Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 101 to 150:
-
Eclectic at 05:13 AM on 13 May 2025At a glance - What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
StanRH @1 :-
No need for you to struggle. You had me at All Poe.
[Excuse that movie pun]
#
Stan, if you were serious ~ then you need education, bigly.
-
Jim Hunt at 04:23 AM on 13 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Eclectic @2
My apologies. I've had a busy day and only just popped back in here again. What's more I forget that you can see BlueSky without having an account, but the same does not apply to Elmo's shiny new X.
Tder has summarised the modus operandi of the typical troll nicely.
Here's a typical example of TC's compelling "argument by image": -
tder2012 at 04:12 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Indeed, this post is mistitled, obviously no energy source is THE answer. I believe nuclear energy can be part of the solution. Please take less than 10 minutes to check out these six slides and provide comment. Also, consider obtaining a copy of "The LNT Report" when it is published in August, 2025, see cover and back of the book here. "For decades, the notion that any amount of nuclear radiation is hazardous to human health has been perpetuated by flawed science, ideological agendas, and misinformation. The LNT Report reveals the shocking truth behind this myth, exposing the bad faith, muddled thinking, and prejudice that have fueled unnecessary fears about nuclear power", if we overcome this fear and instead support nuclear power, maybe we could build fast breeder reactors, high temperature gas reactors, etc.
Moderator Response:[BL] This is growing tiresome. The comments threads here are not intended to be a social-media-like spewing of any thought that comes into your head.
You have posted 39 comments in less than a week. Your comments have included numerous errors, and highly-selective choices of evidence. You seem to have great difficulty in keep comments on-topic, even though people have tried to point you to proper threads.
Please take the time to be more thoughtful about what you post, and condense your comments into a more coherent argument. One or two thoughtful comments per day will be far more constructive than a stream-of-consciousness spattering of loosely related items.
Also please read the Comments Policy. There is always a link to it above the box you edit your comment in.
In particular, note that the comments policy states "No link or picture only". Although you are burying your links in verbiage, you are saying little about those links other than "look here". And your references often seem to show the opposite of what you seem to say they show.
Please slow down, and apply more thought to what you post.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:59 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 @406 and 407,
As Michael Sweet has pointed out this thread is about ‘Nuclear Energy being the Answer to the needed rapid ending of developed harmful unsustainable (over-) consumption of fossil fuel energy’. I will connect this comment to that point ... and also connect my comment @495 to that point.
I do not see where your comments legitimately refute the fundamental understanding I presented that:
- Advancement is understandably (sustainably) achieving the same quality of life with less material consumption, less energy use, and less harm done
- Less Energy consumption is helpful. The richest highest energy-use addicts need to set the examples of how to Live Better Less Harmfully.
The question becomes about the merit of using an increase of nuclear, a non-renewable (near future dead-end) harmful energy systems to ‘help solve the climate impact problem and help the poorest’.
More new nuclear power supply is Not the Answer.
There are rich high energy-users in Bangladesh. They need to most dramatically change their ways and help those who genuinely need the benefit of more energy consumption live better.
And other richer people should pay more for products made in Bangladesh to improve the circumstances of the workers in Bangladesh. US import tariffs that reduce the tax burden for the richest in the US are unhelpful.
What happens in the near future when the nuclear systems can no longer be benefited from? The answer is to build truly renewable energy systems now, in parallel with the pursuit of ‘lower energy consumption ways of living well’.
More new nuclear power generation in Bangladesh would not effectively help the poor ther (or anywhere).
The best way to help the poorest is to help them get their ‘needed energy’ from all the energy system options that would actually have a lasting future – Not New Nuclear.
-
tder2012 at 03:52 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"The Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant prevents up to 22.4 million tons of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads". "Construction Program"
"In December 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, 22 countries and more than 120 companies pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050".
I'm not familiar with any study in involving nuclear energy that is similar to Jacobson's The Solutions Project in which everyone will use much less energy by 2050, including those that live in extreme poverty today and have almost no access to energy.
