From the link to WNA weekly newsletter, another example of the irrational impediments blocking nuclear power. This one is from Belgium.
<blockquote>The company has been crippled by a 2009 nuclear tax which added about 25% to production costs and wiped out Electrabel’s profits, so it sought relief from this.</blockquote>
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
“You’d never know it listening to critics more keen on promise than performance, but Australia has a strong record on emissions reduction. We exceeded our Kyoto target and are on track to meet and beat our 2020 target. By 2020, Australia’s emissions will be at least 13 per cent below 2005 levels. On a per capita basis, this will be a better reduction than Canada, the US, Japan and the EU. Despite this, we will take a strong 2030 emissions reduction target to the upcoming climate change conference in Paris — while protecting our economy. We will continue the practical approach which has seen Australia enter its 25th year of growth while decreasing the emissions intensity of production more rapidly than the US, Europe or Japan.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
We use Agile. It works for long or short projects. The current project will take over a year and we are using Agile. The problem is that we are using a vendor-supplied suit that is woefully inadequate.
In this case, we could have more fruitfully spent time to write our own. It would have been easier to maintain and contain only the features we need.
Oh well, too late now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
“Since Abbott’s conservative coalition came into power in 2013, it has been accused of launching an unprecedented attack on the renewable energy industry. One of its first acts in government was to remove the price on carbon – becoming the first country in the world to repeal a market mechanism aimed at tackling climate change. It has since reduced the renewable energy target, sacked the independent advisory body on climate change and appointed a “wind commissioner” to investigate complaints about turbines. Most recently, the government directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – Australia’s “green bank” – to stop investing in wind, as well as in small-scale solar power. The renewable energy industry says the moves have frightened off potential investors, resulting in a freeze on new projects over the past 18 months. Some in the renewable sector fear the government’s measures could kill off the industry in Australia altogether.”
http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-84/
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
Link above is wrong. Correct link is:
http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-84/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by John Plodinec
Given the polluted stream now wending its way into New Mexico, does anyone really trust the EPA setting energy policy? Or even anything it says?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
“States could increase CO2 emissions due anti-nuclear bias in EPA rule.”
It was kind of funny that “pan” avoided nuclear so completely, at least from the parts I was able to not fall asleep while reading. In addition to statistical consultants I believe Climate Change Science needs a few technical writers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
I thought it was interesting that Mann dealt with the “Hansen” challenge by calling him “optimistic” – meaning we have more time. That should revel some sort of disconnect between rhetoric and understandings. For the most part bad predictions get the Teflon treatment – meaning nothing sticks.
Back then I heard the ten years or it’s too late “pleas because of irreversible” damage”, my response was “We’re not going significantly to change in ten years, and I doubt we’ll be too late.” Such pronouncements would get horrified reactions from my environmentally “aware” friends as to how I could ignore the clear evidence and why I might not be behind doing
all we could” to reduce CO2..
Now those words have proven true – we did not change that much in ten years (net energy to make renewables to date has offsets their energy production) and as they are saying now – it’s not to late. Would we have been better off with crash CO2 reduction programs at the turn of the century? I doubt that case can be made. Look how far the technology has come since then and how marginal it is. Don’t underestimate the impact of having the better renewable sites taken over by older less efficient technology.
Now we are getting the message again as we did in 2003 but this time “they really mean it”.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Most voters like Clinton’s ambitious plan to combat global warming but admit the issue isn’t of high importance to their voting decisions.
President Obama earlier this week announced an even more ambitious plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but voters see more costs than rewards. Republicans view the plan as an economy-killer.
…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls2
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman
Solar power is no longer zero percent rounded to the nearest whole number.
For all the hype it gets, solar power still plays only a small role in the US energy system — providing around 0.6 percent of electricity in the first half of 2015.
From the “Where power comes from in America” link.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172
Jim D, in Africa they’ve now even jumped past power grids, and are harnessing their electricity directly from lightning, as illustrated in this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/12/lightning-south-africa_n_6670942.html
We can certainly teach them a thing or two, yessirree! ;-)
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
I love the contradiction here. It’s as if the writer wanted to lift Clinton, but had to admit her ideas on energy suck.
From the article:
The title: Clinton plan to power U.S. homes with renewable energy in 10 years is doable
The bottom line: In the end, Clinton would be challenged to reinstate the ITC, spur new renewable incentives and affect change at the state and local level in order to make her renewable dreams a reality.
“Anything is possible, but is it realistic? At this point, it looks more like a typical campaign goal to energize the donors and the base,” Prabhu said.
…
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2955351/sustainable-it/clinton-plan-to-power-us-homes-with-renewable-energy-in-10-years-is-doable.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Not long ago, there was a story about a CEO who decided to pay every employee at least $70,000 annual. I applauded this. After all, it is a private initiative, not a government imposed program. But to my amazement, it’s not working out. Companies are a social organization and humans naturally arrange themselves into hierarchies. By not abiding to this (or these) unwritten rules of social organization, this CEO got a lot of employees upset. From the article:
…
In April 2015, Dan Price, the CEO of online payments company Gravity Payments based in Seattle, announced that all employees would have their salary bumped up to a minimum $70,000. Slashdot covered this news. Since that time, however, things have not gone well. Some employees quit because they felt it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Furthermore, after reducing his own salary from $1M to $70K, Mr. Price is now renting a house ‘to make ends meet’. On an unrelated note, Mr. Price’s brother, who is a co-founder of the company, is suing him.
…
http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/08/07/2119244/company-testing-standardized-salaries-is-struggling
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Security researchers from Trend Micro wondered what kind of cyberattacks might target one of our most common and vital pieces of infrastructure: gas pumps. So, they set up some honeypots to find out if and how gas pumps were being attacked. The researchers ended up getting more than they bargained for. Between February and July, there were at least 23 distinct attacks on their honeypots alone (PDF). This included identifications, modifications, and DDoS attacks. “In their research, they found that a DoS or DDoS attack could disrupt inventory control and distribution, which means gas stations may not have enough supply on hand. Changing pump names could result in the wrong fuel being added to a tank—such as putting Unleaded inside Premium, or vice versa. Drivers wouldn’t like that. Or changing the pump volume could result in tanks being underfilled.”
…
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/08/08/0558207/hackers-actively-targeting-gas-pumps
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer
It scares me that at this level we are already hearing reports that solar requires a bigger workforce than coal.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt
@ristvan: The period 1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from 1975-2000.
Rud, if the debate were chess Mosher would be right: the debate would have been over a decade ago, right after the third use of this tired old fallacy.
Just because the second step of a staircase is essentially indistinguishable from the first doesn’t mean you can’t use it to climb to the second floor.
Surely you’ve been able to come up with a stronger argument by now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by harrywr2
If you want Tom Steyer’s campaign donations then you have to be on the Climate Change/Renewable’s bandwagon.
Just ask the Governor’s of Oregon and Washington.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
I renounce skepticism, as I had no idea how bad things have gotten:
“The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. ”
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
RE: The inter-relationship among economic activities, environmental degradation, material consumption and population health in low-income countries: [link]
********************
Why the focus on infant and under-5 mortality rates? That’s cherry picking IMO. It might have even been chosen for emotional impact.
The focus should be on overall mortality rates. I suspect the overall mortality rate would be down for just about any sort of economic activity. Although the summary isn’t very specific whether quantity or quality of economic activity was studied.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Wow! Finally, an impact from climate change!! :)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
