Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 201 to 250:
-
David-acct at 08:54 AM on 5 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
MIchael Sweet - My apologies, though my question on France's nuclear power is in response to your initial comment #4 in response to TDeR.
Thanks for the reminder on the french Eco2mix, my apologies for not responding earlier. However, real time data from the eco2mix doesnt support the contention that france shuts down their reactors on the weekends. the vast majority of weekends show little or no change in electric generation from nuclear. There are declines in production every 7-8 weeks, though those dont appear to be connected to any shut downs. There is a wikipedia mention of shut downs, though the footnote is from an article from 2009, which doesnt appear to be valid after 2009. I could not find any support via a google search of the topic
-
michael sweet at 02:03 AM on 5 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
David-acct at 11:
I am very disappointed that you have forgotten the discussion we had in August 2023 about France shutting down reactors on the weekend since their power is too expensive to sell.
Here and at the following posts you posted off topic and we discussed that France shuts down their reactors on the weekends. I linked to Wikipedia. Since it is common knowledge that France shuts down their reactors on the weekends it is not discussed in the peer reivewed literature.
In the posts following my link you provided a link that gave the amount of electricity generated in France using their nuclear plants by day claiming that it showed reactors were not turned off on the weekend. A cursory glance at the data indicated that France shut down at least 6 of their plants on the weekend. They may partially scale back production from more plants but it is cheaper to shut down 6 plants than to work 12 plants at half speed. You did not provide any information that suggested they do not shut down their plants on the weeekend.
This data showed that reactors were shut down on the weekend:
date time Power MW
8/10 2:45 31645 Thursday
8/10 13:45 30424
8/5 4:15 28489 Saturday
8/5 16:15 25548I note that in our previous discussion more than half of the "always on" nuclear plants were not generating power in the middle of an energy crisis since they required long term unscheduled maintenance.
I have previously linked Jacobson et al 2022 for you. It is not my job to go find the homework you threw away in the trash. As MA Rodger says, it is easily Googled.
Jacobson has been publishing full system analysis since 2015. Every paper renewable energy becomes cheaper and cheaper. Meanwhile the British have signed contracts for $50 billion (not counting interest) for a 1700 MW nuclear plant. Nuclear costs go up and up.
Why should I have to go find references to previous discussions that we have had??? If you do not pay attention to discussions we have here on SkS you should stop posting.
This post is off topic again. The OP is about renewable energy and you are posting about nuclear power.
-
MA Rodger at 22:49 PM on 4 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
David-acct @8 &11,
Note that Google Scholar does provide a link to a pre-print PDF of Idel (2022) 'Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity'.
And there is a PDF of Jacobson et al (2022) 'Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries' HERE
-
David-acct at 09:01 AM on 4 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
Michael Sweet
I am definitely not Tder2012 - fwiw he doesnt come across as being very well informed.
Can you provide a link to full systems analysis by jacobson 2022. I am familiar with several of his 100% renewable studies, though I dont recall any parts of his studies that include a full system cost analysis. Best I recall is his comments that the renewable cost is less expensive when measuring the cost of generation.
Can you also post a link for France shutting down their nuclear reactors on weekends. I am familiar with the costs overruns and financial issues. I just cant find any source supporting shutting down reactors on the weekends. It would seem the cost of doing so would be prohibitive given the costs of restarts,
thanks
Moderator Response:[BL] I will confirm from an SkS moderation standpoint that there is absolutely no indication that David-acct and tder2012 have any connection at all, other than being independent participants in the discussion forums here.
-
michael sweet at 06:12 AM on 4 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
tder2012 has linked your study several times. According to Google Scholar it has only been cited 39 times in three years. That low number of citations shows that it has not been adopted as a better method of assessing electricity costs to the grid than LCOE. Nuclear power suporters seem to like that study, but realists do not. Lazard thinks that LCOE is the best method for a simple cost comparison.
Full systems analysis like Jacobson et al 2022 and many others find that a completely renewable system will be much cheaper than fossil energy, will additionally have dramatic health effects and resolve AGW. No published studies of future energy systems support using nuclear power, it is too slow and expensive.
I note that you have very rapidly posted in support of tder2012 after they were banned. Your posting style is very similar to tder2012.
-
David-acct at 08:59 AM on 2 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
There is a second study "Levelized full system costs of electricity" published in 2022 in science direct.
Unfortunately, It requires a paid subscription and therefore I cant review the study to ascertain the validity ie whether it is with a superficial anti renewable bias.
Thanks
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035
-
David-acct at 08:54 AM on 2 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
The OP makes a valid point with this point -
"A better analysis would use the cost of generating power in order to isolate the impact of renewables. We can get a better estimate of that by using the wholesale price of electricity."
That is absolutely true if you are only measuring the cost of generation.
" Beyond LCOE : A systems oriented perspective for evaluating electricity decarbonization pathways which was published here at SkS on June 12, 2025. The study provides a very comprehensive explanation for the total costs of electric generation, transmission, etc.
" While LCOE is a good metric to track historical technology cost evolution, it is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization. This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."
https://www.catf.us/resource/beyond-lcoe/
The PDF attached is at the link
-
tder2012 at 20:01 PM on 1 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
In comment 4. it states "The French electric company is bankrupt since they lose money on their nuclear electric sales. They close many reactors on the weekends since their electricity is too expensive to sell. They have artificially low retail prices to make voters think nuclear power is a good deal." Is there a suitable form of evidence for these statements?
Moderator Response:[BL] This is obviously a complaint about having your own posts moderated.
