Max

I posted those two items that I happened to see in the local Montreux paper whilst I was there earlier this week. It was merely on the basis that it seemed ironic that on the one hand there were complaints about possible wind installations caused by the Swiss desire (not universally popular) to phase out nuclear power, as evidenced in the second story.

However, after doing some digging it seems there is much more at play here, involving politics and ideology.

Florian Kasser is the Greenpeace nuclear activist in Switzerland who featured in the link you provided. Apparently in 2011 he was the spokesman to confirm Greenpeace were not behind a letter bomb sent to the Swiss nuclear power umbrella group

http://www.dw.de/letter-bomb-explodes-at-swiss-nuclear-group/a-14958793

He was also involved in a demo by Greenpeace outside the plant to be closed a few days ago

http://www.tageswoche.ch/de/2014_09/swissinfo/648678/

I am not suggesting he had anything to do with any violent protests and merely link to the first story to illustrate the depth of anti nuclear feeling being felt by some group or other. Florian is certainly a key player in the story we are seeing unfolding and is the prime spokesman and nuclear activist for Greenpeace. That organisation and FOE had an open door to the UK govt at the highest levels prior to the passing of our Climate Change act a couple of years ago. The Greens are very strong in Switzerland and perhaps they are directly influencing Swiss Govt policy? (or perhaps not) anyway there is much more to all this than meets the eye.

Perhaps Peter has a back story to all this?
tonyb

Peter

I wonder if you have any comment on this story?

http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/13/week-in-review-32/#comment-655433

tonyb

Scientists’ public letter says critics of #climatechange should be called deniers not ‘Skeptics’

The real deniers are those who deny the facts that are relevant for policy analysis. That’s most of the CAGW alarmists.

Tonyb

Excerpt from Switzerland Update: November 2014:

Following a decision by cabinet to ignore a referendum that had supported new nuclear power only one month earlier and declare that the country’s nuclear power plants would not be replaced, the Federal Council on 7 June 2011 voted 101 to 54 to endorse this, so that nuclear energy is phased out in due course, perhaps 2034 (on the basis of a 50-year life for the newest unit). The proposal was also approved by the upper house, the 46-member Council of States, by 3:1, though subject to ongoing review of technology options which might allow new plants. A new government took office in December 2011, and it was to produce a new energy policy without nuclear power by 2013 and submit that to parliament. Until this is produced and considered the long-term future of nuclear power remains uncertain. The Federal Council proposes building a number of gas-fired plants – both CHP and CCGT – with subsidies, and raising electricity tariffs.

In November 2014 the lower house (Nationalrat) energy committee called for the introduction of a system requiring operators to submit plans for improving the safety of reactors after 40 years of service. A Green Party initiative to limit the life of nuclear power stations to 45 years was rejected. If approved by the regulator (ENSI), this would enable reactors to continue in operation for a further 10-year period, with no limit to the number of 10-year extensions. If a reactor was judged unfit to continue in operation, the operator would receive no compensation.

Axpo responded critically to this ‘long-term operation concept’ proposal: “To begin with it will almost automatically lead to safety shortcomings, compared to the present legal requirements. Secondly it will allow the government to order the shutdown of a reactor, temporarily at least, without any objective shortcomings at the level of the existing legal safety requirements, for purely political reasons. The reactors could only return to production after procedures that will take years. And thirdly the concept would force the operators of nuclear plant, due to the lack of legal and planning certainty, to renounce for economic reasons any further investment in expensive safety-related retrofits and to plan for the premature decommissioning of the reactor in question.”

An annual poll of 2200 people in October 2013 showed that 64% of citizens considered that the country’s five nuclear reactors were essential in meeting the electricity demand – a 3% increase from the 2012 poll figure, but about average from 2001. Three-quarters thought that Swiss nuclear plants were safe, and 68% said that they should remain in operation. While 62% recognised cost advantages in using nuclear energy, only 42% believed that they reduced CO2 emissions. Some 88% said that the country’s energy policy should not jeopardise security of supply, 78% did not want to become more dependent on other countries, and 73% wanted Switzerland to produce all its own electricity. Finally, 78% said they wanted to vote on the country’s energy transition and nuclear phase-out.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Switzerland/

Peter- I should have taken your advice earlier to not engage, but I thought that despite obvious difficulties, he was operating in good faith, your point should seem obvious, that huge gaps will not be swayed by vague and distant externalities. As if a utility decision to build a combustion turbine in the middle of Nebraska is incomplete because it did not value some greater likelihood ( or past sunk costs) of Middle East wars. Reviews of utility projects go through strict review processes as to environmental and social consequences. Their is significant public involvement and project need is evaluated, looking at various impacts including environmental, cultural health, safety, aesthetics and social justice In consideration of other alternatives or no action.

@jim2
Yes.. Oilsands will be hurt as well as they are high cost marginal producers

@Gates
No I don’t agree that pipeline economics will be greatly affected.
wrt OilSands. We are already in deep discount territory due to pipeline congestion, and that hurts even more proportionally when light crude marker (brent) prices are low.
Although both OilSands and Tight Oil are higher cost marginal bbls, there is a big difference in that OilSands projects are very long life projects, whereas Tight Oil are the Red Queen paradigm.