The solar panels being installed in Bangladesh, how much CO2 emissions will it prevent every year? Will Bangladesh people now have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women will now have access to education?
-
StanRH at 02:27 AM on 13 May 2025At a glance - What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
all this fuss about co 2 is comic farce;
every educated person knows co 2 can't affect climate
the reason is as follows;
"greenhouse" gases don't trap heat as they can't impede the circulation of warm air rising to subzero temps at altitude
if co 2 prevents radiant heat from leaving the atmosphere ,then it must also prevent the radiant heat from entering, by the same magical heat blocking process
it is the magnetosphere ,not co 2 that prevents the atmosphere from evaporating into the void of space
heat rises by convection regardless of mixture
by the time gases rise by convection to 25,000 ft the temp is down to - 40
besides which;
as a heat sink co 2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature regulation
only con artists still pretend co 2 can affect climate
Weight of atmospheric gases by volume at standard pressure and temperature
co 2 = 1.96 kg per stere x .04 percent =.000784 kg
o 2 =1.43 kg per stere x 21 percent = .303 kg
n =1.25 kg per stere x 78 percent= .975 kg
argon = 1.78 kg per stere x 1 percent = .0178 kg
Climate alarmists claim that the mass of .000784 kg of co2 governs the temp of the mass of 1.2958 kg of the other atmospheric gases
1652.806 times it's weight [mass]
visualize co 2 as 1 cup of water compared to other atmospheric gases as a 100 gallon [1600 cups] tank
that 1 cup at any temp u wish to chose dumped in the tank has negligible affect on the 100 gallons in the tank
couldn't be more evident ,could it?
Moderator Response:[PS] This is offtopic here. Please take discussion to https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm. Stan, your argument boils down to personal incredulity. Read the article I pointed to; look at the demos. Understand that the impact is directly measured. That is what matters to science. It might help if you consider how far a photon of IR might travel up from the surface of the earth before encountering a CO2 molecule at 400ppm on average. Best if you do the calculation - but spoiler - a few meters.
-
michael sweet at 01:39 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
I note that you have linked no creditable evidence for your claim that it would be faster to build out a renewable plus nuclear power system than a renewable only system. You demanded that I provide evidence to you, although I already cited two peer reviewed papers supporting my claims, and you have only quoted hearsay.
When you demand evidence you must provide evidence. Changing the topic is conceding that you were worng.
-
michael sweet at 01:27 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
This thread is supposed to be about the prospects and technology of nuclear energy. The model that Jacobson used to project energy use in 2050 is off topic for this thread.
Perhaps we should compare Jacobson's model to one of the models that nuclear supporters use. Oops, no-one who publishes estimates of future energy use by country supports using any nuclear. Even if they did, it is impossible to generate more than 10% of all power using nuclear since there is not enough uranium available using current technology.
The people of Bangladesh would be much better off if they all installed solar panels on their houses like the people in Pakistan are currently doing. Pakistani's installed 17 GW of solar panels in 2024 alone. That is equal to the production of 5 GW of nuclear power installed in a single year. That is similar to all the new nucleat power installed in the entire world in 2024. And the nuclear plants took 10 years to plan and build.
-
Eclectic at 22:04 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Tder2015 @3 :-
Thank you for that info. Not so surprising that an Xidiot retreats when exposed . . . although it always leaves as uncertain, whether he is part of a guerilla campaign (and will return once the battlefield has been vacated for a while).
Or whether he simply enjoys being a troll, and has wandered off to find fresh fields to canker / fresh worlds to canker [excuse lousy pun].
-
Eclectic at 21:50 PM on 12 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @279 :-
It is not clear what you are interested in. As shown in MA Rodger's graph @278, the Medievel Warm Period was an extremely minor blip in the Holocene temperature record ~ barely a pimple on a pumpkin.
And a small fraction of a degree change would have had minimal effect especially in Antarctica, except perhaps for the (very limited) life-forms that exist on the on the Antarctic Peninsula.
You will note that the @278 graph shows a fair distribution of sampling sites.
