Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 351 to 400:
-
michael sweet at 03:30 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system. I note that your question was asked in 2012. Since then the cost of a compeltely renewable system has decreased greatly in cost and the storage isssue has been resolved completely. Meanwhile, modular reactor proposals that promised working reactors by 2020 are decades behind schedule. The money spent on nuclear is wasted.
If you had read Jacobson et al 2009 you would know that the emissions generated by the extreme long time manufacturing nuclear plants results in much more carbon release than building out a complete renewable system.
-
tder2012 at 00:20 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
every energy source has its pros and cons. Anyone who said there is a miracle solution is a fool, in my opinion. Based on this chart, I feel its to risky to take low emitting energy sources off the table, we need all we got as soon as possible https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2024/PNG/s64_2024_LinearPathways.png
Dr. John Morgan asked the following question at a nuclear energy debate in Australia in 2012
"Question to those against (nuclear energy). Given that the rate at which we decarbonize will determine how much warming the planet ultimately experiences and given that we can decarbonize more rapidly if we use both renewables and nuclear power, how many degrees of planetary warming do you feel it's worth to avoid the use of nuclear energy" -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:42 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I understood the first time why you didn't count hydro. It not necessary to repeat it, and repetition does not make it valid to leave it out. First, how tapped out it is remains to be fully quantified. Second, excluding it from the total share of renewables only because of that reason is not justifiable. A resource is renewable or it is not. Renewable and amenable to scaling up are not synonymous.
Nuclear, for example, is not renewable in its current, most common, form. I don't discount nuclear as a solution because it does give a lot of bang for the buck in terms of how much energy is produced per kg of fuel. In addition, the breeder reactor idea certainly has merit, since it has the potential to in fact be semi-renewable.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the latest breeder reactor, a prototype, took 21 years to build and is not yet operational. Olkiluoto 3 (not a breeder type of reactor) took 18 years and ended up costing almost 400% of the original estimate. So yes, the bang was there, eventually, for beaucoup beaucoup bucks. These are serious issues.
Nuclear is not geography independent, since most designs need water for cooling. In France, where there is a large scale program that has been mostly successful in reaching its goals, the outlet water temperature problem is an issue that seasonally threatens freshwater ecosystems downstream of some plants.
There is no free lunch, there is no miracle solution.
-
tder2012 at 08:32 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I say tapped out for hydro because we cannot build much more to assist in permanently displacing fossil fuel production.
Of course nuclear is composed of various materials, concrete, steel, etc. Over its lifetime (up to 80 years, 6 reactors in USA have been licensed for 80 after their 60 year licenses were coming up for renewal) and high capacity factor and amount of kWh it produces over its lifetime, the material requirements are small in relation to kWh produced. "If your true argument was full life cycle analysis.." I'm surprised this would even need to be stated, why would it be anything else?
Nuclear needs power lines, but hydro is more geography dependent. The link I shared was five longest HVDC transmission lines all over 2,000km and all for hydro. I live in MB where we had to spend $5 billion for a 1000km HVDC transmission line, that's a lot for a population of 1.4 million. Look at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering nuclear plants in Ontario, not very far from Toronto. Palo Verde nuclear plant is 56 miles from Phoenix, AZ
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:34 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder 2012 says " I did not falsely claim, I errored." Subtle distinction if there was ever one, amounting to playing on words.
Earlier on the other thread, it was shown that the E.U. as a whole drew more than 50% of its electricity from renewables, in total opposition with an earlier claim of yours that was also "errored." On this one, you corrected your position by clarifying that you did not consider hydro to deserve to be counted;. There is no justification for that. The fact that hydro is, according to you, "tapped out" does not make its current production less renewable. You did not specify that renewables qualified as such only if they exceeded a threshold of future potential or what that potential should be.
Then you went on about the amount of concrete and metal necessary; not entirely vacuous but equally applicable to nuclear. I have been in nuclear plants: most of what one sees is pipes. All diameters of them, miles of pipes, and innumerable soldering junctions. If your true argument was full life cycle analysis, then, again, you should have stated so initially. Otherwise, it is getting very close to arguing in bad faith.
