Man Of Integrity Speaks On Climate Change

[Kurt Barlow]

No Steve, I missed no points there. I didn't argue the toss about cause, I simply make reference to one or two things that some of us on the other side have been saying for ages; that science has been corrupted by the vast money flowing into this area; that the renewable industry is a fraud; that if it's true then nothing can be done and we may as well finish off the remaining oil because all the peak-oilist say there isn't much anyway.

You seem to be missing his point when you speculate "even assuming we have not left it too late already", because he says categorically that it is.

Except many people do not accept that position. Alternatively if enough investment is made now in nuclear, efficiencies, and renewable technologies the transition into a post peak world (without WWIII) may be possible.

Wind and solar are not cons - they do what they say they do - provide intermittant power which is variable by virtue of location. Solar works very well in Saudi and not so well on the West Coast of Ireland. The reverse in the case of wind. Noone claims they are more versitile / compact than oil, we know that.

In particular, if you have children / grandchildren this point should be of interest.

[blankster]

Have to laugh at all the renewables bs.. when we have nuclear reactors. 1000 MW to 1500 MW reactors. We know they work, we know the costs of them, they are baseload electricity.

Uranium might not be a fossil fuel, but it is a finite natural resource. One estimate I found is that the known uranium reserves are enough to last about 80 years at current levels of demand. Also, because uranium ore emits radon gas, it's hazardous to miners working underground.

I'm not saying there's no place for nuclear power in the future power mix but I don't think it should be expanded. But why go down the nuclear route if we don't need to? Would building a new 1000 MW nuclear power station be cheaper than installing 400 2.5MW wind turbines on the Dogger Bank? Would the high cost of undersea power transmission cables to the Dogger Bank cost more than the decomissioning costs of the nuclear station?

A Severn tidal barrage, it's claimed, would produce 7% of Britain's electricity requirement, roughly equivalent to 7 nuclear power stations. Also there's the safety issue with nuclear. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved - for all time, how dangerous nuclear fission can be as a means of generating power. OK, things can go wrong with renewables too - blades can fall off turbines, a solar reflector at heat-concentration array could get dislodged and start a fire. But the only renewable that could cause damage on a scale similar to nuclear catastrophe is a dam burst at a major river-based hydro-electric installation, possibly releasing several cubic miles of water in one go.

that if it's true then nothing can be done and we may as well finish off the remaining oil because all the peak-oilist say there isn't much anyway.

Surely it's better to eke out the remaining oil for as long as possible by adopting renewable and energy-saving technology to reduce oil consumption. Some activities are likely to keep using oil for a long time, like heavy road transport, for instance. We could move over to plug-in electric cars and vans, with and without auxiliary diesel generators to take over on long runs when the battery runs low, but that technology doesn't seem feasible for heavy lorries because 2 tons of batteries means 2 tons less payload capability

[gosh]

Global warming aside - you;d have to be an idiot to look at a landfill site and think we're doing ok. Alternative energy is expensive but will only get cheaper if techniques are refined through use.

Most people are so selfish though that frankley the loss of humans would be no bad thing on the whole.

[Pick It Down]

Global temperatures normally fall for a couple of years after a volcanic eruption due to the dust that they put out that reduces solar irradiation. Their CO2 output is insignificant compared to that of mankind. You can see this in in GISS temperature record:

The V's are major volcanic eruptions. Notice how the global temperature falls for a couple of years after each eruption.

I think you'll find, Pick It Down, that climate science is fully aware of the effects of volcanic outgassing. The scientists involved have been working in the field for many years rather than simply regurgitating whatever ******** Whatsup..blah..com comes up with.

All volcanoes vary in their emissions. Some are SO2 heavy, some CO2 heavy. We pick out the times in history when CO2 rose independently (for whatever reason, volcanoes, etc) - temperatures didn't follow.

The only reason CO2 and temperature correlate is because CO2 follows temperature. Thanks.

[Kurt Barlow]

Uranium might not be a fossil fuel, but it is a finite natural resource. One estimate I found is that the known uranium reserves are enough to last about 80 years at current levels of demand. Also, because uranium ore emits radon gas, it's hazardous to miners working underground.