In the Comments Policy you seem to want to ignore, the first bullet point ends with:
Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
It is clear that you have no intention of following the Comments Policy. As such, you have chosen to recuse yourself from further participation in this venue.
-
prove we are smart at 07:33 AM on 1 August 2025Two international courts just issued major climate rulings. Here’s what that means
"Only 28% of U.S. residents regularly hear about climate change in the media, but 77% want that news. We can change that, and our only limitation is the size of our budget. Unlike some outlets, we don’t have fossil-fuel backers. And we’re not funded directly by Yale University. Will you chip in to put more climate news in front of Americans in 2025?"
So I thought is this the same in my country? Here is an interesting insight to what maybe applicable to middle ground of many peoples climate change opinions
"In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said." www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/04/change-mind-climate-change
-
tder2012 at 01:33 AM on 1 August 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
Sorry "Meanwhile energy transition to renewables has cost $750 billion euros with steadily increasing electricity costs and negligible decarbonization"
[snip]
"> In 2000 German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder began a phase-out of nuclear power in coalition with the Green Party
> 2005 Gerhard leaves office and gets a position at a Russian gas company
> Decline in Nuclear power capacity almost exactly matched by increase in gas generation
> 2016 Trump criticizes Germany for dependence on Russian gas
> 2021, natural gas accounts for 30% of German power production with half coming from Russia
> Meanwhile energy transition to renewables has cost $750 billion euros with steadily increasing electricity costs and negligible decarbonization
> 2022 Ukraine war breaks out
> Electricity prices in Germany skyrocket
> Massively accelerates decline of energy intensive industries in Germany
> Meanwhile France has 10x cleaner energy for 40% cheaper than Germany
> Renewables energy transition abysmal failure, dirtiest energy in Europe and among the most expensive, overall industrial decline and energy insecurity
Just so everyone knows how completely self inflicted Germanys dire energy predicament was" source
Moderator Response:[BL] The only link I see to support your assertions is to a Twitter - er, sorry, X - account. The assertions on that tweet are unsupported, and you are simply repeating them here. That is not a suitable form of evidence.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
tder2012 at 23:22 PM on 31 July 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
Germany should focus mostly on their citizens' health and not as much about cost. They definitely should not be seen as an example to follow to decarbonize the electricity grid. "The German nuclear phaseout may have caused up to thousands of excess deaths annually according to several studies.
[Large snip]
It’s no secret that the phaseout was a disaster. But when you start digging into the real-world consequences, that’s when reality really hits.
Over the past decade, several researchers have tried to quantify the consequences. One topic that keeps coming up is how many people have died as a result of coal replacing nuclear.
Most studies agree that the number is in the hundreds or thousands per year, but they reach that conclusion in different ways.
Some, like Jarvis et al. (2022) and Núñez-Mujica et al. (2025), model the increase in coal emissions, run those through atmospheric dispersion models, and apply dose-response functions to estimate the health impact. Their numbers land around 725 to 800 excess deaths per year.
Neidell et al. (2021) take a different route. They look at reduced electricity consumption following the phaseout and estimate over 1,100 additional deaths per year linked to cold exposure and energy poverty.
Kharecha & Sato (2019) project out to 2035 and estimate a long-run average of around 2,286 annual deaths, based on increased air pollution alone.
Then there’s Kaariaho (2025), whose number (170 deaths per year) is much lower. That’s not because the health impact was smaller, but because the scope was. Kaariaho only looks at respiratory diseases, and only at observed mortality using a synthetic control method. In other words, it’s a very conservative lower bound.I’ve put these results together in a single graphic. Each dot represents a study. Together, they show a clear pattern: coal replaced nuclear, and people died because of it.
This isn’t about nuclear versus renewables. If you remove clean energy while fossil fuels are still on the grid, guess what fills the gap?
In Germany, it was coal. And it killed people." source
Moderator Response:[BL] And how you are off-topic. as a hint, look at the title of the post: Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition. Then read the post, and stick to the topic. You have also been previously warning about shifting your arguments from one thread to another.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:37 AM on 31 July 2025It's not bad
Jlsoaz @ 428:
As Eclectic notes in his response, SkS is a volunteer effort.
In addition, the idea that there can be a specific attribution of a single death, a single health outcome, a single item of property damage that can be attributed to climate or weather is pretty much impossible, as you state.
Epidemiological methods are appropriate, but as you state, these are statistical methods, applying to defined populations - not single events.
Those denying the science (be it climate change, tobacco use, whatever) essentially commit two fallacies in this area:
- The fallacy of division, where properties of the whole are incorrectly assumed to apply to the individual parts. ( If climate change or tobacco smoke causes deaths at the population level, we should be able to identify it in individuals.)
- The fallacy of composition, where it is incorrectly assumed that properties of part of the system can be applied to the system as a whole. (Since you can't attribute an individual death to climate change or tobacco, you can't determine that these increase death rates at the population level.)
I doubt that denialists will be bothered by attribution studies - they'll just block them out by applying their Morton's demon.
-
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 31 July 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
Tder2012:
The OP shows that wholesale electric prices are similar in Franch and Germany. This shows that renewable energy is not more expensive than fossil and nuclear energy. Did you read the OP?? The OP provides data that show your claims are completely false.
The French electric company is bankrupt since they lose money on their nuclear electric sales. They close many reactors on the weekends since their electricity is too expensive to sell. They have artificially low retail prices to make voters think nuclear power is a good deal.
