Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

A Zero-carbon Electrical Grid without Solar or Wind

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 7:25 pm

"To displace fossil fuels and achieve global greenhouse-gas emissions the prevalent argument is that a mix of different low-carbon energy sources will need to be deployed." That has been my argument too. This team challenges that idea.
The 4th generation reactor technology they are talking about (which has been around since the 1980's) recycles spent nuclear fuel rods and nuclear war heads. They make a bold case.

Silver Buckshot or Bullet: Is a Future “Energy Mix” Necessary?
  • Barry W. Brook -- Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, University of Tasmania, Australia
  • Tom Blees -- Science Council for Global Initiatives, North Fort Myers, FL 33903, USA
  • Tom M. L. Wigley -- National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
  • Sanghyun Hong -- School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia
Published: 24 January 2018
Sustainability Journal: Special Issue Nuclear Waste Management and Sustainability of Nuclear Systems
Abstract
To displace fossil fuels and achieve the global greenhouse-gas emissions reductions required to meet the Paris Agreement on climate change, the prevalent argument is that a mix of different low-carbon energy sources will need to be deployed. Here we seek to challenge that viewpoint.
We argue that a completely decarbonized, energy-rich and sustainable future could be achieved with a dominant deployment of next-generation nuclear fission and associated technologies for synthesizing liquid fuels and recycling waste. By contrast, non-dispatchable energy sources like wind and solar energy are arguably superfluous, other than for niche applications, and run the risk of diverting resources away from viable and holistic solutions. For instance, the pairing of variable renewables with natural-gas backup fails to address many of the entrenched problems we seek to solve. Our conclusion is that, given the urgent time frame and massive extent of the energy-replacement challenge, half-measures that distract from or stymie effective policy and infrastructure investment should be avoided.
-- http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/302
The entire paper is very readable -- unlike the typical academic papers.
Full text -- http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/302/htm
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/302/pdf
-----------------------------------------
Sustainability — Open Access Journal
Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050; CODEN: SUSTDE) is an international, cross-disciplinary, scholarly and open access journal of environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability of human beings. Sustainability provides an advanced forum for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development, and is published monthly online by MDPI. The Society for Urban Ecology is affiliated with Sustainability ...-- http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 27, 2018 9:51 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 2:57 pm
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 11:42 am
I looked up the website from which Leeuw2 took all the information in this post, and I'm simply going to quote a couple of paragraphs from it and, as usual, rely on my readers to decide how much faith they want to put in the site and, I guess, Leeuw2.
QUESTION:
1) What is it in the paragraphs cited would help readers "decide how much faith they want to put in the site and, I guess, Leeuw2"?

2) The paragraphs you cite include a number of references to nuclear power. Are you aware of the modest consensus on nuclear power among climate scientists and US scientists in general?

RECOMMENDATION TO READERS:
The trope Kim used generally implies a criticism. If readers have doubts I suggest checking out the bios of Environmental Progress's Science & Economy Advisors -- http://environmentalprogress.org/advisors/

In any case, a feature of science and of a society that holds values of intellectual integrity is that we can disagree with someone's conclusions about the social, economic and political implications without discarding their scientific, social or economic data.
Leeuw2,
In case you really don't get it, my quotes from your source show quite clearly that your source is very far from unbiased. It is, in fact, pushing nuclear power as hard as the Kochtopus pushes coal and oil. Their facts may be correct but their selection and interpretation of their facts are all slanted one way and therefore can't be taken as the basis for rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power.
I've quoted Drawdown before. I encourage you to pay attention this time, since it is a project explicitly designed to rank climate solutions against each other.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION - NUCLEAR
[Rank] #20 [of 100 solutions studied]
RANK AND RESULTS BY 2050
16.09 GIGATONS
REDUCED CO2
$0.88 BILLION
NET IMPLEMENTATION COST
$1.71 TRILLION
NET OPERATIONAL SAVINGS
IMPACT: Nuclear’s complicated dynamics around safety and public acceptance will influence its future direction—of expansion or contraction. We assume its share of global electricity generation will grow to 13.6 percent by 2030, but slowly decline to 12 percent by 2050. With a longer lifetime than fossil fuel plants resulting in fewer facilities overall, installation of nuclear power plants could cost an additional $900 million, despite the high implementation cost of $4,457 per kilowatt. Net operating savings over thirty years could reach $1.7 trillion. This scenario could result in 16.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided.
http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/elect ... on/nuclear

That ranking of #20 is in the context of solutions in all sectors - see http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
Ranked against other electrical power sources, it is #5 - after onshore wind, large-scale solar, rooftop solar and geothermal, and just ahead of offshore wind.

