Recent Comments

Prev  458  459  460  461  462  463  464  465  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  Next

Comments 23251 to 23300:

23251. MA Rodger at 06:13 AM on 12 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Old Sage @240,

       You say that "according to wikipedia, the average solar energy 24 hrs/day per unit area is 141 w/m2." It would be worthwhile if we other commenters had sight of this Wiki reference. I have attempted to find it for myself but it is remaining elusive. Do provide the link.

23252. JWRebel at 03:38 AM on 12 August 2016
       Climate inertia
       

       Great article though somewhat terrifying, since it is very hard to quantify additional risks posed by positive|negative feed back loops for carbon sinks and possible short-lived methane contributions. There may be some hope in drawing down CO² levels by enhanced weathering or other efforts (at the scale of current global military spending), but social inertia stymies the kind of efforts we need to cut emissions and energy waste, develop sustainable energy alternatives, and draw down CO² at the scale required by the risks bearing down on us.

       (I almost filed this one under the insert tab, mistakenly fixated on the inert response to risks we prefer to think of as tentative.)

23253. Tom Curtis at 01:57 AM on 12 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       old sage @240:

       "Before it became an imperative to diversify from fossil fuel energy sources, what I am saying was settled science."

       The "settled science" from before"... it became an imperative to diversify from fossil fuel energy sources" can be seen easilly in the following clip from a 1950s film:

       Clearly old sage's assertion to the contrary is a pure fiction, and one for which he will have zero citations.  old sage has a repeated history of such inventions asserted without evidence with the intention to deceive and I wonder that the moderators tolerate it.

       I will note that the imperative to diversify from fossil fuels is a consequence of the science, not the other way round as old sage, contrary to his tin foil hat assertions in his final paragraph.

23254. One Planet Only Forever at 01:52 AM on 12 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       stevecarsonr@16

       I have a BSc in Engineering and an MBA. Both were obtained in the 1980s. Since then as a Professional Engineer in Canada I have been pursuing the best understanding of things with the objective of ensuring that the desired actions of a pursuer personal benefit are restricted to acceptable activity.

       I whole heartedly agree with you that economists can be wrong because many of them fail to acknowledge that success can be obtained by people who are willing to dismiss or ignore better understanding that is contrary to their personal desires.

       However, a leader of the Brexit side famously declared in an interview the people are fed up with experts. He did not get specific. It was a piece of propaganda hoped to appeal to people who preferred not to have to understand information that would be contrary to their preferred beliefs. An example would be expert opinion that Britain would not actually save the amount boldly declared on the side of the Leave campaign bus.

       so your request for proof of the accuracy of economist predictions is missing the point.

23255. old sage at 01:38 AM on 12 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Mr Tamblyn, please spare me a graduate level explanation of the various form of energy which can exist and put some effort into quantifying them.  Spontaneous generation of energy from gases at atmospheric temperature and pressures - is negligeable, look up the numbers yourself in any decent text book. If you want CO2 to radiate, get it to low pressure in a vacuum tube and put a high voltage across it and it will be accelerated sufficiently to generate, it will produce hardly anything left to itself.

       According to wikipedia, the average solar energy 24 hrs/day per unit area is 141 w/m2, the energy needed to get the world average rainfall -99cms- to vapour, at the surface, is 70w/m2.  Half of all energy is occupied in the vapourisation  of water - and that is assuming all the energy gets past the cloud cover shutter and makes it to the surface. Just get away from your models, look around, and take note of the physical manifestation of the automatic negative feedback provided by the shutter which operates courtesy of water vapour whether in the form of droplets or aerosols. Water vapour is the critical component.

       Before it became an imperative to diversify from fossil fuel energy sources, what I am saying was settled science.  GHG's are the result of a conspiracy of silence by physicists who know their subject. If you can prove that heating from CO2 stops at a certain concentration and why, you will have proven it doesn't happen in the first place.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Old sage. Time to reread the comments policy if you wish to comment further on this site. In particular:

       Sloganeering: If you make an assertion, back it with your sources. Use the link button in the editor.

       Tone: If you want to troll without the slightest interest in a reasonable discussion, this this is not the forum for you.

       In short, you are busy demonstrating a misunderstanding of the science and complete unwillingness to learn different. Wilful ignorance cannot be helped, but people here will try to correct misunderstandings. Disparaging their efforts and repeating nonsense will not advance a conversation.

       If you actually want a sensible discussion, then I suggest you look at where you think measurements of real world observations contradict theory. You could begin by providing an alternative explanation of what is measured by instruments measuring back-radiation, the extreme accuracy by which the Radiative Transfer Equations predict observations of radiative spectra, etc.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

        

23256. Paraquat at 22:45 PM on 11 August 2016
       Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise
       

       As a persistent (pest?) pro-nuclear person on this blog, this is probably a good time for me to say that I would like to see some kind of worldwide declaration (or even international regulation) adopted that all future nuclear power plants should be constructed a miniumum of 30m above sea level. I actually said so even pre-Fukushima (yes, really). I wasn't thinking of tsunamis at the time, but rather that rising sea levels and increased typhoon activity could result in record-breaking storm surges, and thus coastal floods. It was actually the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005 that started me thinking along those lines. The point was demonstrated again in 2008 by Hurricane Ike, which put Galeveston, Texas, under water.

       Of course, it's not just nuclear power plants we have to be concerned about - any critical infracture that is now being planned in coastal areas should be taking global sea level rise into consideration. I make no predictions just how fast and high the seas will rise, but it's better to err on the side of caution.

