There is a severe drought in the West. Fire season in California starts earlier, lasts longer, and is more destructive. Coral reefs are being destroyed by ocean acidification. There are many ways climate change is impacting us.
Scientist argues that we cannot just wait for the world order to change to tackle the climate crisis
We also have lights, electricity, plumbing, heat, air conditioning, hot water, easy and affordable transportation over great distances, large superstores, advances in science, medicine, technology and the computers and internet we are using to read this thread on. There are many ways that fossil fuels and the industries they support have impacted our lives and the world in an extremely positive light. I’d bet all the good far outweighs the destruction of coral reefs. And not to get political but California should manage their forests better.
Vinnie
1 Like
When we get spinning like this - claiming this, denouncing that, worried about something else, crying about what someone else has told us - it is hard to think straight. There are a lot of effects from the warming that we’ve had over the last century. Some of it good - eg more farmland, more food productivity. I’m sure you can look up other things that do well in warmer historical periods. The thing is, none of the measurements of global temp and its effects, are evidence of what is causing the warming.
I’m sure that you’ve thought through by now how true it is that a heat source does not have to stay at its highest setting in order to add warming to its target. With respect to the sun and global warming, we already have a measure of the amount of solar energy it took to deliver 0.4 C of warming between 1913 & 1954. It corresponds to a total sunspot count of 42,371. If you could integrate the area under the TSI plot for the same period, then you would get some total energy estimate. Toward the end of the century in another 42 year period, there was even more total solar energy input corresponding to a total sunspot count of 50,448. Again, if you would do the math to integrate the area under the TSI curve you would get the more meaningful total solar energy comparison. In this later period, the sun would properly be attributed with at least as much of the warming as in the prior period (actually a little more), yet we are told that the sun could not have added any warming because it wasn’t constantly increasing and therefore the amount of new warming is now a measure of how much warming is caused by increasing CO2 level. This assessment just doesn’t make sense, is a giant leap in logic and leads to a ‘house of cards’ climate alarmism that is exaggerated beyond any reality.
I think that someone else ask for my sunspot data. I’ll get to that in another comment, but it won’t be much different from the TSI plot. Solar energy has gone up and down and for periods of time was noticeably higher than normal and some periods less than normal. For 7 consecutive solar cycles, approx 1935-2005 they were all above normal. The first solar cycle in more than 80 years to be below normal had its peak approx 2014. The next solar cycle is on track to be lower than normal. This is the first back-to-back below average cycles in more than 180 years. This is going to tell us a lot about how strong the CO2 warming is or is not, with the sun basically in neutral.
It still is.
It just occurred to me that maybe you did not pick up on how the thermal insulating wrap around your pot fits your analogy. It’s the insulating layer of CO₂ and CH₄ around the earth.
Yeah, but nobody gives a ■■■■. Especially the Sierra Club. As for the politicized fantasy of renewables alone, that’s unsustainable and plays to the even worse opposition.
It was and is enough. It’s all God ever uses after all. We are here to leaven the lump are we not; whatever we want, give and I have always benefitted from the kindness of strangers, seen humaneness in institutions despite their apparently monolithic faces. Paul extolled civil governance. Then there’s parents, siblings, friends, family, colleagues, neighbours, partners, children. Who needs any more providence? I certainly will never see any.
Luckily something is already happening at the climate change front. For the big oil companies, this spring has been the turning point because big investors are worried about the future of their investments. The same seems to be true for many other companies that depend on fossil fuels, such as cement industry.
Exxon got new board members that have been active on the front of renevable energy. Not because the managing director of the company wanted but because investors demanded. There was also a demand to change the strategy of the company.
Netherlands court ordered Shell to cut emissions.
Other companies have been forced to put more emphasis on renewable energy and alternative business.
Neste, a Finnish company, made their profit almost totally from renevable energy. Fossil fuels did not give much profit although they formed the bulk of business.
When investors speak, even big companies have to listen. Is it so that money has to speak before changes happen?
Yeah, electricity prices have to increase until someone has the political courage of the nuclear option.
