Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
michael sweet at 04:07 AM on 16 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012 at 4:
Your linked presentation does not say that a renewable energy grid cannot be controlled. It says that the current grid models need to be adjusted to work with grid inverters. No-one is surprised that when they change the hardware the grid runs with you need to change the software you use to run the grid.
At one of your links I saw an article that said grid forming inverters stabilize a renewable grid while grid following inverters destabilize the grid as renewable percentages get high. Apparently in many grids they are currently required to use grid following inverters because of the legacy of fossil fuels. As the grid switches to renewable the hardware to support the grid will have to be changed.
My understanding is that the existing turbines of thermal energy plants can cheaply be converted into synchronous condensers. Doug Bostroms' post at 3 appears to suggest that in Australia they have converted closed thermal power plants into synchronous condensers. Googling "thermal power plants into synchronous condensers" gives many hits saying it is cheap to convert closed thermal power plants into synchronous condensers. You need to find another tree to bark up.
-
lynnvinc at 00:14 AM on 16 May 2025Fact brief - Is the climate as unpredictable as the weather?
I'd also say "no," since I've used a geography map book from 70 years ago and their climate maps are still sort of valid even with climate change. I've seen elsewhere (like when to plant) that the zone lines have moved a bit with climate change, but not much.
Climate (which is an aggregate of a lot of data over many years) is what you expect, weather (a particular local, short-term configuration) is what you get. I live in what is known as a humid subtropical climate near the Rio Grande Valley, and it's been that way for a looooog time, and is quite different from a trundra climate. I did a calculation and we are getting a bit warmer over the past several decades, but not a huge amount.
In sociology over 100 yrs ago Durkheim noted that suicide rates (aggregate stats) were about the same year to year, and that while one cannot predict at the individual case level who will commit suicide (tho psychology can help), it is "social facts" (his term, which also includes "cultural facts") that determine suicide rates & whether they slightly go up or down.
I'm also thinking brownian motion — can't predict where each molecule will go, but on aggregate at a more macro level things become more predictable.
-
tder2012 at 23:48 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Yeah, those plans might be doable for South Australia, but SA is 7% of Australia's population, so hopefully they can do your plans on a much larger scale.
-
Eclectic at 22:39 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Tder2012 @5 :-
Thank you for the "electricitymaps.com".
That shows Tasmania State as leading the nearby states by a country mile, so to speak. But Tasmania uses a colossal amount of hydro + a bit of wind power. Almost totally "renewables".
The South Australia State is doing fairly well, without hydro ~ but I see from other sources that the State's renewable electricity is usually in the 20-90% renewables range. Though sometimes poor [mid-evening with low wind . . . and yet sometimes around 90% with wind, mid-evening]. Daytimes well carried by solar. That State also has several synchronous condensers. My impression is that they would do well by doubling solar capacity, and quadrupling battery storage. Which sounds quite feasible over 10-20 years ~ since we can reasonably expect sodium-type storage batteries to become much cheaper during that time. (And nuclear plants remaining quite unnecessary.)
-
tder2012 at 21:25 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
I watch to see how electricity grids are meeting the Paris target of less than 100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. I don't care how this target is met, South Australia is close (160), but you see BESS is barely a blip there and the rest of Australia is so far away from this target. So hopefully Australia can deploy much clean energy extremely quickly. They'll need copious quantities of synchronous condensers, flywheels, grid forming inertia, synchronous converter application, etc in very short order. See SA grid, along with the other grids in Australia, showing grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis and the sources of electricity generation here https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/AU-SA/12mo/monthly
-
tder2012 at 21:11 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
Have you read this report presented at the 2025 Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference "Assessing Inverter-Based Resources Modeling Gaps in Commonly Used Short-Circuit Programs". Cristian Paduraru P.E. (Experienced Transmission Relay Settings Engineer) provide this comment on LinkedIn "Just a heads up on what's coming if RE contribution will continue to increase: no ECHO logic will work as there will not be any strong source.
Also, the output will significantly be affected by load which is impossible to be properly captured in current short circuit programs.
Also, the simulaton in CAPE/Aspen may be irrelevant in absence of proper implementing the exact control algorithm in IBRs, generic models are a disaster, here's a paper just presented at Georgia Tech on this" here is the link to the paper https://www.ap-concepts.com/2025_PRC/modules/request.php?module=oc_proceedings&action=summary.php&id=73&a=Accept Do you have any comments on this?