-
tder2012 at 21:44 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Eclectic, this happens regularly on X and I now see it on BlueSky occasionally. When some people see they have lost the argument, they block you from seeing any of their posts. I've have also seen where they don't block you, but delete the original post.
-
Eclectic at 21:33 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Jim Hunt @1 :-
Being quite unfamiliar with the "XTwitter" modern scene, I should be most grateful if you would give a brief explication of your above post. (Preferably in words of one syllable! )
The blank sheet represents a glitch . . . or a cowardly retreat of the Xidiot poster calling himself TC . . . or a censorship by a wrathful Xalgorithm . . . or an unknown Unknown, xcetera ?
If you have time, perhaps give an ultra-concise summary of some of TC's more egregious statements ~ but don't bother, if he [it's always a he] has merely used the sort of disinformations listed in this thread's OP.
-
Dick van der Wateren at 21:23 PM on 12 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Another paper by some of the same authors shows evidence of MCA warming in Antarctica. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190.
A more problematice paper stating evidence of Antarctic medieval warming appeared in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02259-4. It has already been picked up by denialists.
So, where does that leave us? Are there any good recent reports of the global temperature distribution during the MWP?
-
tder2012 at 20:56 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
One Planet Only Forever, are you OK with the billions of poor people today barely having enough energy for a fridge, if that, and continuing to not have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women continuing to lack in education because they need to do many domestic duties like hauling water, wood and dung for fires, cooking and boiling water over wood and dung and washing clothes by hand? How much leisure time and fun activities do you think these billions of women have access to, let alone an education? Search Hans Rosling TED Talk "The Magic Washing Machine".
-
tder2012 at 20:41 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Oh, I'm sure all countries would use less energy under Jacobson's Solutions Project, no point in even checking that. I'm concerned with poor countries today living in extreme poverty, one main reason being they have very much insufficient access to energy. So you're OK with the billions of people today living in extreme poverty having even less energy access and being even worse off under Jacobson's Solutions Project?
-
Jim Hunt at 17:45 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
It probably won't surprise you to learn that my Arctic alter ego has recently been sparring with an XTwitter troll continually misrepresenting the IPCC's reports:
The ultimate outcome? -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:44 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I have been following this back-and-forth.
This is the first time I have been motivated to say something.
I checked the Solutions Project link you shared. I saw the 59% reduction on the Bangladesh page.
So I checked what the solutions Project page for Germany said.
It said 59% reduction of energy use.
It would appear that either you didn't bother to do more investigation ... or you think people will simply take 'your take' without further investigating its validity.
Just to be clear: More energy use does not indicate that a person or nation or socioeconomic system is more advanced or superior. Advancement is understandably 'achieving the same quality of life with less material consumption, less energy use, and less harm done'.
Less Energy consumption is Helpful. The richest highest energy use addicts need to 'detox themselves' and set the examples of how to Live Better Less Harmfully.
-
tder2012 at 09:06 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Jacobson is responsible for The Solutions Project. In 2023, Bangladesh used 2940 kwh per person per year. Germany used 38,052 kwh. Germans have a decent lifestyle, the people of Bangladesh are, unfortunately, the poorest in the world (population 171 million). https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy
The Solutions Project shows Bangladesh will use 59% less energy in 2050 than today!! On the main page for The Solutions Project it shows "We Love People & Planet", BS!!!. How do you think the citizens of Bangladesh would feel about this? I highly doubt civil engineer Jacobson is able to defy and/or reinvent the scientific laws of physics and thermodynamics!! https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/BGD
You can look thru The Solutions Project web site and see this is how Jacobson handles all poor countries, I just used Bangladesh as an example. Disgusting, shameful!
And to think there are people who actually respect Jacobson's work. The word "science" is in this site's name, but this, to me, looks like a classic appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Have a look at these six charts and provide any comments.
-
michael sweet at 08:25 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
Mark Jacobson has over 47,352 citations according to Google Scholar. Your assertions that his work has been discredited are false, deliberate misinformation, but you usually post misinformation.