Note that neither Drawdown nor I claim that nuclear has no part to play. We just say its part is a relatively small one.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:51 pm
Leeuw2,
In case you really don't get it ... your source ... is, in fact, pushing nuclear power as hard as the Kochtopus pushes coal and oil.
I'm highly confident that there is a 97% consensus of readers that what you expressed in in the form of an opinion rather than a fact.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:51 pm
Their facts may be correct but their selection and interpretation of their facts are all slanted one way and therefore can't be taken as the basis for rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power.
As I understand it, the reasoning of your statement also means that your posts should not be taken as the basis for rational judgement for similar reasons.
Neither should the sources you like to quote.

Notably, what you have not done, is to show data why their facts should not be used as the basis for rational judgement. Or how their reasoning is flawed. Most people don't consider naked assertions of belief and opinion (a.k.a. 'pounding the table') to be a basis for rational judgement.

FYI: Their selection and interpretation of facts appear to roughly reflect the consensus of scientists and climate scientists.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 27, 2018 11:22 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm
FYI: Their selection and interpretation of facts appear to roughly reflect the consensus of scientists and climate scientists.
Show us.


From a reputable source not aligned with the nuclear industry.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon May 28, 2018 4:07 am

Kim is giving us a lesson in what uncritical thinking looks like.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 11:22 pm
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm
FYI: Their selection and interpretation of facts appear to roughly reflect the consensus of scientists and climate scientists.
Show us.
From a reputable source not aligned with the nuclear industry.
What ever happened to the idea of, to quote you, "All I'm doing, usually, is alerting people to news so that they can follow it up for themselves if they wish." OK well follow up.

What does it mean to be "aligned with the nuclear industry"?
Is it possible to hold an opinion different from yours without being, in your mind, "aligned with the nuclear industry"?
Is there a principled way you can define the state of being not being aligned with the nuclear industry that doesn't include everyone who disagrees with you about the role of nuclear power for climate mitigation?

In reference to the post viewtopic.php?p=473918#p473832 : There is a troll-like game of making quick assertions without support of reason, data or citations and then trying to get everyone else to be fact checkers and prove you wrong. So no. You show us.

----------------------------------------------
Kim OHara wrote:Their facts may be correct but their selection and interpretation of their facts are all slanted one way and therefore can't be taken as the basis for rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power.
This rational person notes that you don't allow for the possibility that a person might have first become convinced and made a rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power with an open mind ... which explains why their selection of facts comes out the way that it does. It could be that the facts actually do mostly "slant one way". That these people are making a rational judgement because of the facts. A honest, rational person should be considering that possibility.

FYI some environmentalists changed their position on nuclear and now endorse it because of climate change.

In any case, just because someone is an advocate doesn't mean their selection and interpretation of their facts aren't rational.
I think you are correctly sensing that you are hearing an example of advocacy rather than a honest broker of alternatives. And I do believe strongly in the importance of sangha's developing teams of honest brokers. But don't you think the anti-nuclear folks have pretty loudly made their case already?

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Electric Subsidies vs. Electricity Produced

