Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 Next
Comments 15601 to 15650:
-
John Hartz at 06:30 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Speaking of carbon taxes...
INDUSTRY observers welcomed Singapore's soft start in its implementation of a carbon tax through an initial price lower than the range provided earlier by the government, though some affected companies continue to hope for benchmarks to be used together with the tax.
The gradual increase upwards will help companies to decide whether they want to pay the tax or spend on projects to reduce their carbon emissions, said Nanyang Technological University (NTU) department of economics head Euston Quah.
Singapore's carbon tax will start at S$5 a tonne for five years from 2019, and, following a review in 2023, eventually be raised to between S$10 and S$15 a tonne by 2030, said Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat.
Singapore Budget 2018: Singapore's carbon tax to start at S$5 a tonne by Andrea Soh, Energy & Commodities, The Busines Times, Feb 20, 2018
-
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM - I actually dont dispute incrementalism as a good idea. Would just like conservatives to take a first step - even killing FF subsidies is a good first step. However, as indicated, I also think we have used FF to breach incrementalism and are flailing to cope with consequences. If we want to rapidly reduce (30 year timeframe), then time to start was long ago.
"Purity" is just a word - teasing out its meaning in Moral foundation theory really means looking at how it is measured. I am not advocating using the word in framing (white supremicists do however, appealing to that foundation) but appealing to that foundation in environmental advocacy is effective for gaining wider support. eg clean air, preservation of "virgin" forest etc.
I have to thank my son's master's dissertation for making me aware of this and I am digesting the material on effective communication. Nonetheless, I feel it is pretty hard to have a dialogue when one side has little respect for facts or logic and leap to rhetoric and FUD instead.
Storage issues are tightly linked to the actual mix of generation available and the ability of the transmission network to move power from distant sources. Having any hydro is a plus, because you can do zero cost storage by holding back water when sun shines, wind blows, and generate from it when it doesnt. While a lot has been made of storage issues as an excuse for sitting on hands, in places where need is arising, I see a rush by technology to meet the need. One of the points of measures like banning FF from a certain date, carbon taxes etc. is to actually stimulate that technology development.
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 21 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
jef @1
"...major reduction in greenhouse gases", "...reduce CO₂ levels now...", "...new ways to reduce CO₂ emissions..."."Wiggly wormy weasle words that muddle the truth."
They don't muddle the truth, because the language is clear enough and is based on what we know is possible. You also don't explain why you think the statements in the article muddle the truth, so you are just posting empty propaganda.
"technological innovations are providing new ways to reduce CO₂ emissions..."."There are currently none that have any prospect what so ever at scaling to a degree that is even 1% of what will be necessary, but don't let that stand in the way of "magic happens aka technology"
You give no evidence that these things can't be scaled up. Theres no technical reason because the technology exists. The only thing standing in the way is perhaps human motivation, but people have found the will in the past to tackle major projects. Of course nobody said it would be easy. Where does the article say it would be easy? So you are just posting empty cynicism.
Of course one other thing standing in the way are campaigns of climate science denialism and also attacks on renewable energy, mainly from self promoting lobby groups. Maybe have a look in the mirror?
"...a low-carbon future."Which is it, negative carbon/removing carbon in massive giga, trillion, mega amounts, or just lower?"
The article said low carbon, so presumably they mean low carbon. Humanity will always use fossil fuels for things like plastic manufacture, had you not thought of that?
"What is needed is speaking truth to the masses. Difficult? hell yes, but absolutely good will happen until we take on that herculean task first.'
Yes, and you are not communicating anything very well to the masses, because you make wild, one sided, unsupported, cynical claims.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @112
Yes pumped storage is the main current bulk storage option. There is also molten salt storage associated with some forms of solar power as below.
www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage
Bulk battery storage is actually technically feasible, but the cost is too high. However we have good certainty that battery costs will fall very considerably.
Im not a person who normally buys into some of the technology hype we see, however I think theres good evidence that battery costs will fall and numerous new technologies are already in working prototype stage such as aluminium batteries.
I just take a general interest in the climate issue, and I try to make considered statements, but theres never enough time to tackle every aspect in the detail it really needs. Im sure you find the same. I rely on people being smart enough to "join the dots" sometimes. My real point was storage options do exist already.
-
Riduna at 05:08 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Nigelj @ 2
Are you also interested in the area covered by sea ice since this affects albedo, solar energy absorbed by the Arctic Ocean and its effect on thinning of sea ice? Continuing loss of albedo in summer (doesn’t matter in winter) means Arctic ocean warming which may prove problematic on 2 counts: coastal erosion and methane release.
-
NorrisM at 04:04 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 108 and 109
"How about it takes time? But if you never start, you will never get there."
Sounds like incrementalism to me.
If you are trying to build a consensus with conservatives using a heavily laden word like "purity" is counter productive. And if you are not, then are we not into "echo chamber" issues?
-
NorrisM at 03:48 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @95 and 106
Firstly, in answer to your question at 106, I have a number of times indicated that I would be happy starting with US$20/tonne and even perhaps US$30/tonne and see what happens. For that reason I would not "sign on" to a possible $80/tonne tax until we saw what happened at $30. Again, I personally have no real idea what the right level of carbon tax should be as I suspect is the case for most on this website because none of us have the economic resources to make rational judgments on such an issue. If there is a "peer reviewed" paper on this I would be happy to review same. Governments have those resources so I will choose to trust our federal government in Canada on what level of carbon tax can work without "complicating the economy".
But given the additional information provided by John Hartz above, the carbon taxes implemented so far are not having the effect required just as I suspected. Having said this, the answer I assume is to give them some time to work. I am happy with that but time is not on our side in the view of many on this website.
But I have intended to ask you a question related to the following comment you made in 95:
"The storage problem is largely solved in terms of technology. Look at the huge Tesla lithium battery complex in southern Australia, that is now saving them money."
My understanding that with respect to "bulk storage" this statement is incorrect. The Tesla installation has not solved the bulk storage issue associated with wind and solar power so that "pumped storage" is still the only viable source of bulk storage at present.
