come a *very* long way in the last decade-in terms of both energy density & price.
105546. Joe Blog at 11:25 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus says & average efficiencies are pushing 20% (with efficiencies in the lab of around 42%). Can nuclear power make the same claims? Yes, well over the 90% range for turbine efficiency, yah can run the turbines at 1800C(big difference between that and 15C), the 95% figure, is a lower end estimate of mass converted to energy(E=MC^2 n all eh)... there is no comparison. The old nuclear plants, were, are designed for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons, electricity was the bi product. And whats more... they(fast breeders) can theoretically be built small enough to power aircraft... think o the GHG savings there;-) that may be pushing it.
105547. Marcus at 11:19 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        So quokka, do you *really* believe that coal & nuclear are as reliable as you'd have us believe? Centralized power plants are subject to all kinds of faults between the point of production & the point of consumption. Also, do you *honestly* believe Coal Power stations don't have to be shadowed to some extent, in case of breakdowns? Like I said before-but you've chosen to ignore-claims about variability are usually made by those living in a TIME WARP. Massive improvements in relatively cheap storage technology has made the issue of variability in renewable energy practically moot. Also, how does your argument stack up when looking at energy sources like Tidal Streams, Run-of-River Hydro-electricity or Landfill Gas, which are completely capable of supplying reliable base-load power *without* the need for additional back-up?
105548. quokka at 11:16 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #53 Marcus, "quokka, have you not heard of Vanadium Flow Batteries". Apparently these were first patented in 1986. One has to ask why it is 24 years later that there is no significant deployment of these things anywhere in any grid. Everybody would love inexpensive storage, not just to support renewables, but to deal with peak load requirements in existing grids. I'm as much for the next big thing as the next person, but if it cannot feasibly be used as a substitute for the next coal fired plant to be built in the next five years, then that next big thing is something to keep an eye on but no more than that. Remember that those new coal fired plants will have a life of several decades and once built, they will be very hard to get rid of. It is imperative that we do not fall into the really dangerous trap of mistaking our wishes for the engineering and economic realities of what can actually be done. This has been referred to with some justification as a "technological cargo cult".
105549. Marcus at 11:14 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang, if "Renewables are Unproven" is your only criteria for dismissing it, then why in the *hell* did any country ever embrace nuclear power? In 1950, that technology was "unproven" too. As I recall, the proponents of nuclear power claimed it would be "too cheap to meter", yet it still remains one of the *highest* cost sources of electricity after *sixty years* of intensive public & private funding. The only reason France differs is because the French Government heavily subsidized the nuclear industry when Electricitie de France was was publicly owned. These days, EdF is one of the most heavily indebted companies in Europe-hardly a great advertisement for nuclear power. As I said above, take a look at the *real* costs of nuclear power, compared to those quoted by the WNF, & tell me that the nuclear industry isn't being over-optimistic in their calculations. Also, cost & time overruns are the *norm* in the nuclear power industry-not the exception, whereas the bulk of the renewable energy projects I've read about were completed ON TIME & ON BUDGET. Indeed, based on the examples I've given above, I'd agree that nuclear power *is* proven-a proven WHITE ELEPHANT! By contrast, have a look at photovoltaics. In 1982, the year the sine-wave inverter was invented, the average price of a solar cell was US$25 per watt & had an average efficiency of barely 5%. Just 28 years later, & the cost is currently $3 to $4 per watt, & average efficiencies are pushing 20% (with efficiencies in the lab of around 42%). Can nuclear power make the same claims?
        Moderator Response: Please don't use all caps.
105550. Joe Blog at 11:04 AM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        "short o vaporizing a plant, the dangers are greatly reduced from the traditional nuclear plants." this sentence reads wrong, What i mean is, for you to get the same kinda disaster as at say Chernobyl, would require you to drop a Daisey cutter on the plant, and atomize the coolant/plant in general. Not that the plant can vaporize itself, passive safeties n all, even if all people suddenly turned in zombies and eat our selves into extinction, the plants would simply shut themselves down. As a result of time.

Prev  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  Next