23257. Glenn Tamblyn at 22:19 PM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       old sage.
       
       Lots of gobbledegook in your comment. So lets look at some basics.

       Molecules in a gas can contain energy in multiple forms. They have kinetic energy of linear translation - they are zipping along. They have kinetic energy of rotation, they are rotating and if their moment of inertia is non-negligible then there is energy in that rotation. The individual atoms within the molecule are in motion relative to the whole. The intra-molecular bonds are non-rigid so the individual atoms are jiggling around relative to the centre of the molecule. As in any spring-like system their is kinetic energy and potential energy. Then, within individual atoms, their electrons can be in higher or lower energy states.
       
       Then there is potential energy due to the separation of the molecules. Inter-molecular forces such as Van Der Waals forces tend to attract molecules together so that when they are separated there is potential energy due to that separation just like in a gravitational field. And as they draw closer to each other potential energy is converted to kinetic energy of translation.
       
       So collections of molecules have energy in multiple forms, held in different parts of the system. A molecule in a gas can move in three axes - it has 3 degrees of freedom. Similarly it can rotate around 3 axes, and if the Moment of Inertia around each axis is non-trivial, there are up to 3 more degrees of freedom. There are from zero (for a single atom) to 1 (for a diatomic molecule that can only experience stretching) to many multiple degrees of freedom associated with poly-atomic molecules that can undergo mutiple different forms of stretching and bending of the intra-molecular bonds. And the different electron energy levels for individual atoms within the molecule constitute additional degrees of freedom.
       
       A basic principle in Physics is the Equi-Partition Theorem. In a collection of molecules the total available energy will tend to be equally distributed between each degree of freedom. And the Thermodynamic (or kinetic) definition of temperature says that temperature is proportional to the energy in the translational only degrees of freedom. So a gas at temperature X has a certain amount of its energy in translational movement, and the rest in other modes of action. This is the basis for the calculation (and observation) of the specific heats of different substances. Not all added energy goes into something that impacts temperature - linear translation.
       
       An important wrinkle in all of this is quantum mechanics. Translational movements aren't quantised whereas rotational, vibrational and electron energy levels are. This constrains the possible energy changes that can occur, and as an aside, modifies the specific heat of substances. And changes to the number of degrees of freedom available to a substance in its solid, liquid and gas forms, along with potential energy changes as molecules move apart during vaporisation is a big factor in why the enthaplies of Fusion and Vaporisation for a substance can be large compared to their specific heat.
       
       So when molecules collide, it is an extremely complex interaction. They accelerate towards each other as the collision approaches, drawn together by Van der Waals forces, converting potential energy to kinetic energy as they approach. After the collision, the reverse happens and they experience a deceleration as they move apart, losing kinetic energy to potential energy in the process.
       
       During the collision, the forces between molecules and atoms come into play creating a collision with a defined, non-zero duration, and complex interplay between all the degrees of freedom of the molecules. The conservation laws of Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum apply but many complex interactions are possible. For example, as the atoms are vibrating, jiggling, they are momentarily changing the Moments of Inertia of the molecule. To conserve Angular Momentum, the angular velocity needs to change.
       
       All these complex interactions allow energy transfer between the many degres of freedom, within the constraints imposed by quantum mechanics. So all this complexity is driving the Equi-partition theorem, tending to ensure that all the different modes of energy storage, across all available molecules, tend to have the same share of the total energy, within the constraints imposed by quantum mechanics.
       
       So how does a gas absorb and emit photons? One potential way is electron energy level transitions within individual atoms. This is the basis of the classic Lyman and Balmer series for hydrogen for example. But the energy levels needed for such transitions are typically beyond the energy content of IR photons. Most electron energy level transitions need quanta of energy associated with visible light and above. Not Infrared.
       
       How else can photons be absorbed or emitted? Basic theory, from Maxwells Eqns, says that an electric charge that is accelerating can potentially create a photon. Similarly, a passing photon can excite movement in an electric charge. This is the basis of transmitting and receiving antennae.
       
       But a molecule is electrically neutral, it doesn't expose its internal electric charges, from electrons and positrons, to the outside world does it? Yes.
       
       This depends on the 'electro-negativity' of the individual atoms within a molecule. Electro-negativity for an atom essentially describes how strongly that atoms tends to hold electrons to it. Oxygen is strongly electo-negative for example, while Hydrogen is weak. So in a molecule with atoms having differing electro-negativities, where the atoms are arranged assymetrically, this can produce a 'charge-separation'; electrons tending to cluster on one side of the molecule. Water is the classic example of this with the Oxygen side of the molecule tending to be negatively charged, and the Hydrogen side positive.
       
       So now the molecule is 'displaying' an electric charge to the outside world. Potentially able to interact with a passing photon or to emit one. This is the property that allows molecules to absorb or emit IR photons. It requires an exposed electric charge and acceleration. Linear motion of molecules can't supply this - apart from the briefest moments during a collision, they aren't accelerating. But vibration and rotation can. Both involve accelerations, and if a molecule has a charge separation then absorption and emission events are possible.
       
       So some gas molecules can absorb and emit infrared photons because they can generate a charge separation and they are assymetrical. And when they tend to gain or lose energy from their rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom due to absorption or emission events, the intricate interplay of collisions, billions of times per second re-establishes the balance.
       
       Long story short. Gases can and do absorb and emit IR photons due to the presence of charge separations across the molecules.

23258. michael sweet at 20:06 PM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Haze,

       The basic plan for renewable energy systems (as described by Jacobson in the links above) is to build wind and PV solar for the bulk of energy supply.  Storage is then built.  The storage is more expensive than the wind and solar plants.  Jacobson (and others) find that the entire system cost is cheaper than fossil fuels.