The fast breeder prototype reactor nearing completion in India is expected to be operational at the end of 2025. Construction was started in 2004. Olkiluoto 3 took 18 years to complete. The time to get nuclear online is a real problem. These plants also need power lines to carry electricity, that is not unique to hydro plants.
-
gerontocrat at 07:12 AM on 10 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #19 2025
This one is very sobering
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence, Forster et al., Open Access pdf 10.5194/essd-2025-250
It's a very long technical paper and you need to download the preprint pdf; but if you scroll almost to the end of the pdf you will find figure 14, which shows very simply how bad things have got since 2018 (based on IPCC AR6 data).
The remaining carbon budget to avoid exceeding 1.5 C global warming is now very, very small - impossible not to be exceeded?
Moderator Response:Thank you for pointing this out. Preprint but "from a reliable source." (Very!)
Converted title to link. And here is figure 14.
-
tder2012 at 06:36 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"The USA wants Iran to surrender all of its 20% material. If Iran shouldn't have something I don't think profit seekers should be allowed to have it." What is your point? You are entitled to your opinion about profit seekers.
-
tder2012 at 06:25 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I didn't "falsely claim", as I stated, I errored, most, not all, reactors today use 5% enriched, also I neglected to mention CANDU's which use natural uranium.
"All your arguments against renewables are simply false." I have not made any arguments against renewables, I have presented the data and evidence. Which are you are referring to specifically that are "simply false"? Do you have evidence to support your "simply false" claims?
-
michael sweet at 03:57 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tser2012:
The World Nuclear Association estimates 90 years at current rates of use. If that were even tripled that would reduce to 30 years, less than the life of the reactors.
If you have no problem with 20% enrichment why did you falsely claim only 5%??? The USA wants Iran to surrender all of its 20% material. If Iran shouldn't have something I don't think profit seekers should be allowed to have it.
You keep shifting your goal posts to evade the facts I post. If you had a strong argument you would not need to shift goal posts so often.
All your arguments against renewables are simply false.
-
tder2012 at 01:58 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
World Nuclear Assocation states about 90 years of uranium
-
tder2012 at 01:46 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Thanks for pointing this out, my mistake "The Russian breeder reactors use fuel with over 20% enrichment. In addition, the new Vogtle reactors use 6% enriched uranium. Your claim that all current reactors use 5% or less enrichment are false" The overwhelming majority use up to 5% enriched uranium. Do you have an issue with a reactor using 20% enriched? I don't. "with over 20% enrichment", how much over?
-
tder2012 at 01:43 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The "megatons to megawatts" program got rid of the equivelant of 20,000 bombs worth of material required for these bombs. Lets get rid of more and use them up in fast reactors, or send it to France's MOX plant, as the megaton to megawatts program did. What issue do you have with 20% enriched uranium, do you not like medical isotopes? As I stated previously, there are no reactors that use 20% enriched uranium today, I see no issue if they do some day in the future. In the last 25 years, we have spent $trillions on wind, solar and storage and yet fossil fuel production and GHG emissions continue to increase year over year over year. So wind, solar and storage is also too slow, too expensive and think of all the raw materials we have used up to this point on them. How much more do we have to spend on them and how much raw materials do we require to completely eliminate fossil fuel production globally? Also, in the future spent nuclear fuel could be used in other forms of reactors besides fast breeder reactors https://copenhagenatomics.com/technology/
-
michael sweet at 01:26 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tder2012:
The Russian breeder reactors use fuel with over 20% enrichment. In addition, the new Vogtle reactors use 6% enriched uranium. Your claim that all current reactors use 5% or less enrichment are false. I did not bother to look at the China, India and Japan breeder reactors.
-
michael sweet at 00:43 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Tder2012:
Breeder reactors like you support require as much as 5 tons of 80% bomb grade uranium to start up . Current reactors are not breeder reactors and there is only enough uranium for 6 years according to your link.
You are contradicting yourself saying we need to build new designs and then saying you will only discuss current reactors when I call out your deliberate misinformation. Military reactors currently use uranium that is more highly enriched, you cannot leave them out of the discussion.