I have already linked at least two articles for you that show that renewable energy systems are cheaper and faster to build than systems containing nuclear. I note that, according to your link, if enough nuclear plants were built to provide 10% of all power there is only enough uranium for 60 years, less than the claimed lifetime of the plants. One plant would have to be installed approximately every 10 days starting today. For the last ten years there have not been enough plants opened worldwide to keep up with lost capacity from closed plants.
Provide an up to date reference suggesting that it would be more rapid to build out a nuclear plus renewable grid than a renewable only grid. Jacobson 2009 conclusively shows that building out nuclear at any level increases the amount of carbon emitted. Lund et al, linked above also show nuclear results in increased emissions. Your previous quote, (no link), included no data or analysis to support your wild claim. it was simply idle speculation. Why do you ask me for more creditable evidence when you have offered no evidence at all? The last researchers who supported adding nuclear to renewables announced in 2022 that renewables were so much cheaper than nuclear that nuclear is not economic under any plan. (linked upthread, do your homework)
You are simply repeating your previous false claims. That wastes everyones time. You have had your say and I have had mine. The other readers can evaluate what we have both posted. Move on to another subject.
-
tder2012 at 06:10 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I don't read Jacobson at all. He has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. He has a scientific debate through the court system and loses that as well. But he claims "victory" because Stanford, and not him, have to pay all the legal fees, good grief. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/
Do you have any creditable evidence for your claim "It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system."
-
michael sweet at 03:30 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system. I note that your question was asked in 2012. Since then the cost of a compeltely renewable system has decreased greatly in cost and the storage isssue has been resolved completely. Meanwhile, modular reactor proposals that promised working reactors by 2020 are decades behind schedule. The money spent on nuclear is wasted.
If you had read Jacobson et al 2009 you would know that the emissions generated by the extreme long time manufacturing nuclear plants results in much more carbon release than building out a complete renewable system.
-
tder2012 at 00:20 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
every energy source has its pros and cons. Anyone who said there is a miracle solution is a fool, in my opinion. Based on this chart, I feel its to risky to take low emitting energy sources off the table, we need all we got as soon as possible https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2024/PNG/s64_2024_LinearPathways.png
Dr. John Morgan asked the following question at a nuclear energy debate in Australia in 2012
"Question to those against (nuclear energy). Given that the rate at which we decarbonize will determine how much warming the planet ultimately experiences and given that we can decarbonize more rapidly if we use both renewables and nuclear power, how many degrees of planetary warming do you feel it's worth to avoid the use of nuclear energy" -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:42 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I understood the first time why you didn't count hydro. It not necessary to repeat it, and repetition does not make it valid to leave it out. First, how tapped out it is remains to be fully quantified. Second, excluding it from the total share of renewables only because of that reason is not justifiable. A resource is renewable or it is not. Renewable and amenable to scaling up are not synonymous.
Nuclear, for example, is not renewable in its current, most common, form. I don't discount nuclear as a solution because it does give a lot of bang for the buck in terms of how much energy is produced per kg of fuel. In addition, the breeder reactor idea certainly has merit, since it has the potential to in fact be semi-renewable.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the latest breeder reactor, a prototype, took 21 years to build and is not yet operational. Olkiluoto 3 (not a breeder type of reactor) took 18 years and ended up costing almost 400% of the original estimate. So yes, the bang was there, eventually, for beaucoup beaucoup bucks. These are serious issues.
Nuclear is not geography independent, since most designs need water for cooling. In France, where there is a large scale program that has been mostly successful in reaching its goals, the outlet water temperature problem is an issue that seasonally threatens freshwater ecosystems downstream of some plants.
There is no free lunch, there is no miracle solution.
-
tder2012 at 08:32 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I say tapped out for hydro because we cannot build much more to assist in permanently displacing fossil fuel production.
