Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Next
Comments 6951 to 7000:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:47 PM on 2 August 2020The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds
nigelj,
I agree that it is a distraction to claim that Global population growth is causing the climate change problem. Many actions are happening that impact Global Total Population. And some new research indicates that the peak of Global population may not be as high as many have estimated.
It includes the following forecast for Global Population:
"In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100. The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71], Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]), China (732 million [456–1499]), the USA (336 million [248–456]), and Pakistan (248 million [151–427])."
It also indicates that if the Sustainable Development Goals are effectively achieved the Total Global Population will be even lower.
-
r.pauli at 00:23 AM on 2 August 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #30, 2020
Doug, this is a WONDERFUL and important resource. Thank you so much for your devotion to promoting access to original source science.
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 1 August 2020The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds
gseattle @2
No population growth is not the "only real problem". Its also a question of what fuel sources that population uses, obviously I would have thought. A large population using zero carbon energy is one potential solution to the climate issue. Your own link refutes your own assertion that burning fossil fuels is not a significant problem by pointing out you need large reductions in human emissions for it to show up in the data.
Of course population growth is also problem, but lets look at the actual evidence: The rate of global population growth started falling in the late 1960's due to the demographic transition. Population growth in developed countries is near zero, and some countries have a falling population eg Japan. The main population growth of significance is in Africa and parts of Asia. This stuff is easily googled.
But the point is natural processes called the demographic transition push population growth down, like increasing wealth provides security so people dont need to have such larger families, womens rights slowly improve, contraception becomes accepted. Clearly history shows the corporation's havent managed to stop those things, even if they have tried and they benefit from the creation of wealth.
Governments sometimes intervene to make population growth fall like China's notorius one child policy but there have been others. Do corporations lobby governments to oppose such policies, and do corporations pressure the media to keep population issues off their agenda? I wouldn't be surprised, but you provide no hard evidence.
But whatever the corporations have tried to do, the overall trend globally has been slowing population growth and it will almost certainly happen in African sooner or later, and there's nothing corporations will be able to do to stop this demographic transition. In fact its clearly in their interests for countries to grow their wealth.
Refer "projections of population growth" on wikipedia to review the research on where we are and where we are most likely heading.
In terms of the climate problem, population pressure obviously contributes, but at least the trends are mostly slowing,
-
Jonbo69 at 05:58 AM on 1 August 2020Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out
If we hit double pre-industrial levels of CO2 in 2060 and we are likely locked into a 3 degree rise in temps above pre-industrial levels, how long does it take and around what year will it be before we reach that 3 degrees? Is this possible to estimate?
-
gseattle at 21:34 PM on 31 July 2020The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds
A lot of people asked NOAA what the effect of the global shutdown was on CO2:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Nature's portion is vast. So it's a myth.
150 new people on earth each MINUTE per world population balance, that is the only real problem and we are all ignoring it, because every large media outlet is controlled by the giant corporations which care only about their own growth.
-
nigelj at 17:45 PM on 31 July 2020The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds
Nordhaus got a nobel prize for this Dice model? And yet it appears to have been mostly discredited along with the assumptions and input information selected by Nordhaus. This doesn't say much for the economists who nominated him and the Nobel expert panel that assessed his work. I mean theres a serious lack of academic rigour going on here, and a serious lack of even basic commonsense and picking up on obvious red flags. The exact same can be said for the EPA, and the Trump Administration.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 30 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Eclectic @40, I dont visit WUWT very much these days. It appears to be the hard core denialati. The truly faithful and driven. I get enough observing of denalists on our local daily media.
I suspect some of the denialati are also paid to post commentary by various conservative leaning lobby and business groups.Their job is purely to cast doubt on climate science, and they do this the simplest way they can while making a dollar: They more or less copy and paste their list of nonsense repeating old memes and myths, in other words propaganda. No point in wasting time acually addressing the article or having difficult discussions!
I agree about facebook. I certainly don't see it going away, not short to medium term anyway but it might get smaller. I dont use it these days because Im just not a hugely socially connecting sort of person in that sort of way, and prefer email, but I can see its great for people wanting to connect a lot in a group sort of way and to track down old school friends. These perfectly well intended functions have sort of been highjacked to turn it into a fake news site. Not sure what the solution is, but society is starting to loose patience with hate speech and fake news, so pressure will come on facebook from all quarters, and it may be other websites like Mewe gain traction. Old saying: The only constant is change.
Just on the denialists on WUWT. I sometimes wonder if they are inherently psychologically weak with all the motivated reasoning and other biases, or their underlying ideology and world view drives the motivated reasoning, or whether certain libertarian world views naturally coincide with a tendency towards motivated reasoning.
-
michael sweet at 02:49 AM on 30 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Baerbel,
The article you linked gave a reasonable summary of the pro-nuclear argument. Those who read it will note that proposed nuclear options will not be available until the 2030's and the cost is unknown. Many other problems are left unaddressed.
The author of the piece is a free lance writer and ski instructor. Why should I think she knows more about nuclear energy than I do? By contrast, Abbott is a well known electrical engineer who has studied nuclear power for years. Most of the points Abbott makes are not addressed in the Climate Connection article.
-
wayne19608 at 02:11 AM on 30 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Sailrick, I kind of agree with you. It's more a ruling out of low end then high end states. Personally I will place more importance on the paleontological evidence. If we're 1C+/- now
+ 0.2C for the pre-preindustrial warming
+ 0.5C for aerosols
plus you have a 30year/66% lag meaning the temperatures were experiencing now are more indicative of 350ppm than 420ppm. So I see your point on how a +40% increase in CO2 has in all probability commited us to +2C rise in 150yrs. This doesn't address what the end state will be in 1000yrs or more. Now instead of a 40% increase imagine an actual doubling its obvious that a 2C warming shouldn't even be in the equation
-
sailrick at 01:52 AM on 30 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Thanks for the clarifications. The Carbon Brief article was one the two I had read.