As a brand new, rank amateur, becoming interested in all this, just who are these delegates in Lima, Peru? Who are the US delegates and what are they deciding (if anything)? The authoritative sounding language reminds me of people who want to get past the details and on to bigger things. After reading the posts above I’m sure someone can fill me in.

Lima climate change summit: ‘weak’ UN deal could let countries dodge green pledges
Agreement reached to save Lima talks from collapse but critics say watered-down deal is too weak

UN climate change talks have been saved from the brink of collapse by a “weak” agreement that could let countries dodge setting clear targets to cut their emissions.
Negotiations in the Peruvian capital Lima dragged on to the early hours of Sunday morning – a day and a half after their scheduled close – amid deep disagreements between rich and poor nations over the steps they should take to tackle global warming.
The divisions had threatened to derail the talks altogether but eventually resulted in a “bare minimum” deal, thrashed out by delegates who had barely slept in three days, that left many key disputes unresolved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11292872/Lima-climate-change-summit-weak-UN-deal-could-let-countries-dodge-green-pledges.html

Guest Opinion: “Intellectuals should heal, not fuel, toxic climate debate”

Bingo.

Brent – every oil resource is limited, therefore is subject to the Red Queen analogy. Before I put up some past predictions, let me reiterate that I myself have said that if this low oil price persists for a prolonged period, some shale producers might go bankrupt. These would be the one that mismanaged their financed. Even if that happens, the resources will simply pass on to stronger hands and will continue to be produced, then or later. I have also said drilling will slow, and that is reflected in drilling permits. I have said that the low prices will cause the industry to focus on secondary recovery techniques, including refracking, to maximize production without drilling more wells. And, there are literally thousands of well now to be completed and even more that can be refracked. Due to the success of shale oil, the $100/bbl days are behind us for at least a few years. That day will come again – I know that.

Here is an interesting article from the oil drum from two short years ago. Most of the predictions made by this author agree with “authoritative” research, as he pompously tells us. It is the history of shale oil “analysis” and “predictions” that have rendered me very skeptical any time the gloom and doomers show up to declare shale oil dead.

Some clips from the article:.

Presently the estimated breakeven price for the “average” well in the Bakken formation in North Dakota is $80 – $90/Bbl In plain language this means that presently the commercial profitability for new wells is barely positive.

The recent trend for newer “average” wells is one of a perceptible decline in well productivity (lower yields)

Now and based upon present observed trends for principally well productivity and crude oil futures (WTI), it is challenging to find support for the idea that total production of shale oil from the Bakken formation will move much above present levels of 0.6 – 0.7 Mb/d on an annual basis.

(end of quotes)

There have been many predictions from peak oilers in the past that were just this bad. And by “peak oiler” I mean people who predict a quick demise of profitable shale oil E&P. Even your tar sands will peak some day, Brent, so “peak oil” is one of those terms like “climate change”. It happens. So what. The trick is to predict when and how much, and no matter what degree held and how many differential equations are applied, the peak oilers fail time and time again.

Cobb makes a fundamental mistake a priori, why should anyone care what the proselytizers of CAGW Faith believe, any more than any other religious figure, including it now seems the Pope. .
She presumes an arrogant belief in the superiority of her wisdom over the rest of us mere mortals, a belief that I don’t view as in any way substantiated by unvalidated GCM models and the bogus hockey stick
But she’s in good company with fellow religious figures now apparently. :(

Pope: Time To Tackle Global Warming
Pope Francis Calls Climate Change ‘Serious Ethical and Moral Responsibility,’ Warns Time Is Running Out

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-calls-climate-change-serious-ethical-and-moral-responsibility-warns-time-is-running-out-131091/

JFP –

I’ll also add this quote from PE, for you to consider in light of your comment:

==>…”your point should seem obvious, that huge gaps will not be swayed by vague and distant externalities”

So PE is saying that he can estimate the externalities, and know their impact on the cost/benefit analysis. In fact, he says, it is obvious.

PE –

==> ” As if a utility decision to build a combustion turbine in the middle of Nebraska is incomplete because it did not value some greater likelihood ( or past sunk costs) of Middle East wars. ”

Sorry that you concluded that I”m not acting in good faith. Not sure what lead you to draw that conclusion, but you’re entitled.

As for this:

“… As if a utility decision to build a combustion turbine in the middle of Nebraska is incomplete because it did not value some greater likelihood ( or past sunk costs) of Middle East wars. ”

That’s not what I said. What I am doing is questioning the certainty of the broad conclusions that you assert, when you don’t have, IMO, sufficient evidence in support. The one does not equal another. Now I might conclude that your use of a straw man might be an act of bad faith engagement. I don’t draw that conclusion – just because someone employs a fallacy it doesn’t mean that they’re engaging in bad faith. If you care to elaborate on what led you do pass judgement on my motivations, I’d be happy to address that point.

Perhaps it was because I didn’t address your questions about an educational const/benefit analysis?