Nuclear energy is an expensive way to produce electricity, at least the big plants. Wind or solar energy are already cheaper. The main problem with wind and solar energy is the storage of energy - much production during windy days, no production during calm nights. When that problem is solved, there is no need for nuclear energy on earth.
In northern Europe, production of electricity exceeds occasionally consumption, especially during windy periods - production of wind energy has increased much and is still increasing. During those hours, stock price of electricity is negative - someone pays you for consuming more electricity. Similar kind of situations may come in the future elsewhere, after the production of solar energy increases. It’s difficult to compete with that price.
There is not one single aspect that is the main culprit. A lot of it is actually simpler things we could all do. But I do agree that we can’t just sit around and hope humanity will evolve socially and emotionally to the point where we fix it. We need legislation that forces people to make smarter choices.
It’s like in construction. Plenty of clients would be ok with building a cheap house that is not energy efficient and won’t last very long. Plenty of contractors would cut corners of their was not a inspector there to look at it.
For me some of the things I’m very interested in comes down to building science. Right now a lot of deforestation happens to build a house. But there is a growing movement of moving away from yellow pine to things like LVLs, LSLs and so on. The difference is that to get a 2x10x12 they essentially have to find a tree that is big enough to get that size out of it as one piece essentially. A LVL is often made stronger and is made of shredded up trees applied as a panels. Their are a few companies that are now making LSL boards out of bamboo that are structurally just as sound as a typical yellow pine stud. We could have annual harvests of bamboo versus 15 year harvests of southern pines.
There is a lot of work going into airtight houses. For the longest times attics were vented with just holes. Holes was left out so the house could breath. It worked, but mechanical ventilation with a system that controls temperature and humidity works so much better. By focusing on air tightness we can really reduce bills.
People can also start to focus more on getting energy efficiency and cleaner appliances. Instead of constantly upgrading people can downgrade and choose more minimalistic lifestyles.
As consumers we can influence a lot with our choices. Start purchasing goods in cartoons instead of plastic. As homeowners we can also reduce issues by adding more wildflowers, grasses, shrubs and trees to our yards instead of just a bunch of turf. I still meet people who at night turns their ACs down to 65°f and then put on socks, sweatpants and climb under two thick blankets and use a large heating pad on high. When they could sleep in shorts, no socks, under one thin sheet with a heating pad for pain management on low with the ac on 71° and feel just as cool basically.
As mentioned before you can also reduce the amount of meat you eat. You can reduce the amount of processed foods you eat. Not just for health but to help reduce the amount r of land dedicated to livestock and livestock feed.
Then even though sometimes greener technology is not as satisfactory as others you can support it.
1 Like
How much do you charge for electricity when the wind doesn’t blow? As in California. With nuclear, as with everything else, economies of scale apply. Bigger is cheaper. 1600 MW up and running in no more than 12 years (5 if you get your skates on) for a century. Renewables without a nuclear backbone is not sustainable for the rest of the century. As Germany has found. Paving deserts with ethically produced (and recycled) solar is the long term strategy, with big enough capacity to produce hydrogen as storage for backup power as well as all transport heavier than cars and vans that can’t electrify (rail can). Only massive solar redundancy can perform the job Christianity has failed to do. Universal social justice. Nuclear is the essential step without which that cannot happen as soon as possible.
Maybe in USA, if regulation is not too strict. Finland is soon getting a 1600 MW nuclear plant to production. Building started in the year 2005. The price was agreed to be 3.2 billion euros and it should have been ready in the year 2009.
It will start to produce electricity in autumn 2021 and the estimated true price is 9-10 billion euros. Because the power producer originally made a deal of 3.2 billion, the producer will pay 5.5 billions and the building company (Areva) the rest.
The current use permit will last until the year 2038 but my guestimate is that the company will get a permit to use the power plant for an additional 20-30 years, after some renovations. So, the power plant will probably be running 40-50 years.
Not cheap and not running for a century.