-
tder2012 at 23:26 PM on 30 July 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
Since natural gas is so expensive, then why doesn't Germany use less natural gas (and coal for that matter)? France uses hardly any fossil fuels and their electricity rates are cheaper than Germany. See Germany electricity production for the last 12 months here. See France electricity production for the last 12 months here. See EU electricity prices here. Annalisa Manera, prof at ETH-Zurich comments on German electricity pricing here.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are skating on very thin ice. Rhetorical questions do not represent reasonable discussion. If you can't be bothered to try to answer your own questions, then why should others do your work for you? (Hint: they shouldn't.)
And the Comments Policy contains the following text:
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
You have provided four links in three lines of text, without giving anything beyond a vague indication of what you expect people to see in those links. We can't read your mind, so we can't tell just what sort of evidence you want us to find, let lone what question you are trying to address. You have been warned about this before.
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.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Eclectic at 10:45 AM on 30 July 2025It's not bad
Jlsoaz @ 428 :
Not to be argumentative ~ which I never am . . . well, hardly ever ~ and I never say a big big D-—
[unlike in the days of Gilbert & Sullivan, a big big D- nowadays stands for Denier ]
.... Though to reply to you seriously :
~ My opinion is not strong, but merely ordinary.
~ SkepticalScience is a volunteer website, and thus suffers from limitation in time & resources to tackle/review any issue . . . and so prioritization should always be front-of-mind. All of which is a way of suggesting that it would be most welcome if you yourself submitted (to the Editorial Board) a cogent analysis of the Attribution current status.
~ Yes, I agree with you that "attribution" of property damages & deaths does upset denialists. But denialists are delicate creatures, and are sensitive to all sorts of issues. And upsetting denialists does not change their opinions. They simply carry on digging in deeper with their Motivated Reasoning.
~ It is the politician and the Man-in-the-street who can be influenced by occasional headlines pointing out the Attribution component. Yet the cry of Attribution is like the Boy-who-cried-Wolf . . . the result can easily be a public numbness as (in the years between major hurricane and flood damage) the public's life returns to normal or normal-ish. Especially since it is so easy for denialists to publicly cloud the issue by pointing out the fuzziness of the data . . . and how the local flood/hurricane was ever-so-much worse in Grand-pappy's time back in 1920 or 1880 or whatever.
~ My ordinary opinion is that you will have greater success by using arguments related to pocket-book issues (and perhaps: refugee migration increase). Priorities !
-
jlsoaz at 00:43 AM on 30 July 2025It's not bad
Eclectic at post number 427:
In my opinion,
it could be useful to do some thinking around the wording of the myth that needs busting here. Is it "Myth: Nobody has died from global warming."? Or perhaps it is something like:
Myth: Under strict defensible peer-reviewed scientific methods, deaths, health impacts and property damage cannot be attributed to global warming.
Reality: Under strict defensible peer-reviewed scientific methods, deaths, health impacts and property damage are difficult to attribute to any one cause such as global warming, but probability estimates can be made, and over time it becomes more clear whether a given cause is having certain impacts, even when there are many other possible factors. We have seen this with smoking and other killers where it was difficult for scientists to attribute deaths at first, but after much research and careful following of established epidemiological methods, attribution was possible.
As to whether it would be useful for skepticalscience.com to put forth the resources to get this one my busted, I'm assuming that all myths busted require some effort, including possible consultation with relevant scientific experts or at least careful study of their publications, and I do not recall a single instance of skeptical science indicating that they would refrain from busting a myth because a member thought it would not be that helpful.
As a side-note, I disagree with your strong opinion. I can't think of anything that (in my own fallible opinion) is more likely to upset denialists more than attribution of (and discussion and debate of attribution of) deaths to Anthropogenic Climate Change. Ideally, we will eventually see counters (similar to the atomic bombs of heat counter on skepticalscience.com) which will show range estimates for how many deaths are attributable to ACC. -
michael sweet at 13:16 PM on 29 July 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
I think it is a good idea for Skeptical Science to post articles on how renewables can cheaply power the world.
Most deniers have stopped claiming that it is not warming. They have shifted to claiming renewable energy can't work. Skeptical Science is a good place to address these claims.
The Climate Brink has a lot of good posts on Climate and renewable energy.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:31 AM on 29 July 2025Have renewables decreased electricity prices: European edition
I just received my monthly electricity bill this morning. Delivery, regulatory fees, and taxes are roughly 1/3 of the total. Electricity cost varies with time-of-day - at the low overnight rates, delivery, regulatory fees, and tax are very simlar to the actual electricity cost.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 27 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
I agree with the comments by OPOF and prove we are smart. Americas current government is indeed very corrupt and anti democratic and quite fascist and bullying. They ignore democracy, the courts, the constitution, due process, the American people as a whole and any decent ethical standards.
The reasons are obvious. The MAGA crowd see some liberal leaning beliefs and policies as so fundamentally wrong that they should be eliminated ruthlessly and completely, so the ends justify the means. This is just so wrong on so many levels, where do you even start?
The policies the MAGA elite attack include such things as climate science, other fields of science, immigration, free trade, globalisation, inclusivity, social security, the federal bureaucracy, federal regulatory systems, environmental protections, consumer protections, medicaide.
Anyone who thinks such things are fundamentally wrong is clearly mentally delusional or bigoted, and likely has motives of wanting to be able to profit financially regardless of consequences to others and the environment.
At most such policies need some reform form time to time, but what MAGA have done is mindless destruction that will make America poorer economically and intellectually. It's a truly dumb collection of self inflicted wounds, driven by fears of non existent monsters lurking in the closet.
