Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Bart R

$
0
0

David Springer | May 11, 2014 at 2:46 am |

Huh. And here I thought anyone who read the Vancouver Sun regularly would realize BC’s top export was cannabis.

Because the Vancouver Sun is apparently under the influence.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/ddcd246c-69db-4f82-b5a2-5d1b67d191ef/ExportsbyProvinceAnnualData.pdf

Coal is pretty high on BC’s list, but nowhere near as high as the headline.

Lumber exports exceeded coal exports in 2013 by 10%. Wood plus pulp products exceeded all carbon fuels by almost double. Unharmed by putting a price on carbon, BC continues to thrive, and did so through the bank collapse and contraction of 2008.

So what else BC does, how does that affect the fact that pricing carbon works?

Next you’ll object that because BC has mountains, there’s a problem with carbon pricing. Or coastlines. Or skiing. Try to focus on the point at hand.


Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Roger Sowell,

Modern nuclear via fission is not economic, nor is it safe, and France is not an exemplar for the world.

I can’t deal with all of your points in detail here so I’ll first give a top level summary of the advantages of nuclear over renewables. In a separate comment below I’ll provide evidence to support point 2 “Nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables”.

Nuclear power is superior to renewable energy in all the important criteria. Renewable energy cannot be justified, on a rational basis, to be a major component of the electricity system. Here are some reasons why:

1. Nuclear power has proven it can supply over 75% of the electricity in a large modern industrial economy, i.e. France, and has been doing so for over 30 years.

2. Nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables

3. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity; it causes the least fatalities per unit of electricity supplied.

4. Nuclear power is more environmentally benign than renewables.

5. Material requirements per unit of electricity supplied through life for nuclear power are about 1/10th those of renewables

6. Land area required for nuclear power is very much smaller than renewables per unit of electricity supplied through life

7. Nuclear power requires far less expensive transmission (much shorter distances and much smaller capacity in total because the capacity needs to be sufficient for maximum output but intermittent renewables average around 10% to 40% capacity factor whereas nuclear averages around 80% to 90%.

8. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited.

9. Nuclear fuel requires a minimal amount of space for storage. Many years of nuclear fuel supply can be stored in a warehouse. This has two major benefits:

• Energy security – it means that countries can store many years or decades of fuel at little cost, so it gives independence from fuel imports. This gives energy security from trade wars and military conflicts

• Reduced transport – nuclear fuel requires 20,000 to 2 million times less ships, trains etc per unit of energy transported. This reduces shipping costs, the quantities of oil used for the transport, and the environmental impacts of the shipping and the fuel used for transport by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude.

There is no rational justification for renewable energy to be mandated and favoured by legislation and regulations.

Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables

Here I provide evidence from authoritative sources which demonstrate that nuclear power is cheaper then renewable energy. This is an edited version of a comment I posted on ‘The Conversation’ earlier today, hence the focus on Australia, but also uses international figures and compares France, Germany and Denmark.

Below are comparative electricity costs for renewables and nuclear to supply Australia’s electricity in 2050, using the CSIRO ‘MyPower’ calculator which uses the Australian Government’s 2013 figures for LCOE comparisons and projections to 2050. These are authoritative sources.

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/default/files/files//publications/aeta/AETA-Update-Dec-13.pdf

The above are LCOE only and to understand the assumptions and the exclusions.

The following link includes estimates of the additional transmission and distribution costs and explained the limitations of this simple comparison.

http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf

The key LCOE figures from the above are summarised below (but note that ‘PL 2015’ is not on a comparable basis with the other two):
Scenario: 2030 2050 PL 2015
Default (No nuclear) $105/MW $135/MWh $261/MWh
Nuclear permitted $80/MWh $85/MWh $123/MWh

Another CSIRO calculator, ‘efuture’, shows that, when nuclear is a permitted option, it provides more than 50% of Australia’s electricity by 2040 and 60% by 2050. This demonstrates that nuclear is cheaper than renewables (even in Australia where nuclear power is strongly opposed by the population and we have cheap, high quality coal close to our major demand centres). http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios

The CSIRO calculators use data from the same source, the Australian Government Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) AETA reports (linked above). So, I’ll provide an alternative approach that also demonstrates nuclear is cheaper then renewables. The table below lists renewables, nuclear and total generation in TWh for France, Germany and Denmark in 2011 (latest IEA data). The % renewables and % nuclear are shown and, last, the ranking of these countries by electricity price in the EU27 countries (Denmark highest electricity prices in EU27, Germany 2nd and France 23rd).

Electricity generation in 2011, GWh
Technology France Germany Denmark
Nuclear 442,383 107,971
biofuels 2,941 32,849 3,407
waste 4,420 11,156 1,729
geothermal 19
Solar PV 2,050 19,340 15
Solar thermal
Wind 12,235 48,883 9,774
Tide 534
Total production 561,960 608,665 35,171
Renewables 22,180 112,247 14,925
%Renewables 4% 18% 42%
% nuclear 79% 18% 0%
Price rank in EU27 23 2 1
Sources:
IEA: http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=DENMARK&product=electricityandheat&year=2011
EUAA attributed to IEA: http://www.euaa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/FINAL-INTERNATIONAL-PRICE-COMPARISON-FOR-PUBLIC-RELEASE-19-MARCH-2012.pdf
IEA: ‘Energy Prices and Taxes’ (currently not available): http://www.iea.org/statistics/

79% of France’s electricity was generated by nuclear power and 4% by renewables in 2011. Its electricity is nearly the cheapest in Europe.

Compare France with the two countries that are hailed by the renewables advocates as their poster child, Germany and Denmark. Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity prices in Europe.

Clearly nuclear is far cheaper than renewables. This provides evidence form a variety of authoritative sources demonstrating nuclear is cheaper than renewables.

Comment on Week in review by Bart R

$
0
0

David Springer | May 11, 2014 at 2:36 am |

Perhaps you picked figures you don’t really understand the origins and meaning of, from a source you didn’t really READ HARDER.

http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/lmi/publications/bulletins/bc/apr2013.shtml seems to be the source of your graph. If you show table data for your graph, you see the rate you say was 3% was actually 4.2%, and what you claim was 8% was 5.7%

Canada measures employment rates differently than the USA, so BC’s current unemployment rate in US terms is closer to 5.4%. And BC’s trends on unemployment are far, far better than its near neighbors, Oregon and Washington State.

And sure, BC’s had ups and downs, but if you wanted to chart those compared to, for example, the debacle they had over their retail sales tax, the flight of jobs to Ontario due to adoption of the business-favorable HST, the collapse of their fisheries and lumber industries, you’d find a much better correlation.. And oh, BC is one of Canada’s most conservative governments; “Liberal” in name only, the current party in power has cut BC’s corporate and income taxes to the lowest in Canada, and far lower than most ‘conservative’ US states, too.

If you’re trying to actually understand the differences, http://www.economics.ubc.ca/files/2014/02/Hoffmann-Lemieux-rev1.pdf might be useful for background, in particular figures 1a & 2a. It’s not completely topical, but at least it’ll help you prevent missteps like that last one, a little.

Comment on Week in review by Bart R

Comment on Week in review by Bart R

$
0
0

Skiphil | May 11, 2014 at 3:34 am |

You’re demanding who what now?

What’s to apologize for, or defend?

Show me how there is anything dissimilar in the way any of those groups goes about any discussion of climate at all.

Did you want me to toss in the Kremlin? Done. Kremlin belongs in the list.

Pretty much anyone making decrees taken out of any religious tract, too.

It was a list of examples, not intended to be exhaustive.

And if you don’t see the similarities, you’re just not looking hard enough.

Comment on Week in review by Jacob

$
0
0

Let’s make a deal.

You can have your carbon tax, that you so crave.
But, in return, repeal all renewable subsidies and mandates.
Repeal the ethanol mandate (a.k.a burning our food).
Stop the windmill madness.

Deal?

Comment on Week in review by Adam Gallon

$
0
0

And how much of this 0.8C is due to natural processes, since about half occured prior to the 1950, when CO2 levels started to climb?


Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Jim D

$
0
0

I think with the next El Nino, the skeptics will drop the GAT like a hot potato having embraced it during the pause years. We are already seeing some stepping back here because they feel it might blow up in their faces.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Bart R asks “With all due respect, what would a balanced eye take away from Climate Etc. links?”

It is a pleasure to answer your question Bart R!

Climate Etc provides  a live-link to Monica Lewinsky’s tell-all.

Climate Etc *omits* (inexplicably?)  High-profile talks by top-rank women scientists.

WUWT? The world wonders.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Kristian

$
0
0
I'm not <em>thinking</em> it, Jim. I'm <em>observing</em> it. Here are your exact words: <em>“You can estimate sensitivity from the data since 1950, and you get 2 C per doubling, adding in all feedbacks and collateral effects like aerosols and other GHGs.”</em> '... and you get 2 C per doubling ...' Gee, I wonder, a doubling of <em>what</em>? The number of unicorns in the world? Listen, FIRST you need to establish empirically, out there in the real earth system, Jim, that there IS a 'climate sensitivity' at all to rising atmospheric CO2 (you know, the causal relationship <strong>+CO2 >> +T</strong>) and that this sensitivity (including positive feedbacks) is responsible for the ENTIRE temperature rise (in fact, <em>more</em>) that we've observed globally between 1950 and today. You're not establishing or showing anything, Jim. You're just <em>assuming</em> (taking for granted) a priori that it is so, because that's what your 'theory' claims. That is what 'circular reasoning' is all about. It the textbook <em>definition</em> of circular reasoning.

Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Generalissimo Skippy

$
0
0

It seems hugely unlikely that an El Nino this will challenge the 1998 dragon-king.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

More likely to continue the no warming trend that later ARGO ‘climatologies’ are showing.

e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ARGOGRACE_Leuliette2012_zps9386d419.png.html?sort=3&o=4

This is certainly what CERES is showing. Zilch missing energy.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=31

The no warming seems likely to continue to the next dragon-king. Another 10 to 30 years. Strange that they don’t get this mainstream freakin’ climate science.

Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)


Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Generalissimo Skippy

Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by Kristian

$
0
0

R. Gates says, May 11, 2014 at 5:19 pm:

“More GH gases in the atmosphere allow the ocean to retain more energy (where the majority of the energy is stored). It is not a warmer atmosphere that warms the ocean directly, but allows the ocean to retain more energy over the long-term, hence, it is La Nina conditions that are favored as the oceans warm, not El Nino. If El Nino conditions dominate, the oceans would show longer term decline in heat content and thus, less net energy available to the climate system. It is the net increase in ocean heat content over many decades (and all the related weather and climate effects) that is the surest sign GH gas induced energy imbalance. The ocean is always the dog that wags the atmospheric tail.”

What in the world are you on about here? Take off your ‘radiative’ hat, Gates. It is clearly sitting way too tight.

You also say: “These supposed El Nino caused “step changes” to the tropospheric temperatures don’t hold up to the actual examination of the record (…)”

No, that’s exactly what it does. It is precisely through ‘actual examination of the record’ that you see that they are in fact ENSO caused. You just trying to shoo it off doesn’t make reality go away, Gates.

You claim (elsewhere) that the IPWP has warmed steadily with the gradually increasing ‘forcing’ from more atmospheric CO2 over the last 60+ years. Why don’t we see this at all in the normal OHC data from the specific region? Another case of putting alternative (wanted) reality before real reality?

http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/inodc_heat700_90-180E_15–15N_na_zps0d746047.png

That’s pretty much a decline all the way from 1955 down to 1998 and no general rise between 1955 and 2007. All ups and downs coincide neatly with ENSO events, especially since 1970. We see the great upward surge in OHC between 1970 and 1976 with the El Niño 72/73 downward spike not really managing to make up for much. Then we notice how there is no normal La Niña build-up of energy before the very strong El Niño of 82/83 and as a consequence, the general drop in OHC following it. You therefore see the general upsurge between 1983 and 1989, only split by the El Niño 86-88 drain, this period being the exact equivalent sequence of the preceding 1970-76 period, starting from a much lower level, because of ‘abnormal’ El Niño 82/83, and this is why there is no similar upward step here.

Next is the period 1995-2001 where there is another upward surge, only held back by the prodigious drain of El Niño 97/98. And finally we see the same thing happening 2007-12, during yet another La Niña dominated period.

The one thing that will be interesting to see is where the IPWP OHC will go next …

One thing that IS for certain, though, reading that graph, is that there is no trace of any CO2 ‘forcing’ signal to be found. ENSO signal? Oh yeah!

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$
0
0

GaryM

You said;

‘If only we could do away with elections, they way the EU is trying to.’

What did you mean by this?

You could argue that power does not lie with the elected representatives but with the bureaucrats in Brussels, and you could argue that the ‘list;’ system is not fair, and you could argue that the constituencies have little relevance to the electorate (our South West of England seat is bizarrely shared with Gibraltar)

But we do have elections so perhaps you could clarify your comment and also explain what you think Obama is trying to achieve that has parallels over here?

tonyb

Comment on El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming by climatereason

$
0
0

Web said

‘If it did, then this would cause a huge effect over the thousands of years these events have been going on.’

What effects? Like land temperatures going up and down? Or did you have something else in mind?

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by Geoff Sherrington

$
0
0

How can it be named Ocean Heat Content when about half of the ocean volume is very sparsely measured and the rest – the deeper part – is essentially not measured at all ((in realistic terms of representation in sampling theory)?
I spent a career sampling and measuring in Earth Science. I say it is anti-science to claim the optimistic uncertainties commonly expressed for ocean heat data.
Another 50 years of measurement and we might have data adequate for the making of decisions on climate adaptation, if needed.
We do not have that ability now. The data are too sparse in time and space and probably, in technology.
Anyone who tries to shoot me down should come armed with data and method, not simple platitudes.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images