This view is based upon the comments of other contributors on this website. I would be happy to be proved wrong on this.
-
jef12506 at 02:30 AM on 21 February 2018Why remote Antarctica is so important in a warming world
"...major reduction in greenhouse gases", "...reduce CO₂ levels now...", "...new ways to reduce CO₂ emissions...".
Wiggly wormy weasle words that muddle the truth.
"technological innovations are providing new ways to reduce CO₂ emissions...".
There are currently none that have any prospect what so ever at scaling to a degree that is even 1% of what will be necessary, but don't let that stand in the way of "magic happens aka technology".
"...a low-carbon future."
Which is it, negative carbon/removing carbon in massive giga, trillion, mega amounts, or just lower?
What is needed is speaking truth to the masses. Difficult? hell yes, but absolutely good will happen until we take on that herculean task first.
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 21 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Here's a synopsis of the harsh reality and hard choices that now confront the human race...
There are now so many of us on Earth that the planet just doesn't have enough resources for us all to live comfortably, which means we require a radical rethink of how we could start living within our means.
That's the conclusion of a new study which looked at 151 nations and found not a single one was running itself in a sustainable way – ensuring a decent life for its inhabitants without taking more than it gives back in terms of natural resources.
The international team of researchers has even put together a website showing how each country is performing in terms of balancing the well-being of its citizens against figures such as land use, CO2 emissions, ecological footprint, and phosphorus emissions.
"Almost everything we do, from having dinner to surfing the internet, uses resources in some way, but the connections between resource use and human well-being are not always visible to us," says one of the team, Daniel O'Neill from the University of Leeds in the UK.
"We examined international relationships between the sustainability of resource use and the achievement of social goals, and found that basic needs, such as nutrition, sanitation, and the elimination of extreme poverty, could most likely be achieved in all countries without exceeding global environmental limits."
"Unfortunately, the same is not true for other social goals that go beyond basic subsistence such as secondary education and high life satisfaction. Meeting these goals could require a level of resource use that is two to six times the sustainable level."
There Might Be No Way to Live Comfortably Without Also Ruining The Planet: It's time to face an uncomfortable truth. by David Nield, Science Alert, Feb 10, 2018
-
nigelj at 17:42 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Scaddenp @109, I hadn't heard of the Moral Foundation Theory, but I had a quick scan on wikipedia. I think it sounds broadly correct, and agree with your comments. Many of these differences are known anyway as part of the general discourse.
I had heard of the "purity" issue associated with conservatives, in the sense that they react very strongly to bad body habits and things like homosexuality, where liberals do also react also but not quite as strongly. So I can believe right wingers would be concerned about very optically visible forms of air pollution.
Nixon passed some great environmental law, despite his other failings. But times have changed and Republicans seem prepared to scale back all environmental laws, possibly because the liberty, loyalty and authority "foundations" seem to now over rule the purity foundation? But Norris is possibly reacting to the purity thing more like Nixon did in the old days.
However the theory as a whole is many shades of grey, because liberals also dont like visible forms of air pollution.
I'm a consensus seeker. I recognise these sorts of moral differences between left and right, (as you probably already know) but prefer to see the gap closed. Wikipedia made the point we mistake these differences for evil intent. Unfortunately differences in America are starting to spiral out of control, and it looks like I'm on the wrong side of history, in a way.
However I would still hope that conservatives (and anyone else) see the CO2 emissions problem as a "dirty" form of problem, even if its invisible and odourless.
-
nigelj at 15:52 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Going South @6
I agree it's easy enough to grasp, but do you really think someone like National Geographic would deliberately hide information. It seems unlikely in their case, or do you know something I dont know.
To be sure I can see Fox playing down this sort of thing, or most general news media really. Regardless whether its seasonal sea ice extent, or ice volume, it will be buried in the fine print on the back page.
-
Going South at 15:37 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Hm, have you ever heard people say 2016 was the warmest year, or 2014 setting a new global temperature record, then 2015 broke that record and then 2016, etc? Those are annual averages. Not so hard concept to grasp, man. Don't underestimate the reading public.
-
scaddenp at 13:17 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Nigel, you may have heard of Moral Foundation theory? Haidt? One interesting feature of it, is the observation across cultures that left-wingers make gut moral judgements based on just care and fairness foundations. Right-wingers also use what are called binding foundations (loyalty, respect for heirarchies/authority, and purity). The last one means you have right-wing more ready to deal with pollution than rising sealevel.
-
scaddenp at 13:10 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"My point was that if Germany, Sweden and France have not fully implemented the necessary changes to meet the Paris goals, there is a reason why they have not."
How about it takes time? But if you never start, you will never get there. The OECD report looked only at taxes and only to 2015. Post-Paris there has been a raft of additional measures, in EU and other places (but not Canada or US) and it remains to be seen whether these will be sufficient. In countries which dont have neoliberal governments, measures other than carbon taxes are acceptable to the electorate. If you dont want to advocate for those, then you had been be ready to advocate for carbon tax.
Disruption to the economy is inevitable - either from decarbonizing or from adaption to a new climate. Why would you not choose to take the cheapest route?
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:01 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 101:
The third "arbitrary group" was "or some other group", which gives you free form to explain why you are not part of the first two. I can't see why that has been so hard.
You say "To try to do some kind of "weigh scale" measurement of costs and benefits as between different groups would be impossible." That is exactly what economic analysis attempts to do. When they do it, they try to clearly state assumptions, and provide explicit definitions for the terms they use. DIfferent assumptions end up with somewhat different results, but they nearly all indicate that future costs will outweigh future benefits.
At this point, I can only conclude that all your attempts to say things like "bring the economy down", "materially damage the economy", "put the economy into trouble", "industries that would immediately suffer greatly ", "a massive transfer of wealth", "out of a job", "all those direct costs you allege", etc. really were just rhetoric, and had nothing to do with an actual cost/benefit analysis (which you now say is impossible).
-
nigelj at 12:48 PM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @101
"Again, to the extent we are talking pollution rather than the consequences of rising temperatures and rising sea levels I think measurements can and should be made."