They will easily run for a century and are as cheap as a government loan with no spurious delays. Generation IV will have an order of magnitude and more less waste, which is a non issue anyway, and two orders of magnitude more fuel efficiency. Nuclear should never run out. As in never.
Ah, yeah, Olkiluoto 3
'The problems started early, with the incorrect laying of the concrete base slab — a structure that is supposed to be able to withstand the weight of the entire power plant collapsing on it.
This was accompanied by errors in the manufacture of the steel liner — the part of the unit that is responsible for preventing the release of radioactive materials into the environment, and is supposed to be able to withstand forces such as an aeroplane crash.’
and on and on. What a farce.
Incompetence all round, I agree. The building company paid a huge price for their errors.
I’m not against nuclear energy. It just has to be accepted that it is far from cheap.
Running time is not either likely to be a century because of strict regulation, unless the power plant will go through an extensive renovation after every 20-30 years. There is also always the risk that the plant must be closed because of political decisions.
Also the waste is definitely still an issue. There are many temporary storages for used fuel but not many permanent disposal sites where the fuel can be disposed for the next 50 000+ years. Finland has an accepted disposal site. Are there any other ready disposal sites elsewhere, except possibly in less free countries such as Russia or China?
People are against getting nuclear waste close to their homes - not in my backyard.
| Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Solar (utility) | Wind onshore | Gas CC | Geothermal | Wind offshore | Coal | Nuclear | Gas peaker | Storage (1:4) |
| NEA (at 3% dr) | 100 | 60 | 100 | 135 | 90 | 55 | |||
| IPCC (at 5% dr) | 110 | 59 | 71 | 60 | 120 | 61 | 65 | ||
| BNEF | 39 | 41 | 79 | 132 | |||||
| Lazard | 36 | 40 | 59 | 80 | 86 | 112 | 164 | 175 | 189 |
| IRENA | 68 | 53 | 73 | 113 | |||||
| average | 71 | 51 | 77 | 71 | 107 | 88 | 95 | 175 | 161 |
Nuclear works in the dark and when the wind doesn’t blow. Or when it blows sand and abrades and covers PV. Solar waste recycling (the panels break) and production are nowhere near sustainable and ethical. Only nuclear can fulfil the gospel.
Existing waste - 65 years’ worth - is half a million metric tons. Using the density of soil that’s 60m cubed. Using the density of water less than 80. What’s the problem? Gen. IV makes it ooooooh an order of magnitude or two less relevant than it already is.
I agree that we need stable energy production to compensate for the fluctuations in the production of solar and wind energy.
The statistics you presented are somewhat outdated.
Annual energy outlook 2021 (U.S. Energy Information Administration) lists following prices for new resources (per megawatthour):
advanced nuclear $63.1
wind, onshore $36.9
solar, standalone $30.4
hydroelectric $55.3
geothermal $34.5
combustion turbine $106.6
Anyhow, this is just a small detail in the big picture. I guess we agree that something needs to be done and low emission energy production is one of the alternatives.
And R134A is good for the ozone hole, but it’s a way worse greenhouse gas than the Freons.
My stats are 2020, global. What are yours for offshore wind? Not a big deal in the US I realise. There’s no lower emission than nuclear, no better safety record.
This kinda reminds me of an exchange in one of Wendell Berry’s novels (‘Jayber Crow’ I think) where an old farmer’s progressive son is taunting his dad about oxen as compared with tractors for working the land. Says the son: “Tractors don’t eat when they’re not working.” Replies the dad: “Tractors don’t eat grass.”
And the dad’s reply was actually being overly generous … as I’m pretty sure that modern tractors very much do eat when they’re not working: they’re busy eating up interest payments to the bank in addition to all the much more expensive stuff they eat when they are working.
Nuclear works when the wind isn’t blowing, to be sure; but then again it isn’t using the wind.
And all those metric tons of waste generated aren’t nothing. Not according to the political and economic costs of figuring out where to put it all. I’m not anti-nuclear, don’t get me wrong. But Kai is right that it is still expensive in its own way. No free lunch or ‘saviors’ to be had here.