Post by Kim OHara » Mon May 28, 2018 6:21 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 4:07 am
Kim is giving us a lesson in what uncritical thinking looks like.
Hmm ... starting with an ad-hom. Not promising.
Never mind. Here's some critical thinking.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 11:22 pm
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm
FYI: Their selection and interpretation of facts appear to roughly reflect the consensus of scientists and climate scientists.
Show us.
From a reputable source not aligned with the nuclear industry.
What ever happened to the idea of, to quote you, "All I'm doing, usually, is alerting people to news so that they can follow it up for themselves if they wish." OK well follow up.
I told you - repeatedly - that that was what I usually do, and you told me - even more repeatedly - that that wasn't good enough.
You can't have it both ways, demanding more rigour of me and supplying less rigour yourself.
[1]What does it mean to be "aligned with the nuclear industry"?
[2] Is it possible to hold an opinion different from yours without being, in your mind, "aligned with the nuclear industry"?
[3] Is there a principled way you can define the state of being not being aligned with the nuclear industry that doesn't include everyone who disagrees with you about the role of nuclear power for climate mitigation?
[1] Employed or funded by the nuclear industry like the good people at environmentalprogress.org, or uncritical believers in it (is that you?).
[2] Absolutely.
[3] Yes.
L2 wrote:In reference to the post viewtopic.php?p=473918#p473832 :
[4] Yes. But it isn't a "paper" in the usual sense, but a very well referenced opinion piece. It contains no original science, and nothing falsifiable. Even the authors call it (in the conclusion) a "viewpoint."
[5] Yes.
[6] Which piece from HuffPost?
[7] The statement there was, "Forty-five percent of citizens favor building more nuclear power plants, while 65% of AAAS scientists favor this idea." The AAAS website - https://www.aaas.org/about/mission-and-history says, "The world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its Science family of journals, AAAS has individual members in more than 91 countries around the globe. Membership is open to anyone who shares our goals and belief that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can help solve many of the challenges the world faces today." [my emphasis], i.e. this is not by any means an expert group. PEW called them "AAAS scientists" but if you click through to the report http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/a ... sts-views/ they were merely "U.S. members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)."
There is a troll-like game of making quick assertions without support of reason, data or citations and then trying to get everyone else to be fact checkers and prove you wrong. So no. You show us.
Oh, dear.
You made an unsupported assertion, and I challenged you to support it.
I think that makes you the troll-like creature.
Sorry.
L2 wrote: ----------------------------------------------
Kim OHara wrote:Their facts may be correct but their selection and interpretation of their facts are all slanted one way and therefore can't be taken as the basis for rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power.
[1] This rational person notes that you don't allow for the possibility that a person might have first become convinced and made a rational judgement about the benefits of nuclear power with an open mind ... which explains why their selection of facts comes out the way that it does. It could be that the facts actually do mostly "slant one way". That these people are making a rational judgement because of the facts. A honest, rational person should be considering that possibility.

[2] FYI some environmentalists changed their position on nuclear and now endorse it because of climate change.

[3] In any case, just because someone is an advocate doesn't mean their selection and interpretation of their facts aren't rational.
[1] I assume you're referring to yourself when you say "This rational person." That's an unproven assertion but it makes no real difference to your argument, but "notes" should be "assumes incorrectly."
[2] I knew that. Some didn't, too.
[3] True, but is does cast considerable doubt on their impartiality.
L2 wrote: I think you are correctly sensing that you are hearing an example of advocacy rather than a honest broker of alternatives.
Oh, dear.
That happens to me when I'm listening to you
Sorry. :tongue:
L2 wrote: And I do believe strongly in the importance of sangha's developing teams of honest brokers. But don't you think the anti-nuclear folks have pretty loudly made their case already?
Yes. It's a good case, too. :smile:

:namaste:
Kim

edit: fixed [quote tag :embarassed:

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Coal, Compassion & Carbon Imperialism

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue May 29, 2018 4:24 am

The last time I looked on a world bank website I was able to confirm for myself the data which indicated that roughly 1/2 the population of Africa as barely any to zero regular access to electricity. It's challenging to educate children when powering low power laptops is a problem. And even one or two electric lights to read and study by aren't available.

In addition the liberation of women often begins with a source of clean water to every household. But that also requires a regular supply of electricity. In short, a certain level of reliable electricity is a path out of poverty which in turn is likely to lead to a reduction in birth rates.

It's often said that the poorest countries may suffer the worse impacts of climate change. Unfortunately some governments and aid organizations have policies which in effect put the relatively heaviest burdens of climate change mitigation on the poorest countries. It seems to me this practice is unethical.

Developing Nations Can’t Afford to Go Cold Turkey on #Coal
Colin Stevens | May 25, 2018 EUReporter
Excerpts
... Britain can afford to ramp down its use of coal now because it’s reaped the benefits of the fossil fuel for more than 150 years. Coal was the backbone of the modern British economy through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, powering the country’s industrial revolution. This irrefutable fact explains why developing nations are increasingly voicing their frustration that wealthy countries want to deny them the same chance to use their natural resources to bankroll economic growth.