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:12 PM on 15 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
"I know synchronous condensors, flywheels, grid forming inertia were mentioned in references, but these are not currently available at scale."
Synchronous condenser deployment scaling is limited only by our hazy and insufficient impressions of energy economics, which have been warped and shaped by inexpensive but ephemeral and (we belatedly discovered) harmful fossil fuels. Leaving aside short-term thinking of this sort which precludes stable and sustainable civilization of the kind we'd like to imagine possible, synchronous condensers are a mature technology ready for use, and have been for decades.
Synchronous condensers are a potentially ideal marriage with modernized energy sources such as PV and wind, which each with appropriate control feedback are natively able to respond to fluctating demand more rapidly than primary generation needing a throttle of some kind, whether that's control rods or a steam or natural gas valve.
Meanwhile, the cost of upscaling synchronous converter application pales in comparison to the capital needed to substantially expand our nuclear generation fleet. On a bar chart the difference would be instantly and starkly apparent. As well and thanks to fossil fuel legacy we already have a leg up on this— if we're smart like Australia where generators formerly spun up by combustion are now being used as synchronous condensers, conjoined with modernized primary energy supplies.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:50 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
michael sweet @418 provided a good response to your response @414 to my comment @413. I will add the following:
There may be some ‘new nuclear power systems’ built due to misguided leadership actions supporting bad bets. But they will almost certainly be expensive, or less safe, and be too late to help limit global warming impacts.
I understand that limiting the negative impacts of wasteful and harmful, but popular and profitable, developments in self-interest driven socioeconomic-political systems is a constant challenge for people who try to sustainably develop improvements, especially improvements for the poorest. Misleading marketing fuelled pursuits of popularity and profit in misguided competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others has a proven history of developing and excusing a diversity of unsustainable and harmful activities.
Some people have invested significantly in developing new nuclear power systems. They can be expected to try to profit from their investments. People invested in the belief that ‘new nuclear will be cheaper and built fast enough to help keep human global warming impacts significantly below 2.0 C have tragically misdirected their efforts.
The evidence is now clear that there are many better ways than new nuclear power to sustainably achieve that important objective. And most of the options that are more sustainable and less harmful than ‘new nuclear’ are also less expensive sources of energy.
It is understandable that people invested in a bad bet will try to argue against the reality that they have made a losing bet. Some of them will even try to claim that their investment (bets) ‘need to pay off to help the poor’ (a version of the non-sense theory of trickle-down economics).
-
michael sweet at 03:47 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Responding to post 424: so for you a higher capacity number is more important than the cost of production. New nuclear power currently costs ten times more than new solar power.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not provided any data to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
-
michael sweet at 03:40 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Responding to post 423: linking a blog post in response to a National Academy of Science consensus report makes you look bad. Nuclear supporters have challenged the BIER VII report ever since it was released. When the National Academy of Science decides to write a new consensus report come back here and we can talk about it.
-
tder2012 at 02:41 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"[BL] You were wrong." Thank you for the explanation, I will strive to be more careful with my posts.
-
tder2012 at 02:37 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
comment 422, interesting. So in 2024, wind produced 2494TWh from 1.017TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 28%. In 2024, solar produced 2131TWh from 1.419TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 17%. In 2024, nuclear produced 2768TWh from 0.39TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 81%. For perspective, in 2024, BESS produced 363GWh from 150GW of capacity according to the Volta Foundation.
Capacity numbers from wind and solar are from Our World in Data. Nuclear capacity number is from this link https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-power-capacity-additions/.
-
tder2012 at 00:50 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
comment 417 about the BIER VII. BIER VII was published in 2006. Since then, there have been at least eight reports that have been published. In addition "we know far more about DNA damage and repair than we did in 2006. Hundreds if not thousands of papers on the subject have been published. In 2015, three Nobel Prizes were awarded for describing how our bodies repair DNA damage. We now know that normal metabolic damage to our DNA produces 200 to 5000 times as many Double Strand Breaks as background radiation. We have considerable evidence that closely spaced Double Strand Breaks are the one form of damage which our amazingly effective repair processes have a problem with. This argues for a highly rate dependent harm process". This author thinks these eight new reports published after BIER VII, in addition to this quote I included, should be incorporated into a BIER VIII report, thus this post "Is it time for BIER VIII?"
-
michael sweet at 00:38 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
Your graph uses arcane units (ten year average MWh per capatia) designed to make nuclear power look good and stops at 2020 before most of renewable energy was installed. A single nuclear plant opened in a small country like Sweden appears to be a lot of nuclear.