Nobody here is likely interested in a carbon tax based purely on particulate emissions and their relation to lung problems. That's just a non starter, and too contrived for words.
And the public might find such a strategy confusing and devious.
It also doesn't make sense because theres a huge difference between health effects of burning coal, gas and oil. It would be a nightmare practically.
If anything, a carbon tax should include the effects of both climate change and something limited added on for respiratory health effects. And it just goes to show a carbon tax has several justifications.
However, just my opinion, others may disagree.
Norris M @104, you are just spamming, and repeating yourself.
You have also not answered my question: do you accept a carbon tax and dividend scheme starting at about $30, and ramped up to about $80?
-
John Hartz at 11:06 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM: I posted a link to the Reuters article about the new OECD report as a commenter and author of the OP, not as a Moderator. For your edification here is the complete OECD news release that prompted the Reuters article.
Governments should make better use of energy taxation to address climate change
14/02/2018 -Taxes are effective at cutting harmful emissions from energy use, but governments could make better use of them. Greater reliance on energy taxation is needed to strengthen efforts to tackle the principal source of both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, according to a new OECD report.
Taxing Energy Use 2018 describes patterns of energy taxation in 42 OECD and G20 countries (representing approximately 80% of global energy use), by fuels and sectors over the 2012-2015 period.
New data shows that energy taxes remain poorly aligned with the negative side effects of energy use. Taxes provide only limited incentives to reduce energy use, improve energy efficiency and drive a shift towards less harmful forms of energy. Emissions trading systems, which are not discussed in this publication, but are included in the OECD’s Effective Carbon Rates, are having little impact on this broad picture.
“Comparing taxes between 2012 and 2015 yields a disconcerting result,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Efforts have been made, or are underway, in several jurisdictions to apply the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, but on the whole progress towards the more effective use of taxes to cut harmful emissions is slow and piecemeal. Governments should do more and better.”
In 2015, outside of road transport, 81% of emissions were untaxed, according to the report. Tax rates were below the low-end estimate of climate costs (EUR 30/tCO2) for 97% of emissions.
Meaningful tax rate increases have largely been limited to the road sector. Fuel tax reforms in some large low-to-middle income economies have increased the share of emissions taxed above climate costs from 46% in 2012 to 50% in 2015. Encouragingly, some countries are removing lower tax rates on diesel compared to gasoline. However, fuel tax rates remain well below the levels needed to cover non-climate external costs in nearly all countries.
Coal, characterised by high levels of harmful emissions and accounting for almost half of carbon emissions from energy use in the 42 countries, is taxed at the lowest rates or fully untaxed in almost all countries.
While the intense debate on carbon taxation has sparked action in some countries, actual carbon tax rates remain low. Carbon tax coverage increased from 1% to 6% in 2015, but carbon taxes reflect climate costs for just 0.3% of emissions. Excise taxes dominate overall tax rates by far.
“The damage to climate and air quality resulting from fossil fuel combustion can be contained, but the longer action is delayed the more difficult and expensive it becomes to tackle this challenge,” Mr Gurria said. “Aligning energy prices with the costs of climate change and air pollution is a core element of cost-effective policy, and vast improvements are urgently needed. While in some cases compensation for higher energy costs faced by households or firms may be deemed necessary, especially to those more vulnerable, lower tax rates or exemptions are not the way to provide it – targeted transfers should be favoured.”
Further information on Taxing Energy Use, including graphical profiles of energy use and taxation in the 42 countries is available at: http://oe.cd/TEU2018.
An embeddable version of the report is available, together with information about downloadable and print versions of the report.
-
NorrisM at 10:42 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 96
Where did I say anything about comparing Germany, Sweden and France on the one hand and North America on the other?
My point was that if Germany, Sweden and France have not fully implemented the necessary changes to meet the Paris goals, there is a reason why they have not. And the best guess is that the politicians are concerned that the required changes would bring with them substantial changes to the economy that would not be accepted by their electorates. I used the term "harm the economy" but if you want to say "significant changes to the economy" then so be it. But if these changes were not costly changes (or impractical at this time) I am sure Angela Merkel would moved on them by now.
Governments are clearly taking steps but they will not be sufficient to meet the Paris goals. As noted by the Moderator, the OECD has so much as said that. But they are doing what they can based upon political realities. Nothing profound here but it is stating the obvious.
-
NorrisM at 10:26 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Whoops! Not into clouds but on to Page 3.
-
NorrisM at 10:24 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw
I hit the Submit button with a reply but it seems to have disappeared into the clouds. I will wait to see if it appears before I try to replicate it. I agree that your question was not a yes/no.
-
NorrisM at 10:19 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 93
My apologies. Your question was obviously not a yes or no answer. My answer should have simply stated that I cannot pick one of your arbitrary groups. We simply have to let the chips fall where they may on a cost/benefit analysis (outside of pollution costs) when it comes to the use of fossil fuels over the last 150 years because all groups however you classify them have benefitted. To try to do some kind of "weigh scale" measurement of costs and benefits as between different groups would be impossible. Again, to the extent we are talking pollution rather than the consequences of rising temperatures and rising sea levels I think measurements can and should be made.
-
nigelj at 07:14 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
I said "it depends on whos axe gets gored". I meant of course whos "ox gets gored". I think I got confused with people having axes to grind.
Anyway, on the subject of the ox, have a break, have cup of tea, and read the parable of the ox and have a good laugh:
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norris M made the claim that fossil fuels reduced poverty, and so on.
They have in a broad sense over time, and nobody disputes that fossil fuels have been a benefit in the past. Quite what this has to do with the issue at hand eludes me. Asbestos was a great benefit, until we discovered it had serious problems.
Anyway, its also misleading to claim the reduction in third world poverty since the 1980's (related to the numbers in MA Rodgers comments) is somehow a miracle caused by using fossil fuels. Eonomists say its strongly related to free trade and more open investment. (Something else America seems determined to dismantle).
And progress is driven more by 'energy', and we have options.