It appears that you know the new reactor designs use 20%+ enriched uranium. That is a direct contradiction to your post where you stated "nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment ". At Skeptical Science we do not like people who post information they know is incorrect.
Nuclear is too slow to build, too expensive and there is not enough uranium.
Tder2012 is starting to sound just like Doug C.
-
tder2012 at 00:19 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael, since GHG emissions are global, why focus only on reactors being built in USA? Globally, there is 59 under construction. Do you have evidence to support these statements? "This is another com[plete falsehood promulgated by the online nucleear community" and "The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads are lying to tder2012.
The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads do not know anything about nuclear reactors." and "Why do you read and believe the crap the ignorant people on nuclear threads tell you? Then you bring their lies here where we try to only discuss facts." I'm sure you'll claim you already have provided evidence, but that is false.Natrium doesn't use 20% enriched uranium because it hasn't been built yet. 20% enrichment is also required for medical isotopes. A bomb needs at least 80% enrichment.
I discuss on here because I think we need to place emphasis on reducing ghg emissions and permanently displace fossil fuel production, but these continue to increase year over year, despite spending $trillions globally over the last 25 years or so on wind, solar, storage. We are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency so all options need to be on the table.
-
michael sweet at 00:03 AM on 10 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 posted off topic on the solar thread:
""I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged" The problems are that nuclear is expensive because of irrational fear of radiation ("all radiation is dangerous", nonsense, read "The LNT Report" when it comes out in August) people conflate nuclear weapons, which require at least 80% enrichment of uranium, compared to nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment and others here. These points of misinformation have helped increase the cost of nuclear energy needlessly. Be sure to read this 400+ page pdf book "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop" In the 70's when the hippies, musicians and actors got their way and nuclear power plants were stopped being build, they did nothing when coal plants were built instead. The scientists and engineers at the time wanted nuclear, but on this matter of science and engineering, society chose to listen to hippies, actors and musicians instead." my emphasis
This is another com[plete falsehood promulgated by the online nucleear community. The only nuclear plant currently under construction in the USA is the Natrium reaction in Kemmerer. It uses 20% enriched uranium. I believe most of the modular designs use 20% uranium but there are too many to count.
Up thread poster Doug C. linked a description of the breeder reactor he favored. That design used 5 tons of 80% (bomb grade) uranium for start up. And Jacobson is so stupid he worrys about bomb technnology spreading! Unfortunately, Doug C. posted off thread and I cannot find his post.
This is a very basic design component and anyone who knows anything about nuclear reactors would not make such an ignorant claim.
I can think of only two reasons that this deliberate falsehood was posted here.
- The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads are lying to tder2012.
- The people on the nuclear site tder2012 reads do not know anything about nuclear reactors.
A question to tder2012: Why do you read and believe the crap the ignorant people on nuclear threads tell you? Then you bring their lies here where we try to only discuss facts.
-
michael sweet at 23:45 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
A number of nuclear posts have been made on this thread. That is off topic and in the future it will be impossible to link your posts like the problem I have crrently in the nuclear thread. Please post nucear arguments in the nuclear thread so we can all follow.
-
tder2012 at 21:36 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
At least nuclear has proven it can be a major contributor to meeting the Paris target of <100 grams of CO2 emitted / kWh on an annual basis. See France, Ontario, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden check here . Wind, solar and BESS (at least 30%) have never shown this. I don't include hydro because the planet is pretty much tapped out on convention hydro, besides it floods too much land and then think about all the concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the forests that need to be hacked down for HVDC transmission lines. As for pumped hydro, it is at 142 GW of capacity globally and provides over 95% of global electricity generation from storage, but it is obviously geography dependent and when compared to global electricity production overall, pumped hydro is such a tiny contributor, it is hardly a blip. I could only find it in "global installed renewable energy capacity by technology" at Our World in Data.