-
Eclectic at 00:30 AM on 30 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Thank you, Nigelj. From time to time I do see your comments at Realclimate ( I am an irregular visitor to the site).
Yes, the comments sections at WUWT are much more for venting, than for actual discussion. WUWT puts out several new articles per day ~ and the comments after each article are mostly repetitious venting, a churning of scores-to-hundreds of posts by the usual suspects. Often with scant connection to the article itself. Yet there are subtle variations in the exhibited Motivated Reasoning . . . and this I find interesting (maybe my brain is already curdled or yoghurtified? ) And always, but always, there are immediate & childish attacks on anyone making a rational well-informed comment there (something which a few brave souls - e.g. Nick Stokes - do venture to make, occasionally.)
Facebook itself is a different kettle of fish, on my limited experience of it. I like to think that WUWT is perhaps useful in satisfying the anti-social aggressiveness of its denizens ~ so that they are less likely to go out and commit gun massacres . . . but really I'm not sure on that.
Facebook seems a mixture of good and bad, for society. Probably more bad than good ~ but its existence is now a "given" , and we must now join the dance and make the best of it we can.
-
nigelj at 18:17 PM on 29 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Eclectic @38, yes it's certainly interesting observing them. Dont let it curdle your brain.
I suggest have a look over at realclimate.org at the latest article: "Somebody Read the comments." Its very relevant. The research paper is a long and somewhat tedious read, but it has this interesting snippet near the end:
"Substantially more double interacts were identified in the user comments of RealClimate than Watts Up With That. This finding suggests that there is more deliberation in user threads of RealClimate as users engage with more alternative viewpoints (Collins & Nerlich, 2015). In contrast, Watts Up With That functions more as an echo chamber, as users tend to agree with comments of previous users. We need to be cautious with comparing both data sets in terms of the deployed framing strategies, as the RealClimate data set included more double interacts. Yet the fact that users of Watts Up With That always deployed issue framing and were less inclined to use identity and process framing with negative denotations supports our argument: Watts Up With That functions more as an echo chamber in which users feel safe and perceive comments less as a threat to their cultural identities. Overall, these observations are consistent with literature on one hand showing that user comments offer potential for deliberation and mobilization around climate change (Collins & Nerlich, 2015; Cooper et al., 2012; Graham & Wright, 2015; Uldam & Askanius, 2007), and on the other pointing to concerns about echo chamber effects creating niches of denial and demonstrations of incivility (Collins & Nerlich, 2015; Walter et al., 2018)."
-
BaerbelW at 14:44 PM on 29 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Karin Kirk's recent article for Yale Climate Connections is relevant for this thread (I think):
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:35 AM on 29 July 2020Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out
Of course there is a lot of study behind these results, but I'm looking at where we are now: nowhere near doubling and nowere near enough time to reach equilibrium for even our current level, and pretty much 1 degree Celsius already. In my non expert opinion, that made the probability of a low end equilibrium sensitivity for doubling at 1.5 deg. so unlikely that it could already be considered negligible. Just saying.
-
Eclectic at 10:24 AM on 29 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Nigelj , your observations are quite correct about that type of denialist (at WUWT ).
Yes, there are a few exceptions there ~ e.g. crackpots with little or no political extremism. But the vast majority are as you say . . . wingnuts and/or conspiracy theorists, who lean toward government-free libertarianism (or at least, just enough government to supply policing & border guards in order to suppress "sub-races" and foreigners). I would go further, and say there is also a nasty streak of callous selfishness or uncharitableness ~ though you will rightly observe such is simply the obverse side of the Libertarian coin.
But you have partly mistaken my meaning, Nigelj. I have not posted at WUWT ~ I merely observe the pathology of the diseased minds there. Quite marvellous and fascinating. And one day, I may identify a vulnerable chink in their mental armor (admittedly a very, very slim chance). Until that day, I see no hope of influencing the denizens of WUWT. Yet I take my hat off to the tiny number of real scientists [especially the excellent Nick Stokes] who occasionally post comments there.
Other forums, less extreme, may indeed have lurkers or participants who can be swayed/mollified by reasoned argument. But that doesn't apply in the vitriolic echochamber which is WUWT.
Facebook itself, is territory that is worth contesting.
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 29 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Eclectic @36, I know the types of climate denialist you speak of. I argued with one for a year, a libertarian leaning chap with a chemistry degree.
They invariably seem to have a very strong ideologically based world view that is very pro small government, and very suspicious of governments especially 'big' government, and thus very intolerant of anything with a socialist leaning flavour, anything like carbon taxes or climate subsidies, and they loathe the science of climate change probbaly because it leads inevitably to these sorts of things.
You need to understand these most extreeme climate denialists tend to be libertarians, and you cannot reason with these people, because they have a sort of mental affliction that they will take to the grave. They are at the outher extreme of the bell curve. You will never find a chink in their armour. Their views are primal to the extent they will never tolerate climate science and the inevitable governmnet involvement in mitigation even if climate change destroys them as a result. To them the only thing that matter is having very small governmnet and this is so strong its like the need to breathe or eat food. They are far more rigid than conservatives.
Your commentary may however convince or be useful to other people reading who are a bit more normal, so if you have a spare moment its still possibly useful. And sure it can be fun and stimulating arguing with people even if they are as rigid as stone. Just dont expect to move that stone.
-
gseattle at 20:55 PM on 28 July 2020Wildfires off to slow start in much of the West, but trouble expected starting in mid-July
Meanwhile I was surprised to hear of the fires in Russia until I read this ... "7 days ago - On Monday, Russian officials said fires had destroyed 1.2 million hectares of forest in Russia, saying this figure “is a quarter less than a year ago”, independent ..."