Many African countries, including Mozambique, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, are known to have vast reserves of coal. South Africa’s state-owned utility Eskom estimates that the country’s 53 billion tonnes in coal reserves are enough to fuel the country for the next 200 years.

The prospect of using these substantial resources is particularly alluring given that large swaths of these countries remain unelectrified. More than 600 million Africans still don’t have access to electricity, causing them to burn dangerous and polluting biomass and undermining their economic growth.

While Africa is making great strides in adding renewable energy capacity, the continent is so energy poor that closing this gap solely with renewables is unrealistic in the medium term. At current rates of growth, Africa won’t achieve full electrification until 2080. Investment in coal-powered plants in these countries could mean the difference for millions of people between being able to turn on the lights at night or living in darkness. These coal-rich countries are looking to capitalise upon their resources – much like the same Western countries who are now pushing a renewables-only model did for more than a hundred years.

This pressure on developing nations to deploy renewable energy solutions they cannot afford is both political and financial. The UK and international organisations such as the European Investment Bank and the World Bank stopped funding coal plants in developing countries. At the time, the World Bank stated it would provide financing in exceptional cases where no viable alternatives existed. Since then, however, only one coal project, in Kosovo, has been considered for a loan.

The consequences of this overly restrictive policy? Developing countries remain in the dark, increasingly frustrated by what India’s chief economic adviser termed the west’s “carbon imperialism”. They have started taking matters into their own hands, as illustrated by the African Development Bank (ADB) recently breaking from other international financial institutions and agreeing to continue funding new coal projects. The President of the ADB emphasized that “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has” and underscored the fact that “it is almost impossible to start a business, teach or provide healthcare without power and light”.
... there is no one-size-fits-all path to a clean energy future. A practical model would be one that takes into consideration the stage of economic development in a country, in conjunction with the social and environmental impacts of proposed power plants. By so doing, carbon can be used more responsibly without unfairly penalising developing countries, whose emissions are a very small part of the global total.
-- https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/201 ... y-on-coal/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Coal, Compassion & Carbon Imperialism

Post by Kim OHara » Tue May 29, 2018 5:05 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 4:24 am
The last time I looked on a world bank website I was able to confirm for myself the data which indicated that roughly 1/2 the population of Africa as barely any to zero regular access to electricity. It's challenging to educate children when powering low power laptops is a problem. And even one or two electric lights to read and study by aren't available.

In addition the liberation of women often begins with a source of clean water to every household. But that also requires a regular supply of electricity. In short, a certain level of reliable electricity is a path out of poverty which in turn is likely to lead to a reduction in birth rates.

It's often said that the poorest countries may suffer the worse impacts of climate change. Unfortunately some governments and aid organizations have policies which in effect put the relatively heaviest burdens of climate change mitigation on the poorest countries. It seems to me this practice is unethical.
I agree completely with this.
:thumbsup:
L2 wrote:
... there is no one-size-fits-all path to a clean energy future. A practical model would be one that takes into consideration the stage of economic development in a country, in conjunction with the social and environmental impacts of proposed power plants. By so doing, carbon can be used more responsibly without unfairly penalising developing countries, whose emissions are a very small part of the global total.
-- https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/201 ... y-on-coal/
And with this.
:thumbsup:
L2 wrote: Developing Nations Can’t Afford to Go Cold Turkey on #Coal
Colin Stevens | May 25, 2018 EUReporter
Excerpts
... Britain can afford to ramp down its use of coal now because it’s reaped the benefits of the fossil fuel for more than 150 years. Coal was the backbone of the modern British economy through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, powering the country’s industrial revolution. This irrefutable fact explains why developing nations are increasingly voicing their frustration that wealthy countries want to deny them the same chance to use their natural resources to bankroll economic growth.

Many African countries, including Mozambique, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, are known to have vast reserves of coal. South Africa’s state-owned utility Eskom estimates that the country’s 53 billion tonnes in coal reserves are enough to fuel the country for the next 200 years.