Ironically its arguably more practical to drive poverty reduction in Africa with solar power anyway.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:41 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@89,
Poverty elimination that is sustainable, not just temporary perceptions of reduction, is just one of the set of comprehensive objectives in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
What is understandable is the need for all of the SDGs to be achieved, not just some of them. And another one of the SDGs is Climate Action. So, the rapid curtailing of negative climate impacts created by the burning of fossil fuels is one of the required actions to 'sustainably reduce poverty'. That will mean the more fortunate changing their ways to sustainably improve conditions for the less fortunate and also changing their ways to stop personally benefiting from the creation of increased climate change challenges.
The key is sustaining any perceived improvement. And what cannot be shown is how any fossil fuel burning activity has created a 'sustainable improvement for the least fortunate', an improvement that will continue after the unsustainable and harmful burning of fossil fuels is terminated (to put it a little absurdly but to make the point, I would want to see the proof of 'how people being able to enjoy burning fossil fuels to race around on water for pleasure' sustainably makes anything better for the less fortunate).
Also, Poverty is a tricky thing to talk about. There is Extreme Poverty which is being reduced, but not because of the burning of fossil fuels. And there is also Poverty which may actually be increasing in spite of Extreme Poverty being reduced.
In spite of those complications of discussing poverty, Global GDP has grown at rates greater than the global population increased (even in Africa the GDP has grown faster than the population), yet a significant portion of the population remains desperately poor, suffering horrible brief existences (never really living).
So any claim of the improvement being a benefit for the poorest is challenged by the reality that the poorest, the most in need of improvement of living circumstances, have not actually been the dominant recipients of the increased perceptions of prosperity. And claims that the burning of fossil fuels are the reason for any actual reduced poverty are hard to substantiate. Poverty reduction is due to more equitable distribution of opportunity to benefit which is completely independent of the form of energy involved. In fact, it can be more successfully argued that the continued ability of more fortunate people to benefit from burning fossil fuels has delayed the development of sustainable improvements for the least fortunate, delayed the development of truly sustainable ways of living better.
-
scaddenp at 06:34 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
And further clarity:
A failure to end emissions ahead of your timeline is not evidence that you cannot achieve your timeline.
A requirement that other countries reduce their emissions to zero before you will start to implement measures to reduce emissions is unreasonable.
Attacking an $150/tonne carbon tax is tilting at windmills.
-
scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"why Germany, France and Sweden (I can probably add NZ) have not fully dealt with the issues of moving from fossil fuels to other sources of energy?"
Seriously, you are trying to defend North America doing nothing about CO2 emissions, by saying the Sweden, Germany, NZ have not managed to completely go FF yet? That is absurb. Sweden is committed to by FF free by 2045, wants end of FF cars by 2030, is using ETS instead of carbon tax and thinks they are poster child for increasing economic growth while reducing emissions. Germany's emission reduction is more modest but chose to try and get off nuclear as well which masks the scale of their renewable investments. NZ is at 80% renewable and well on track to its targets for 100% generation. NZ problem is that 50% of its GHG emissions are from ruminants which is much tougher problem to tackle.
Other countries might be far away but they are rapidly changing that. And by comparison, North America has made what steps????
Your objection that carbon tax wont compensate other countries affected by climate change is ludicrous. No one suggested it should. The best way to help other countries is stop emitting so they arent adversely affected in the first place. Carbon tax is a mechanism, supposedly more acceptable to right-winger who dont like more direct measures, for encouraging an energy transition, nothing more.
As has been pointed out to you before, noone is denying that FF have brought benefits in the past, but for the future they clearly bring problems. Claiming past benefits as reason for doing nothing is yet another piece of rhetoric, substituting for a logical reason.
Are you trying to convince us that North American should do nothing (you are failing miserably) or trying to justify yourself?
-
nigelj at 05:57 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @91
Thank's for the comments, however I didn't say "The so called "harm the economy" issue is meaningless". I said harm the economy is "meaningless and scarmongering until you define exactly what you mean". I defined the points that need consideration for you.
Like Bob Loblow says, it "depends on whos axe gets gored". Fossil fuel producers will hurt, but as I pointed out thousands of companies go bankrup each year. Its part of the "creative destruction" of capitalism that the Republicans "say" they support (only when it suits of course, when their favourite oxe isn't being gored).
I think the main risk is inflation, but this can be easily managed and contained to low levels. The risk is because obviously a very high carbon price abruptly introduced would push up fuel costs considerably and abruptly, and for example the supply of electic cars would not keep up. So you have a lower starting point for carbon and ramp it up, so the supply side of the economy has time to expand. On that basis do you have an objection to starting moderate at about $30 and ramping up to $80 over time of a decade? (To pick a middle ground example, for the sake of simplicity). This is your incrementalism, so I struggle to see why you would object.
"If concerns about the effects of major impacts on the economy are meaningless, then please respond to my question as to why Germany, France and Sweden (I can probably add NZ) have not fully dealt with the issues of moving from fossil fuels to other sources of energy?"
All these countries have made at least some some progress with renewable electricity. Germany has a unique problem where they took all their nuclear offline, after Fukushima, and went back to coal because it was just easier. However Germany is now back to building wind and solar farms.
The UK has actually done much better with renewable electricity, particularly wind farms, because it has separated the decision making process from government , by creating an independent body, and it has a a reasonable sort of carbon tax as well. It's a good model of development.
New Zealand has 80% renewable electricity already, mostly hydro and geothermal, and with some wind power. We have plans being consented to build more wind and geothermal power.
Of course none of this is proceeding fast enough, and needs more incentives like a carbon tax and dividend scheme. People are perhaps understandably nervous, and politicians are scared of change, in case it upsets anyone including their campaign donors. And we have had a misleading , scaremongering campaign against climate science and renewable energy. But things like this inevitably change, for example the new government in New Zealand was elected with quite a strong climate policy platform, by facing down industry lobby groups.
People will see through the climate denialist nonsense, and it will happen with a huge rush. Just a couple more years of record temperatures. It's just how human psychology works.