Temperatures in Siberia have exceeded 100 F while record snow in Norway.
Global temperature discombobulation.
-
Eclectic at 17:00 PM on 28 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Thank you Baerbel and John ~ I have now caught up with that Boyle article on independent.co.uk (a good article, but gloomy). Moving to another computer solved the problem of access. ( I was reading on an old Chromebook, which seems to allow loads of ads to come through : but obviously not enough to satisfy the independent.co.uk setup. )
Gloomy article. But let's hope the coming events of Nov/Dec/January will help Facebook gain a bit of backbone for 2021 onwards.
The toxic mentality of Deniers is quite a study. You may have noticed from some of my older posts, that I am an observer of WUWT blogsite, especially the comments sections. The comments sections are a fascinating study of the extremist fringe of humanity. A good number of the commenters are quite intelligent ~ on topics other than climate science and social politics. But on those two topics, they show a "marvellous" mixture of intellectual insanity & moral uncharitableness. (Not that you aren't well aware of their mental flaws!)
I am seeking an accessible crevice in their armor. But unsuccessfully so far. The armor keeps re-configuring itself, like a kaleidoscope (just as John Cook et alia know too well). Another analogy is : like trying to reason with an out-of-control paranoid schizophrenic . . . a task without much chance of success, unless some extraordinary "key" can be discovered.
Outvoting them seems the main path forward.
-
BaerbelW at 14:31 PM on 28 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Eclectic @33 - I just checked and the article is accessible without logging in and/or subscribing for me in Germany and using Firefox. I just see a banner at the bottom of the page asking "Want a completely ad-free experience?" Do you perhaps have an ad-blocker active during browsing?
-
John Hartz at 10:11 AM on 28 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Eclectic: I'm not aware of any.
-
John Hartz at 23:49 PM on 27 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
The most definitive article about the reserch findings is most likely the one writen by the paper's authors and posted on Carbon Brief. Here's the introduction to the article...
After four years of labour and detailed discussions by an international team of scientists, we are able to quantify better than ever before how the world’s surface temperature responds to increasing CO2 levels.
Our findings, published in Reviews of Geophysics, narrow the likely range in “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) – a measure of how much the world can be expected to warm for a doubling of CO2 above pre-industrial levels.
Constraining ECS has remained a holy grail in climate science ever since US meteorologist Jules Charney suggested a possible range of 1.5C to 4.5C in his 1979 report. His estimate was largely based on the world’s first two global climate models, which gave different estimates of 2C and 4C when they performed a simple experiment where atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled.
Since then, despite more than 40 years of research, much improved understanding of atmospheric processes, as well as many more detailed observations, this range has stubbornly persisted.
Now, bringing together evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past and climate models, as well as advances in our scientific understanding of the climate, our findings suggest that the range of ECS is likely to be between 2.6C and 4.1C.
This narrowed range indicates that human society will not be able to rely on a low sensitivity to give us more time to tackle climate change. But the silver lining to this cloud is that our findings also suggest that very high ECS estimates are unlikely.
Guest post: Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out by Piers Forster, Zeke Hausfather, Gabi Hegerl, Steven Sherwood & Kyle Armour, Carbon Brief, June 22, 2020
Note: This article will be reposted in its entirety on this website later this week.
-
MA Rodger at 19:44 PM on 27 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
nigelj @3,
And that RealClimate OP thread does contain this link accessing the full paper.
-
nigelj at 17:30 PM on 27 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
Some free details and opinions on the new climate sensitivity study here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:34 PM on 27 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
sailrick,
I also have not bought the article to read it. But the available abstract includes the following statement to indicate that several different, but similar ranges for S could be presented.
"The 66% range is 2.6‐3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains within 2.3‐4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5‐95% ranges are 2.3‐4.7 K, bounded by 2.0‐5.7 K (although such high‐confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously)."
-
sailrick at 14:20 PM on 27 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30
I admit I haven't read the article on climate sensitivity, but I'm confused. I read two other articles about the new study and they said 2.6-4.1 C was the new range.
-
Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 27 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Thanks, JH @32 , for the recommendation. Is there an easy hoop or two to jump through, to read the Boyle article, but without "registering" ?
A bit off-topic, but somewhat related, are the hoops that WUWT has been jumping through in order to change platform. (Mentioned in post #1). Latest I've noticed, is that WUWT says it has abandoned the attempt and has reversed course. It seems there were too many technical difficulties in porting the extensive past records.
-
John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 27 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
Recommended supplemental reading:
'The arguments are that people can't trust scientists, models, climate data. It's all about building doubt and undermining public trust in climate science'
by Louise Boyle, The Independent (UK). July 24, 2020
John Cook is quoted extensively in this article.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 27 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
sailrick @30, thanks for that useful information. It is tough to know where to go, because it looks to me like Facebooks advertising algorithms essentially targets people with certain types of articles that fits their past history, so amplifies climate denialism, while Me We dont do that. But Facebook do come down quite hard on far right groups and other assorted totally crazy people, while Me We allow anyone on their website.
Perhaps MeWe are better overall than facebook, because at least it doesnt manipulate what information people recieve, but given they only have a couple of million users, thats going to mean skepticalscience.com would not be reaching many people. Tough choice.
-
sailrick at 03:50 AM on 27 July 2020A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook
I joined MeWe the other day, after reading this post. I am following SkS there and joined a group called Climate Change.
However, today I came across this article, which give me pause.
Inside MeWe, Where Anti-Vaxxers and Conspiracy Theorists Thrivehttps://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/mewe-anti-vaxxers-conspiracy-theorists-822746/
-
MA Rodger at 21:03 PM on 26 July 2020Models are unreliable
SpaceMan @1273,
Your presence here may be limited (as the moderator response @1272 implies) but while you are here, the speculation set out by Lacis et al (2010) which talks of "TS=TE" and "the Clausius-Clapeyron relation" is part of an illustrative introduction to their employment of a full General Circulation model, such models being stacked full of 'dimentional' stuff. Are you with me so far? If so, that would be good, as that puts an end to your nonsense about them using zero-dimension climate models.
