Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Punksta

0
0

Horst
Horst,
You routinely use “deniers” to refer to sceptics. What is the reason for this dishonesty?


Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by agnostic2015

0
0

Oops, it appears there have been a large number of comments since I last refreshed the page. Dr Tol, I have enormous respect for you, but much like the climate change subject where appearances cover reality nuclear – modern nuclear – is not nearly as dangerous as it’s reputation suggests.

There are lots of ways of doing it which are very safe, the amount of dangerous waste is tiny compared to the amount of energy produced, and there are very interesting modern techniques for converting waste into elements with very short half lives.

Proliferation is a non concern. It is extremely difficult to develop weapons grade uranium and plutonium. Furthermore, uranium is an inefficient method of fission energy – it’s just the best known. Additionally, it can be argued that the abundance of cheap energy is a pressure against political instability.

But IMO, small scale fusion, of which there are many many varying and promising small and big projects around the world, is likely to supercede fission anyway. If I had money to invest, the likely return from fission would be overtaken if any of these projects mature, some which are close to doing. Interestingly, fusion has been following moores law and most projects are at break even point. I suspect in 10 years time it will be what we are all talking about.

What we shod have been doing ever since the hand wringing over climate change began was to invest in modern nuclear. We would now be benefitting from cheap abundant electricity and not wasting it on the renewable sidetrack which will never be able to cope with modern and future energy demands.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter M Davies

0
0

No Peter L. Thanks for the link. Seems a promising avenue of research with possible benefits of an additional source of fresh water as a byproduct of the fusion process!

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Mike Flynn

0
0

nabilswedan,

You wrote –

“The only viable source of energy that would lead us to practically zero emission is sustainable forestry.”

Good luck with that. I hope you can learn to live without things like steel, cement and a few other things.

The infrastructure is nowhere near the same, as far as I can see, but I’m sure you can look it up for yourself. Unless we want to return to pre Industrial Revolution conditions, plenty of coal will still be needed.

I can’t understand the fixation on zero emissions. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be totally beneficial, so maybe you mean something else. Wood is pretty awful stuff to use as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

Cheers.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)

0
0

Not sure how to respond to all this.

Can nuclear be safe? Maybe. If you look at its record, you find one major incident, a few minor ones, and a number of near misses. Is that good or bad? If you consider that there only 438 plants now, and the first one was build 61 years ago, incidents per plant-year are not as low as some seem to think.

Can nuclear be safer than it was? Sure.

Can nuclear be dangerous? Oh yes.

The key concern is that, if nuclear is to be a big part of decarbonization, then the number of plants will be measured in the thousands, rather than hundreds, and they will be in countries that are not nearly as friendly as Russia and not nearly as well-organized as Pakistan.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by agnostic2015

0
0

Dr Tol,

In response to: http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/16/the-new-climate-deniers/#comment-751850

….not necessarily! There are loads of ways you can get poorer less stable countries to benefit from nuclear without it being dangerous – either to them or to anyone else.

One way is to sell the electricity to then but generate it elsewhere.

Another proposal is that modern nuclear could be modular sealed units that produce energy for 20 years and you then dispose of whole…I’m not kidding there is a serious proposal for that. I think the size of the unit is about the size of shipping container.

China and India are steaming ahead with thorium fission. There is no way thorium could be regarded as dangerous. In fact it was originally the most mature form of fission energy until it was rejected in favour of uranium because uranium fission allowed for the breeding of weapons grade fissile material.

Even so, if you weigh the risks (fully considered and in the light of current technology as well as developing technology) against the benefits, nuclear is by far and away the best, cheapest and safest form of energy production. Consider the costs, difficulty and political issues surrounding excavating fossil fuel, as well as the risks to life and property against that as well.

I challenge you to look at this more deeply. From the starting point of today, what are relative risks, costs and benefits of fossil fuel production and against current and emerging nuclear technology? I would be extremely interested in your findings….I’m sure I do not speak alone.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by mosomoso

0
0

Remember Australia has about three unused desal plants each costing at least half a million dollars a day. Would they take kindly to someone else producing fresh water we don’t need?

Btw, the Kurnell desal lost some of its roof yesterday. It was actually caused by a quasi-tornado, but nobody cares any more about desal plants or extreme/record/unprecedented weather. Saturation has been reached.

For the record, Australia gets tornadoes. Our biggie was the improbable Bulahdelah Tornado, New Years Day, 1970. A bit off the coast, half way between Sydney and my place. Took out a million trees, but nobody talks about it now because the violence is perfect but the date is all wrong.

Hey, I’m sure some bright person will eventually come up with a clever way of producing liquid fuels out of gravel or seawater or chicken gizzards or something. Then we can have that bonfire of wind turbines. My idea, so I get to apply the match, okay?

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Los nuevos “negacionistas”, les llaman. James Hansen, Bill Gates, etc. | PlazaMoyua.com

0
0

[…] The new climate ‘deniers’ […]


Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Paul Matthews

0
0

(Q1) How many people have died in nuclear power plant accidents?
(Q2) How many people have died in coal mine accidents?

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter M Davies

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Mike Flynn

0
0

Horst Graben,

You seem to be using the Warmist response of deny, divert and obscure.

I’m not sure just why you expect the Indian and Chinese parents of heavy smokers of American cigarettes to seek assistance from America. The can-do Americans with the know how don’t seem to be able to achieve much in America, let alone in foreign countries.

Can’t you find any American problems to attack? Maybe drugs, or poverty, preventable medical deaths, space travel, etc?

What’s wrong with letting other countries sort out their own problems? The US seems to have its fair share at the moment.

Cheers.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter Lang

0
0

mosomoso,

did you read the article or simply dismiss it out of hand without even reading it?

It’s important because all tose people who argue there is not way other than renewables are wrong. Nuclear can technically provide all the worlds electricity and all the transport fuels effectively indefinitely – although not yet economic.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas

http://www.zmescience.com/research/us-navy-synthetic-jet-fuel-seawater-0423432/

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Chuck L (@TheChuckr)

0
0

I predict that NOAA will put out a paper called “Artifacts in the…” in the next month or so that will purport to “disprove” the Watts et al study. Of course that assumes that the Climate Nomenklatura will be unsuccessful in quashing the paper before it can get published in a journal

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by jim2

0
0

It would be interesting to see how the global trend changes if temperature series that use other stations for corrections used only the 410 BEST ones.

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Jim D


Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by knutesea

Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by Jim D

0
0

I am quite sure they can get it. We have seen GCM maps of temperature differences in the IPCC reports.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Brian G Valentine

0
0

So does Trump but seems to be using it in a less than beneficial way. Regrettably she doesn’t enjoy being a “unifier” either

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Don Monfort

0
0

Your proclamations are always very persuasive, yimmy. We would have preferred a huffpo link, but what the heck. We all give up now. You win. You can stop the incessant preaching.

Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by gjw2

0
0

I agree China is hedging all its bets. However, China also expects to install 150 GW nuclear by 2030. Perhaps the nuclear number for 2020 reflects, at least in part, the time required to ramp up their nuclear program. They also anticipate 350 GW nuclear by 2050.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images