I'm not saying there's no place for nuclear power in the future power mix but I don't think it should be expanded. But why go down the nuclear route if we don't need to? Would building a new 1000 MW nuclear power station be cheaper than installing 400 2.5MW wind turbines on the Dogger Bank? Would the high cost of undersea power transmission cables to the Dogger Bank cost more than the decomissioning costs of the nuclear station?

A Severn tidal barrage, it's claimed, would produce 7% of Britain's electricity requirement, roughly equivalent to 7 nuclear power stations. Also there's the safety issue with nuclear. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved - for all time, how dangerous nuclear fission can be as a means of generating power. OK, things can go wrong with renewables too - blades can fall off turbines, a solar reflector at heat-concentration array could get dislodged and start a fire. But the only renewable that could cause damage on a scale similar to nuclear catastrophe is a dam burst at a major river-based hydro-electric installation, possibly releasing several cubic miles of water in one go.

Surely it's better to eke out the remaining oil for as long as possible by adopting renewable and energy-saving technology to reduce oil consumption. Some activities are likely to keep using oil for a long time, like heavy road transport, for instance. We could move over to plug-in electric cars and vans, with and without auxiliary diesel generators to take over on long runs when the battery runs low, but that technology doesn't seem feasible for heavy lorries because 2 tons of batteries means 2 tons less payload capability

Fuels are only one part of the story. Then there are plastics and fertilisers neither of which can be easily substituted by non ff sources and certainly not at the scale we currently use them.

[cells]

How long would this grand plan take? World wide capacity to build single piece reactors like the EPR is currently 4 per year. That might be 6-8 by 2013.

He is wrong, we would not need 50-60EPRs, more like 30 and realistically about 20 to provide about 75% of our electrical needs.

Considering France built nearly 60 reactors in 15 years and that this was done decades ago by the French I don’t see 20 reactors in 15 years as a problem. Plus we know 50% plus nuclear countries exist and are not bankrupt yet no major country is majority wind/solar.

If the UK built 20 nukes it could be done within 15 years and likely at a cost of less than £75B (sub £3k/kw). It will probably cost that much just to provide the backup and cable all the individual wind mills spread over vast areas.

Anyway nuclear is not the answer, wind is not the answer, solar is not the answer. The answer is simply more fossil fuels. We probably have in excess of 100 years to go and considering necessity is the mother of invention we will unlock more and more fossil fuels as has been done with shale gas. They reckon that technique could add 100 years to gas supply.

BTW china plans to add about 90GW nukes this decade, not impossible if you want to do it. they may add 250GW by 2030

[cells]

Fuels are only one part of the story. Then there are plastics and fertilisers neither of which can be easily substituted by non ff sources and certainly not at the scale we currently use them.

What % of FF are used to make plastics and fertilisers?

[Kurt Barlow]

What % of FF are used to make plastics and fertilisers?

A fair proportion and it ain't just the h in the NH3. Its all the power used to mine and process potash and phosphate.

[Kurt Barlow]

He is wrong, we would not need 50-60EPRs, more like 30 and realistically about 20 to provide about 75% of our electrical needs.

Considering France built nearly 60 reactors in 15 years and that this was done decades ago by the French I don’t see 20 reactors in 15 years as a problem. Plus we know 50% plus nuclear countries exist and are not bankrupt yet no major country is majority wind/solar.

If the UK built 20 nukes it could be done within 15 years and likely at a cost of less than £75B (sub £3k/kw). It will probably cost that much just to provide the backup and cable all the individual wind mills spread over vast areas.

Anyway nuclear is not the answer, wind is not the answer, solar is not the answer. The answer is simply more fossil fuels. We probably have in excess of 100 years to go and considering necessity is the mother of invention we will unlock more and more fossil fuels as has been done with shale gas. They reckon that technique could add 100 years to gas supply.

BTW china plans to add about 90GW nukes this decade, not impossible if you want to do it. they may add 250GW by 2030

I think he was talking about going over to a predominatly nuclear - electric economy where all energy consuming activities are predominated by electricity

[snowflux]

We pick out the times in history when CO2 rose independently (for whatever reason, volcanoes, etc) - temperatures didn't follow.

Do we? Let's see a link then.

[King Stromba]

Would i rather live in a time of warming or cooling?

Increased crop yields, improved productivity and lower energy needs?

Or

Famine, death, pestilence and disease?

Hmm, difficult one.