Nuclear power and geoengineering are needed for climate solution

The UN has said the world needs to cut as much as 70% of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century to have any chance of avoiding 2 ˚C of warming.

More than half of the carbon dioxide emissions currently in the atmosphere will still be there 1,000 years from now—and roughly one-third will still be there in 20,000 years.

Emissions are still increasing and adding 20% with each doubling of world GDP

Based on the last ten years (which included a large world recession with slower growth) the world is still on track to double its purchasing power GDP every 14 years and increase emissions by 20%.

India had 1.7 tons per capita CO2 emissions or 2.1 billion tons total in 2010. India’s emissions are going to keep rising as the standard of living of Indians rises. India’s emission per capita are at about 1.95 to 2.0 tons per capita now.

The per capita emissions of India related to energy consumption in 2010 was 1.26 tons of CO2 and could grow to between 3.3 tons and 5.1 tons by the year 2047. There is still the non-energy consumption emissions which adds another 40-50% to the emissions level. India’s population is now 1.36 billion and could be 1.6 billion to 1.7 billion in 2047. India’s population will increase 18 to 25%. India’s emissions are projected to rise by 3 to 4 times.

Nuclear energy was faster and cheaper for France and Ontario than solar and wind is for Germany and California

France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (€290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less €400 billion. Germany would need 50% more nuclear energy than France to completely replace all other power generation. This would cost €600 billion if Germany could match France’s build from the 1980s. Costs and safety regulations have increased even though France’s nuclear power has operated without incident for over 30 years. 80 nuclear reactors would now cost €1600 billion euros for Germany. This would still be cheaper than the estimated costs for the solar and wind buildout that is underway.

France builts its nuclear power in less than 15 years.

A BDI study (by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the consultancy Prognos) says that cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (the lower end of Germany’s climate targets) – would require cumulative total investment of 1.5 trillion euros. Reducing emissions by 95 percent (the high end of Germany’s 2050 climate targets) would require total investment of about 2.3 trillion euros. This will take over 3 decades.

Geoengineering will be needed

Atmospheric Environment – Quantifying the impact of sulfate geoengineering on mortality from air quality and UV-B exposure

Highlights

• Direct, non-climate effects of sulfate injection produce net health risk reduction.
• Surface sulfur emission incurs 25 times the exposure from stratospheric injection.
• Disbeneficial climate change-driven health effects dominate impacts of injection.
• Net impacts of injection harmful despite beneficial photochemical response.
• Injection health impacts small relative to risks associated with climate change.

Abstract

Sulfate geoengineering is a proposed method to partially counteract the global radiative forcing from accumulated greenhouse gases, potentially mitigating some impacts of climate change. While likely to be effective in slowing increases in average temperatures and extreme precipitation, there are known side-effects and potential unintended consequences which have not been quantified. One such consequence is the direct human health impact. Given the significant uncertainties, we take a sensitivity approach to explore the mechanisms and range of potential impacts. Using a chemistry-transport model, we quantify the steady-state response of three public health risks to 1 °C global mean surface cooling. We separate impacts into those which are “radiative forcing-driven”, associated with climate change “reversal” through modification of global radiative forcing, and those “direct impacts” associated uniquely with using sulfate geoengineering to achieve this. We find that the direct (non-radiative forcing driven) impact is a decrease in global mortality of ∼13,000 annually. Here the benefits of reduced ozone exposure exceed increases in mortality due to UV and particulate matter, as each unit of injected sulfur incurs 1/25th the particulate matter exposure of a unit of sulfur emitted from surface sources. This reduction is exceeded by radiative forcing-driven health impacts resulting from using sulfate geoengineering to offset 1 °C of surface temperature rise. Increased particulate matter formation at these lower temperatures results in ∼39,000 mortalities which would have been avoided at higher temperatures. As such we estimate that sulfate geoengineering in 2040 would cause ∼26,000 (95% interval: −30,000 to +79,000) early deaths annually relative to the same year without geoengineering, largely due to the loss of health benefits associated with CO2-induced warming. These results account only for impacts due to changes in air quality and UV-B flux. They do not account for non-mortality impacts or changes in atmospheric dynamics, and must be considered in the wider context of other climate change impacts such as heatwave frequency and sea level rise.