The prospect of using these substantial resources is particularly alluring given that large swaths of these countries remain unelectrified. More than 600 million Africans still don’t have access to electricity, causing them to burn dangerous and polluting biomass and undermining their economic growth.

While Africa is making great strides in adding renewable energy capacity, the continent is so energy poor that closing this gap solely with renewables is unrealistic in the medium term. At current rates of growth, Africa won’t achieve full electrification until 2080. Investment in coal-powered plants in these countries could mean the difference for millions of people between being able to turn on the lights at night or living in darkness. These coal-rich countries are looking to capitalise upon their resources – much like the same Western countries who are now pushing a renewables-only model did for more than a hundred years.

This pressure on developing nations to deploy renewable energy solutions they cannot afford is both political and financial. The UK and international organisations such as the European Investment Bank and the World Bank stopped funding coal plants in developing countries. At the time, the World Bank stated it would provide financing in exceptional cases where no viable alternatives existed. Since then, however, only one coal project, in Kosovo, has been considered for a loan.

The consequences of this overly restrictive policy? Developing countries remain in the dark, increasingly frustrated by what India’s chief economic adviser termed the west’s “carbon imperialism”. They have started taking matters into their own hands, as illustrated by the African Development Bank (ADB) recently breaking from other international financial institutions and agreeing to continue funding new coal projects. The President of the ADB emphasized that “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has” and underscored the fact that “it is almost impossible to start a business, teach or provide healthcare without power and light”.
But I only agree about 10% with this.
At best, it's out of date.
Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many markets, and storage is getting cheaper every day, so coal (in particular) is very often not the cheapest or quickest solution. Developing nations are voting with their feet and wallets, too, going for solar at all scales from this - http://www.instructables.com/id/5-Solar ... p-Battery/ - to grid scale. Google "solar power Africa" as I just did and you get hits like ...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... wer-africa
I’d come to Daban to learn about the boom in solar power in sub-Saharan Africa. The spread of cell phones in the region has made it possible for residents to pay daily or weekly bills using mobile money, and now the hope is that, just as cell phones bypassed the network of telephone lines, solar panels will enable many rural consumers to bypass the electric grid. From Ghana, I travelled to Ivory Coast, and then to Tanzania, and along the way I encountered a variety of new solar ventures, most of them American-led. Some, such as Ghana’s Black Star Energy, which had electrified Daban, install solar microgrids, small-scale versions of the giant grid Americans are familiar with. Others, such as Off-Grid Electric, in Tanzania and Ivory Coast, market home-based solar systems that run on a panel installed on each individual house.
and https://www.economist.com/middle-east-a ... -unplugged
Off-grid solar is spreading at an electrifying pace. An industry that barely existed a few years ago is now thought to be providing power to perhaps 600,000 households in Africa. The pace of growth is accelerating in a continent that, more than any other, is rich in sunshine (see map). Industry executives reckon that over the next year the number of home-power systems on African roofs will grow by 60-100%. M-Kopa, the market leader, has installed 400,000 systems and, at its current rate of growth, may add another 200,000 to that number over the next year. Smaller rivals such as Off Grid Electric, Bboxx and Azuri Technologies may well double their client base over the same period.
... which remind us that grid power, whatever its source, is not necessarily the best way to get power to small communities.
:thinking:
What about India?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ssil-fuels
Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels
Plummeting wholesale prices put the country on track to meet renewable energy targets set out in the Paris agreement
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/ ... 2044.html/
Images have been released showing the sheer size of a new solar power plant in southern India.
The facility in Kamuthi, Tamil Nadu, has a capacity of 648 MW and covers an area of 10 sq km.
This makes it the largest solar power plant at a single location, taking the title from the Topaz Solar Farm in California, which has a capacity of 550 MW.
The solar plant, built in an impressive eight months and funded by the Adani Group, is cleaned every day by a robotic system, charged by its own solar panels.
The Adani group, by the way, has been trying to sell one of its coal-fired power stations, in India, for just one Rupee - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... orted-coal
So much for coal as the solution to energy poverty in developing countries.