       We are currently just starting to convert to renewable energy.  It is not economic to build the most expensive parts of the system first.  People build out the wind and solar first since that is cheapest.  Once those are in place energy storage will be constructed.  (A few facilities are being built as demonstration plants).  Storage options depend on the country.  Since gas peaking plants are already in place it makes the most sense currently to use those for storage, since there is no cost to build them. 

       It seems to me that it  is not fair to judge the performance of a renewable system when it is only partly constructed.  No-one proposes a wind only system for all power, storage is required.

23259. michael sweet at 19:52 PM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Bob,

       That is just the "M".  The "O" is additional to that.  No money is set aside for decomissioning the plants.  I think we agree.

23260. michael sweet at 19:51 PM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Nigelj,

       This SkS article describes Jacobson's plan is some detail and has peer-reviewed links.  His analysis of the reliability of his plan was peer reviewed but I do not have time before work, I will post it later today.  If you follow the citations to Jacobson's work you will find hundreds of similar analysis for different areas.

23261. Paul Pukite at 19:23 PM on 11 August 2016
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       

       Dikran pointed me here

       Salby is at it again this year with a new presentation with slightly different yet still deeply flawed arguments.  https://youtu.be/sGZqWMEpyUM

       This is the same guy who wrote the textbooks "Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate" and "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics".  Based on his contrarian nature when it comes to fundamental science, one has to call into question everything he has written. Same goes for Lindzen, I am finding.

23262. old sage at 18:08 PM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       So much gobbledegook here its difficult to know where to start. Atmospheric gases are governed by kinetic theory, they engage in inelastic collisions and conserve energy and momentum, no surplus energy is generated to form photons. Stefan Boltzmann BB radiation applies only to a special situation  in which a continuum of energy levels are provided by the body in question. Any other body, earth included, will discharge its energy with a modified spectrum and gases, which obey quantum mechanics and are below the threshold for excitation do not radiate except with a very low probability.

       I should not need to explain how the condensate of h2o, o2 ,co2, n2 etc into raindrops scavenges energy from  the atmosphere and plays the critical role it does in getting energy away but if you critics care to think about it, you can work it out for yourselves.

23263. stevecarsonr at 18:01 PM on 11 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       "On both issues there’s also a dangerous strain of anti-intellectualism, in which campaigners mock experts and dismiss their evidence and conclusions."

       Do you have some evidence to put forward that economics forecasts have some accuracy?

       "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver (2012) summarizes forecasting accuracy. It's a book, not a peer-reviewed article, but I recommend reading it. Here is p.181-182:

       "In figure 6-4, I've plotted the forecasts of GDP growth from the Survey of Professional Forecasters for the 18 years between 1993 and 2010. The bars in the chart represent the 90 percent prediction intervals as stated by the economists.

       ..If the economists' forecasts were as accurate as they claimed, we'd expect the actual value for GDP to fall within their prediction interval nine times out of ten, or all but about twice in eighteen years.

       In fact the actual value for GDP fell outside the economists' prediction interval six times in eighteen years, or fully one-third of the time. Another study, which ran these numbers back to the beginnings of the Survey of Professional Forecasters in 1968, found even worse results: the actual figure for GDP fell outside the prediction interval almost half the time. There is almost no chance that the economists have simply been unlucky; they fundamentally overstate the reliability of their predictions."

       I haven't kept my old copies of The Economist that I subscribed to from 1992 to 2007 but from time to time they also covered the woeful inaccuracy of economics' forecasters.

       Well, I ask the article writer to justify their confidence in economics forecasts with actual data on the accuracy of economists forecasts vs what transpired.

       Otherwise, mocking "experts" in economics forecasting seems like a very defensible intellectual activity. Accepting "experts" in economics forecasting seems like hopeless gullibility. I was originally drawn to this blog by its title. Skeptical means questioning. 

23264. barry1487 at 17:55 PM on 11 August 2016
       Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
       

       "We're adding a new widget to the SkS right-side sidebar that will be updated on a monthly basis."

       Hi Rob. It'd be good to see that widget, or alternatively an update to the graph here, which was going to be updated monthly, but hasn't been since March. Your chart is more intuitive than KT's.

23265. BBHY at 16:25 PM on 11 August 2016
       Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise
       

       The new paper offers an explanation why the acceleration of sea level rise, as measured by satellites, from the 90's (post '93) through the 2000's was less than expected.

       The answer is that the rate of sea level rise in the 90's (post '93) was boosted by the recovery following the Pinatubo eruption. Had the eruption not occured, the rate of sea level rise in the later 90's would have been smaller, the rise in the 2000's would have been the same, and the acceleration of sea level rise over those two decades more clearly evident.

       Hope that clears things up a bit. Predictions of future sea level rise depend not so much on the current rate of rise, but on the rate of the acceleration of the rise over time. A small diference in the acceleration rate has a dramatic effect on the estimate of sea level rise for the year 2100 and beyond. 

23266. Tom Curtis at 16:06 PM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       old sage @234 presents an incoherent, simplified model that he claims refutes the greenhouse effect.  While it could be dealt with as a 2nd law of thermodynamics argument, it is simpler to simply note that:

       1)  Contrary to old sages claim, the immediate response to placing his half mirrored shell is to increasing incoming photons by 50% (not twice as he claims).  The number of photons increases to double only once equilibrium is achieved and nothing in his model indicates that equilibrium will be achieved instantaneiously.  He merely assumes it.