Nobody in industries affected by a carbon tax will starve to death. Most industries will adjust fine, looking at other historical disruptions, and the renewable electricity industry by its nature tends to create a lot of jobs and with good salaries, so if anything its a bit of a "win win" situation for society as a whole. I'm not saying it won't hurt, but I haven't seen any compelling actual hard evidence of huge harm to the economy, just idle speculation on biased think tank websites, dressed up to sound superficially convincing.
"Perhaps part of the answer is that until the storage problem is solved there is no adequate solution. But surely Sweden does not have a storage issue with its abundant hydroelectric power. I suspect it is making too much money selling it to Germany when the wind is not blowing."
The storage problem is largely solved in terms of technology. Look at the huge Tesla lithium battery complex in southern Australia, that is now saving them money. Sweden does indeed have planty of hydro storage, and the issue is rather obviosly slow implementation of wind power. Its reasonable to expect battery storage costs to fall over time. Again the issue is more politics getting in the way as mentioned above.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:50 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 91:
Now you are just engaging in "whataboutery".
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:41 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
Please learn to be more specific. The question posed in #23 (repeated in #84) is not a "yes/no" question. Your answer of "yes" does not answer it, unless you are accepting my impression stated in #84 that "you want to be part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits." (That contradicts your closing statement that you want polluters to pay.)
As to your request for me to "reconcile" what you see as contradictory statements: you are creating strawmen positions. I have told you that I want a higher carbon tax than $30, and I want it introduced incrementally, and that I want observations of its effects to dictate how high it goes. I have told you that "all costs" is not my position, I have also told you that a carbon tax is not enough - other actions will be needed.
You talk again about wealth transfer. You have not, from what I remember, ever addressed the fact that I mention in #23 - that the externality of having costs of fossil fuels borne by people other than the consumers represents a transfer of wealth. You only seem concerned about transfers of wealth away from your small portion of the economy. As long as the poor people got a few crumbs, why apologize for eating most of the cake?
Action on climate change is not about righting past wrongs. It is about preventing future wrongs. The primary benefit of a carbon tax and other actions would be to prevent much of the future fossil fuel use, and thus avoiding much of the future damage.
Ideally, technology will allow us to use other sources of energy, without carbon, and in the long run a carbon tax would provide little revenue (whether it is held by governmnent or transferred to others). If we don't burn carbon, a carbon tax has little effect. I would be very happy if 50 years from now nobody is paying a significant carbon tax (although I won't live to see it).
Any of the economic analyses you have been pointed to will indicate that past fossil fuel use has been a net benefit, but it will become a net loss as atmospheric CO2 and climate change become more severe. Ask someone in Houston if their fossil-fuel-based job will continue to be a benefit if it means getting flooded every ten years like they did last year.
Those analyses also indicate that poor countries will bear much of those future costs, with benefits concentrated in rich counties. Ask someone in Houston how their rebuilding is going. Then ask someone in Puerto Rico. If there is a difference, think about why. And when asking someone in Houston, make sure it isn't someone who sells building materials or does construction work or mold remediation - I bet their businesses are booming (and at least a few aren't apologizing for it).
-
Kiwiiano at 05:31 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
And growing plants for carbon removal only works if it is charred and buried underground, currently requiring even more diesel to dig the holes and transport the logs and/or the charcoal. We would be trying to replicate coal formation...better to leave the damn stuff where it is.
-
MA Rodger at 05:24 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
It's a 10-day-old multiple-choice question and the troll still cannot aswer it.
Question @23 - Do you want to belong to group A, group B or group C?
Answer @89 - Yes!!
While the industrialised society we belong to has pulled many from poverty creating a post-Malthusian world, to suggest that the poverty figure set by the World Bank (actually 'extreme poverty' figures with income levels $1:00-a-day in 1990, $1:90-a-day today, which shows the 1990 level of 35% in extreme poverty shrinking to 10% by 2013) is properly showing the achieving of the World Bank Group’s mission “Our Dream is a World Free of Poverty” is naive in the extreme. And then the follow-on suggestion that this give the industrialised world licence to pump CO2 into the atmosphere for ever-and-a-day is a rather distasteful one.
Also the choice @91 of 'litmus test' countries France, Germany & Sweden appears designed to be annoying.
-
NorrisM at 04:50 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj @ 80
"The so called "harm the economy" issue is meaningless"
If concerns about the effects of major impacts on the economy are meaningless, then please respond to my question as to why Germany, France and Sweden (I can probably add NZ) have not fully dealt with the issues of moving from fossil fuels to other sources of energy?
Is that not the litmus test?
The Moderator has provided a commentary from the OECD that supports my assumption that these nations are far away from what is needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Perhaps part of the answer is that until the storage problem is solved there is no adequate solution. But surely Sweden does not have a storage issue with its abundant hydroelectric power. I suspect it is making too much money selling it to Germany when the wind is not blowing.
-
nigelj at 04:43 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
So Saudi Arabia exports oil, while building greenhouses to absorb C02. They will need to build about a billions greenhouses to cancel out their oil exports.
What about all the water the greenhouses will use, where will they source that? Latst time I checked the middle east was not a high rainfall area. And the CO2 emissions in the manufacture of the building materials?
Some of these technical fixes are the very definition of stupid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:42 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The more that NorrisM presents, the more certain I am that his thoughts are personally motivated in the way I described in my recent post on the "How to Change Your Mind About Climate Science" OP.
"Regional socio-economics can result in indoctrination/brainwashing of many people including people who have completed high levels of education. To change their minds, they would have to admit they have allowed themselves to desire unacceptable things, admit their developed desired ways to pursue benefit are harmful to others, and admit that their perceived success/superiority relative to others is not deserved. Those can be powerful motivations to not change their minds."
NorrisM is still pursuing additional income from the burning of fossil fuels (unless his comment about going to Alberta for a light crude oil related business matter was Pro-Bono). It is also likely he desires the ability to obtain other benefits from the activity rather than dramatically reduce his personal benefit from the burning of fossil fuels.
As observed by others, his arguments have to be selective. And they may not even be accurate presentations of the selective points he raises. His objective is to justify his position that a 'business as usual' approach to the 'required correction of the development of popularity and profitability of an understandably harmful and ultimately unsustainable activity' simply has to be accepted.