Of course nuclear is composed of various materials, concrete, steel, etc. Over its lifetime (up to 80 years, 6 reactors in USA have been licensed for 80 after their 60 year licenses were coming up for renewal) and high capacity factor and amount of kWh it produces over its lifetime, the material requirements are small in relation to kWh produced. "If your true argument was full life cycle analysis.." I'm surprised this would even need to be stated, why would it be anything else?
Nuclear needs power lines, but hydro is more geography dependent. The link I shared was five longest HVDC transmission lines all over 2,000km and all for hydro. I live in MB where we had to spend $5 billion for a 1000km HVDC transmission line, that's a lot for a population of 1.4 million. Look at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering nuclear plants in Ontario, not very far from Toronto. Palo Verde nuclear plant is 56 miles from Phoenix, AZ
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:34 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder 2012 says " I did not falsely claim, I errored." Subtle distinction if there was ever one, amounting to playing on words.
Earlier on the other thread, it was shown that the E.U. as a whole drew more than 50% of its electricity from renewables, in total opposition with an earlier claim of yours that was also "errored." On this one, you corrected your position by clarifying that you did not consider hydro to deserve to be counted;. There is no justification for that. The fact that hydro is, according to you, "tapped out" does not make its current production less renewable. You did not specify that renewables qualified as such only if they exceeded a threshold of future potential or what that potential should be.
Then you went on about the amount of concrete and metal necessary; not entirely vacuous but equally applicable to nuclear. I have been in nuclear plants: most of what one sees is pipes. All diameters of them, miles of pipes, and innumerable soldering junctions. If your true argument was full life cycle analysis, then, again, you should have stated so initially. Otherwise, it is getting very close to arguing in bad faith.
The fast breeder prototype reactor nearing completion in India is expected to be operational at the end of 2025. Construction was started in 2004. Olkiluoto 3 took 18 years to complete. The time to get nuclear online is a real problem. These plants also need power lines to carry electricity, that is not unique to hydro plants.
-
gerontocrat at 07:12 AM on 10 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #19 2025
This one is very sobering
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence, Forster et al., Open Access pdf 10.5194/essd-2025-250
It's a very long technical paper and you need to download the preprint pdf; but if you scroll almost to the end of the pdf you will find figure 14, which shows very simply how bad things have got since 2018 (based on IPCC AR6 data).
The remaining carbon budget to avoid exceeding 1.5 C global warming is now very, very small - impossible not to be exceeded?
Moderator Response:Thank you for pointing this out. Preprint but "from a reliable source." (Very!)
Converted title to link. And here is figure 14.
-
tder2012 at 06:36 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"The USA wants Iran to surrender all of its 20% material. If Iran shouldn't have something I don't think profit seekers should be allowed to have it." What is your point? You are entitled to your opinion about profit seekers.
-
tder2012 at 06:25 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I didn't "falsely claim", as I stated, I errored, most, not all, reactors today use 5% enriched, also I neglected to mention CANDU's which use natural uranium.
"All your arguments against renewables are simply false." I have not made any arguments against renewables, I have presented the data and evidence. Which are you are referring to specifically that are "simply false"? Do you have evidence to support your "simply false" claims?
-
michael sweet at 03:57 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tser2012:
The World Nuclear Association estimates 90 years at current rates of use. If that were even tripled that would reduce to 30 years, less than the life of the reactors.
If you have no problem with 20% enrichment why did you falsely claim only 5%??? The USA wants Iran to surrender all of its 20% material. If Iran shouldn't have something I don't think profit seekers should be allowed to have it.
You keep shifting your goal posts to evade the facts I post. If you had a strong argument you would not need to shift goal posts so often.
All your arguments against renewables are simply false.
-
tder2012 at 01:58 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
World Nuclear Assocation states about 90 years of uranium
-
tder2012 at 01:46 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Thanks for pointing this out, my mistake "The Russian breeder reactors use fuel with over 20% enrichment. In addition, the new Vogtle reactors use 6% enriched uranium. Your claim that all current reactors use 5% or less enrichment are false" The overwhelming majority use up to 5% enriched uranium. Do you have an issue with a reactor using 20% enriched? I don't. "with over 20% enrichment", how much over?