Let us look at terrawatt hours of power produced in the entire world.
In 2024, according to Ember, wind produced 2494 TWH of electricity, solar 2131 TWh, and nuclear 2768 TWh. Since you like 10 year results in 2014 solar produced 198 TWh, wind 706 TWh, and nuclear 2499 TWh. I note that nuclear has been flat for 20 years while solar increased 1,100% and wind increased 350% over 10 years.
Wind and solar combined produced approximately 650 TWH more in 2024 than in 2023. The largest increase in nuclear power was in 1985 when 234 TWh were added (Our World in data) Wind and solar will increase more this year since more factories are being built. In the 1980's people realized that nuclear is not economic and stopped building most new plants.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not pprovided any data to support your wild claimm that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
-
tder2012 at 00:32 AM on 15 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I thought the fact that I used the text "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation" and the descriptions on the x and y axis of the picture would have been clear enough, sorry.
Moderator Response:[BL] You were wrong.
We can't see the axis labels until after we follow the link. And when you link to something like a Google doc, there is a risk that the link will lead nowhere at some time in the future when others read the thread.
You should help the reader by stating something like "this graph shows [something] plotted against [something else]". And then explain what feature you think the graph shows that pertains to the discussion.
The same applies to links to other web pages, documents, or reports. Explain what the document contains, which portion of it you want the reader to note, and why it is important to the discussion.
This is particularly true when people are finding parts of documents you link to that refute the claim you are trying to make. Unless you state what part you read to get your interpretation, we can't tell if you are just not reading the entire document, or you are misunderstanding the document. (Both may be true.)
-
tder2012 at 20:00 PM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
for comment 409, sorry I had forgetten about this chart until now "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation"
Moderator Response:[BL] Once again, the Comments Policy states "No link or picture only". You were previously warned that when you provide a link, you should provide some sort of text telling readers what you want them to see in that link.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to provide explanatory text, why should readers bother to take the time to follow your links in search of relevant information?
If this pattern of behaviour continues, expect to see portions of your comments deleted - or even entire comments.
-
michael sweet at 07:23 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I am sorry, I made a math error. 1320 plants devided by 15 yrears is only 88 plants per year or1.7 plants per week.
-
michael sweet at 06:19 AM on 14 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
tder2012:
You made almost the same post on the solar thread. The answer is the same here. Batteries can be fitted with grid forming inverters that have synthetic inertia. The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery in Australia, one of the first big batteries, provided frequency and inertia protection to the grid at a cost 90% less than previous grid support. The inverters needed do not add much cost to the system.
Your first link says
"AEMO [Australian grid operator] expects a diversity of market incentives and new technologies to solve such challenges, but at present the pathways to a solution are not yet clear."
Hardly proof that renewable grids cannot be built.
I note that the second link you have says
"I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE [renewable energy]"
Obviously this guy is not an electrical systems engineer or he would have known that. Why should I listen to a blog by a guy who has had his head in the sand for the past 5 years?
Your last link says "I do not believe this would have made any difference". Please provide links to people who know what effects would actually happen, not people who are speculating about what might happen. The cause of the Spainish blackouts has not yet been publically announced. Reading your link it appears that electrical engineers disagree on what needs to be done. Future research will determine the best way forward.
You have stilll not provided any evidence at all to support your claim your claim that it would be faster to build out a renewable plus nuclear power system than a renewable only system. You demanded that I provide evidence to you, although I already cited two peer reviewed papers supporting my claims, and you have only quoted hearsay.
When you demand evidence you must provide evidence. Changing the topic is conceding that you were worng.
-
tder2012 at 04:10 AM on 14 May 2025Sabin 33 #28 - How reliable is wind energy?
One major aspect of grid reliability that is not mentioned very much, except by professional power engineers, is synchronous inertia, which is required for the frequency and voltage to remain in tolerance. Synchronous inertia is build in with hydro, nuclear, gas and coal. Wind, solar and batteries general do not have this. I know synchronous condensors, flywheels, grid forming inertia were mentioned in references, but these are not currently available at scale. These are discussed in the following Meeting the Challenge of Reliability on Today’s Electric Grids: The Critical Role of Inertia and "I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix. It's well known that during the event RE did not come to that party, no inertia, it provided little to zero voltage support which is essential in maintaining the stability of the grid" and "Virtually all the IBR’s are grid-following at this time. While there is a push to move to grid-forming IBR’s, I do not believe this would have made any difference in this event as they still do not provide the needed inertia. There is a major difference between rotational and synthetic inertia"
-
michael sweet at 01:05 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder at 414:
While a number of countries have signed on to the pledge to increase nuclear by 2050, very few are actually building new plants. According to your link above if we tripled nuclear power there is only enough uranium to last 30 years, hardly a good long term solution.
A simple timeline analysis indicates that this pledge is extremely unlikely to be realized. It takes 9-15 years to plan and build a nuclear plant (when existing designs are used, longer for new designs). If we started planning today it would be 2035 before the first plants came online. There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation. Most will close before 2050 due to old age. They would have to comission 1320 new plants to triple capacity. That would be about 264 per year or one plant every 1.4 days in the 15 years remaining after 2035. Currently about 2-6 plants are opened per year.
At the end of this build there would be enough nuclear for about 10% of all needed world power. The other 90% would be renewable. Since nuclear and renewable energy do not add we would need enough renewable energy for about 95% of all power.
Please do not respond that undesigned plants will be built much faster and run on no uranium. I have heard those promises from nuclear engineers for over 50 years and they have never panned out.
I have already addressed your desire to thermally polute rather than use cheaper renewable energy.
-
michael sweet at 00:48 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 412:
We have already extensively discussed LNT on this thread. Part of your homework is to read the earlier posts so that you do not bring up items that have previously been resolved.
The BIER VII report by the National Academy of Science, using only recently obtianed data, states that the LRNT model is the accepted scientific consensus. Your book by someone who has no papers on Google Scholar regarding radiation safety and no advanced degree at all is simply trash. I note that Ed Calabrese, whose name is on the cover of the book as having read it, was a member of the Academy of Science committee that concluded LRNT was the scientific consensus.
I note that I have years of professional experience handeling very large amounts of radiation and have spent weeks in professional radiation safety training. I do not like internet educated noobies lecturing me about radiation safety.
-
michael sweet at 00:37 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 at 410:
You are Gish Galloping again. That is a techniquie used by nuclear supporters when they realize thay have lost an argument.
Regarding the Barakah nuclear power plant. Planning for the plant began about 2005 and the first power was generated in 2020, 15 years. In 2005 solar was more expensive than nuclear power and a nuclear reactor might have made sense.
Today nuclear power is 10 times more expensive than solar on a GW generated basis and a solar farm takes only 2-4 years to build from initial plans. The carbon dioxide released in the 10-15 extra years it takes to build the nuclear plant is enormous and counts as emitted by the nuclear plant.
i note that no additional power plants using the Barakah plans are being built anywhere in the world outside of Korea. They are not legal to build in the EU and USA since they do not meet safety regulations. They are not economic, people are building solar and batteries instead.
Your comments on Bangaledesh power usage are off topicc. In any case, nuclear power will not lift the poor out of poverty since it costs ten timesw as much as solar.
-
michael sweet at 00:23 AM on 14 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tdder2012 at 410:
Regarding The Solutions Project claiming that in 2050 societies will use much less energy and you being unwilling to use less energy.
Nuclear power plants waste 70% of the energy they generate as thermal pollution of the environment. This pollution is very distructive to the environment. If we switch to renewable energy no waste heat is generated. That means if we switch from nuclear to solar power we reduce energy usage by 70%.
Likewise electric cars save 80% of the energy since ICE engines are so inefficient that most of the energy goes out the tailpipe. Heat pumps are 3-4 tmes more efficient than thermal furnaces saving 60-70 percent of the energy. Overall energy savings from more efficient renewable energy are about 40% when you count the storage costs of renewables.
I think it is interesting that you prefer to pollute the environment with heat than to save money.
-
Jim Hunt at 17:32 PM on 13 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Although it's not specifically about misrepresentation of the IPCC ARs, I suspect that the audience here will be interested in watching this video:
"How To Fight Online Climate Denial""Tom" spends a lot of time fighting climate denialism on X, formerly known as Twitter. He calls out everyone, from members of the far-right to mainstream politicians, debunking their climate disinformation.