His claims have to over-look the fact that business and political leaders have been well aware of the need to correct the way things were developing for over 30 years. His argument is that 'very little should be done now because very little has been done previously'. That is not how he presents it but that is what it is. It is almost comical when presented the way it really is. It is a claim that a lack of corrective action in the past justifies a lack of corrective action today, rather than admitting that the lack of responsible action by the most fortunate in the past has created the need for more dramatic correction today. And it side-steps the reality that the correction must be to the detriment of some of the most fortunate today, the ones who inconsiderately gambled on getting away with behaving less acceptably.
His presented views are a good insight into the ways that 'made-up minds that are determined to continue to benefit any way they can get away with' will attempt to argue a case. Admittedly that is the way some lawyers (not all of them) learn to win, it is a developed skill. And with many lawyers Winning political leadership roles, the way NorrisM approaches this matter is likely similar to those elected representatives (so many Republicans still claiming to be, or acting as if they were, ignorant/dismissive regarding the corrections that climate science has indicated are required for the benefit of the future of humanity).
NorrisM correctly identifies that understandably unacceptable pursuits can be popular and profitable. However, his claim that 'that just has to be the way it has to be' cannot be defended. Note hat he offers no suggestion of action that would correct the problem. The most obvious required corrective action is more correctly educating the population, which will require the creation of new measures that will effectively promote/reward Helpful Winners (educators) and penalize/discourage Harmful Winners (indoctrinators/misleaders - people who argue/fight against developing awareness and understanding that is contrary to their Private Interests).
Harmful economic activities get shut down all the time. Popular opinion in support of understandably unacceptable activity that is artificially propped up to prolong the unacceptable activity just leads to a more dramatic required correction. The recent curtailing of viability of the town of Asbestos in Quebec is an example of what happens when unacceptable pursuits are regionally propped up and prolonged, people in the future eventually suffer the inevitable consequence. The unfortunate current reality faced by USA coal workers is another example.
NorrisM appears to be OK with the unacceptable activity continuing to a more dramatic correction 'in the future, when it is less likely to affect him'. That way of thinking is understandable. And it is understandably unacceptable, in need of help to correct, challenged by motivations to resist change.
-
NorrisM at 04:08 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @84
I will answer your question if you answer mine. My question to you is how you can reconcile a carbon tax at levels presently suggested by other commentators on this thread with a carbon tax levied on industrialized societies at a rate that will make those societies pay for all the direct damages these societies have or are about to wreak on lesser developed nations. I assume your suggested solution is to then transfer a large portion of the proceeds from this high level of carbon tax to those societies in some sort of wealth transfer. But are you not effectively proposing a carbon tax on developed nations at a level much higher than $30-$80?
If you do not propose such a solution then what is all this talk implicit in your question at #23?
So here is my answer to your question posed at #23. The answer is yes. And the reason is that fossil fuel use throughout the world has transformed this world to the benefit of everyone in this world, not just the developed nations. What has happened is just a cost of our industrialized society up until now.
Although I only heard this figure on a Sam Harris podcast on some topic entirely separate from any discussion of climate change, this commentator said that today only 10% of the world's population exists at a poverty level whereas 90% are above that poverty level (I know there are many measurements of poverty but we are talking generalities here). However, 150 years ago, those figures were reversed. 90% of the world population lived in poverty.
I trust you get my point. Our industrialized society has lifted 80% of the world's population out of poverty. So I do not think we have anything to apologize for when it comes to past use of fossil fuels which has propelled us to where we are today.
When it comes to pollution I am completely in the camp of charging those who have polluted. As an example, I think the plastics in our ocean are a travesty. If we could figure out where it came from proportionately, then I would be all in favour of some UN Convention to get nations to pay up based upon their contribution to clean up this mess.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:17 AM on 20 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
To follow up nigelj's comment @ 86, and return to my list of economic changes @ 56:
- The changes that brought about the development of railways and personal automobiles had a devastating effect on the horse and buggy industry. If the horse and buggy industry was a major source of political financing at the time, would we have seen political action to block advances in steam locomotives and the mass production lines that brought us the automobile? Would we have seen a reluctance to spend public dollars on road networks?
- If the typewriter industry had been a major source of political donations, would we have seen a stifling of the development of computers and word processing software? The typewriter isn't dead, but it's not the industry it used to be. You might even say that the repercussions were serious.
- Was the financial crisis of 2008-2009 a good thing because a few people that managed to keep their jobs and had cash on hand (instead of in equity) suddenly found out that they could buy houses at 50% off? What a tremendous benefit!
As I said before, it depends on who's ox gets gored.
-
michael sweet at 00:15 AM on 20 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchymst,
Proposed theoretical reactors that have never been built are not solutions. Abbott discusses the breeder reactors you propose. The fact that none have been able to run for significant amounts without problems tells us how likely it is that they will be useful in a reasonable amount of time. Work out a timeline: if they have a design next week it will take them 5-10 years to build. Then it will take 5-10 years to determine if the alloys they have chosen can withstand the extreme conditions in the breeder reactor and if their complex purification scheme for the fuel will work (both unlikely). Then they will have to apply to scale up and buiild new plants which take 9-19 years to build from the initial proposal. It will be at least 5+5+9 = 19 years before the first plants will be on-line in 2037. That is too late, we need a solution that we can build out today.
Abbott used the diagram of elemental abundance to show that the elements needed for nuclear reactors do not work. He included a table of how much of these metals are currently in production and current reserves which you did not address. This data showed that there are not enough materials for your nulcear utopia. Apparently Berylium is one of the key short materials. I mentioned it above but it appears to have slipped your memory.
India's "thorium reactor" includes uranium to burn the thorium. In 2013 it was scheduled to fire up in 2014. In 2014 in 2015, in 2015 2016, and last summer (2017) in early 2018. It has not fired up yet. Placing all your money on an untried technology that is years behind schedule and even in the best case will not be ready in time is not a very good plan. Not very convincing.
In any case, nuclear is completely uneconomic. Renewable energy is half the cost of nuclear.
If you cannot be bothered to find references to support your wild claims you should comment at anonther site where they do not care what absurd claims you make up.
-
michael sweet at 23:51 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Nnorrism:
If you are going to argue against a carbon fee and dividend you must choose an amount that is at least near a believable sum. Find one person who has proposed a $150 carbon tax as a start. The proposals I have seen start at about $20 and increase over time. If there were economic issues the fee could be adjusted as needed. This does not even rise to a straw man argument, it is just rediculous.
Please find one economist who has studied the economic effects of climate change who has criticied the Stern report. I have seen a lot of propaganda from fossil fuel interests and economists who have not looked at any data but I am not familiar with a single economist who has studied AGW who criticied the Stern Report.
If you want to engage in informed debate you must support your insane claims. You are just spamming us here. You will never convince anyone here with your strawmen and imaginary data points.
-
Swayseeker at 23:13 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Ice is melting at an alarming rate in the Arctic and initiatives that soak up carbon dioxide should be encouraged. An Arab-Korean initiative intends to build an agricultural city in the barren Qattara Depression. Extensive use of greenhouses is to be implemented and if done throughout Africa this could help.
https://www.arabfinance.com/en/news/details/egypt-economy/407484 explains.
Another concept that will probably come to the fore is the use of moist air to enable plants to grow. Recently plant physiologists have shown that absorption of water from leaves and transport of this water to roots occurs. The concept of moist air from greenhouses supplying water to plants via leaves could be a future reality and help soak up CO2. More info on water absorption by leaves at https://www.facebook.com/groups/QattaraHumidification/ -
nigelj at 16:50 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
Such low sea ice in summer and winter presumably means low spring sea ice as well. Polar bears hunting becomes affected as follows.
I agree the general public probably relate best to sea ice minimums and maximums, but Im interested more in total volumes. Maybe I'm just weird.
-
nigelj at 16:29 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norris,
A carbon tax should be set at a moderate level and increased over time to full level, so the economy has time to adjust and doesnt experience significant inflationary effects. This is actually the main thing to worry about.
Tens of thousands of businesses go backrupt In America each year, and new businesses start. Fossil fuel companies will be eventually replaced by alternative fuels. A carbon tax and dividend scheme can drive this process effectively.
The industrial revolution was pretty disruptive, and seems wider in impacts than just energy use. You could argue it harmed the economy short term in a 'disruptive sense', but improved the economy long term. Almost nobody now looks back and says its a bad decision.
-
John Hartz at 14:56 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Recommneded supplemental reading:
OECD says energy taxes in developed economies too low to fight climate change by Nina Chestney, Reuters, Feb 14, 2018
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM:
If you can't define "harming the economy" then it is pretty hard to have any sort of reasonable discussion about the issue.
You now use the phrasing" You do not need "peer reviewed articles" to know that a $150/tonne carbon tax would have serious repercussions on a number of industries, just a little common sense." (Bolding mine.)
Well, now you're really digging in deep. The economy is not "a number of industries", it's every industry, every person, every bit of economic activity.
If your criterion for a carbon tax is that it not have any detrimental effect on even one industry, then you are setting impossible standards. If you are limiting your discussion of "the economy" to some fraction of the total economy, then you're going to need to clearly define what is in and what is out of your "number of industries". And you will need to justify why the rest of the economy doesn't matter to you.
At #23, I had asked (and you have not yet answered)
Do you want to be part of the group that pays for the damage costs of someone else's fossil fuel use, part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits, or some other group?
It is looking more and more as if you want to be part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits. Your "number of industries" that you want to protect from damage are likely the ones that provide you with those benefits. And the part of the economy that you want to ignore is likely the part that makes others suffer from the costs of fossil fuel use.
In comment #56 I gave a list of historical events. Every one covers changes that will have winners and losers. If you get to choose which parts of the economy to include in a cost-benefit analysis, then you can make any one of those look like a good change or a bad change.
To choose which evidence you will consider on the basis of what you like leads you down the path of motivated reasoning.
Up your game. Stop making vague assertions that mean nothing when examined closely.
-
Going South at 12:52 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
John, it’s far worse than that.
The Arctic had less sea ice last year than any other year on record.
There, I've said it. It has gone totally unreported.
NOAA's Arctic Report Card, Jeremy Mathis, Emily Osborne, National Snow & Ice Data Center, Eric Holthaus, Grist, the National Geographic, Brad Plumer, Vox, they all decided, together with endless more people, against releasing this key climate change data to the public.
Axel Schweiger at PIOMAS tried to sugar the pill by claiming 2017 volume tied with 2012 for the lowest on record, but later conceded it was in fact lower by about 5%.
Don't believe me? Check out the very–very downplayed info in the 2nd paragraph at http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Moderator Response:[PS] Link fixed. Note that "annually averaged" sea ice volume qualification. Not such an easy concept for public grasp compared to seaice maximum and minimums.
-
nigelj at 12:51 PM on 19 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Alchemyst @18, interesting information on mortality rates for various sources of electricity. However the most relevent comparison is really nuclear against wind and solar power, and there the gap isn't so huge. I assume solar power deaths are installers falling off roofs! And yes the mortality rate per trillion watts is the important thing.
But again, remember most nuclear power is currently in well run countries like America and France. Also, its not just about mortality rates. Chernobyl polluted large areas of land, and decimated the Ukraines agricultural exports for years.
I think it's also a psychological perception issue. Nuclear accidents are scary events, even although very uncommon. Its similar to islamic terrorism in western countries. The public struggle to realise deaths from these things are low, measured against population, or watts of electricity. Not that this makes either acceptable things of course.
It won't be enough to say "safety has been improved". I suggest it will need something distinctly new to win over the public. However right now wind and solar power is proving popular with generating companies, and results like this speak larger than theoretcial claims.
Sorry for blathering on as well. But its an interesting issue.
-
scaddenp at 12:09 PM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Lets suppose the you have 100% efficient carbon tax and no action to reduce carbon. Everyone gets the money they spent on carbon tax directly back. Its an odd and unnecessary circle but if money doesnt leak, then where is the harm?
Of course it is massively disruptive if in fact consumers/generators react by switching to other energy forms. But again the question, does that harm the economy? Locally yes - collapse of coal mining in UK under Thatcher has communities still in recovery mode, but did it damage the economy of UK?
I would say much of the resistance is fact due to FUD or worse from the FF industry. You point to Europe, but they took steps under Kyoto and brought in ETS (as did say NZ with its abundant hydro) instead. There are pro and cons to ETS versus carbon tax (especially when there is a big defector like the US), but it is incorrect to say other nations have done nothing. The US is the big non-actor and its failure to do anything ( or even exploiting others ETS) is the major problem.
And back to incrementalism - it is pretty obvious that increasing carbon emissions at rate we have done has had a serious backfire that needs to be redressed very quickly. I strongly suspect the Popper would say that when untended consequences from failure of incrementalism occur, then reverse is a desirable option.
-
NorrisM at 11:05 AM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet, nigelj, scaddenp & Bob Loblaw
I have obviously hit a nerve with my comments regarding "harming the economy".
First of all, that comment was initially addressed at Bob Loblaw and then scaddenp regarding his graphic. But I was really only addressing the imposition of a carbon tax at a level that would have deleterious effects on the economy. No I am not going to get involved in defining "harming the economy" because it is too complex an issue. You do not need "peer reviewed articles" to know that a $150/tonne carbon tax would have serious repercussions on a number of industries, just a little common sense. My understanding is that Bob Loblaw is not suggesting this level but I suspect that all his proposed direct costs would in fact result in a level at least this high.
My principal point was that governments have the resources to make those decisions on what will and will not harm the economy. As part of that process they will have to convince their electorate.
I am not also going to attempt to research "peer reviewed articles" that show what damage certain environmental policies would have on the economy for the very same reason. This is a very complex matter that cannot be resolved on a climate website. Let governments decide whether "peer reviewed articles" on the costs of conversion are realistic. My understanding is that the Lord Stern report has been severely criticized by a number of his peers.
So cutting to the quick, here is the question: If the proposed steps have not yet been taken by any country in the world (other than promises to do so by 2030), then why has it not been done to date?
Why has not Germany, France or Sweden taken the required steps to date?
My guess, is that politically it would be impossible for them to do so. Politically they can sign the Paris Agreement but they cannot politically follow through.
That is only a guess but here are three forward looking countries. Clearly all of them are taking steps but have they have not done what is required of them even to meet a 2C target. My understanding is that Germany is having serious issues politically with the issue of coal. But why is Sweden not there with their abundance of hydro to assist them?
If this is so simple and does not pose any danger to the economy (Lord Stern notwithstanding), then why cannot we point to these countries as having "achieved the goal"?
To me the answer is that the solutions would not be approved by their electorates. So I am back to democracy and incrementalism. Do what you can do.
-
Alchemyst at 09:59 AM on 19 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
The Abbot paper looks for problems but does not indicate that are solutions already known but possibly in need of development. He is basing his arguments on current designs of light water U-235 reactors where there are alternatives that have been used in the past and future designs. He also only discusses liquid metal cooled breeder reactors where alternativea are currently in development.
With regards to my diagram of elemental abundances I believe that it is the same one that Abbott used both cite USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/
Abbott starts with a premise that future nuclear reactors will be the same design and require the same construction materials as currently used, however there are alternatives.
Halfnium is used as a control rod /scram material, yet boron is an abundant and cheap alternative and has certainly been used in the past> Other alternatives are also used, silver and cadmium, gadolinium(bit rare)
Zirconium used for cladding the fuel rods, stainless steel , not as good but is also used.
He bases his arguments on U-235 (points 8,9 10)
fuel cycle which amounts to 0.711% of uranium. Yet thorium is 400 times as abundant as U-235.Thorium is not fissile and is converted to U-233 in the reactor. This is done by using an initial charge of U-235 (or the dreaded Pu-239) after which as the U-235 is burned up it is replaced at a ratio of slightly grater than 1 to 1 by U-233.
Demonstration breeder reactors have been operated using U-238 fuel as well as thorium.. Many have used liquid metal as the coolant (eg sodium which is explosive in contact with water) yet in Julich, Germany a gas cooled reactor was operated for 20 years, but it did have a number of problems with contamination leaks. However pebble bed reactors do not need control rods (no halfnium) since as the temperature rises the reactivity of the reactor decreases and so do not go to meltdown. The fuel is clad in carbon and silicon carbide so no Zirconium is required. There has been an other prototype in Germany but that is shut down, There is a third currently operational in China, with another in construction.
India is currently constructing a thorium heavy water cooled reactor.
Thorium technology is largly undeveloped so we cannot write it off nor can we state that it will be the saviour. It still has the uranium cycle problems of public acceptance, potential bad practices. However as thought, to my knowledge there has only been one accidentaldeath in a civilian US Nuclear facility in the last 50 years (citation required but it was an NRC announcement some 5 years ago when it happened) and it was a non nuclear accident.
It is hard to believe but take a look at this referencehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#135d6fe7709b
This is far too big a topic for me to complete and I realise that I have rambled a bit and no I will not provide peer reviewed citations because I do not have the time.
-
michael sweet at 09:00 AM on 19 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
I think there should be a nuclear article to collect comments. As it is we have the same comments over again every two or three months. The problem is that if I write the article it will be negative. In general I do not like to read negative articles so It would be better for someone who likes nuclear to write the article. So far the people who support nuclear have not been willing to put in the effort.
-
scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 19 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"What the public most thinks most about are jobs, education, health care, pensions, taxes, etc etc ie. the "economy". So "harming the economy" is very relevant. "
But the point is that harming the environment will hurt society and economy. I am continuing to harp on about the fact that you are concerned about "harm to economy" from decarbonizing (with little to support that contention), but unconcerned about damage climate change does the economy if you dont address it. Economic studies to date show better to mitigate than adapt. Where is your peer-reviewed reports to show the opposite.
I agree that decarbonizing will disrupt the economy. (FF industries go to the wall). I am unconvinced it will harm the economy. Show me the studies that show more harm from decarbonizing than adaption.
Prev 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 Next