Moderator Response:[TD] Indeed, they are a sock puppet and have been removed.
-
MA Rodger at 20:31 PM on 26 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka @183,
We spill a lot of words here but with little progress.I would suggest that the ambition engendered in the World Nuclear Association projections of 482GW nuclear capacity by 2040, little different to today's capacity, signals a result for the 'Pudding Argument'. With the likes of China & India factored in by the WNA, I see no sign of anything to contradict such a result.
To clarify my personal position on nuclear as a contributor to mitigating AGW, it has not changed in two decades. I am not convinced by many of the arguments pitched against nuclear but one issue has not been addressed at all by the industry. That is the wasteful use of nuclear fuel which would, with the technology-to-hand, prevent any significant contributon (and leads to a lot of effort by some to identify alternative fuels). This fuel issue alone is the death knell for any significant contribution. Added to that, the high costs push me to the view that the whole nuclear effort is wasteful and the effort should be diverted elsewhere.
The Small Modular Reactors being considered should address much of the cost issue but it is too late now to reverse anti-nuclear policies and there remains the fuel problem.Finally, the lack of ambition seen across the globe for ramping up renewable capacity and for pursuing energy efficiency does not open a door for some nuclear renaissance.
(And entirely off-topic so I will be brief. I have no intention of reading Mark Jaccard's book or listening to lengthy videos. My by-the-way comment @179 was based on this coverage where Jaccard tells us we "need to be working feverishly to elect climate-sincere politicians and to keep them in power" but also that, even when today "our government is pulling us deeper into climate hell," educating people isn't how to tackle the dilemma, or at least he presents an alternative "you go around them." I struggle with this as well as his magicking 'climate-sincere politicians' into power. Firstly, politicians are also people and secondly they are elected by people.)
-
Eclectic at 02:38 AM on 26 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston , sorry if my tone seems condescending. It's not my intention. I have seen a lot of pro-nuclear arguments over the years ~ yet, short of the demonstrated deployment of cheap/safe small modular reactors, these arguments have seemed distinctly unconvincing (to me). I am very happy to recant my opinion, as the "facts" change. And perhaps you were detecting a tone of slight exasperation, as I read the Same Old / Same Old.
And I have to emphasize that, AFAICT, the SkS website being primarily educational ~ the moderators are wanting more than a list of "pro" items. I believe they want a comprehensive, rounded yet succinct summarization of the Nuclear scenario. Warts and all, including careful analysis of the lack of progress in the Nuclear sphere. Which is "quite an ask", actually. And which probably explains why nobody has achieved that sort of OP article on SkS yet. A rather high bar to get over ~ but the complexity & importance of the topic is demanding that: in order to achieve the educational target.
As you are aware, in some quarters there's some hostility to Nuclear power ~ but my impression is that many participants in this SkS website would be happy to accept the Nuclear pathway . . . if a good case could be made for it. Like me, they remain hopeful but skeptical. And so I wish you well in your proposed venture.
-
Preston Urka at 00:48 AM on 26 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Eclectic,
Forgive me, but your tone is just a mite condescending given that I have stipulated (in the first 2 paragraphs of @184) all that you have stated (in the first 4 pargraphs of @ 186) - and I'm trying to take it in good faith, not as patronizing as it comes across. However, it is pretty hard not to respond at all ( "as an OP article author, you are required to be comprehensive and educational") considering what now passes for the OP.
However, it is becoming more and more clear to me that this website is not necessarily a place where debate is welcomed. I agree that in a few places my tone with MS should have been more measured - but the reverse is true also. I don't believe my posts should be rewritten, or important issues deleted.
Of course, I am preparing an OP from the nuclear section of my book, but it is looking less and less likely I will be either want to or be allowed to, post it here.
-
Eclectic at 23:28 PM on 25 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston @184 : certainly, your proposed OP article should not be "a full-throated defense of nuclear power".
It is fine for you to be a passionate advocate for Nuclear, but it should be a passion combined with candid assessment of the pros & cons. And, you must be your own Devil's Advocate. Detractors of nuclear power do supply some strong arguments, which you should assess frankly and without any misrepresentation or cavalier dismissiveness [ yes, I enjoyed using that phrase ;-) ]
It is only human, to be tempted to score a few points off the (perceived) opposition ~ and you will see lots of that sort of thing in the comments columns. You must do your best to assess who is speaking/sword-playing in a manner of basic good will & truth-seeking . . . and who is merely trolling or venting or grossly uninformed.
However, as an OP article author, you are required to be comprehensive and educational.
You can see merit in the overall economics aspect, of working toward a worthy target per the most efficient allocation of currently-available resources & technology. And I accept your point that sometimes one should go "outside the box" and select a sub-optimally-economic choice, for the sake of diversification (within limits of course).
# But enough general waffle. I would like you to have more of a think about the combination of NIMBY and the fragility of Nuclear power. The safety of Nuclear power is demonstrated by the past track record (as you have indicated). But we are moving into a Future of vulnerability to terrorists acts and/or covert political manipulation. Not just cyber-attacks, plane attacks [ missiles are less deniable !! ], truck-bombs, terrorist commando raids . . . and other conceivable possibilities which I should not mention publicly.
Even a single OMG event would be a severe setback to the political fate of the Nuclear industry, and also lead to a massive flowering of NIMBY.
Layers of security "hardening" of NPP targets can be deployed - alas, none 100% effective - but it all costs additional big Big dollars.