-
tder2012 at 01:43 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The "megatons to megawatts" program got rid of the equivelant of 20,000 bombs worth of material required for these bombs. Lets get rid of more and use them up in fast reactors, or send it to France's MOX plant, as the megaton to megawatts program did. What issue do you have with 20% enriched uranium, do you not like medical isotopes? As I stated previously, there are no reactors that use 20% enriched uranium today, I see no issue if they do some day in the future. In the last 25 years, we have spent $trillions on wind, solar and storage and yet fossil fuel production and GHG emissions continue to increase year over year over year. So wind, solar and storage is also too slow, too expensive and think of all the raw materials we have used up to this point on them. How much more do we have to spend on them and how much raw materials do we require to completely eliminate fossil fuel production globally? Also, in the future spent nuclear fuel could be used in other forms of reactors besides fast breeder reactors https://copenhagenatomics.com/technology/
-
michael sweet at 01:26 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tder2012:
The Russian breeder reactors use fuel with over 20% enrichment. In addition, the new Vogtle reactors use 6% enriched uranium. Your claim that all current reactors use 5% or less enrichment are false. I did not bother to look at the China, India and Japan breeder reactors.
-
michael sweet at 00:43 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tder2012:
Breeder reactors like you support require as much as 5 tons of 80% bomb grade uranium to start up . Current reactors are not breeder reactors and there is only enough uranium for 6 years according to your link.
You are contradicting yourself saying we need to build new designs and then saying you will only discuss current reactors when I call out your deliberate misinformation. Military reactors currently use uranium that is more highly enriched, you cannot leave them out of the discussion.
It appears that you know the new reactor designs use 20%+ enriched uranium. That is a direct contradiction to your post where you stated "nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment ". At Skeptical Science we do not like people who post information they know is incorrect.
Nuclear is too slow to build, too expensive and there is not enough uranium.
Tder2012 is starting to sound just like Doug C.
-
tder2012 at 00:19 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael, since GHG emissions are global, why focus only on reactors being built in USA? Globally, there is 59 under construction. Do you have evidence to support these statements? "This is another com[plete falsehood promulgated by the online nucleear community" and "The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads are lying to tder2012.
The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads do not know anything about nuclear reactors." and "Why do you read and believe the crap the ignorant people on nuclear threads tell you? Then you bring their lies here where we try to only discuss facts." I'm sure you'll claim you already have provided evidence, but that is false.Natrium doesn't use 20% enriched uranium because it hasn't been built yet. 20% enrichment is also required for medical isotopes. A bomb needs at least 80% enrichment.
I discuss on here because I think we need to place emphasis on reducing ghg emissions and permanently displace fossil fuel production, but these continue to increase year over year, despite spending $trillions globally over the last 25 years or so on wind, solar, storage. We are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency so all options need to be on the table.
-
michael sweet at 00:03 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 posted off topic on the solar thread:
""I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged" The problems are that nuclear is expensive because of irrational fear of radiation ("all radiation is dangerous", nonsense, read "The LNT Report" when it comes out in August) people conflate nuclear weapons, which require at least 80% enrichment of uranium, compared to nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment and others here. These points of misinformation have helped increase the cost of nuclear energy needlessly. Be sure to read this 400+ page pdf book "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop" In the 70's when the hippies, musicians and actors got their way and nuclear power plants were stopped being build, they did nothing when coal plants were built instead. The scientists and engineers at the time wanted nuclear, but on this matter of science and engineering, society chose to listen to hippies, actors and musicians instead." my emphasis
This is another com[plete falsehood promulgated by the online nucleear community. The only nuclear plant currently under construction in the USA is the Natrium reaction in Kemmerer. It uses 20% enriched uranium. I believe most of the modular designs use 20% uranium but there are too many to count.
Up thread poster Doug C. linked a description of the breeder reactor he favored. That design used 5 tons of 80% (bomb grade) uranium for start up. And Jacobson is so stupid he worrys about bomb technnology spreading! Unfortunately, Doug C. posted off thread and I cannot find his post.