-
tder2012 at 20:59 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree nuclear is expensive and takes too long to deploy. Irrational fear of radiation and ornerous regulation are two of several reasons. Despite spending $trillions on wind, solar, BESS in the last quarter century, fossil fuel burning and GHG emissions continue to grow year over year unabated. So, unfortunately, low emissions sources of energy are doing a poor job at permanently displacing fossil fuel production, they are only energy additions. The book "More and More and More An All-Consuming History of Energy" clearly shows this, as does Our World in Data. We are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency, so all options should be on the table, this book is helpful "How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again"
-
Eclectic at 14:20 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @34 and prior :-
Le sarcasme, moi?
Though maybe you mean a friendly chaff (without wheat).
# But perhaps looking at the Big Picture instead, you could abandon hope of the "nuclear solution" ~ 'cos it just ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future of the coming decades. Sad, but there it is. Fission power for electricity has been hit with the Triple Whammy of hyper-costs, hyper-delays, and NIMBY-ism as well.
Solar has a better-than-sporting chance, with minor technological improvements in panels and sodium storage batteries. Together = reliability = the subject of this thread.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:40 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Personally, I don't think that excluding hydro from the renewables makes sense. In fact, I think that stored hydro deserves to be further explored. I also don't think that skimping on safety for a nuclear power plant makes sense either. Nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.
-
tder2012 at 12:19 PM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Eclectic, put your sarcasm aside and tell us what you would really like to see. How about any grid <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis and say what the top sources of electricity generation are. Michael Sweet and Philippe mentioned Luthuania, I responded. I say averaged on an annual basis because some like to point out when a grid hit a high % of a generation type for a few hours or days and don't mention other times when they don't. So keep it simple and include every hour of a 12 month period. So Eclectic, what would you like to see? Which do you prefer %RE or GHG emissions? I have made it clear I focus on GHG emissions as I have pointed out the Paris target of an electricity grid needing to be <100grams emitted of CO2/kWh, averaged on an annual basis. This site is excellent for grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour. (Although it is unavailble at this specific time I'm writing this) https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
-
Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @32 and prior :- You paint with too broad a brush.
Please put Lithuania aside, because a population of less than 3 million has no significance in any scenario whatsoever. Also, the Lithuanians speak a language so strange that even their neighboring countries can understand none of it.
Instead, we should keep it extremely simple, and consider only those national grids which generate >90 but <100 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh averaged on an annual or biennial basis. The grids should not include any nuclear or biomass-burning, nor hydro or geothermal or even tidal sources. Preferably also be 50-80% renewable.
If that does not advance the discussion in the right direction ~ then we should move the goalposts once again, into narrower territory.
-
Justin_timberprawn at 10:43 AM on 9 May 2025The History of Climate Science
wassup my hairy fairy's, i found this site very useful to gain all the information i ever required (awesome sauce)!! sicko mode!!! #once you go black you never go back!!! Siiickkkk!!!
-
tder2012 at 09:47 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
You are correct, I didn't include Lithuania because I made a spelling mistake, apologies "Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list". How about we keep it extremely simple. Focus on any grid that meets the Paris climate target of <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis that does not include any nuclear, at least 50% of electricity is generated by wind, solar, batteries on an annual basis and high emitting, high polluting, stinky biomass (IPCC says its lifecycle emissions range from 230 to 740 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh) and population is at least 2 million. I notice you don't discuss at all CO2 or GHG emissions, why?
-
michael sweet at 06:01 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I note that the 50-80% renewable number came from a blog that tder2012 linked to support his arguments.
-
michael sweet at 05:59 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012: I noticed that you did not include the country I identified which was Lithuania. An interesting mistake.
According to your link in April 2025 Lithuania got got 26.1% of electricity from wind, 16.6 % from solar and 6.9% from biomas for a total of 49.6% renewables not including hydro (hydro is small in Lithaunia). Eyeballing their yearly data I see that April had an unusualy large amount of gas usage and the entire yearly percentage of renewables was over 60%.
From the data at Our World in Data Lithuania produced 76% of electricity from renewables including hydro in 2023. They produced 3.8 TW from renewables and 0.5 TW from hydro so about 67% of all electricity was from renewables not including hydro in 2023. Undoubtedly that went up in 2024 as more renewables were installed.