-
prove we are smart at 22:29 PM on 25 July 2020How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages
I hope this is the correct area to ask this, but I was reading this 2020 soil health conference and very informative about soil microbes etc. However when giving the closing 15mins, Dr Christine Jones explaines the major driver of climate change is the increase of water vapour from evaporation from depleted and cleared soils/land, moreso than our increasing co2. I always thought it was mainly the ppm of co2 causing gw? Is the Dr right in blaming our land use? Can someone review the last 15mins and advise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4uVKIGBk2s
-
prove we are smart at 15:18 PM on 25 July 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Thanks William, I think this link here,
https://anaerobic-digestion.com/what-is-pyrolysis-pros-and-cons/
gave me some of the information about what pyrolysis means..
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:02 PM on 25 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
Re may comment @7: Piketty's book is "Capital and Ideology".
-
michael sweet at 11:39 AM on 25 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka,
It is taking me a little time to come up with data since you insist on using data from 2012 in the UK. It appears to me that the Lazard data cited by the moderator upthread is better data to use, but it is USA based.
After reading a little I learned why you insist on using very old data.
Carbon Brief published an article last September titled "Analysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind cheaper than existing gas plants by 2023". It included a table showing the cost of off-shore wind has fallen from 160 pounds/MWh in 2017 to bids of 43 lb/MWh in 2023. The nuclear price is 105lb/MWh, morethan double the wind price. The HPC price is triple the wind price. The only mention of nuclear in the article is in the graph axis because nuclear is not economic.
It appears that the tempory government subsidies to get wind started have worked and subsidies for wind are no longer needed. After 65 years nuclear plants still require extreme government subsidies.
As I pointed out to you upthread, it is not necessary to be "a professional researcher and I do not have access to the resources required (like a full-time job as a researcher) to develop a cross-technology, cross-country, cross-currency longitudinal study which can definitively show nuclear/wind/solar etc is the cheapest technology." If you actually read my post at 177, Jacobson 2009 found that after counting hundreds of projects worldwide that nuclear plants take 10-19 years to plan and build. Wind and solar plants took 2-5 years to build in 2009 but now are completed faster.
The moderator here provides world wide data showing that it is cheaper to build and run renewable plants that just to run existing nuclear and coal plants with no mortgage.
As for the "massive political and economic power of the nuclear industry" (deleted by the moderator), where I live in Florida the local utility charged $1.5 billion to customers for a nuclear plant when they never even applied for a permit to build it! In Georgia customers are charged the interest for the long overdue Vogtle plants even thoug hthey have not generated a single watt of energy!1 in2017 customers in Georgia had already paid over $2.2 billion for nuclear power they have not started to receive.
Nuclear is not economic and takes way too long to build. Nuclear industry promises of lower costs and building plants on schedule are simply false. If you use current data nuclear is dead on arrival. Stop cherry picking old data.
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 25 July 2020How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages
William, I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is you are technically correct about the terminology of ice ages and glacial periods. So glacial periods like our last one (peaking about 20,000 years ago) basically occur within much longer ice ages.
However the public call the last glacial period an "ice age" and best of luck shifting that opinion and terminology! Even the writer of the article used this terminology. Is it worth the effort trying to change all this, and the confusion it will cause?
Or alternatively as you suggest, find another name for ice ages? Is it worth the bother? Let the scientists use their jargon even if it sometimes conflicts with popular terms, unless it is causing a real problem and misunderstandings or confusion. I dont think ice age is really doing this.
The term "hide the decline" would be an example of really bad technical terminology that clashes with the popular understanding in an unfortunate way.
But hey you might be right, you are level headed. This is just my reaction to the issue.
-
william5331 at 06:28 AM on 25 July 2020How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages
I know I go on like a broken reccord but if we are to call the glacial period between the Eemian Interglacial Period and the Holocene Interglacial Period an ice age, then we need a different term for the 2.75m year time in which there have been many glacial and interglacial periods. It is of more than academic interest. Even such agust bodies as National Geographic, talk about the extinction of the mega fauna of, for instance, North America as due to the end of the ice age when in fact, this mega fauna survived the previous many many transitions from glacial to interglacial and back agian just fine. Sloppy terminology leads to sloppy science. Incidentally, for a well thought out theory of why the present interglacial period has been unusually stable compared to previous ones, get Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. Great read.
-
Preston Urka at 02:05 AM on 25 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Eclectic @ 181
Let me set some expectations here: my proposed OP article will not be a full-throated defense of nuclear power. I imagine it as a factual list of points for consideration, to be further discussed in the topic. Those points will have useful references and pointers to further research. Obviously it will be pro-nuclear, but I hope it is not perceived as a polemic. It will be to encourage a total conversation, not to be just another blog post.Also, I will attempt to change the title to "Is Nuclear Power an Answer" or "Is Nuclear Power Part of the Answer" vs the rather confrontational title of today.
I agree RE will continue steady growth and I hope NPPs are not developed under desperate circumstances. If anyone doesn't understand - I also believe RE growing is a good thing.
I'm not as sanguine as you are about batteries. Intermittency can only be mitigated, but batteries have significant obstacles to overcome. I will acknowledge that 'storage' in general is making good strides, but even after that - how much storage capacity is needed in installation (ditto transmission/distribution) for current grid quality and the real impact of demand management is an unresolved question.
I accept your statements on "absent sunshine", but I do not understand the meaning. Domestic power is about 20% of total energy use, half of that (10% absolute) is heat - leaving 10% (absolute) electric - and most of it is used at night, not during the day. Why exactly is the cost of solar PV so intriguing to the homeowner?
Sure you might use solar PV to heat/cool your well-insulated house during the day.
- residential solar CSP is more efficient and less costly for heating/cooling, but also much more expensive than solar PV
- most houses are not well-insulated - retrofitting global housing stock over the next 20-40 years - now that is a super-hard task
- suburban homes with high surface-to-inhabitant ratios is not where most people live on the global scale
As you state, aluminum smelters and suchlike do require steady power, so again the price of solar PV dropping like a rock is not that interesting.