This is a very basic design component and anyone who knows anything about nuclear reactors would not make such an ignorant claim.
I can think of only two reasons that this deliberate falsehood was posted here.
- The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads are lying to tder2012.
- The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads do not know anything about nuclear reactors.
A question to tder2012: Why do you read and believe the crap the ignorant people on nuclear threads tell you? Then you bring their lies here where we try to only discuss facts.
-
michael sweet at 23:45 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
A number of nuclear posts have been made on this thread. That is off topic and in the future it will be impossible to link your posts like the problem I have crrently in the nuclear thread. Please post nucear arguments in the nuclear thread so we can all follow.
-
tder2012 at 21:36 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
At least nuclear has proven it can be a major contributor to meeting the Paris target of <100 grams of CO2 emitted / kWh on an annual basis. See France, Ontario, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden check here . Wind, solar and BESS (at least 30%) have never shown this. I don't include hydro because the planet is pretty much tapped out on convention hydro, besides it floods too much land and then think about all the concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the forests that need to be hacked down for HVDC transmission lines. As for pumped hydro, it is at 142 GW of capacity globally and provides over 95% of global electricity generation from storage, but it is obviously geography dependent and when compared to global electricity production overall, pumped hydro is such a tiny contributor, it is hardly a blip. I could only find it in "global installed renewable energy capacity by technology" at Our World in Data.
-
tder2012 at 20:59 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree nuclear is expensive and takes too long to deploy. Irrational fear of radiation and ornerous regulation are two of several reasons. Despite spending $trillions on wind, solar, BESS in the last quarter century, fossil fuel burning and GHG emissions continue to grow year over year unabated. So, unfortunately, low emissions sources of energy are doing a poor job at permanently displacing fossil fuel production, they are only energy additions. The book "More and More and More An All-Consuming History of Energy" clearly shows this, as does Our World in Data. We are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency, so all options should be on the table, this book is helpful "How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again"
-
Eclectic at 14:20 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @34 and prior :-
Le sarcasme, moi?
Though maybe you mean a friendly chaff (without wheat).
# But perhaps looking at the Big Picture instead, you could abandon hope of the "nuclear solution" ~ 'cos it just ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future of the coming decades. Sad, but there it is. Fission power for electricity has been hit with the Triple Whammy of hyper-costs, hyper-delays, and NIMBY-ism as well.
Solar has a better-than-sporting chance, with minor technological improvements in panels and sodium storage batteries. Together = reliability = the subject of this thread.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:40 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Personally, I don't think that excluding hydro from the renewables makes sense. In fact, I think that stored hydro deserves to be further explored. I also don't think that skimping on safety for a nuclear power plant makes sense either. Nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.
-
tder2012 at 12:19 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Eclectic, put your sarcasm aside and tell us what you would really like to see. How about any grid <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis and say what the top sources of electricity generation are. Michael Sweet and Philippe mentioned Luthuania, I responded. I say averaged on an annual basis because some like to point out when a grid hit a high % of a generation type for a few hours or days and don't mention other times when they don't. So keep it simple and include every hour of a 12 month period. So Eclectic, what would you like to see? Which do you prefer %RE or GHG emissions? I have made it clear I focus on GHG emissions as I have pointed out the Paris target of an electricity grid needing to be <100grams emitted of CO2/kWh, averaged on an annual basis. This site is excellent for grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour. (Although it is unavailble at this specific time I'm writing this) https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
-
Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @32 and prior :- You paint with too broad a brush.
Please put Lithuania aside, because a population of less than 3 million has no significance in any scenario whatsoever. Also, the Lithuanians speak a language so strange that even their neighboring countries can understand none of it.
Instead, we should keep it extremely simple, and consider only those national grids which generate >90 but <100 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh averaged on an annual or biennial basis. The grids should not include any nuclear or biomass-burning, nor hydro or geothermal or even tidal sources. Preferably also be 50-80% renewable.