They got zero nuclear. Most countries in the world get zero nuclear. Most countries get a significant amount of electricity from renewables.
-
tder2012 at 05:49 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged" The problems are that nuclear is expensive because of irrational fear of radiation ("all radiation is dangerous", nonsense, read "The LNT Report" when it comes out in August) people conflate nuclear weapons, which require at least 80% enrichment of uranium, compared to nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment and others here. These points of misinformation have helped increase the cost of nuclear energy needlessly. Be sure to read this 400+ page pdf book "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop" In the 70's when the hippies, musicians and actors got their way and nuclear power plants were stopped being build, they did nothing when coal plants were built instead. The scientists and engineers at the time wanted nuclear, but on this matter of science and engineering, society chose to listen to hippies, actors and musicians instead.
-
tder2012 at 05:24 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"They are currently building out factories and mines to manufacture them in large numbers". And yet Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) expect BESS to generate 1TWh of electricity for the entire year of 2030, they generated 0.363TWh for all of 2024, according to the Volta Foundation. Considering 30,000TWh of electricity was consumed for 2024 and this number is expected to rise year over year, as it always has, as global population continues to increase (projected 10 billion by 2050) and more and more of the global population enjoys a decent standard of living. So batteries better pick up the pace and grow by orders of magnitude more than is expected by pro renewables and batteries BNEF and of course costs decrease by orders of magnitude from what BNEF expects.
-
tder2012 at 04:51 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I stated "Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis". Sorry I should have stated "other than hydro AND nuclear" and services at least 5 million people. Norway is mostly hydro, so they shouldn't be on your list. Sweden gets electricity from hydro and way too much nuclear for you liking, so they shouldn't be on your list. Finland is way too much nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Denmark's CO2 emission are too high, so they shouldn't be on your list. England's emissions are way too high and they get too much from nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Germany's emissions are way too high (345, instead of 100, grams of CO2 emitted / kwh), so they shouldn't be on your list. Spain gets way too much from nuclear and is still over 100, so they shouldn't be on your list. Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list. Maybe pay far less attention to %renewables (ideally none) and instead of focusing on GHG emissions. So all the countries you listed actually don't qualify, but you did say "I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy." So you should go on and on, that is, unless you care more about %RE than GHG emissions. And use a proper source. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/LT/12mo/monthly
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:42 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree with the "do your own homework" part, but since this was so easy to do, I actually shouldered some of tder2012 homework:
From North to South:
-Norway: over 99% of electricity production from renewable, mainly hydro
-Sweden: more than 60% of electricity production from renewables, according to their official site
-Finland is not as performant but they are making progress, 43% production from renewables
-Denmark does well with between 79 and 81% in recent years.
- England lags a little but has made progress, reaching 51% of renewable electricity generation in 2023.
-Germany continues to progress 52.4 % in 2023
-Spain does surpirsingly well with 56% in 2024.
I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy. The E.U. as a whole has reached 50% in the first half of 2024. That is in spite of heavy reliance on fossil fuels from some members, especially the former soviet satellite nations. I'll add that I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged.
-
michael sweet at 02:53 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
Lithuania produces over 50% of electricity using renewable energy plus some hydro. Do your own homework. The first country I looked at.
-
michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 posted on the solar energy thread:
"Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims." Point out any false claims I have made and back it up with numbers, data and evidence in full context.
"Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive." France is also on this same grid and their residential electricity prices are half that of Germany.
tder2012 at 23:
You have made way too many false claims for me to list them all.
You claimed at post 16 "As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia"
I showed that the reactor in Japan closed in 2010 clearly showing your post false. I note that none of the four sodium cooled reactors world wide are running as breeder reactors. One primarily generates weapons grade plutonium, one has not started yet and one is a burner reactor.
I showed that your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.
-
michael sweet at 01:49 AM on 9 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 383:
Batteries have only been economic for 2 or 3 years. They are currently building out factories and mines to manufacture them in large numbers. Pointing out that a brand new technology has not been manufactured in large quantity yet is absurd. Grid forming inverters have been manufactured. They can be produced in whatever numbers are requred.