       2)  Unless and untill he refutes the very well established (for over a century) Stefan Boltzmann Law that equates the radiation from a body with its temperature, "the balance will be maintained as before and no temperature difference arises" is simply false.  Indeed, given the Stefan Boltzmann law and related results it cannot be the case.

       3)  Between the time of the placement of the half mirrored shell and temperature rising sufficiently to accomplish equilibrium, there is a positive energy imbalance at the surface in his model.  That positive energy balance provides the additional energy needed to raise the surface temperature.  Once equilibrium is achieved, there is no further change in temperature as there is no energy imbalance to drive the change.

       So, all that is necessary for old sage's model to justify his conclusions from it is that a physical law that is both confirmed by literally hundreds of thousands of laboratory and field observations, and derivable from quantum mechanics be false (and hence that quantum mechanics also be false), and that equilibrium be achieved instanteiously given any perturbation.  Given that, old sage's conclusions from his model are pushing well into the anti-science level achieved by geocentrists and flat earthers.

23267. Tom Curtis at 15:52 PM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       old sage's post @233 is essentially a rehash with slightly different (and very confused terminology) of his post @222 and is more than sufficiently rebutted @225.  In particular, his claim that "dry gases in the atmosphere do not radiate significant energy" is abundantly refuted by the graph @225 showing (at one location) the downward radiation from those dry gases which he claims to be insignificant.  His rebuttal of the abundant observational evidence refuting his claim consists entirely of the rhetorical question, "where can it [the energy] come from?"

       That would be from the energy transported to the atmosphere by shortwave radiation (79 W/m^2), evaporation (84 W/m^2), sensible heat (20 W/m^2) and, most importantly, IR radiation (approximately 378 W/m^2).  (378 rather than 398 because of the approximately 20 W/m^2 atmoshperic window)

       

       Note: 378 W/m^2 rather than 398 W/m^2 because of the approximately 20 W/m^2 atmoshperic window.  Adding the sums will show the total to balance the 219 W/m^2 upward radiation from the atmosphere (ie, 239 minus the atmospheric window) plus the 342 W/m^2 downward IR radiation.  Because the energy radiated from the atmosphere is continuously resupplied, the thermal capacity of the atmosphere is largely irrelevant except as it effects diurnal and seasonal temperature ranges.

       old sage's rhetorical question only has bite of you maintain a scrupulous ignorance about what observations show about energy flows into and out of the atmosphere.

23268. nigelj at 12:32 PM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Haze @16

       South Australia gets 43% of its electricity from wind power, under ideal conditions. This is from "energy in south australia" on wikipedia and is backed up by a reference to the clean energy council. The rest of their power is from fossil fuels.

       Obviously if the wind isn't blowing, reliance will switch back to gas. This doesn't invalidate the use  of wind power. Wind power with gas backup is better than relying on a totally fossil fuelled grid. With a dispersed well designed wind grid, reliance on gas backup is fairly low.

       However it would be interesting to know how a totally wind powered system would go, with no fossil fuel backup. In other words, how much total wind power would be needed for days when parts of S Australia have no wind. In other words how much spare wind capacity the system would need. I recall some engineering article claiming its not as much as we might think, but cant remember the article. Maybe some expert knows.

23269. chriskoz at 12:12 PM on 11 August 2016
       Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise
       

       I haven't read (Fasullo 2016) but this explanation:

       the satellites began measuring in 1993, right after a large volcanic eruption (Mount Pinatubo). This eruption temporarily reduced global warming because particles from the eruption blocked sunlight. Just by coincidence, the timing of the satellites and the eruption has affected the water rise so that it appears to be linear. Had the eruption not occurred, the rate would have increased.

       is confusing, or even defies my logic. If the starting point of SLR curve in question is 2 years fter Pinatubo (which happened in 1991), which means it's a local minimum, then the tread calculated from such cherry picked start should be larger than the average trend after smoothing the variability. It's like cherry picking a strong LaNina starting year for the temp trend: the measured trend appears larger than the average. Opposite happens when deniers of statistics try to pick a strong ElNino year (e.g. 1998) as the starting year and to claim that global warming has "stopped".

       In our case herein, cherry picking 1993 (a local minimum) overestimates the trend. So how the statement "Had the eruption [local minimum] not occurred, the rate would have increased" makes sense?

23270. Haze at 11:48 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       scaddenp@14.  From your comment  "Keith - you seem to be saying that lives lost in evacuation dont count? How many would have died if the area had not been evacuated?

       You seem to have completely missed the point  on the evacuation made by keithpickering @2 who said:

       "Meanwhile, the evacuation from Fukushima — which was not necessary under IAEA guidelines — killed 1600 people needlessly. Final score: radiation 0; fear of radiation 1600.  At some point, we should hope that rationality overcomes irrationality. (My bold)

       I thought his original comment addressed your point quite adequately.

       A general comment the topic of intermittent power supply from renewables. The recent experiences in South Australia indicate that, as yet, renewables are not capable of maintaining the  power supply required by  that State.  Somewhat embarrassingly  the State Government had to  ask the owner of  amothballed gas fired power station to tum supply back on.  The report on this in The Australian Financial Review on July 14 2016, is, unfortunately, paywalled.  The headline and opening paragraphs of the article are below

       South Australia intervenes in electricity market as prices hit $14,000MWh

       "Turmoil in South Australia's heavily wind-reliant electricity market has forced the state government to plead with the owner of a mothballed gas-fired power station to turn it back on.