Ocean seaweed and iron seeding will be needed

Seaweed production can be ramped up to offset all CO2 production.

Macro-algae forests covering 9% of the world’s ocean surface, which could produce sufficient biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, restoring pre-industrial levels. This amount of biomass could also increase sustainable fish production to potentially provide 200 kg/yr/person for 10 billion people. Additional benefits are reduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primary productivity and biodiversity.

Iron can be placed into the ocean to restore iron levels to what they were centuries ago. Every 100 tons of iron placed into the ocean can be used to trigger algae blooms which would die in a few weeks.

Treating 20 million square miles of ocean each year would sink 3.5 billion tons of CO2 every year. In 2009, researchers, aboard the Royal Navy’s HMS Endurance, have found that melting icebergs off the coast of Antarctica are releasing millions of tiny particles of iron into the southern Ocean, helping to create huge ‘blooms’ of algae that absorb carbon emissions. The algae then sinks to the icy depths, effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

360 thoughts on “Nuclear power and geoengineering are needed for climate solution”

  1. And yet: The Watermelons are hostile to both Nuke power and Geoengineering Why? Because they don’t want anything perceived to be an actual solution to the so-called Global Warming Fraud problem to be implemented in reality. That would ruin the party for them.

    Reply
  2. The AGW parish and choir are getting desperate because of that serious lack of apocalypse.Contrarily to other religions where they can say that the end is nigh but that it will come when the almighty decides (that is who knows?) this one has been making catastrophic predictions with time and temperature charts for a while.

    Reply
  3. [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F]… we believe that the present human-mediated (almost for sure) increase in atmospheric CO₂ poses a SIGNIFICANT risk of accelerated-acceleration type global warming. The stuff of scary nighttime stories and B grade movies. Moore’s Tales. I am — every year — reminded that the projections of the past 25 years (the period of increased confidence of a Global Catastrophe a’coming) have failed to materialize. There are plenty of sites that show past IPCC projections for the state of the Global Climate projected in the 2000’s which indicated a rise of 2.0° C or greater by 2020. Well its nigh into 2018.7 and the record hardly shows much warming at all. Half a degree? Maybe if you squint?Seriously:Woolly Mammoths revivals notwithstanding…(Who wouldn’t want the Big Woolly’s back?)Geoëngineering notwithstanding…Nuclear power is a great resource and we definitely should be using it. Bigly. Just saying GoatGuy”

    Reply
  4. And yet: The Watermelons are hostile to both Nuke power and GeoengineeringWhy? Because they don’t want anything perceived to be an actual solution to the so-called Global Warming Fraud problem to be implemented in reality.That would ruin the party for them.

    Reply
  5. HEY monkey man where is that reputable scientific organization that agrees with you denial BS. I ask you before and you used some excuse to not list one. Come on a smart guy like you should be able to list just one in the entire world. What do you call some one who cannot support their position with facts or even worse cannot admit they are wrong with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Reply
  6. Well goat GUY exactly where did you get you numbers for warming. NOAA is showing cumulative 0.9C for 2017. That means just 1.1C by the end of the century which should IMO happen in the next 15 years. It seems to be accelerating but then denialists will go back to their oil industry funded web site for some more BS. Just ask the folks in Alaska if they believe in global warming as they watch their glaciers melt away. The cars is going a hundred MPH towards the wall and we have not been killed yet so lets keep it up?

    Reply
  7. I don’t doubt that global warming and climate change are going to be a large problem. Except that it may no longer be that big a problem when it gets here, depending on how we react now. We’ve already doubled down on tech and couldn’t stop if we wanted to (unless a Bond villain triumphs and makes us do so). The solution for this won’t come from austerity. Humans are lousy at that. Like Matt Damon’s character in that movie, we are going to have to science the *&$! out of this. Anything else is like a daredevil approaching a big motorcycle jump over flaming buses, then deciding he might not make it and hitting the brakes . . . long after he is past the point where the brakes can possibly stop him in time. The correct move is to double-down and accelerate. I’m not saying we should we shouldn’t try to get this stuff under control, save the snail darters, keep the rivers from becoming flammable again, et cetera. What I’m saying is we won’t do it entirely with composting toilets and windmills, or even by all of us becoming subsistence farmers. Science and technology is the bus driver that got us here and trying to snatch the wheel away because we might have an accident coming up is the wrong move. Fission, then fusion as we can, absolutely! Artificial photosynthesis, bio-engineering, and improved solar, geo-thermal, and wind power? Go for it! Cheap desalinization, mining and refining land fills, solar shades, asteroid mining, and orbital manufacturing? Bring it all on. These aren’t luxuries, they are existential needs. Of course, this is probably preaching to the choir on this site.