Moderator Response:[BL]
Gentlemen (nigel, others on this thread).
Although the weekly news post is generally accepted to be a little freer with respect to openness and wandering topics,. can we please keep the derogatory labels and insults to a minimum?
-
prove we are smart at 18:16 PM on 26 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
America is showing any interested people why democracy is a myth, at least in the freedum and entitled USA.
When your elected representatives can be legally bribed er, I mean lobbied to fill their pockets by an increasingly allowed corporations. Even foreign nations using your elected officials greedy weaknesses to spread off-shore propoganda. www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
2024 was a Landslide...for 'Did Not Vote' What a forlorn democracy in the USA when more eligible voters stayed home than the Trump winner got. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections
And how to decide your vote? well Mis,dis and crapinformation with plenty of $$$ www.reuters.com/world/us/how-worlds-richest-man-is-helping-trumps-presidential-bid-2024-10-23/
The more corrupt a leader,the more corrupt their policies and unfortunately in the USA the world is watching his equally corrupt enables fast-tracking the ransacking of a countries arguably good reputation.
I'm tired,we are all tired, the lack of movement down in the big 4 of human caused ghg is now beyond catastrophic www.climate.gov/ghg/current-levels
The ugly American is alive and well but so too the ugly Australian and Britain,Frenchman,German and many more. The will to change radically is weak, me included so now..theconversation.com/why-ill-talk-politics-with-climate-change-deniers-but-not-science-34949
-
One Planet Only Forever at 23:58 PM on 24 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
This new NPR story: Trump's EPA now says greenhouse gases don't endanger people, appears to be an attempt to mislead people about the reality of the climate change harm done by using fossil fuels. It contains the following:
Already, environmentalists, climate advocates and others are bracing for what could be a fundamental shift away from trying to address the problem of a hotter climate. And the Trump administration is celebrating the proposal as a potential economic win.
"Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in announcing the proposal in March. "We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more."
The economic wins cause others to pay the price. It taxes those who are harmed. The International court ruling pointed to in my comment @5 exposes this as just another example of how harmfully misleading the likes of Trump are.
That is the harmful belief that vicious competition for superiority - reduced taxes and more personal benefits - is the only option. That is the current rage on the right. They believe that - Things would be Greater if people wanting to benefit from being more harmful and vicious are freer to do as they please and are excused for any harm they cause because of the perceptions of benefits obtained.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:57 AM on 24 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
People who deliberately fight against increased awareness and improved understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to others deserve to face questions and criticism they dislike. They deserve disrespect and ridicule.
The UN News report “World Court says countries are legally obligated to curb emissions, protect climate” makes it abundantly clear that regional governments with histories of acting in ways that delay the transition from undeniably harmful fossil fuels to less harmful alternatives deserve to face serious penalties. The UN News report includes the following "Reasoning of the Court":
The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision.
Firstly, Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and in future generations.
But, also because “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.
So, in addition to the good questions proposed by wilddouglascounty @2, the fundamentals of the ruling raise questions about US government actions that have harmful impacts other than climate change impacts. An example would be Trump administration shuts down EPA's scientific research arm as reported by NPR which includes the following:
The agency is closing the Office of Research and Development, which analyzes dangers posed by a variety of hazards, including toxic chemicals, climate change, smog, wildfires, indoor air contaminants, water pollution, watershed destruction and drinking water pollutants. The office also manages grant programs that fund universities and private companies.
Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback," said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement announcing the plan Friday. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.
The US government has also stopping funding NPR (Recently completing an action demanded by Trump in May of this year - NPR report: President Trump has issued an executive order to pull federal funds from NPR and PBS) to ‘selectively save tax dollars’.
The choice to stop supporting NPR is likely because NPR has a News section dedicated to Climate Change and it also reports many things like the above report.
An interesting related item is the CBC report “Green energy has passed 'positive tipping point,' and cost will come down, UN says”. That story about the UN report on renewable energy systems includes the following:
Renewables are booming despite fossil fuels getting nearly nine times the government consumption subsidies as they do, Guterres and the reports said. In 2023, global fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $620 billion US, compared with $70 billion US for renewables, the UN said.
A clear understanding of Taxes is important. I would argue that any negative consequences of government actions, and lack of action, are “Taxes’ (someone somewhere sometime pays a price). The massive subsidies for fossil fuels are clearly “Taxes”. But the harms resulting from insufficient investigation into and regulation of the harm done by economic pursuits are also Taxes.
One of the most damaging misunderstandings today is the belief that competition for perceptions of superiority will effectively self-regulate to minimize the harm done (limit the Taxes caused) by competitors and make harmful competitors adequately make amends for harm done.
It is clear that more freedom for competitors for perceptions of superiority results in dominance by people who believe they are the winners if they can be more threatening and more harmful to Others than Others can be to them.
There are no winners in a competition that allows perceptions of superiority to be obtained by ‘being more harmful or more unjustifiably threatening'.
People pursuing more benefit by being more harmful are the only ones who deserve to feel, and actually be, threatened with serious negative consequences.
-
John Hartz at 13:32 PM on 23 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
SueEllen Campbell's article, These must-read story series explore our climate-changed world, published on the Yale Climate Communications' website today, includes a nice blurb about our Weekly News Round-Up.
I suspect there will be an uptick in the number of people viewing the SkS Facebook page. Ditto for the SkS website.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 22 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Wild Douglas suggests quite a good approach to things.