       The emergency measures are needed to ease punishing costs for South Australian industry as National Electricity Market (NEM) prices in the state have frequently surged above $1000 a megawatt hour this month and at one point on Tuesday hit the $14,000MWh maximum price.

23271. nigelj at 10:51 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Michael Sweet @ 12

       Thanks for the Jacobson website link. 

       Firstly I live in New Zealand,  and we already use hydro, wind, and geothermal with some reasonably minimal gas backup. I'm all for renewable energy and support our system. Nuclear would be crazy for us, and ideally we should aim to get rid of the gas backup as well.

       I support renewable energy, but Im not going to be mindless and uncritical about it. I was just making the point that all countries are different, and that I didn't see a need to totally rule out nuclear in every situation.

       I clicked on spain on your map and the plan was for a lot of solar and wind. This could obviously work, anything is possible for a price, but they would have a lot of surplus generation in that wind power for cloudy days etc. But it can be done for a price.

       I would like to see their more detailed calculations on prices comparing renewables and fossil fuel options etc. I couldn't see anything on their website, and I'm not just going to take their word for it. Has their research been peer reviewed?

23272. Bob Loblaw at 10:23 AM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       old sage:

       If you want to argue "the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodyamics", then the proper place to do that is over on this thread. The last comment there was made in late 2014 (#1481), but you can read through the Basic and Intermediate tabs, then the comments, and then see if you have anything to say that hasn't already been debunked.

23273. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Michael, I am not sure you are right about observed lifetime. Bezau is still going after 47 years with no plans to shut it that I am aware of. I do agree though that most have not made it past 40.

       Keith - you seem to be saying that lives lost in evacuation dont count? How many would have died if the area had not been evacuated?

23274. Bob Loblaw at 10:15 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       michael sweet:

       I think you missed that keithpickering's cost estimates in paragraph 2 of comment #6 explicitly said "neglecting O&M". It's not fair that you start to include them ;-).

       As for ongoing costs, I know that Ontario's nuclear program found that some maintenance items they thought would be low cost turned out to be much greater than planned. A key factor was that pressure tubes become brittle over time (discussion here) and need replacing, and this happened a lot faster than originally expected. A recent announcement for one plant has a $16 billion price tag on refurbishment. The article says:

       "OPG estimates it would need between 7.2 cents-to-8.1-cents-per-kilowatt-hour to recover the total cost of the refurbishment, below current averages of 9.2 cents-per-kwh, but more than privately-owned Bruce Power will be paid under a new contract.

       ...but that's probably just "O&M", so it doesn't count, right?

23275. michael sweet at 09:18 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Nigelj,

       Read the Jacobson website.  They have renewable energy plans for all the countries in the world.  Nuclear and fossil fuel backup is not needed.  The power is cheaper than fossil fuel power.

       Please provide links to support your claim that some countries cannot use renewable energy as described by Jacobson.  Please provide a link to support your claim that nuclear is cost effective in the long term.

23276. nigelj at 08:55 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Keithpickering @2 and 6.

       Nuclear power does obviously have some risks. I do largely agree about Fukushima not killing anybody directly with radiation and the longer term cancer risk is said to be low, but they got lucky as it was only a partial melt down. Chernobyl was more drastic and has had more severe health problems, and has required permanent evacuations and a one billion dollar containment enclosure over the old reactor.

       Nuclear is arguably cost effective in the long term, but disposing of the waste remains a big problem.

       But no energy source is perfect. Maybe it all comes down to costs and benefits and also what resources specific countries have.

       For example some countries have windy climates and excellent potential for wind power with some limited backup storage or gas fired power. Other countries dont have much wind, and would need massive backup gas power, or alternatively massively expensive battery storage, or vast numbers of wind farms at great expense to provide backup for days where half the country has no wind. In this case Nuclear might be a better option.

23277. michael sweet at 08:48 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Kiethpickering,

       It is difficult to respond to a Gish Gallop like yours.  I will address a few of the gross falsehoods but the majority will have to be let by.

       1) Nuclear plant life: At San Onofre power station, unit 1 ran from 1968-1992, 24 years not counting down time for maintenance.  Units 2 and three ran for 28 and 29 years not counting several years of down time.  Your claim of 60 year life for a nuclear power station is simply false.  Actual observed lifetime is 20-40 years.

       Current nuclear plants in the USA cannot operate at a profit just counting operation and maintenance costs.  The longer you count the costs the more money they lose.

       The Georgia plants are currently billing their customers for the finance costs, the plants would never have been started without customers being forced to finance this boondoggle.  Your costs "including financing costs" do not include the finance costs.

       You used cost figures from old solar and wind installations.  In wind and solar costs have fallen (unlike nuclear where the costs rise over time).  Current costs are much lower than your claims.

       The wind turbines in Denmark are not worn out.  They are being replaced by modern, larger units because the new units make more money (obviously the old units were built where the wind was best).  The old units are being refurbished and resold.  Your claim that the units have a 22 year working life is false.

       Jacobson et al have shown that renewable energy can reliably supply the entire power supply of the USA (they have plans for the entire world).  Can you provide a reference that suggests that nuclear can provide more than 10% of electricity alone?  How will nulcear power ever work in Syria and Iran (or all of Africa)?

       Current nuclear cannot survive without enormous subsidies, how could new build hope to compete?  So called "safe" generation III nuclear is proving to be unbuildable.  The Chinese are building generation II plants that have known safety defects.  Generation IV and V plants will not be designed before 2050.  

       \Gish Gallops like yours have destroyed my faith in nuclear engineers.  If you cannot support your technology without providing supportable data you should give up your argument.  Even Brave New Climate has few posts any more.  