    Reply
  8. The AGW parish and choir are getting desperate because of that serious lack of apocalypse. Contrarily to other religions, where they can say that the end is nigh but that it will come when the almighty decides (that is, who knows?), this one has been making catastrophic predictions with time and temperature charts for a while.

    Reply
  9. [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] … we believe that the present human-mediated (almost for sure) increase in atmospheric CO₂ poses a SIGNIFICANT risk of accelerated-acceleration type global warming. The stuff of scary nighttime stories and B grade movies. Moore’s Tales. I am — every year — reminded that the projections of the past 25 years (the period of increased confidence of a Global Catastrophe a’coming) have failed to materialize. There are plenty of sites that show past IPCC projections for the state of the Global Climate, projected in the 2000’s, which indicated a rise of 2.0° C or greater by 2020. Well, its nigh into 2018.7, and the record hardly shows much warming at all. Half a degree? Maybe if you squint? Seriously: Woolly Mammoths revivals notwithstanding… (Who wouldn’t want the Big Woolly’s back?) Geoëngineering notwithstanding,… Nuclear power is a great resource, and we definitely should be using it. Bigly. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  10. HEY monkey man where is that reputable scientific organization that agrees with you denial BS. I ask you before and you used some excuse to not list one. Come on a smart guy like you should be able to list just one in the entire world. What do you call some one who cannot support their position with facts or even worse cannot admit they are wrong with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Reply
  11. Well goat GUY exactly where did you get you numbers for warming. NOAA is showing cumulative 0.9C for 2017. That means just 1.1C by the end of the century which should IMO happen in the next 15 years. It seems to be accelerating but then denialists will go back to their oil industry funded web site for some more BS. Just ask the folks in Alaska if they believe in global warming as they watch their glaciers melt away. The cars is going a hundred MPH towards the wall and we have not been killed yet so lets keep it up?

    Reply
  12. I don’t doubt that global warming and climate change are going to be a large problem. Except that it may no longer be that big a problem when it gets here depending on how we react now.We’ve already doubled down on tech and couldn’t stop if we wanted to (unless a Bond villain triumphs and makes us do so). The solution for this won’t come from austerity. Humans are lousy at that. Like Matt Damon’s character in that movie we are going to have to science the *&$! out of this.Anything else is like a daredevil approaching a big motorcycle jump over flaming buses then deciding he might not make it and hitting the brakes . . . long after he is past the point where the brakes can possibly stop him in time. The correct move is to double-down and accelerate.I’m not saying we should we shouldn’t try to get this stuff under control save the snail darters keep the rivers from becoming flammable again et cetera. What I’m saying is we won’t do it entirely with composting toilets and windmills or even by all of us becoming subsistence farmers. Science and technology is the bus driver that got us here and trying to snatch the wheel away because we might have an accident coming up is the wrong move.Fission then fusion as we can absolutely! Artificial photosynthesis bio-engineering and improved solar geo-thermal and wind power? Go for it! Cheap desalinization mining and refining land fills solar shades asteroid mining and orbital manufacturing? Bring it all on. These aren’t luxuries they are existential needs. Of course this is probably preaching to the choir on this site.

    Reply
  13. some excuse to not list one.” As in: Why bother…because you will just shoot them down with some BS garbage slander. Yeah. That’s called a FACT. Not an ‘excuse’. “overwhelming evidence to the contrary?” What overwhelming evidence? We were told twenty-five years ago that New York would be underwater. Instead, we got one scandal after another of ‘reputable scientific organizations’ fraudulently modifying temp data because it showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since. NOAA, NASA, University of E. Anglia (remember those dâmning emails proving them engaging in fraudulent data modification…along with their pals all over the world) But like I said, the RESULTS..or rather lack thereof…speak for themselves. Totally.