-
tder2012 at 11:23 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I don't bother with predictions, so only one comment on this prediction of yours "The future of energy production will ‘be without’ Nuclear and the Fossil Fuel systems" I linked to the article in which 22 countries and 120 businesses pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 in 2023 at COP28, see this link, 6 more countries joined this pledge at COP29 in 2024. If I had to bet (which I don't), I would certainly bet on these 28 countries and 120+ over your prediction, One Planet Only Forever. I would also bet on these countries and companies over The Solutions Project as I doubt any country in the world would agree to using 50+% less energy in 2050 than they are using today, especially the countries in which the overwhelming majority of their citizens live in extreme poverty.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 @412,
I will limit this response to the parts of your comment that relate to this discussion.
Indeed the question for this discussion is “Is New Nuclear Energy systems a viable part of the solution to the challenge of limiting climate change impacts to well below 2.0 C?”
Regarding the last of the Slides you linked to:
- The future of energy production will ‘be without’ Nuclear and the Fossil Fuel systems. They are non-renewable. They also produce harmful results (Reducing the harm of already produced nuclear waste has merit. But even that is only a temporary energy system and would be too late to help limit climate change harm).
- The slide should include Geothermal, Wave and Tidal energy systems (listed systems in the Solutions Project you pointed to)
-
Eclectic at 05:13 AM on 13 May 2025At a glance - What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
StanRH @1 :-
No need for you to struggle. You had me at All Poe.
[Excuse that movie pun]
#
Stan, if you were serious ~ then you need education, bigly.
-
Jim Hunt at 04:23 AM on 13 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Eclectic @2
My apologies. I've had a busy day and only just popped back in here again. What's more I forget that you can see BlueSky without having an account, but the same does not apply to Elmo's shiny new X.
Tder has summarised the modus operandi of the typical troll nicely.
Here's a typical example of TC's compelling "argument by image": -
tder2012 at 04:12 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Indeed, this post is mistitled, obviously no energy source is THE answer. I believe nuclear energy can be part of the solution. Please take less than 10 minutes to check out these six slides and provide comment. Also, consider obtaining a copy of "The LNT Report" when it is published in August, 2025, see cover and back of the book here. "For decades, the notion that any amount of nuclear radiation is hazardous to human health has been perpetuated by flawed science, ideological agendas, and misinformation. The LNT Report reveals the shocking truth behind this myth, exposing the bad faith, muddled thinking, and prejudice that have fueled unnecessary fears about nuclear power", if we overcome this fear and instead support nuclear power, maybe we could build fast breeder reactors, high temperature gas reactors, etc.
Moderator Response:[BL] This is growing tiresome. The comments threads here are not intended to be a social-media-like spewing of any thought that comes into your head.
You have posted 39 comments in less than a week. Your comments have included numerous errors, and highly-selective choices of evidence. You seem to have great difficulty in keep comments on-topic, even though people have tried to point you to proper threads.
Please take the time to be more thoughtful about what you post, and condense your comments into a more coherent argument. One or two thoughtful comments per day will be far more constructive than a stream-of-consciousness spattering of loosely related items.
Also please read the Comments Policy. There is always a link to it above the box you edit your comment in.
In particular, note that the comments policy states "No link or picture only". Although you are burying your links in verbiage, you are saying little about those links other than "look here". And your references often seem to show the opposite of what you seem to say they show.
Please slow down, and apply more thought to what you post.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:59 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012 @406 and 407,
As Michael Sweet has pointed out this thread is about ‘Nuclear Energy being the Answer to the needed rapid ending of developed harmful unsustainable (over-) consumption of fossil fuel energy’. I will connect this comment to that point ... and also connect my comment @495 to that point.
I do not see where your comments legitimately refute the fundamental understanding I presented that:
- Advancement is understandably (sustainably) achieving the same quality of life with less material consumption, less energy use, and less harm done
- Less Energy consumption is helpful. The richest highest energy-use addicts need to set the examples of how to Live Better Less Harmfully.
The question becomes about the merit of using an increase of nuclear, a non-renewable (near future dead-end) harmful energy systems to ‘help solve the climate impact problem and help the poorest’.
More new nuclear power supply is Not the Answer.
There are rich high energy-users in Bangladesh. They need to most dramatically change their ways and help those who genuinely need the benefit of more energy consumption live better.
And other richer people should pay more for products made in Bangladesh to improve the circumstances of the workers in Bangladesh. US import tariffs that reduce the tax burden for the richest in the US are unhelpful.
What happens in the near future when the nuclear systems can no longer be benefited from? The answer is to build truly renewable energy systems now, in parallel with the pursuit of ‘lower energy consumption ways of living well’.
More new nuclear power generation in Bangladesh would not effectively help the poor ther (or anywhere).