       Realists understand that nuclear has failed.  It is too expensive.  (I do not even need to mention that it is also unsafe and there does not exist enough berrilium or uranium in the world to build all the units you propose).  

       The question is: What has  to be done to implement renewable energy according to a system similar to Jacobson's plan?  Nuclear is useless in a renewable energy system because the need is for peaking power, not baseload power.

23278. knaugle at 07:05 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       #8 Ger

       Sounds good on paper, but there is the issue of scale.  Also, don't think your alternatives will be too cheap to meter.  Some of what you propose will be really expensive.  Finally, renewables work great on clear windy days, but as always what about calm clear nights? 

23279. old sage at 06:32 AM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       Imagine a body radiating steadily in equilibrium with its energy source. Now throw an enclosure round it which reflects every other photon. For simplicity assume photons leave regularly of equal energy. Immediately after the first photon has been returned, the surface generator detects a rate of arrival of energy twice what it expected. The next photon out will therefore leave in half the time and so on. the balance will be maintained as before and no temperature difference arises. If you connect an identical body without  the enclosure, no energy transfer would occur. This is why GHG's do not raise earth energy, they are inert, undergo no changes and have to defy the Law of Thermodynamics to achieve it.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Creating a caricature of GHG theory and then criticizing it is hardly a valid form of argument.

23280. old sage at 06:11 AM on 11 August 2016
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       

       I haven't posted here for years but I re-iterate that dry gases in the atmosphere do not radiate significant energy - where can it come from?  Only when aggregated in their billions do molecules gather sufficient energy to radiate. Even then, the process takes place at the discontinuity between a body - solid or liquid - in a depth of a handful of molecules. No radiation penetrates far into the solid earth's surface and likewise any that emerges comes from a thin surface skin. I'm sorry, the accepted science of climate regulatio in my days has been forgotten by a generation lost in inappropriate minutiae. It is the dynamic operation of cloud cover which regulates energy getting into earth's envelope and it is urbanisation and drainage which is restricting water vapour - and hence cloud cover - so giving rise to climate change.  It's  not difficult.

23281. One Planet Only Forever at 06:05 AM on 11 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       The Clexit group expression of concern for the suffering of poorer people if fossil fuel burning is targetted for rapid reduction is misleading.

       A fundamental concept of Kyoto was that the already wealthy and fortunate are to terminate their pursuit of benefit from burning fossil fuels first and fastest, and assist the less fortunate to rapidly transition to a sustainable better circumstance.

       If it makes sense for the poorest to temporarily benefit from burning fossil fuels as a stage of their development transition then that burning should obviously provide no benefit for anyone already more fortunate. However, in many cases it makes no sense to have burning of fossil fuels be a step in the advancement of circumstances of the least fortunate to a lasting better future.

       The ultimate criticism of the Clexit group is that their desires are not justified in light of the developed best understanding of what is going on and the changes required to advance humanity to a lasting improved future for all. They are clearly trying to appeal to people who are willing to be easily impressed into a belief the is not justified, people who resist understanding that the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all is the definition of the Common Good that is the only way to evaluate the legitimacy or acceptability of a desire.

       Clearly, any socio political economic system that encourages people to allow their personal desires to trump the understood requirement to focus on limiting their actions to things that will advance humanity to a lasting better is a barrier to the advancement of humanity. And demands that people participating in efforts to advance the understanding of what is going on should 'stick to the science' can also be understood to be part of the problem.

23282. Ger at 03:53 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Who needs the always on base-load nowadays? Plants can install cogeneration, large consumers as a Google, GM buy there own renewable energy directly. Consumers can be fitted with Solar panels on roofs and backup batteries or get an EV, HEV, BEV to function as backup.

       And coal can be replaced by bio-coal, Refuse derived fuels.

       And NG can be replaced by reformed and gasified (agri)-residues + RDF.

       And excess or over-supply of wind, solar can go the way 'power to gas'; gas being a mix of Methane formed by CO2 + H2 and Hydrogen gas   

23283. jja at 03:52 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       I am glad to see this new form of kinetic storage called "Rail Energy Storage" being implemented in a pilot program for CAISO.  Currently it is limited in scale and used for frequency modulation but it has significantly higher potential, is scalable, and can provide nearly unlimited total potential throughout mountaneous regions, as opposed to pumped hydro which requires significan water volumes and high-altitude storage siting.
       
       http://www.utilitydive.com/news/first-of-its-kind-rail-energy-storage-project-targets-role-in-caiso-ancilla/417817/

23284. keithpickering at 03:50 AM on 11 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       michael sweet,

       The conventional method of determining electricity cost, LCOE, is designed for investment decisions, not policy decisions. The timeline for LCOE computation is an investor-driven 30 years. The problem is that some generation systems, like hydro and nuclear, last a lot longer than 30 years and have much greater social utility than the 30-year Wall Street timeline implies. From a policy standpoint, LCOE undervalues long-lifetime generators and overvalues short-lifetime generators (particularly wind, where enormous physical stresses on turbines sharply limit generator life).

       But climate change is a long-term problem, and we need to think long-term. So let's run the numbers. At Vogtle in Georgia, two AP1000 reactors are under construction with a currently estimated cost, including financing cost, of $15.7 billion. (Two other AP1000s in South Carolina are coming in cheaper.) Those reactors have a rated power output of 1117 MW each and a design lifetime of 60 years. With a capacity factor of 90% (typical for US nuclear plants) the lifetime electricity produced is 2 x 1117 x 60 x 8766 x .9 = 1.06 billion MWh — which is $14.7 per MWh (less than 2 cents per kWh, neglecting O&M).