By contrast, there are no commercial breeder reactors operating anywhere in the world and no new designs have been submitted to regulators. If they ever build a breeder reactor there is no reason to think they will be economic or can be built in the time we have remaining to solve the climate crisis.
-
michael sweet at 00:15 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012 at 23:
You have made way too many false claims for me to list them all.
You claimed at post 16 "As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia"
I showed that the reactor in Japan closed in 2010 clearly showing your post false. I note that none of the four sodium cooled reactors world wide are running as breeder reactors. One primarily generates weapons grade plutonium, one has not started yet and one is a burner reactor.
I showed that your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.
-
michael sweet at 00:09 AM on 9 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 at 22
So now you are claiming that the numbers in your link are not reliabe and you want me to go to the Our World in Data link that I gave you and pick out a few of the countries that have over 30% renewables. Since you now say that your liink is unreliable, why should I believe anything you say or link??? It is your job to go to Our World in Data and look at the data there. Then you will know more of the background information that everyone informed knows. It is not my job to do your homework.
I note that in the first paragraph of your link the author says that he has had his head buried in the sand for ten years and does not know what everyone else knows about current world electrical systems. Why should I believe anything he says after that? Then he brings up a false claim from nuclear supporters that is ten years out of date and was never accurate. Get your act together.
-
MA Rodger at 21:17 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The two Lüninget al (2019) papers linkedup-thread @273/274 are available in full - The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America, and The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. These will help the papers being used less selectively.
Thus in the South America paper we can read in its conclusions "A fully quantitative comparison of (medieval) and (present) temperatures is still complicated. Some sites suggest that the (present) may have been warmer than the (medieval), whilst others indicate the opposite."
Yet whatever an individual study (even when a review spanning a whole continent) may find, a bit of warming somewhere which coincides with the MWP or cooling coniciding with the LIA is surely no longer viable as some denialist rant. Consider this figure below from Kaufman et al (2020) 'Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach' . If we today have +1.5ºC AGW, where are we now on their Fig 3 below?
-
Eclectic at 21:08 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @276 :-
Dick, after making my @275 post, now my (admittedly-feeble) brain is somewhat confused by your @276 comment (second paragraph).
The Nature article you had linked [Forte et al., 2025] in the first sentence of its Abstract, said :- "The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on the Earth ... "
~ And the first sentence of the Introduction, states similarly :- "The Antarctic is considered to be one of the most stable environments on the Earth ... "
~ It seems quite a jump to mention your own paper (titled: "Stabilists strike again") which was indeed their reference #3 . . . which was from 30 years ago [1995] and is unfortunately (for me) behind a paywall.
I confess I am very unclear about the point you wish to make. Your thoughts and explanations would be most welcome !
-
Dick van der Wateren at 18:02 PM on 8 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The third reference infers medieval warming based on rather weak evidence. Unfortunately, it has been picked up by climate sceptics claiming that the MWP was warmer than today, which the Nature paper does not say.
Their assertion that the Antarctic landscape is "one of the most stable environments on the Earth" is definitely not what it says in reference #3 in their paper, a comment by Richard Hindmarsh and myself Stabilists strike again.
-
tder2012 at 07:36 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims." Point out any false claims I have made and back it up with numbers, data and evidence in full context.
"Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive." France is also on this same grid and their residential electricity prices are half that of Germany.
-
tder2012 at 07:32 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"Batteries and grid forming inverters are readilly available today" last year, according to the Volta Foundation BESS generated 0.363TWh globally for the entire year of 2024. In 2024, there was 30,000TWh consumed globally, so batteries contributed 0.00121%. What are your numbers for grid forming inverters? As Sir David McKay said "numbers, not adjectives".
-
tder2012 at 07:28 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." Name the countries that are 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix, averaged on an annual basis. The quote you used is out of context, it is only for the specific time period for a few days last week. Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis, point it out here.
-
michael sweet at 05:48 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012
Batteries and grid forming inverters are readilly available today!!! They need to scale up the rate of construction and we will have the carbon free grid that we need. Factories are being built as we post!
By contrast, the nuclear facilities that you favor have not been designed yet. Let us imagine they finish the design in 2 years. Then 4 years to get regulatory approval, 4 years to find a location and get permits and then 5 years to build the prototype. We wait for 5 years of experience to determine if the prototype works and then it is at least 8 years before lots of additional reactors can be built.
That is a total of 28 years before large numbers of reactors are built. That is too late!! The nuclear ship sailed long ago. And there is not enough uranium to put in the reactors! Read Abbott 2012. All the problems he suggests still apply.
-
michael sweet at 05:02 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I have been in this game for about 20 years. Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims. For example when a paper was published with a single 1 MW wind turbine connected to a gas generator. It was then argued that more CO2 was emitted from the wind turbine. No-one has a grid with a single wind turbine. Experience in using wind turbines has shown that that analysis was completely false.
Your citation calculates the cost of a solar and battery system without using any hydro or wind. And they only use a very small grid (Texas and Germany). These are gross mistakes. The literature shows that it is much cheaper to have a larger grid than a smaller one. Most realistic analysis use all of North America as a grid.
Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive.
The analysis you linked is ignored for a reason. It is obviously junk science. A grossly too small grid and no existing hydro or wind. Texas will have to connect with the rest of the USA if they want cheap electricity. (Texans already pay a premium because of their small grid).
Just look at Europe: most of the countries have 50-80% renewables and they save money on their electric bills!
-
michael sweet at 04:41 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
Your link at post 2 claiming that no more than 30% renewable energy should be used says:
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." my emphasis
I suggest you read your own links more closely. Obviously systems with more than 30% renewable energy work and save billions of dollars. Occasionally there are problems that require new hardware and/or programming since the technology is only 10 years old. Our World in Data can give you exactly the percent renewables for most of the countries in the world and breaks down different renewables.
Jacobson only uses existing hydro. This was done about 10 years ago. I believe that all 100% renewable energy solutions do not use additional hydro. Are you suggesting all existing hydro should be removed? Read my links to you above. If you read more of the background material you will not ask questions about common knowledge.
-
tder2012 at 04:17 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Since science is in the name of this site, I think it would be fair to ask for any evidence for your fossil fuel propagnda claim "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda" Is it Carl Sagan that stated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
-
tder2012 at 04:09 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
"Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading". Could you please name these "many other countries" and provide evidence to support your claims? Also, knowing that hydro is essentially tapped out, provide examples that don't use hydro, since going forward, hydro is likely not available very much as new electricity generation.
-
tder2012 at 04:04 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Since its OK to wait for synchronous condensers, grid forming inertia, flywheels and batteries to be available at the scale required, is it OK for reactor companies that claim to be fast breeder reactors or be able to use spent nuclear fuel to wait for them as well? Such as Oklo, Copenhagen Atomics, Terrapower, ARC Nuclear Energy, Moltex, Newcleo, etc. Also see on youtube "The integral fast reactor", why did Clinton and Kerry cancel this reactor in 1994 when it was ready to be commercialized? Grave error. Kerry regrets this and is now pro nuclear.
-
michael sweet at 03:55 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder:
reactor question replied to on the nuclear thread
-
michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
You posted:
"As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980."
on the renewable energy thread.
From Wikipedia:
Japan: one breeder reactor at Monju "The reactor has been inoperative for most of the time since it was originally built. It was last operated in 2010[1] and is now closed." Calling this a production reactor is false.
China: one breeder reactor at Xiapu. Too small for a production reactor. Primarily used to generate plutonium for weapons.
India: one breeder reactor in Tami Nadu. Under construction since 2004. Apparently fuel was loaded in 2024 but no news since.
Russia: Two reactors 600 MWe and 800 MWe. 800 MWe plant started construction in 1983 and completed in 2016. Currently used to burn plutonium. Plans for a 1200 MWe reactor have apparently been drawn up but they are not building since it would not be economic.
I will let other readers decide if this record is of a technology ready to build or if it needs more work. There are no approved breeder reactor plans in the USA or Western Europe.