:thinking:
Quite apart from all that, going for coal now inflicts future pain and suffering, via climate change, on those least able to afford it.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Tue May 29, 2018 6:14 am

P.S.
Just saw this on FB -

solar-light.jpg
solar-light.jpg (31.16 KiB) Viewed 350 times

The top of the cage is a solar panel.
The company which sells them here offers them as stand-alone lights for temporary locations such as construction sites, but in a developing nation they would be all you needed for a permanent network of street lights.
And they would be a drop-in solution for refugee camps, too.

:thumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue May 29, 2018 7:39 am

In Nov. 2013 climate scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.
----------------------------------------------------------
To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.

We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/worl ... index.html
Bolding by me.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Sam Vara » Tue May 29, 2018 9:03 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 6:14 am
P.S.
Just saw this on FB -


solar-light.jpg


The top of the cage is a solar panel.
The company which sells them here offers them as stand-alone lights for temporary locations such as construction sites, but in a developing nation they would be all you needed for a permanent network of street lights.
And they would be a drop-in solution for refugee camps, too.

:thumbsup:
Kim
What's the cage bit for?

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power

Post by Kim OHara » Tue May 29, 2018 11:24 am

Any statement from James Hansen has to be treated with respect, but no statement from anyone has to be accepted uncritically.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 7:39 am
In Nov. 2013 climate scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.
----------------------------------------------------------
To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, ...

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits. ...

Sincerely,
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/worl ... index.html
Bolding by me.
Four points about that letter deserve your earnest attention, Leeuw2:
(1) It doesn't say what I think you think it says. It doesn't say that nuclear is the solution, but that nuclear is part of the solution.
(2) It's four and a half years old. With the rate of increase of renewable power installation, and the dramatically falling costs, its economic and technical assumptions are seriously out of date.
(3) In the time it would take to build enough nuclear power plants to make a difference, we would burn through a significant part of our remaining carbon budget, even if someone waved a magic wand and got every government to start right now. Wind and solar are much quicker to design and build.
(4) I have yet to see any evidence that "modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste." Some of us are very concerned by the waste problem. We would like to see your evidence that a solution really does exist.

:thanks:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Tue May 29, 2018 11:29 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 9:03 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 6:14 am
P.S.
Just saw this on FB -


solar-light.jpg


The top of the cage is a solar panel.
The company which sells them here offers them as stand-alone lights for temporary locations such as construction sites, but in a developing nation they would be all you needed for a permanent network of street lights.
And they would be a drop-in solution for refugee camps, too.

:thumbsup:
Kim
What's the cage bit for?
Well, you get a lot of these thingies lined up along the street and put one of these https://skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php in each cage to keep them out of trouble ... :tongue:
Seriously, I think it's just a lightweight rigid structure to support the solar panel at a convenient height above the battery-weighted base but I'm not sure.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Sam Vara » Tue May 29, 2018 11:43 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 11:29 am

Well, you get a lot of these thingies lined up along the street and put one of these https://skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php in each cage to keep them out of trouble ... :tongue:
:rofl: Very good!
I think it's just a lightweight rigid structure to support the solar panel at a convenient height above the battery-weighted base but I'm not sure.


Ah, yes, that makes sense. I wondered why they didn't just have a panel and a battery, but I guess the panel needs to be up high and the battery is too heavy to sit there with it. Maybe it allows the battery to be kept safe, too. Thanks.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:12 am

Another mitigation technology - replacing rebar with recycled plastic -
Plastic for steel: new green idea for the construction sector

A new method for replacing steel mesh used in concrete reinforcement with recycled plastic has been developed by engineering firm Fibercon in conjunction with researchers from Queensland’s James Cook University.

The technology, which uses recycled polypropylene plastic for reinforcing concrete instead of the traditional steel, results in reduced CO2 emissions, water usage and fossil fuels.

To date, Fibercon’s Emesh technology has been used by councils predominantly in footpaths, but also has applications from pavement concrete to channel drains, embankment erosion control, precast sewer and stormwater pits. ...

Production of a ton of steel generates almost two tons of CO2 emissions, accounting for as much as 5 percent of the world’s total greenhouse-gas emissions.

By using the recycled plastic technology Fibercon says that it has also seen a reduction to date of 1,000 tons of CO2, 200 tons of fossil fuels reduction, and 18,000 cubic metres of water reduction.
https://www.architectureanddesign.com.a ... -construct

:twothumbsup:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests