Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Mosomoso,

We need to consider the matter of wasted fossil fuels. For example, Australia burns – and will continue to burn – its abundant coal in aging clunkers.

You are dead right on that. if readers go the EIA web site linked above and download the Excel files for World Carbon dioxide emissions from coal use and the electricity generated by coal, then divide the world averages for these the emissions intensity is 1.67 Mt CO2/MWh in 2005 decreasing to 1.49 Mt CO2/MWh in 2040. That is atrocious. Admittedly some coal is not generating electricity, but even so the world average emissions intensity for coal fired electricity generation is atrocious.

Yes, we could upgrade to better coal fired electricity generation and that is exactly what China, Taiwan and many other developing countries are doing. But that would give only a small improvement in CO2 emissions intensity compared with going straight to nuclear power. But the world will not go to nuclear power while it is too expensive.

The USA holds the keys to unblocking development of low cost nuclear power. The USA is the thrombosis blocking the world from having low cost nuclear power. And the ‘Progressives’ are at the core of the problem. The ‘Progressives’ are blocking progress.


Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

$
0
0

The Chef does not even understand the concept of a No Regrets policy. We won’t regret moving off of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change since fossil fuels are a finite and nonrenewable energy source in the first place. And so we must replace crude oil, etc with alternative energy sources.

It is as simple as that, no matter how much the Chef’s infinitely renewable ego wants to complicate matters.

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by Tomcat

$
0
0

lolwot > It’s a typically climate deniery kind of strawman to require every citizen to rank climate change as their #1 concern.

lolwot is using words he doesn’t understand. Even if skeptics did require every citizen to rank climate change as their #1 concern – and there’s not even a grain of truth in that claim – that wouldn’t make it a strawman.

Inventing claims that are easy to knock over , and putting them into the mouths of others, is what strawmen are all about. Which is exactly what lolwot has done above, in his ignorant and dishonest attempt to accuse others of strawmanning. Typical climate truebeliever behaviour, I need hardly add.

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Yep. So why aren’t you out there agitating that Obama and his team stop blocking progress on cheap, nuclear energy to help meet the world’s ever increasing demand for energy?

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘No regrets options are by definition GHG emissions reduction options that have negative net costs, because they generate direct or indirect benefits that are large enough to offset the costs of implementing the options. The costs and benefits included in the assessment, in principle, are all internal and external impacts of the options. External costs arise when markets fail to provide a link between those who create the “externality and those affected by it; more generally, when property rights for the relevant resources are not well defined. External costs can relate to environmental side-impacts, and distortions in markets for labour, land, energy resources, and various other areas. By convention, the benefits in an assessment of GHG emissions reduction costs do not include the impacts associated with avoided climate change damages.’

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=292

webby again rejects reality and substitutes his own.

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Peter Lang

$
0
0
<blockquote>‘No regrets options are by definition GHG emissions reduction options that have [zero or] negative net costs, because they generate direct or indirect benefits that are large enough to offset the costs of implementing the options.</blockquote> Dead right, Chief.

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by Tomcat

$
0
0

That the consensus rests on dishonesty and deception is beyond all reasonable doubt – their enduring refusal to criticize the Climategate crooks proves it. This means they cannot be trusted.

Eager to ignore this elephant in the room, lolwot tries to mislabel a statement of this simple truth, as lying. Which of course makes *him* a liar.

But I bore you with old news, sorry.

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by timg56

$
0
0

You missed real world reliability in predicting future outcomes.


Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by timg56

$
0
0

On how do you sell science.

You start with grades 1 thru 12, you get them doing hands on science, and you ensure they have fun.

It sells itself.

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

$
0
0

I am just guessing at the units on the chart shown, perhaps BTUs based on the opening paragraph, but notice the strong increase in coal combustion starting right after 2000. That is almost a doubling in 15 years of aerosols and particulates being dumped in the air by low-grade coal burning. Very little anthracite, with bitumen and more and more lignite-quality coal being burned by fast-growing economies such as China and India.

And the really high-grade liquid fuels such as conventional crude oil are rapidly depleting.

I realize that the Aussies pile on these late night posts with garbage, so it seems appropriate to provide a balanced view.

Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by Tomcat

$
0
0

The Obama tweet : he carefully avoided saying the said consensus was all funded by government, and that government stands to gain spectacularly from an acceptance of this bought-and-paid-for consensus.
It’s as if there’s no such thing as vested interest.

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Peter Lang

$
0
0

WHT,

I realize that the Aussies pile on these late night posts with garbage, so it seems appropriate to provide a balanced view.

I don’t understand what you are referring to as “Aussie … garbage”. What specifically are you saying is garbage. Or are you simply, like BartR, displaying your xenophobia, as usual?

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by manacker

$
0
0

Beth

According to the EIA blurb:

Renewable energy and nuclear power are the world’s fastest-growing energy sources, each increasing by 2.5 percent per year.

The IAEA tells us that in 2009, nuclear power plants world-wide generated a total of 2,558 TWh of energy. This represents around 12% of the world total electrical power consumption of 20,280 TWh (Wiki).

At the same time, Wiki tells us that total “renewable energy” was around 19% of all electrical power or around 3,870 TWh, but most of this was hydroelectric at 3,420 TWh with wind plus solar (PV) representing around 400 TWh or around 2% of the world total and a smidgen more coming from other “renewables”, such as geothermal.

Hydroelectric generation did not increase very much (nor did geothermal), so a large percentage of the growth in renewables came from solar and wind.

But how “smart” was investing in solar and wind power (in order to reduce CO2 emissions)?

As we all know (and you’ve pointed out on your blog), the big problem with solar and wind is that they only operate around 20-25% of the time, so they require standby plants to cover the 75-80% of the time when they are idle.

These standby plants are gas-fired. Unfortunately (as you’ve also pointed out) the most efficient combined-cycle plants are not well suited for on-again off-again (intermittent) standby operation, so less efficient plants are used for standby. These operate at even lower thermal efficiency when operated intermittently than when they operate year round, so the net savings in fuel consumption resulting from solar or wind generation is only around one-tenth of the amount used for generating the power from natural gas in the first place – and this at a significant premium capital investment.

This is obviously not very “smart”.

Nuclear power generation does not have this disadvantage, and is less costly to boot, essentially competing with coal or natural gas in most locations.

So Peter Lang is right – if we want to “decarbonize” electrical power generation, solar and wind are not the answer. The answer is nuclear.

Max

Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Questions about the timing and extent of a return to operation for Japan’s nuclear power generators compound the uncertainty surrounding its energy outlook.

That issue can be resolved now and the reactors restarted (over time) since Japan’s conservative government has now won control of both houses of their parliament. Progress can now be made again!!


Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by manacker

$
0
0

Peter Lang

Don’t get concerned about Webby.

He’s trying to save the planet’s climate and address the impending peak oil catastrophe at the same time by firing all his burners with rubbish.

Rubbish in – rubbish out.

Max

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by robot aspirapolvere

$
0
0

Good post, i think that is a great resource :)

Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by Craig Thomas

$
0
0

Expert opinion is not a fallacy.

Comment on Uncertainty: lost in translation by Craig Thomas

$
0
0

The “Climategate” emails have resulted in precisely zero retractions and zero instances of professional misconduct proceedings: there was nothing in those emails that was in any way interesting or relevant to the substance of the science of climate change.
People who couldn’t argue the science resorted to attacking the scientist, and they failed to achieve anything except publicise their disregard for the law and their disregard for the science.

Comment on Solar discussion thread II by Morgan

$
0
0

Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you
amend your site, how can i subscribe for a weblog web
site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided brilliant clear concept

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images