-
wilddouglascounty at 23:55 PM on 21 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
By passing the Trump bill, the Republicans have cemented themselves as being Climate Change CHEERLEADERS. Everything they promote is knowingly PROMOTING increasingly frequent and severe weather events and they should be held accountable at mid-terms. The scientific community has laid out the evidence of the consequences of these policies as clearly as possible and the response is to shut down that science and enact policies that will only make things worse. This should be pointed out at every opportunity: why are you promoting more wildfires, worse flooding, longer hotter droughts, and cutting our ability to monitor, predict and understand these destructive events? Why are you promoting activities that will INCREASE carbon emissions, not decrease them, when the consequences of such policies are so clear? Do you think cleaning up after natural disasters is a better economic activity than installing home insulation and more efficient appliances to reduce people's bills? Why is incentivizing more fossil fuel production and decreasing National Weather Service funding a better response than the opposite, when the opposite will reduce the costs of natural disasters that have a much bigger impact on our nation's economy? Why is exporting Climate Change a better policy for foreign aid than building health care capacity in developing countries? The list is endless and we need to demand answers to all of them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 21 July 20252025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Many items on this, and other News Roundups, can be categorized as stories about efforts to ‘sustain’ the popularity of harmful misunderstandings by misleading promotion of harmful misunderstandings and trying to keep people less aware that they are being harmfully misled.
I chose to emphasize the term ‘sustain’ because misleading messengers try to pervert the meaning of terms. And it relates to the listed item: Airlines risk legal challenges by advertising jet fuel as "sustainable", NGO warns.
In addition to the distortions of meaning regarding Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Many major fossil fuel driven organizations, including regional governments that have been captured by, and share the harmful unsustainable interests of, fossil fuel business organizations have set up internal ‘departments of sustainability’ that are better called promoters trying to prolong (‘sustain’) undeniably harmful and unsustainable pursuits of benefit.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:19 AM on 21 July 2025Update on Texas flooding
RedRoseAndy,
This comment is nearly identical to the comment you made in April on the 2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16 linked to here. My response there still applies to your slightly modified comment (except it is obviously now too late to have the thoughts be part of the UN Ocean Action Panel event.
In the future if you see a potential to repeat this input on a new SkS posting you could simply point people to the comment you made in April (like I have done).
Note that your comment does not appear to relate well to this specific item. The comment made in April was related to some of the articles listed in the News Roundup #16. So it would be better to point people to the April comment, not this one. And supplementary related points should be made on that item, not on this item.
-
RedRoseAndy at 20:21 PM on 16 July 2025Update on Texas flooding
Offsetting CO2 Emissions with Fish
Professor Oswald Schmitz is quoted in ‘New Scientist’ as saying: “Fish have a “tremendous” impact on carbon storage. “Part of it is in just the sheer biomass of these animals,” he says. But bony fish also fix carbon into insoluble minerals in their intestines as part of their way of dealing with constantly ingesting seawater. “It’s a sort of rock-like substance that they poop out and that sinks to the ocean bottom really quickly.” Collectively, marine fish account for the storage of a whopping 5.5 gigatonnes of carbon each year.” (Man produces 37.41 gigatonnes of CO2 a year.) Scientists say that we used to have nine times as many fish as we do now, so there is plenty of room for a man-made increase in fish numbers by offsetting companies, if we got fish stocks up to historic levels our fish would store 49.5 gigatonnes a year, which is more than man produces in a year at the moment.
Using my method of preventing fish extinction can also, then, be a method for offsetting CO2 emissions, and even reversing global heating.
A Practical Solution To Fish Stock Depletion
Fish in the wild are being over exploited, and whole fish species face extinction. But there is an easy way of preventing these extinctions. An international law should be passed which ensures that the gonads of all fish caught are liquidized and put into water containers, the fish are usually gutted anyway so this would not be a great hardship for the fishermen. Once liquidized, artificial fertilization takes place, and after twenty four hours the fertilized fish eggs can be released into the sea. The bucket of young fish needs it’s temperature equal to the sea they are released into to prevent fry death, so standing for a length of time with the fry bucket in the sea needs a wet suit before release. When this is scaled up by offsetting organisations a less painful method will be used. Ensure that the water in your bucket is the temperature of the sea to avoid fish deaths. It does not matter where the eggs are put back because the fry of each species find their way back to the environment they originally come from.
In this way, the sea can be repopulated, and fishing can even become sustainable.
The Japanese were the first country to fish in this way, and had their Navy protect the massive shoal until the fish matured. I have only heard of it being done the once, though.
Perhaps using sonar in fishing can be banned in order to give our fish more of a chance in life.
-
Eclectic at 19:15 PM on 12 July 2025It's not bad
Jlsoaz @426 :
quite possibly it would be hard to justify the effort of delving into & explaining the various aspects of "Attribution".
As you say, the question of Attribution is of interest to some ~ but it is rather difficult to handle such a fuzzy field. Calamitous weather events are multi-factorial in origin, and with a large percentage of chaos (as is all weather).
Maybe one could point to a 10% through to 50% causation coming from Global Warming . . . but even those percentages would have little influence on climate-change Deniers, and probably little persuasive effect on the average Politician or the Man-in-the-street.
The long-term effects of sea level rise, plus the bogeyman of increased migration of Third World refugees (from increasingly distressed regions) would ~ I strongly suspect ~ be more likely to stimulate public demand for greater action in tackling our Global Warming problem.