       The world's largest PV generating station is Solar Star in California, completed at an overnight cost of $2 billion, with financing at 5.375% over 20 years, for a total capital cost including financing of $3.3 billion. Over the past 12 months Solar Star has produced 1.6 million MWh, so over its 25 year lifetime it can be expected to produce 40 million MWh, which is $82.5 per MWh.

       The largest wind farm on the Great Plains is Roscoe in Texas (Alta in California is larger, but it is dependent on specific and unusual geography), which cost $1 billion (apparently exclusive of financing) and produced 440,000 MWh in 2015. The average lifetime of wind turbines in Denmark is 22 years, so we can expect Roscoe to produce 9.7 million MWh in its lifetime for $103.3 per MWh.

       And then there's storage, which is the point of the OP. Electricity isn't just a product, it's a service, and a major part of that service is always-on 24/7 reliability. Providing that with wind and solar will not be easy, or cheap. Generation plus storage will always be more expensive than generation alone, and LCOE omits needed storage cost from the calculation for intermittant generators.

       The point is that when you look at things in the long term, nuclear is certainly no more expensive, and probably much less expensive, than wind or solar. Even with cost overruns. Yet we never hear anyone saying wind and solar are too expensive.

       Like the "nuclear is dangerous" myth, the "nuclear is expensive" myth was first pushed by fossil fuel interests, who knew where their competition lay. We don't have to take their word for it.

23285. chriskoz at 23:30 PM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       michael sweet@4,

       Your precisely point, is the only one missing in the OP.

       OP concentrates on emissions, because nukes must be replaced by renewables rather than FF as to keep emissions no higher than they are now. But the reality is opposite (and sober at the same time): cheap renewables displace other, more expensive utilities. And nukes are the first to go (not gas and not even coal), which proves the point that they are economicly the worst source of energy. Good luck, nuke proponents - your opinions face the reality check herein.

       It's sad, because if emissions were really the top priority, as should be IMO, then coal rather that nuke should go first. Oh well, we'll have to wait a bit longer (maybe very long until it's too late) before coal start going away under economic incentives we witness here, meanwhile we're cooking hot future for our descendants...

23286. Slioch at 22:05 PM on 10 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       When confronted by the kind of nonsense that Malcolm Roberts asserts,  ("there’s not one piece of empirical evidence ... showing that humans cause, through CO₂ production, climate change”), simply ask, "Could you describe one piece of empirical evidence that you consider should be present (if humans are causing climate change via CO2 emissions) that you consider is not present?"

       Almost invariably, you will be met with silence.

23287. michael sweet at 19:59 PM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Keithpickering,

       The primary reason for the decline of nuclear power is that it is by far the most expensive source of energy.  Current plants under construction are grossly overbudget and years behind schedule.  Currently operating nuclear plants with no mortgage cost more to generate electricity than new built wind and solar plants.  Existing nuclear plants are now asking for billions of dollars in subsidies because they are not economic.  The money would be better spent building wind and solar.  

       Nuclear plants need to own up for the people they killed and continue to displace in Japan.  When you claim that no-one was killed you take yourself out of the argument.  160,000 people were forced from their homes.  1600 died.  Radiation continues to be dumped in the ocean, damaging fisheries.  Own up to the damage nulcear caused.

       Utilities do not care about these numbers when they review nuclear, their primary concern is cost.  Nuclear is too expensive.  

23288. Dipper at 16:33 PM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       thanks all for the references and data.

       I strongly suggest that scientists on this site do not equate themselves with economists, which is the implication of the original headline. There is a long history of economists proven to have been on the wrong side of the argument and it is a very bad idea for scientists to claim common cause with them.

23289. meher engineer at 16:06 PM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       The graphs in the writeup comparing various energy storage systems are useful. But the International Electrotechnical Commison seems to be a better source for them: see for example the two figures on page 31, for rated power, energy content and discharge time and page 32 for power density and energy density (in relation to volume) of Electrical Energy Storage technologies at  http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-energystorage-LR-en.pdf

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link activated.

23290. ubrew12 at 12:01 PM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       To nitpick: "This purported fact [of zero rise]... is actually a fiction: the tide gauge data show [a rise]..."  Fictions can usefully entertain, broaden, teach or moralize more directly than nonfictions, so we've been telling them since caveman days.  But a lie has a sole purpose, to mislead.  It should be acceptable, especially this late in the game, to call Clexit's claim what it really is.  To do less out of courtesy may further confuse already confused readers brainwashed on fossil-fueled misinformation.

23291. keithpickering at 11:36 AM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       > the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 highlights how catastrophically dangerous nuclear power plants can be.

       The earthquake and tsunami killed 15,000 people, and the radiation from Fukushima killed zero. How much safer than zero deaths do you want nuclear to be?

       Meanwhile, the evacuation from Fukushima — which was not necessary under IAEA guidelines — killed 1600 people needlessly. Final score: radiation 0; fear of radiation, 1600. 

       At some point, we should hope that rationality overcomes irrationality.

23292. Paraquat at 11:14 AM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       This is a good article, except that I don't really agree with the wording in this one sentence:

       "Currently in California, energy storage is effectively provided by fossil fuel power plants."

       A better way to put it might be that "Currently in California, there is insufficient energy storage available, and thus fossil fuel power plants are called upon to meet demand when sun/wind conditions are not favorable."