- What is the price of 2x solar PV+a-truly-massive-storage-capacity for the night is a more interesting question?
- 1x solar to get through the day
- 1x solar to charge the nighttime storage
- What overbuild is needed to mitigate cloudy days?
- How many cloudy days in sequence can be mitigated economically?
(duplicative argument re wind)
Solar and wind are ever so cheap, but in the end they need other stuff (storage, transmission, demand management. When you add in the other stuff, they aren't so cheap anymore. Nuclear can take advantage of other stuff, but it doesn't need other stuff.
This is where I don't get the meaning that the price of solar at midnight is not so important. Or that the construction cost of a single NPP is such a killer argument. The total system cost that society bears is what I feel a lot of RE people ignore. Most (or those I follow) NPP people are talking about total cost - how costs and profits are divided out is politics and finance, not technology.
-
Preston Urka at 01:15 AM on 25 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
MA Rodger @ 179
I am not quite sure to make of your post. On the one hand we appear to agree that:- nuclear can provide a significant contribution to replacing FF-use and mitigating the resulting CO2 emissions
- the nuclear industry is too conservative
- SMRs appear to be a super-interesting technology
- some historical NPPs have had excessive planning and construction times
On the other hand, we appear to disagree that:
- existing nuclear currently provides a significant contribution to avoiding FF-use and the resulting CO2 emissions
- all historical NPPs have had excessive planning and construction times
- future NPPs must have excessive planning and construction times
- planning time for RE is somehow excusable, while planning time for NPP must be accounted for
First, the flow of time continues onward whether you are planning or building, either kind of plant. In my comparison of HPC and HS1 @ 178 I list both total projection duration and simple construction duration. Slice it up any way you like, but be consistent.
Second, we probably should agree to disagree. I simply do not accept that future NPPs must have excessive planning and construction times. This is a question of engineering, finance and management, not a fundamental flaw in the utility of nuclear. Per a comment (paraphrased) from Eclectic, 'if we want it bad enough, we will figure it out'.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.
I listed China & India new build simply in answer to your question. It is not really an important part of my argument. Your argument was that "these political constraints [are] omnipresent", this data is a counter-factual.
I do hope that your assessment of Mark Jaccard is based upon your reading of his book. If based upon my representation here, please go get the straight dope from the horse's mouth. His viewpoint is much more broad than I have presented here.
I might agree that RE is off-topic in a nuclear thread, but I often hear the argument "... but we don't need nuclear because we can have 100% RE ...". Reading this blog topic, I have seen many versions of that argument, so I don't perceive the off-topicity as you do.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:10 AM on 25 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
Shellenberger's Wikipedia summary includes the mention that he is an opponent of Sustainable Development.
"In April 2015, Shellenberger joined with a group of scholars in issuing An Ecomodernist Manifesto. This proposes dropping the goal of “sustainable development” and replacing it with a strategy to shrink humanity’s footprint by using nature more intensively. The authors argue that economic development is, in fact, an indispensable precondition to preserving the environment."
I am preparing more thoughts regarding a Mennonite who is dismissive of Sustainable Development and promotes the Dream of less consumptive economic growth (which is clearly part of Sustainable Development) without the bother of the corrections to reduce injustice, without reducing harmful inequalities (a big part of Sustainable Development).
As a teaser, it was a Mennonite named Edna Ruth Byler who recognized the injustice of the global economic games in the 1940s. She started what became actions by a collective of Mennonites to promote Fair Trade (Ten Thousand Villages). It was a corrective response to the grotesque inequities created by powerful people who were able to impose their will on Others to personally benefit from exploiting those Others or the resources of the part of the world they live in.
Another teaser, Thomas Piketty's new book "Capitalism and Ideology" explains how Europeans developed massive military capabilities due to their in-fighting that enabled them to forcibly dominate the planet for their benefit (and their own detriment). And he highlights that there is a history of harmful unsustainable Winners making-up stories as part of their Ideology to justify how what they do 'helps others, especially how their actions help the less fortunate'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:50 AM on 25 July 2020Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger
A shorter but similar assessment of Shellenberger's book is presented by The AIM Network in "Murdoch’s Mitchell messes with climate science".
-
Preston Urka at 00:06 AM on 25 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @ 180
Yes, I agree that HPC is a financial disaster (but then so is HS1 - the real mistake EDF made was not employing the same negotiators for HS1 who managed to finagle 140 pounds/MWh). However, despite such an economically poor plant, it still crushes the HS1 project in terms of value.
I ran the same calculations at 77% cf and voila! HPC still beats HS1.
Moral: Never bet against the energy density of nuclear power.
HPC Results @ 77% cf
- 1,023 pounds/MWh value (HS1 998)
- 1,467 GWh/y project duration (HS1 467)
- 3,143 GWh/y construction duration (HS1 1052)
Comparing projected vs. actual construction times is acceptable, because that is the data I have - I do not 'make it up' - and I also noted quite clearly that it was so - I do not 'hide it' either.
Let's remember the LCOE study our Moderator so thoughtfully posted in the middle of my statement - no doubt a reasoned, coherent article that estimated various costs and determined a theoretical value for comparitive costs. Great, nothing against it.
However, it is quite hard to argue against the real-world, empircal values from actual projects - and a horror of a project, HPC, is simply crushing HS1.
I also agree with you that onshore wind might be more relevant, but not in the UK, where offshore wind is the big-project non-hydro renewable.
- 13.6 GW onshore, but over 2500 projects
- 9.7 GW offshore, but over 38 projects
What I think is more interesting about the delays of a typical NPP is that it is a megaproject - peer reviewed references at bottom of linked page which are known to suffer this issue, another reason why I chose HS1 (vs. some farmer's 3 turbine onshore windfarm).
Please acknowledge that I am not a professional researcher and I do not have access to the resources required (like a full-time job as a researcher) to develop a cross-technology, cross-country, cross-currency longitudinal study which can definitively show nuclear/wind/solar etc is the cheapest technology.
But even those peer-reviewed papers are sensitive to the assumptions and specific scenarios posited.
I also acknowledge that NPPs require government subsidy - which is not quite the same thing as being uneconomic. If the UK had 100% funded HPC, so what? - the value that HPC will provide is high. Similar to what is 'prime' in 'prime real estate', we can ask 'what is the value of a high-capacity-factor, low-carbon, dispatchable power plant that will last for 60+ years'? Its construction cost is (mostly) irrelevant (as roughly value = earnings - costs).
Then we can ask an even more interesting question:Why do governments keep subsidizing NPPs? The answer is simply that they do find them valuable. Do you keep buying ice cream with a flavor you do not like? No. We can assume that if you keep buying that flavor you like that flavor.
We might descend into dark conspiracy theories about the massive political and economic power of the nuclear industry - but that is a myth. Compared to the oil industry, or the natural gas industry, electric utilities and NPP operators are pygmies. Vestas and Rosatom are about the same size revenue-wise.
Please give a think to the Jaccard question (see bottom of @ 175).
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic, ideology and moderation complaints snipped.
-
Eclectic at 23:32 PM on 24 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston , you make a number of good points.
Yet each of these points is vulnerable to counter-points. Of which I can indicate a few, here. I do not wish to be unrelentingly "negative", but it is my duty to raise these matters for your consideration in your proposed OP article.
Looking into the crystal ball, I foresee a steady growth in wind/solar RE ~ but not near enough to achieve "zero carbon" by 2050. (And we still need that 30 years to ramp up - from a standing start - the production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels of non-fossil origin : such as vat-bred oils and/or ethanol etc catalysed through electric power coming from Nuclear or RE source.) Still, these efforts will at least help ameliorate some of the AGW deterioration.
According to my rather misty crystal ball, by around 2040 a degree of desperation will impel a more rapid approvals process & development of Nuclear power. Nowhere near enough for what's needed : but it will be a significant "wedge" of contribution. (My gaze cannot penetrate to whether these Nuclear Plants will be the Goliaths seen today, or will be the widely-distributed small modular Davids which are currently unborn.)
As you say, RE has the intermittency problem ~ which the coming decades can (probably but not certainly) resolve with better battery technology. And with other methodologies ~ one such being the excess/off-peak production of electrolytic hydrogen. Hydrogen, not burnt in gas turbines, but burnt to drive steam turbines. Hydrogen from RE, and from "overnight" Nuclear generation. So "negative electricity prices" will be a non-problem.
BTW, the overnight problem of "absent sunshine" is not quite as troublesome as you suggest. Aluminium smelters and suchlike do require steady high power of course. But 80-90% of domestic house power supply need not be 24/7 ~ for a well-insulated house can manage reasonably on purely day-time airconditioning / space heating / water-heating systems.
-
michael sweet at 21:18 PM on 24 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka:
Hinkley Point is described in The Guardian as a "dreadfull deal, the world's most expensive power plant". If that is the best you have to defend nuclear power I do not need to respond. Using the projected construction time for a nuclear plant compared to actual construction times for wind is not realistic.
Hinkley Point is being constructed by the French. The capacity factor of nuclear plants in France is only 77% which lowers all your calculations. Cherry picking high capacity factors does not help your argument.
Perhaps it would be better to use costs of onshore wind, which is more commonly built, instead of cherry picking more expensive off shore wind projects. The United States has ony one, 30 MW, off shore wind farm. Over 100,000 MW of onshore wind is installed.
Nuclear is not economic. There are exactly zero nuclear plants being built world wide without massive government subsidies. In the past there are exactly zero nuclear power plants built without government subsidies.
I note that you have still not provided any peer reviewed studies that support nuclear power. Contually repeating your cherry picked claims does not advance your argument.
-
MA Rodger at 20:11 PM on 24 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka @175,
While your responses #1 & #2 do present different argument, as responses to the 'Pudding Argument' they are but one. Technically, there is no question that the nuclear industry could indeed have been providing a very significant contribution to replacing FF-use and mitigating the resulting CO2 emissions. Yet it has not done so and it looks quite certain that it will not do so, certainly not in a timely fashion. You cite new NPP capacity abuilding in China & India but the net result of this activity (according to the World Nuclear Association) is a paltry increase in global NPP capacity from 400GW to 482GW.One of the difficulties the nuclear industry has faced is itself. With designs for their new NPPs sitting in the cupboard, they have seen no reason to take a new step towards more appropriate designs. They have always seen such a 'new step' as being the next-but-one, only for use once they have fully exploited the one they have waiting in the cupboard which needs no more than a few tweeks to go abuilding.
There is one development in NPPs that perhaps in some respects is taking a 'new step' (although it is more harnessing the technology used for decades in naval vessels). That is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which have seen much interest over recent years. Yet, once all the froth is swept from the brew, the World Nuclear Association is still only declaring a "strong interest" exists. Today plans for seried ranks of new SMRs remain on paper only.
You question my assertion that the lead-time to install a NPP is so long that we run out of time for them to contribute to the establishing of a zero-carbon society. You present a comparison with UK off-shore wind farms. The decade-long journey of a UK off-shore wind farm is mostly caused by the planning process. (The size of such schemes would result in a full public enquiry, something I have experienced first hand with the Navitas wind farm, sadly benothinged by denialists locally & nationally.) For a direct comparison, compare those 10-year periods with Hinkley Point C which began its journey through the planning process in 2008 and, if all goes well, will start generating in 2025.
You rightly point out that the ability of Renewables to make a significant contribution has not properly passed the 'Pudding Argument'. (In UK we are still 94% dependent on FFs, & 2% on imported wood chips which substitute for coal.) But that (along with Mark Jaccard, who by-the-way seems a little self-contradictory to me) is not a nuclear thing and so off topic here.
-
Preston Urka at 11:30 AM on 24 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @ 177
Yes, I am a bit familiar (I have read the background) with Barry's posts, but I hope I am putting his arguments more effectively. If you had answered his arguments in a way believable to me or others, I wouldn't be posting here.
"The basic calculation of area needed for a nuclear plant is described in Jacobson 2009." (michael sweet) - quite true, and he described the calculation of, and values from, Spitzley and Keoleian 2005, a paper which has been retracted, not just for anything, but specifically for "[needing] a correction on a metric pertaining to the nuclear fuel cycle" (retraction). Although this does not invalidate all portions of the Jacobson paper, it does invalidate that section.
"The 16 km2 you calculate" (michael sweet) - I did not calculate it, I lifted it from a broad description of the plant on WIkipedia, nor is it accurate, as it is mostly unused parkland."Jacobson 2009 estimates build times for nuclear as 10-19 years." (michael sweet) - yes, by including planning time. See Table 3.5, "The planning-to-operation times of the technologies in this table ...10-19 years for nuclear;" (Jacobson 2009). He specifically states planning - so including the planning time is appropriate in my calculation - I was cherry-picking in the sense I didn't do a full study, but London Array was top of my google search.
Let us compare 2 projects from the same country, same government, same time period - Hinckley Point C (HPC) and Hornsea 1 (HS1). I offer both planning and construction times (HPC, of course is not finished, but using estimated time as most probable - it is left as an exercise to the student to see how long HPC needs to further delay be to do as badly as HS1).
Let's do a head-to-head comparison for projects started around the same time.
Hornsea Project 1 (HS1)
- cost: 4.2 billion pounds
- CfD strike-price: 140.00 pounds/MWh
- nameplate capacity: 1,200 MW
- project start: 2011
- project duration: 9 years
- construction start: 2016
- construction duration: 4 years
- construction finish: 2020 (began delivering some electricity in 2019)
- capacity factor assuming 40% (could not find cf citation for Hornsea I)
- annual energy: 4,208,000 MWh
Hinkley Point C (HPC, one of the worst managed projects on the globe; PS, please do not bring up the delays, they are irrelevant to the calculation, I stipulate they occurred, and it merely means they should have hired a competent planning manager)
- cost: 21.5 to 22.5 billion pounds
- CfD strike-price: 92.50 pounds/MWh
- nameplate capacity: 3,260 MW
- project start: 2010
- project duration: 15 years
- construction start: 2018
- construction duration: 7 years
- construction finish: 2025 (estimated)
- annual energy: 25,700,000 MWh (assuming 90% cf; average for nuclear)
HS1 Results
- 998 pounds/MWh cost
- 467 GWh/y project duration
- 1052 GWh/y construction duration
HPC Results
- 875 pounds/MWh cost
- 1,713 GWh/y project duration
- 3,671 GWh/y construction duration
OK, time for the showdown
- CfD strike-price - HPC wins (92.5 pounds is worse than today's wind, but it was much, much better than 140 pound wind at the time of contract)
- If you believe we should contrast HPC's 2010 strike price with a 2020 project's, then forget us and try your trading strategy in the markets - full hindsight like that -probably won't get you too far.
- value - HPC wins (875 pounds/MWh is 12% cheaper than HS1's 998 pounds/MWh)
- project duration - HPC wins (3.6x faster than HS1, assuming 2025 estimate holds)
- construction duration - HPC wins (3.5x faster than HS1, assuming 2025 estimate holds)
HPC wins in every category, despite it being one of the worst managed projects on the globe. Imagine what could have been achieved with better management!
Yes, nuclear is cheaper and faster.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/12138194/Worlds-biggest-offshore-wind-farm-to-add-4.2-billion-to-energy-bills.html
- http://euanmearns.com/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors-a-semi-statistical-analysis/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
-
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 24 July 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka,
I believe all your arguments have already been made and answered upthread in the discussion with poster Barry. Your posting style is similar to Barry.
Cherry picking wind projects that had long planning stages before wind was the cheapest power do not support your argument. Your reference states that for the London Array: "Construction of phase 1 of the wind farm began in March 2011 and was completed by mid 2013." For Hornsea 1 your reference states: "Construction of the first phase started in January 2018, and the first turbines began supplying power to the UK national electricity grid in February 2019"
By contrast, at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia (USA) according to Wikipedia, construction on unit 3 started on August 26, 2009 and will not be complete before the end of 2021 in the unlikely event that they stay on the current schedule. The original completion date was in 2016. The cost is currently estimated at $28 billion for 2 units with more expected additions (original estimates $14 billion) source .
Jacobson 2009 estimates build times for nuclear as 10-19 years. Vogtle is already at 14 years and is not finished yet. Build times for wind and solar plants are 2-5 years including planning. Since 2009 planning and approval times for wind and solar have decreased as regulators learn what is needed to approve wind and solar plants. Wind and solar projects are often delivered ahead of time and under budget.
Nuclear plants sell power at night for much less than the cost of generating the power.
You are arguing that your inability to find a reference cited by Jacobson 2009 means that Abbott 2011 is low quality. This is not a logical argument. The basic calculation of area needed for a nuclear plant is described in Jacobson 2009. Your example of Palo Verde does not include the land needed for mining, refinement and disposal of uranium and radioactive wastes. The 16 km2 you calculate is very similar to Jacobson's 20.5 km2. Since Jacobson 2009 says "as much as 20.5 km2", even if you corrected your error it would not contradict Jacobson. Palo Verde would never be allowed to be water cooled today. They would further purify the water and drink it.
Prev 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Next