If that does not advance the discussion in the right direction ~ then we should move the goalposts once again, into narrower territory.
-
Justin_timberprawn at 10:43 AM on 9 May 2025The History of Climate Science
wassup my hairy fairy's, i found this site very useful to gain all the information i ever required (awesome sauce)!! sicko mode!!! #once you go black you never go back!!! Siiickkkk!!!
-
tder2012 at 09:47 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
You are correct, I didn't include Lithuania because I made a spelling mistake, apologies "Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list". How about we keep it extremely simple. Focus on any grid that meets the Paris climate target of <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis that does not include any nuclear, at least 50% of electricity is generated by wind, solar, batteries on an annual basis and high emitting, high polluting, stinky biomass (IPCC says its lifecycle emissions range from 230 to 740 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh) and population is at least 2 million. I notice you don't discuss at all CO2 or GHG emissions, why?
-
michael sweet at 06:01 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I note that the 50-80% renewable number came from a blog that tder2012 linked to support his arguments.
-
michael sweet at 05:59 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012: I noticed that you did not include the country I identified which was Lithuania. An interesting mistake.
According to your link in April 2025 Lithuania got got 26.1% of electricity from wind, 16.6 % from solar and 6.9% from biomas for a total of 49.6% renewables not including hydro (hydro is small in Lithaunia). Eyeballing their yearly data I see that April had an unusualy large amount of gas usage and the entire yearly percentage of renewables was over 60%.
From the data at Our World in Data Lithuania produced 76% of electricity from renewables including hydro in 2023. They produced 3.8 TW from renewables and 0.5 TW from hydro so about 67% of all electricity was from renewables not including hydro in 2023. Undoubtedly that went up in 2024 as more renewables were installed.
They got zero nuclear. Most countries in the world get zero nuclear. Most countries get a significant amount of electricity from renewables.
-
tder2012 at 05:49 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged" The problems are that nuclear is expensive because of irrational fear of radiation ("all radiation is dangerous", nonsense, read "The LNT Report" when it comes out in August) people conflate nuclear weapons, which require at least 80% enrichment of uranium, compared to nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment and others here. These points of misinformation have helped increase the cost of nuclear energy needlessly. Be sure to read this 400+ page pdf book "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop" In the 70's when the hippies, musicians and actors got their way and nuclear power plants were stopped being build, they did nothing when coal plants were built instead. The scientists and engineers at the time wanted nuclear, but on this matter of science and engineering, society chose to listen to hippies, actors and musicians instead.
-
tder2012 at 05:24 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"They are currently building out factories and mines to manufacture them in large numbers". And yet Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) expect BESS to generate 1TWh of electricity for the entire year of 2030, they generated 0.363TWh for all of 2024, according to the Volta Foundation. Considering 30,000TWh of electricity was consumed for 2024 and this number is expected to rise year over year, as it always has, as global population continues to increase (projected 10 billion by 2050) and more and more of the global population enjoys a decent standard of living. So batteries better pick up the pace and grow by orders of magnitude more than is expected by pro renewables and batteries BNEF and of course costs decrease by orders of magnitude from what BNEF expects.
-
tder2012 at 04:51 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I stated "Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis". Sorry I should have stated "other than hydro AND nuclear" and services at least 5 million people. Norway is mostly hydro, so they shouldn't be on your list. Sweden gets electricity from hydro and way too much nuclear for you liking, so they shouldn't be on your list. Finland is way too much nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Denmark's CO2 emission are too high, so they shouldn't be on your list. England's emissions are way too high and they get too much from nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Germany's emissions are way too high (345, instead of 100, grams of CO2 emitted / kwh), so they shouldn't be on your list. Spain gets way too much from nuclear and is still over 100, so they shouldn't be on your list. Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list. Maybe pay far less attention to %renewables (ideally none) and instead of focusing on GHG emissions. So all the countries you listed actually don't qualify, but you did say "I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy." So you should go on and on, that is, unless you care more about %RE than GHG emissions. And use a proper source. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/LT/12mo/monthly