The best way to help the poorest is to help them get their ‘needed energy’ from all the energy system options that would actually have a lasting future – Not New Nuclear.
-
tder2012 at 03:52 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"The Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant prevents up to 22.4 million tons of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads". "Construction Program"
"In December 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, 22 countries and more than 120 companies pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050".
I'm not familiar with any study in involving nuclear energy that is similar to Jacobson's The Solutions Project in which everyone will use much less energy by 2050, including those that live in extreme poverty today and have almost no access to energy.
The solar panels being installed in Bangladesh, how much CO2 emissions will it prevent every year? Will Bangladesh people now have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women will now have access to education?
-
StanRH at 02:27 AM on 13 May 2025At a glance - What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
all this fuss about co 2 is comic farce;
every educated person knows co 2 can't affect climate
the reason is as follows;
"greenhouse" gases don't trap heat as they can't impede the circulation of warm air rising to subzero temps at altitude
if co 2 prevents radiant heat from leaving the atmosphere ,then it must also prevent the radiant heat from entering, by the same magical heat blocking process
it is the magnetosphere ,not co 2 that prevents the atmosphere from evaporating into the void of space
heat rises by convection regardless of mixture
by the time gases rise by convection to 25,000 ft the temp is down to - 40
besides which;
as a heat sink co 2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature regulation
only con artists still pretend co 2 can affect climate
Weight of atmospheric gases by volume at standard pressure and temperature
co 2 = 1.96 kg per stere x .04 percent =.000784 kg
o 2 =1.43 kg per stere x 21 percent = .303 kg
n =1.25 kg per stere x 78 percent= .975 kg
argon = 1.78 kg per stere x 1 percent = .0178 kg
Climate alarmists claim that the mass of .000784 kg of co2 governs the temp of the mass of 1.2958 kg of the other atmospheric gases
1652.806 times it's weight [mass]
visualize co 2 as 1 cup of water compared to other atmospheric gases as a 100 gallon [1600 cups] tank
that 1 cup at any temp u wish to chose dumped in the tank has negligible affect on the 100 gallons in the tank
couldn't be more evident ,could it?
Moderator Response:[PS] This is offtopic here. Please take discussion to https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm. Stan, your argument boils down to personal incredulity. Read the article I pointed to; look at the demos. Understand that the impact is directly measured. That is what matters to science. It might help if you consider how far a photon of IR might travel up from the surface of the earth before encountering a CO2 molecule at 400ppm on average. Best if you do the calculation - but spoiler - a few meters.
-
michael sweet at 01:39 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
I note that you have linked no creditable evidence for your claim that it would be faster to build out a renewable plus nuclear power system than a renewable only system. You demanded that I provide evidence to you, although I already cited two peer reviewed papers supporting my claims, and you have only quoted hearsay.
When you demand evidence you must provide evidence. Changing the topic is conceding that you were worng.
-
michael sweet at 01:27 AM on 13 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
This thread is supposed to be about the prospects and technology of nuclear energy. The model that Jacobson used to project energy use in 2050 is off topic for this thread.
Perhaps we should compare Jacobson's model to one of the models that nuclear supporters use. Oops, no-one who publishes estimates of future energy use by country supports using any nuclear. Even if they did, it is impossible to generate more than 10% of all power using nuclear since there is not enough uranium available using current technology.
The people of Bangladesh would be much better off if they all installed solar panels on their houses like the people in Pakistan are currently doing. Pakistani's installed 17 GW of solar panels in 2024 alone. That is equal to the production of 5 GW of nuclear power installed in a single year. That is similar to all the new nucleat power installed in the entire world in 2024. And the nuclear plants took 10 years to plan and build.
-
Eclectic at 22:04 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Tder2015 @3 :-
Thank you for that info. Not so surprising that an Xidiot retreats when exposed . . . although it always leaves as uncertain, whether he is part of a guerilla campaign (and will return once the battlefield has been vacated for a while).
Or whether he simply enjoys being a troll, and has wandered off to find fresh fields to canker / fresh worlds to canker [excuse lousy pun].
-
Eclectic at 21:50 PM on 12 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @279 :-
It is not clear what you are interested in. As shown in MA Rodger's graph @278, the Medievel Warm Period was an extremely minor blip in the Holocene temperature record ~ barely a pimple on a pumpkin.
And a small fraction of a degree change would have had minimal effect especially in Antarctica, except perhaps for the (very limited) life-forms that exist on the on the Antarctic Peninsula.
You will note that the @278 graph shows a fair distribution of sampling sites.
-
tder2012 at 21:44 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Eclectic, this happens regularly on X and I now see it on BlueSky occasionally. When some people see they have lost the argument, they block you from seeing any of their posts. I've have also seen where they don't block you, but delete the original post.
-
Eclectic at 21:33 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
Jim Hunt @1 :-
Being quite unfamiliar with the "XTwitter" modern scene, I should be most grateful if you would give a brief explication of your above post. (Preferably in words of one syllable! )
The blank sheet represents a glitch . . . or a cowardly retreat of the Xidiot poster calling himself TC . . . or a censorship by a wrathful Xalgorithm . . . or an unknown Unknown, xcetera ?
If you have time, perhaps give an ultra-concise summary of some of TC's more egregious statements ~ but don't bother, if he [it's always a he] has merely used the sort of disinformations listed in this thread's OP.
-
Dick van der Wateren at 21:23 PM on 12 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Another paper by some of the same authors shows evidence of MCA warming in Antarctica. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190.
A more problematice paper stating evidence of Antarctic medieval warming appeared in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02259-4. It has already been picked up by denialists.
So, where does that leave us? Are there any good recent reports of the global temperature distribution during the MWP?
-
tder2012 at 20:56 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
One Planet Only Forever, are you OK with the billions of poor people today barely having enough energy for a fridge, if that, and continuing to not have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women continuing to lack in education because they need to do many domestic duties like hauling water, wood and dung for fires, cooking and boiling water over wood and dung and washing clothes by hand? How much leisure time and fun activities do you think these billions of women have access to, let alone an education? Search Hans Rosling TED Talk "The Magic Washing Machine".
-
tder2012 at 20:41 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Oh, I'm sure all countries would use less energy under Jacobson's Solutions Project, no point in even checking that. I'm concerned with poor countries today living in extreme poverty, one main reason being they have very much insufficient access to energy. So you're OK with the billions of people today living in extreme poverty having even less energy access and being even worse off under Jacobson's Solutions Project?
-
Jim Hunt at 17:45 PM on 12 May 2025How to deny climate change using the IPCC report
It probably won't surprise you to learn that my Arctic alter ego has recently been sparring with an XTwitter troll continually misrepresenting the IPCC's reports:
The ultimate outcome? -
One Planet Only Forever at 13:44 PM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I have been following this back-and-forth.
This is the first time I have been motivated to say something.
I checked the Solutions Project link you shared. I saw the 59% reduction on the Bangladesh page.
So I checked what the solutions Project page for Germany said.
It said 59% reduction of energy use.
It would appear that either you didn't bother to do more investigation ... or you think people will simply take 'your take' without further investigating its validity.
Just to be clear: More energy use does not indicate that a person or nation or socioeconomic system is more advanced or superior. Advancement is understandably 'achieving the same quality of life with less material consumption, less energy use, and less harm done'.
Less Energy consumption is Helpful. The richest highest energy use addicts need to 'detox themselves' and set the examples of how to Live Better Less Harmfully.
-
tder2012 at 09:06 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Jacobson is responsible for The Solutions Project. In 2023, Bangladesh used 2940 kwh per person per year. Germany used 38,052 kwh. Germans have a decent lifestyle, the people of Bangladesh are, unfortunately, the poorest in the world (population 171 million). https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy
The Solutions Project shows Bangladesh will use 59% less energy in 2050 than today!! On the main page for The Solutions Project it shows "We Love People & Planet", BS!!!. How do you think the citizens of Bangladesh would feel about this? I highly doubt civil engineer Jacobson is able to defy and/or reinvent the scientific laws of physics and thermodynamics!! https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/BGD
You can look thru The Solutions Project web site and see this is how Jacobson handles all poor countries, I just used Bangladesh as an example. Disgusting, shameful!
And to think there are people who actually respect Jacobson's work. The word "science" is in this site's name, but this, to me, looks like a classic appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Have a look at these six charts and provide any comments.
-
michael sweet at 08:25 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
Mark Jacobson has over 47,352 citations according to Google Scholar. Your assertions that his work has been discredited are false, deliberate misinformation, but you usually post misinformation.