-
jlsoaz at 06:01 AM on 12 July 2025It's not bad
Hi,
To add a bit to my comments from a couple of years ago:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/how-climate-scientists-do-extreme-weather-attribution
Climate Scientists Created a SWAT Team for Weather DisastersFriederike Otto and her colleagues jump into action during heat waves, floods, and fires to pinpoint if global warming is to blame.
By Eric Roston
October 6, 2021 at 10:00 PM MST
"...WWA’s success has come in part from using a peer-reviewed process—even if the rapid analyses themselves aren’t formally published for a year. A 2012 workshop at Oxford introduced the field to a broad range of professionals. “They asked user groups whether they would be interested in attribution results, and pretty much all of them said no,” Van Oldenborgh says. There were two notable exceptions: lawyers and journalists...."
"...World Weather Attribution earns the biggest and most regular headlines, but other groups are also at work analyzing “angry weather”—the title of Otto’s 2020 book. The climate science and policy website CarbonBrief.org counted more than 350 peer-reviewed studies earlier this year. Since 2012, Stott and colleagues have edited an annual research collection called Explaining Extreme Events From a Climate Perspective...."
-----
Basically it appears to me that the science of attribution is further along than I realized when we first had this discussion. Would it be possible for skepticalscience.com to take a second look at this and consider explaining to readers that while there is dispute over methods and results when attribution is attempted, it does appear that scientists have made progress in this area?
This seems to be the website of world weather attribution.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/ -
tder2012 at 23:32 PM on 2 July 2025Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles - Recap
Here is a report you may want to consider
[snip]
"The Growth & Future of Small Modular Reactors" by Arthur D. Little group. It starts with
"Bridging the Green Energy Gap
Decarbonizing energy supply is central to achieving net zero targets. However, once fossil fuel power plants are decommissioned, wind and solar generation alone will not be sufficient to fill the resulting gap, despite the rapid rise in renewables. The intermittent nature of wind and solar — and the lack of viable energy storage mechanisms — highlights the urgent need for low-carbon sources of continuous baseload generation to power an increasingly electrified world. Nuclear power should be the primary option for filling this need, but the combination of an aging fleet of reactors, substantial cost and time overruns on new plants, and safety fears have held back its widespread deployment. Small modular reactors (SMRs) provide a potential opportunity to overcome the challenges faced by nuclear power, though their cost competitiveness compared to large nuclear power plants (LNPPs) is still being proven." I don't see "baseload" defined anywhere in the report. I've seen baseload defined as minimum load or demand, which usually occurs on an electricity grid early in the morning when most everyone is asleep. For example, in California the minimum demand today occurred at 4:05am local time, 23,242MW.
Moderator Response:[BL] No, we do not want to continue "considering" whatever you throw out hoping to get something to stick to the wall. The issues raised in the quote you provided (which I have snipped) have been addressed in the comments on the nuclear power thread, and in the literature cited by others in the comments on that thread.
Switching to a new post/thread, and avoiding the criticisms that have been made of your comments on the previous thread is considered very bad form. Since this thread is a recap of pther posts, your comment is off-topic here.
What we want is serious debate - where you respond to the criticisms that are made of your posts. We will not tolerate you running off in other directions shouting "look! Squirrel!" Providing another example of a paper nuclear option that is claimed to have "potential" and is admitted as not yet proven does not advance the discussion.
I have added moderators comments to several of your recent posts on the nuclear thread.The last one is located here. Please go back and read all of them before posting again.
-
tder2012 at 06:02 AM on 2 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Keep in mind the following:
nuclear 1GW x80% capacity factor x80 years = 560,640GWh lifetime
solar 1GW x25% capacity factor x30 years = 67,500GWh lifetime
wind 1GW x45% capacity factor x35 years = 137,970 lifetimeA recent SKS article identified a report released in June 2025 "Beyond LCOE" "This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."
Keep in mind that Lazard's LCOE reports have many factors that they don't examine, which Lazard themselves clearly acknowledge.See the bottom of page 7 in the 2025 report (it was page 8 in 2024) "Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.)"
Moderator Response:[BL] Keep in mind that moderators here can delete everything and anything, and rescind your posting privileges.
Constantly shifting goal posts and repeating yourself will only lead to one place.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 2 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My response to tder2012’s list of potential nuclear facility development is ‘revisit my comment @428’.
I will add the following regarding tder2012’s apparent interest in knowing what regions will have renewable energy developed to the current target of 100g CO2e per kW-hr. That is a known goal all regions will have to pass on their way to the ultimate requirement of ending human impacts that increase global warming.
Also, in the future, any energy system that is unsustainable will be unable to be continued. Unsustainable activities either use up non-renewable resources or produce accumulating harm. Nuclear power systems consume non-renewable resources and produce accumulating harm.
Therefore, no future energy system will include nuclear power generation. And since it is also a very costly way of generating electricity it should be unpopular.
However, humans have a tragic history of regionally developing popular support for harmful costly misunderstandings, as I implied in my comment @428.
Moderator Response:[BL] Your closing paragraph reminds me of the popular support in industry and political circles for the construction of natural gas pipelines from the north of Alaska to the continental US and Canada. Several proposals were made, much survey work done to determine possible routes, soil and permafrost conditions, etc.
Proposals go back as far as the 1970s. Many dollars were spent. No such pipelines have been built in the past 50+ years. As project plans matured, costs escalated and were a major factor in the lack of completion.
I was involved in some of the work in 1981-82. In subsequent years, we used to refer to these as "paper pipelines". Projects that only exist on paper will not transport gas or oil, or produce electricity. The phrase "pipe dream" comes to mind.