       The reason why I suggest the rewording is because a lot of people seem to think that somehow burning natural gas is not putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I see on numerous blogs claims that switching to natural gas is "green." I personally don't agree that switching from nuclear to natural gas is "green," and indeed it will considerably increase our carbon (and methane due to leaks) emissions into the atmosphere.

23293. Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 10 August 2016
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       dcordell @293, I think you will find that the figure above shows the fluxes in Gigatonnes of CO2, whereas the IPCC figure shows it in Gigatonnes of Carbon.  The fluxes from right to left in GtC are:

       7.9, 119.7, 122.7, 90.5 and 92.2

       

       According to the IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3 they are 8, 119.6, 122.6, 90.6 and 92.2, with the differences being down to rounding.

       

23294. Tom Curtis at 08:44 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper @10, the study in question was in Nature Climate Change.  The study found that the probability of once in a century flooding such as happened in Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Cornwall in 2014 had increased by 43% as a result of global warming.  Some reporters (but not the scientists) misreported that as AGW causing the floods.  The study found that due to the heightened risk from AGW, probably the peak river flows in 2014 were 21% higher then they would have been absent global warming, with a thousand houses at risk that would not have been.  Both values come with high uncertainties.

23295. Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper @4,

       1)  The OP made a comparison between Brexit and Clexit because that was a deliberate comparison made by the AGW deniers who have formed the "Clexit" movement, as seen in this press release.  The same AGW deniers, along with others, have welcomed Brexit itself as making action to oppose AGW more difficult.  Given that, it is very appropriate for this site to comment on that relationship.  When you do, some disturbing similarities are to be found, as noted in the first paragraph.  Those similarities commented on are in several instances, limited to some of the leaders of the Brexit campaign.  Presumably they are also found in a large number of people who voted "yes" to Brexit, but there is no implication from the OP that they are found in all, or even the majority of "yes" voters.  The relevance of the comparisons with some of the Brexit leaders is well documented in the OP, and so there is no reason to take exception to it.

       2)  Contrary to your assertion, the UK's consumption based emissions have declined relative to 1990 levels, and as of 2013 were at the fouth lowest level since 1990.  There decline has been nowhere near as sharp as the production based emissions, and until seven years ago, where in fact increasing, but that does not alter the fact that they have declined contrary to your claim:

       

       3)  While I have sympathy for the "British worker", the British worker has historically been a protected species.  In particular, during the period of the British Empire, the weaving of cotton clothe in India was prohibited by law, thereby forcing the cotton grown in India to be processed at greater expense in British factories.  The increase in employment for British workers that resulted came at a direct expense to Indian workers who were thereby impoverished.

       People who campaign against action on AGW out of similar concerns for "workers" are trying for a similar bargain.  In particular they are attempting to preserve an advantageous per capita emissions advantage for Western nations at the expense of workers in India and China and third world nations in general.

       If that were not the case, they would note that the same trade that is sustaining British consumption based emissions is rapidly driving down consumption based emissions in India and, especially China:

       

       That means the total global emissions change would be negative were it not for the strong growth in consumption world wide, including in the UK.  Economically, the UK as a whole is not being harmed by the change in emissions, and any disproportionate effects within the UK for a given social group are due to policital decisions within the UK and will not be harmed by tackling AGW (nor helped by Brexit).

23296. dcordell at 08:05 AM on 10 August 2016
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       Your citation to the IPCC AR4 Figure 7.3 seems to be incorrect. The figure shown is shown here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf

        

       This figure states different numbers from yours. And I cannot find the 29 Gt/yr figure anywhere.

        

       Any further info or clarification is appreciated.

23297. Dipper at 04:38 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       ... and just to be really picky can you point to the research that confirms that recent floods in Somerset and the Lake District were caused by global warming and were not just part of the range of weather that naturally occurs?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Perhaps you would like to first point to where the claim is made that such events were caused by global warming? Because warming increases the moisture capacity of air, the science position as laid out in exhaustive detail in the IPCC report, is that such events will become more likely. Except where sealevel rise is clearly a compounding factor, you cannot easily blame any individual event on global warming.

       The IPCC statement is: "It is likely that the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased in since the mid-20th century, and there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to this increase." The papers that form the basis of this conclusion are discussed in chapter 10.6 of AR5, WG1.

       Please do not derail this topic with an offtopic discussion and please state source of assertions so we dont have pointless discussion of strawman arguments.

23298. Dipper at 04:36 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Paul D @ 8. Please can you point me to the right places to read up more about extreme weather. I'm naturally sceptical but having read up a bit can't see any viable alternatives to anthropogenic greenhouse gases causing observed warming but I'm still not convinced by extreme weather arguments.

       For instance, the poles are warming more than the equatorial regions so if, as I read, the earth's climate is driven by the difference in temperature between the equator and the pole why wouldn't melting at the ice caps reduce extreme weather?

23299. Paul D at 03:54 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper@4

       
       Extreme weather and warmer temperatures are effectively the same thing. It's all about how the energy that is slowed down from leaving the Earth by Green House Gases actually manifests itself around us. Extreme weather is a direct consequence of warming (as is drought). We have rain and winds because of warming and the fact that we have plenty of water around us!

       The BBC is broadcasting facts based on quite simple science.

23300. Paul D at 03:08 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper@4

       Actually it is EU legislation that requires coal fired power stations be taken off line and shut down. Even without UK legislation to cut CO2 emissions, EU legislation would still be closing the power stations.

       It's the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
       It was replaced with the Industrial Emission Directive this year.

       
       It should also be pointed out that UKIPs policy was to increase the use of coal.

Prev  458  459  460  461  462  463  464  465  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  Next