I have already linked at least two articles for you that show that renewable energy systems are cheaper and faster to build than systems containing nuclear. I note that, according to your link, if enough nuclear plants were built to provide 10% of all power there is only enough uranium for 60 years, less than the claimed lifetime of the plants. One plant would have to be installed approximately every 10 days starting today. For the last ten years there have not been enough plants opened worldwide to keep up with lost capacity from closed plants.
Provide an up to date reference suggesting that it would be more rapid to build out a nuclear plus renewable grid than a renewable only grid. Jacobson 2009 conclusively shows that building out nuclear at any level increases the amount of carbon emitted. Lund et al, linked above also show nuclear results in increased emissions. Your previous quote, (no link), included no data or analysis to support your wild claim. it was simply idle speculation. Why do you ask me for more creditable evidence when you have offered no evidence at all? The last researchers who supported adding nuclear to renewables announced in 2022 that renewables were so much cheaper than nuclear that nuclear is not economic under any plan. (linked upthread, do your homework)
You are simply repeating your previous false claims. That wastes everyones time. You have had your say and I have had mine. The other readers can evaluate what we have both posted. Move on to another subject.
-
tder2012 at 06:10 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I don't read Jacobson at all. He has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. He has a scientific debate through the court system and loses that as well. But he claims "victory" because Stanford, and not him, have to pay all the legal fees, good grief. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/
Do you have any creditable evidence for your claim "It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system."
-
michael sweet at 03:30 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system. I note that your question was asked in 2012. Since then the cost of a compeltely renewable system has decreased greatly in cost and the storage isssue has been resolved completely. Meanwhile, modular reactor proposals that promised working reactors by 2020 are decades behind schedule. The money spent on nuclear is wasted.
If you had read Jacobson et al 2009 you would know that the emissions generated by the extreme long time manufacturing nuclear plants results in much more carbon release than building out a complete renewable system.
-
tder2012 at 00:20 AM on 12 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
every energy source has its pros and cons. Anyone who said there is a miracle solution is a fool, in my opinion. Based on this chart, I feel its to risky to take low emitting energy sources off the table, we need all we got as soon as possible https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2024/PNG/s64_2024_LinearPathways.png
Dr. John Morgan asked the following question at a nuclear energy debate in Australia in 2012
"Question to those against (nuclear energy). Given that the rate at which we decarbonize will determine how much warming the planet ultimately experiences and given that we can decarbonize more rapidly if we use both renewables and nuclear power, how many degrees of planetary warming do you feel it's worth to avoid the use of nuclear energy" -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:42 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I understood the first time why you didn't count hydro. It not necessary to repeat it, and repetition does not make it valid to leave it out. First, how tapped out it is remains to be fully quantified. Second, excluding it from the total share of renewables only because of that reason is not justifiable. A resource is renewable or it is not. Renewable and amenable to scaling up are not synonymous.
Nuclear, for example, is not renewable in its current, most common, form. I don't discount nuclear as a solution because it does give a lot of bang for the buck in terms of how much energy is produced per kg of fuel. In addition, the breeder reactor idea certainly has merit, since it has the potential to in fact be semi-renewable.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the latest breeder reactor, a prototype, took 21 years to build and is not yet operational. Olkiluoto 3 (not a breeder type of reactor) took 18 years and ended up costing almost 400% of the original estimate. So yes, the bang was there, eventually, for beaucoup beaucoup bucks. These are serious issues.
Nuclear is not geography independent, since most designs need water for cooling. In France, where there is a large scale program that has been mostly successful in reaching its goals, the outlet water temperature problem is an issue that seasonally threatens freshwater ecosystems downstream of some plants.
There is no free lunch, there is no miracle solution.
-
tder2012 at 08:32 AM on 11 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I say tapped out for hydro because we cannot build much more to assist in permanently displacing fossil fuel production.
Of course nuclear is composed of various materials, concrete, steel, etc. Over its lifetime (up to 80 years, 6 reactors in USA have been licensed for 80 after their 60 year licenses were coming up for renewal) and high capacity factor and amount of kWh it produces over its lifetime, the material requirements are small in relation to kWh produced. "If your true argument was full life cycle analysis.." I'm surprised this would even need to be stated, why would it be anything else?
Nuclear needs power lines, but hydro is more geography dependent. The link I shared was five longest HVDC transmission lines all over 2,000km and all for hydro. I live in MB where we had to spend $5 billion for a 1000km HVDC transmission line, that's a lot for a population of 1.4 million. Look at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering nuclear plants in Ontario, not very far from Toronto. Palo Verde nuclear plant is 56 miles from Phoenix, AZ