-
tder2012 at 22:58 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Philippe, I see you don't care that over 5,600 square kilometres of land was flooded, causing rotting vegetation and methane emissions for QC Hydro, however, I doubt the Indigenous people in the area feel the same way you do.
Moderator Response:[BL] All right, This is enough. Using phrases such as "you don't care..." represents inflammatory tone, and you are walking on the edge of having your posting privileges revoked.
Such language is is particularly galling when you start pretending that you speak for the indigenous people of Quebec. And even worse when information on the subject is readily found using a search engine. Your "doubt" is easily replaced by actually doing the work to find the relevant information.
FYI, the Hydro Quebec developments in the northern part of the province have been carried out after reaching agreements with the Indigenous people. Although the Quebec government initially tried to develop the area unilaterally, legal actions and negotiations eventually led to an agreement that recognizes the rights of the Cree and Inuit nations that live in the area.
You can read more at this Canadian Encyclopedia link. Many other sources can be found with search engines.
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.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
tder2012 at 22:27 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll just add a quick note about Estonia "the government has abandoned its goal of producing as much renewable electricity in Estonia by 2030 as is consumed domestically on an annual basis. Climate Minister Andres Sutt also stated that nuclear energy is now a priority"
Moderator Response:[BL] Your long list of political announcements regarding future nuclear electricity generation plans does not represent evidence that nuclear can actually be built on time or within budget, or without massive government subsidies. History suggests that these political cost estimates and timelines are grossly optimistic.
Until you can actually present evidence of a nuclear power plant that was built on-time, within budget, and at a lower cost than renewables, please stop wasting our time.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:04 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add that my previously stated doubts are materializing as fast as the goal posts are moving. It seems for ever impossible to have a rational conversation about nuclear.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:03 PM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A province the size of PEI, it's kinda like saying someone has something the size of Rhode-Island. It is a US state after all. Texas is unfazed...
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder's goals posts are moving so fast, it's just a blur...
-
michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 1 July 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012
You have simply not looked for renewable grids that have low CO2 emissions. You require me to do all of your homework. Your claim that no grids that are more than 30% wind and solar have low CO2 emissions can be easily checked at the website you linked.
I find that while Lithuania has too few people to meet your cherry picked standards (after you moved the goalposts twice), the regional grid of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia generate all of their electricity using wind and solar and have less than 100 g CO2/kWh. North-east Brazil generates about 80% wind and solar, 20% hydro. Uruguay generates about 50% of electricity with wind and solar, the remainder hydro. Central Brazil generates primarily with wind and solar, no hydro or nuclear, at 107 gCO2/kWh.
Searching your previous posts on SkS here (offtopic) you previously claimed the five grids of France, Ontario (not a country), Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as "nuclear sucesses". According to your website in 2024:
country nuclear renewable France 67 29 Ontario 51 33 Switzerland 32 65 Finland 37 56 Sweden 31 69 I note that three of the five "nuclear successes" generate way more electricity using renewable power than nuclear and one is not a country. Canada as a whole generates only 14% nuclear and 61% renewable. Both Switzerland and Sweden generated less than 30% nuclear in May, 2025 and are disqualified by your 30% standard. I would count Finland, Sweden and Switzerland as renewable successes and not nuclear successes. None would meet the standard without renewables.
Meanwhile, I have named two grids that meet your standards using only wind and solar just 5-10 years after they became economic to install. In 20 years essentially the entire grid will be renewable since they are the cheapest electricity.
Since you keep changing the goal posts I will set them at over 75% of the successful generating strategy. By that standard my two grids using only wind and solar without hydro are successful and no grid worldwide is successful using nuclear. Adding hydro makes about 25 grids worldwide successful using only renewable sources of electricity. About 20 renewable grids are close to 100g/CO2-kWh and no nuclear grids.
After 70 years building out nuclear only one country in the entire world, France, generates enough nuclear power to claim success (unachievable without renewables) and they lose money on nuclear power.
Your claims about "nuclear success" while wind and solar fail are simply ignorant ranting.
All pro nuclear arguments are based on false claims and fall apart when they are carefully exmained.
I have already told you that it is a waste of my time lobbying against nuclear, these are all paper schemes that will fall apart on their own. I note that there has never been a nuclear plant built worldwide without enormous government subsidies.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.
-
michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Moderator:
td2012 is not providing any data to support their absurd claims and is now taunting others who try to respond to their nonsensical posts.
They have not provided any information to support their wild claim that a nuclear plus renewable grid could be built faster and cheaper than a renewable only grid in spite of demanding that I provide data to show that renewables only was cheaper and faster (which I provided).
They have not listed three nations successfully using nuclear to reduce carbon emissions despite demanding that I provide names of nations using renewable energy to reduce carbon.
They are simply repeating posts made several months ago at SkS that several other posters responded to pointing out their contradictions, mistakes and deliberate lies.
I am tired of responding to these insulting taunts and deliberate lies. It is time for the moderators to take action and require tder2012 to conform to the comments policy.
The comments policy requires that data be provided, especially when the poster has demanded others to provide data. The comments policy does not allow reposting the same comments repeatedly without any new information. The comments policy does not allow evidence free and knowledge free taunting of other posters.
It is a waste of everyones time reading and responding to repeated misinformation, taunts and lies that fill up the comments thread with garbage. I do not like to see misinformation and deliberate lies left unrefuted at SkS. I do not have unlimited time to respond to posters who are not required to adhere to the comments policy.