I didn’t address that point because as you said, the payoffs of the discussion were getting more remote. My point was that to make the kind of certain educational cost/benefit determination that you have made for energy sources, I absolutely would need to include estimations of the impact of the kinds of points you raised. For example, the costs from bullying culture often seen in schools is absolutely a valid reason to question the benefits versus costs of how our schools are organized versus programs that have children working in smaller groups, groups organized along different criteria, or even in more individualized configurations. It absolutely is important for understanding how curricular modifications might bring a better return on investment. To make such determinations, the size of the problem has to be estimated, and different variables have to be considered for how the problem might be mitigated. The fact that as a society we simply continue with the status quo educationally, because it is difficult to implement systemic reform, despite questions as to whether modifications might bring greater returns and lower costs, is a good parallel for why we shouldn’t have a similarly complacent approach to energy policies.

@ Rodman

You can probably find out who the delegates are, with some concentrated digging. You MAY even learn who selected them. Or if they were ‘self selected’. I suspect (without bothering to check for myself) that you would find their curricula vitae ‘interesting’.

One thing that you can be sure of however: They ALL view the authors of these widely publicized statements on the problems with energy, pollution, and climate change and the courses that should be pursued to correct them as icons of the movement:

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=13914

and this one (contains a couple duplications):

http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/musings-from-the-leaders-of-the-climate-change-movement-seeking-to-save-the-earth-from-humanity/

Thanks Bob, I shall look into it.

Natually, now that citizens are getting a little more money in their pockets due to lower gasoline and natural gas prices, these ninnies want to take it back in the form of a gas tax. We can’t let the common people enjoy a benefit, can we?

From the article:

A global natural gas boom alone won’t slow climate change
H-Holger Rogner
H-HOLGER ROGNER
H-Holger Rogner…

More
SUBSCRIBE
The ongoing shale gas revolution in the United States, dubbed a “game changer” by many experts, is the result of a surge of innovation that is extracting huge amounts of natural gas from shale deposits once thought to be inaccessible. It has reversed a decade of declining domestic gas production and brought enormous economic benefits to American consumers and businesses: natural gas prices that dropped by two-thirds within 12 months after widespread fracking began and have risen only slightly since then, hundreds of thousands of new jobs, a renaissance of investment in new manufacturing capacities, and improved energy security. The rise of shale gas has had an environmental benefit as well—greatly reduced carbon dioxide emissions, because generating electricity by burning natural gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.
…
Blessing or curse? Experts have both welcomed and rued the prospect of abundant natural gas. Where gas replaces coal, it provides a potent and low-cost climate mitigation strategy. Two-thirds of the US reductions in carbon dioxide emissions since 2005 are attributable to fuel-switching, and one-third to growth in low-carbon generation especially renewable technologies such as wind and solar energy. Unconventional gas, proponents argue, can act as a “bridge” fuel, curbing emissions while non-fossil energy sources such as renewables and nuclear energy are ramped up.

The curse? Abundant gas gives fossil fuels a new lease on life. Cheap gas may replace coal in many industrial applications, especially electricity generation, or even penetrate markets traditionally served by oil, such as transportation. But a global gas boom wouldn’t stop there. Economic rationale suggests that gas would also encroach on investments in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency. At today’s prices of $4 to $5 per million British thermal units, gas-fired electricity holds a definite competitive advantage over new nuclear construction and unsubsidized renewables. Indeed, only four out of more than two dozen applications for new nuclear power plants have begun construction after receiving a federal license to do so. Two dozen other nuclear plant applications have been withdrawn, suspended, or are still under review. All four reactors are being constructed in deregulated electricity markets where the risks of cost overruns can be passed on to ratepayers
…

http://thebulletin.org/global-natural-gas-boom-alone-wont-slow-climate-change7853

Tony and Peter, thanks for the info on Swiss energy. I wish Max_CH was still with us because I know he would enjoy discussing the topic.

Switzerland’s hydro plants provide 55% of its electric power and nuclear plants provide most (45%) of the remainder, which probably means little CO2 and other pollutants are produced. Renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar account for very little of the the power.

I presume all of the hydro power plans are located inside the country, and all the uranium for fueling the nuclear plants is imported. If Switzerland wants to be self-sufficient in electric energy, a substitute for nuclear power must be found. Since the country has little if any fossil fuel, the only way to become self-sufficient is to develop more hydro and renewable capabilities.
I imagine the Swiss are already taking near full advantage of hydro resources, which leaves renewables as the only way to energy independence.

I’m surprised Switzerland currently relies so little on solar and wind for generating electric power. I see nothing about the country’s location and landscape that would be impediments to developing these renewable sources, other than being land locked preventing it from having wind farms at sea.

“Nobody with any knowledge on the subject denies that carbon dioxide (CO2) derived from the burning of fossil fuels is measurably warming the planet.” – Kim Cobb

I challenge anybody to show statistical evidence for anthropogenic CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record.

It does not exist.

When will scientists begin to be honest about just how tiny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are in comparison to natural CO2 emissions from the biosphere?