Moderator Response:[BL]This assessment of tder2012's posting habits is unnervingly accurate.
tder2012's post will now be subjected to strong moderation.
-
tder2012 at 22:09 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
To those that dislike nuclear, here is one more region to lobby to stop, what you likely think, is a big waste of money. "Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant". Any time you spent responding to my posts should instead be used to lobby all these regions committing to nuclear to, in your opinion, stop this madness, correct?
Moderator Response:[BL] Challenges such as this are purely rhetorical and highly inflammatory.
-
tder2012 at 20:53 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Oops, I made errors in 440. "Which region has meet the Paris climate target..." should read "Which region has met the Paris climate target...".
Also "Which region has hit the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?" should read "Which region will meet the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?"
Moderator Response:[BL[ Do us all a favour. Please get your facts right before you post. Read your own links before you post. Make an attempt to answer your own questions before you post.
-
tder2012 at 20:49 PM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Of course QC is hydro, as is BC. I find it puzzling when people promote wind, solar and batteries and state they can decarbonize, give examples of how it can be done, but hydro is used as the example. Going forward, which region will hit the Paris climate target that has not hit that target yet using mostly hydro? Which region has meet the Paris climate target with most of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries (reminder: that is less than 100 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis). Which region has hit the Paris climate target with the majority of their electricity generated by wind, solar and batteries?
Quebec flooded land the size of the Canadian province of PEI for hydro. Is the methane emitted from that rotted vegetation accounted for in GHG emissions of QC hydro?
Over 95% of Manitoba's electricity is geneated by hydro. The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. Manitobans paid $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, completed 7 years ago, big money for 1.5 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, from 1400 to 2500 kms, all hydro. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates of hydro dams.
Also, since you dislike nuclear so much, shouldn't you spend time lobbying all those regions and companies I identified making commitments to nuclear? How much money is being committed to nuclear, don't you consider this a waste of money? One example Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution
-
michael sweet at 07:02 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
You are simply repeating the posts you previously made at SkS here. It is against the comments policy to regurgitate arguments that others have previously showed have no merit.
I note that after 70 years on your web site only France has over 50% nuclear and less than 100 g CO2 per kwh. And France generates 34% of power with renewables. Hardly a shining example of nuclear successs after 70 years.
I have already provided at least 10 countries that meet your requirements. Stop changing the goal posts every time I show that your claims are false. You have not given a single country that generates over 70% of power using nuclear.
It is a waste of my time to lobby against nuclear power. All I have to do is wait and nuclear will collapse under its own wieght again. For the past 50 years every 5-10 years nuclear supporters claim another renaissance is starting. They all fail. In 2006 modular reactor supporters and developers said they would have running reactors by 2020. They are about 20 years late and have not delevered any reactors to date.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear power.
moderator: it is very time consuming for me to have to repeat answers to tder2012 when the answers have previously been posted to them on SkS. tder2012 has not added any new information or given a new argument in support of nuclear recently.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:01 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add that it took me less than 2 minutes to find the information in that previous post. Writing it and creating the links was far more time consuming, although still reasonable thanks to the link tool in SkS.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:42 AM on 30 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I always get a little suspicious of the sincerity of contributors asking others to provide them with information that they could easily find themselves. Quebec's population was counted at 8.5 million in the 2021 census.
This is from the Canada Energy Regulator site: "The greenhouse gas intensity of Quebec’s electricity grid, measured as the GHGs emitted in the generation of the province’s electric power, was 1.2 grams of CO2e per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) in 2022. This is a 68% reduction from the province’s 2005 level of 3.8 g CO2e/kWh. The national average in 2022 was 100 g CO2e/kWh."
-
tder2012 at 06:33 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet, could you please list a grid that serves at least 5 million people that will meet the Paris target of less than 100grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, that will be this target by having most of their electricity generated by hydro?
Have you considered lobbying all these regions and companies that I have listed to stop with their nuclear plans? Obviously they have not heard from you, otherwise I'm sure they would not be announcing these plans or would cancel them immediately.
-
michael sweet at 06:19 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Most of the green countries on your map provide their electricity with renewable energy. Many produce over 100% renewable energy. For Example Paraguay, most of the Canadian states (only Ontario appears to have significant nuclear capacity), many countries in Africa. Most of these countries have lots of hydro electricity, but so does Ontario. I could list countries with high solar and wind but your source does not show that data.
Florida alone has over 18.6 GW of solar installed at the end of 2024 even though solar has only been cheapest energy for about 4 years. After 75 years only 3 GW of nuclear power exist in Florida. Adjusting for 20% capacity of solar and 90% capacity of nuclear, there are about 3.7 GW generated by solar and only 2.7 GW of nuclear. I note that in 2024 alone over 4.7 GW of solar was installed and more is expected to come online in 2025.
Please list three countries that generate over 75% of their electricity using nuclear power.
You have still not provided any any data or references to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid. As you demanded, I provided several peer reviewed papers to support my position. When you demand data you must provide data to back up your position.
You are simply repeating the same incorrect claims that you posted upthread and I have already addressed. Repeating the same incorrect claims does not make them correct.
-
tder2012 at 03:59 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Micheal Sweet,
Could you please provide a link for a renewables grid that achieve a Paris climate target of less 100 grams of CO2 released per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't see any at the global electricitymaps site
-
tder2012 at 03:54 AM on 29 June 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I'll add one more "Governor Kathy Hochul today directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid, while providing the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy. This builds on other opportunities announced in Governor Hochul’s 2025 State of the State to catalyze nuclear energy development in New York."