    Reply
  14. Asking for us to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue again, Gaucho? Too bad I called you out on that before, eh?

    Reply
  15. In ten years, you’ll be wondering how you bought into all this fraud. In ten years, we will be in or starting to go into another Mini Ice Age. Sunspot activity does not lie. That is called ‘real science’. Not ‘consensus science’.

    Reply
  16. some excuse to not list one.””As in: Why bother…because you will just shoot them down with some BS garbage slander.Yeah. That’s called a FACT. Not an ‘excuse’.””””overwhelming evidence to the contrary?””””What overwhelming evidence? We were told twenty-five years ago that New York would be underwater. Instead”” we got one scandal after another of ‘reputable scientific organizations’ fraudulently modifying temp data because it showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.NOAA NASA University of E. Anglia (remember those dâmning emails proving them engaging in fraudulent data modification…along with their pals all over the world)But like I said”” the RESULTS..or rather lack thereof…speak for themselves. Totally.”””””””

    Reply
  17. Asking for us to prove to a blind man that the sky is colored blue again Gaucho? Too bad I called you out on that before eh?

    Reply
  18. In ten years you’ll be wondering how you bought into all this fraud. In ten years we will be in or starting to go into another Mini Ice Age.Sunspot activity does not lie. That is called ‘real science’. Not ‘consensus science’.

    Reply
  19. Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure. For example: what is the temp 100 ft above your house? How about 1000? Same for the oceans. It may seem picky but reviewing the three body problem and the delta epsilon definition of divergence would be useful. The atmosphere and the oceans belong to a class of systems that cannot be accurately modeled with a model smaller then the actual system.

    Reply
  20. Sorry you cannot increase the level of nuclear globally to the levels of France with the current technology. The risks of more nuclear disasters will be almost certain. The effects of the Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters are still lingering and we still do not fully understand them fully. Continued effort in shift to renewable energy along with reforestation in land and maybe in the ocean as well in the form of Kelp growth is the only viable solution in the short term.

    Reply
  21. The radiocarbon decrease rate observed after the moratorium upon atmospheric nuclear testing, gives insight as to how fast new additions of carbon to the atmosphere are sequestered by natural processes. The residence time for human’s carbon influence, injecting this C14 carbon tracer into the stratosphere, was 1.5 years –>troposphere, and a further 2.5 years–>ocean.

    Reply
  22. Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition temperature and pressure. For example: what is the temp 100 ft above your house? How about 1000? Same for the oceans.It may seem picky but reviewing the three body problem and the delta epsilon definition of divergence would be useful.The atmosphere and the oceans belong to a class of systems that cannot be accurately modeled with a model smaller then the actual system.

    Reply
  23. Sorry you cannot increase the level of nuclear globally to the levels of France with the current technology. The risks of more nuclear disasters will be almost certain. The effects of the Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters are still lingering and we still do not fully understand them fully. Continued effort in shift to renewable energy along with reforestation in land and maybe in the ocean as well in the form of Kelp growth is the only viable solution in the short term.

    Reply
  24. The radiocarbon decrease rate observed after the moratorium upon atmospheric nuclear testing gives insight as to how fast new additions of carbon to the atmosphere are sequestered by natural processes. The residence time for human’s carbon influence injecting this C14 carbon tracer into the stratosphere was 1.5 years –>troposphere and a further 2.5 years–>ocean.

    Reply
  25. How many people died due to Fukushima or Chernobyl (other than the initial first responders)? Zero for Fukushima, darn close to zero for Chernobyl.

    Reply
  26. Yes, they are. You need to deal with your reality allergy, dude! MEDIA POLITICIZE FLORENCE, BLAME TRUMP FOR STORMS, PREDICT MASS DEATH Hurricane Florence is now bearing down on North Carolina, and the media is looking to score political points. On MSNBC, host Chris Hayes invited meteorologist Eric Holthaus on to argue global warming is making hurricanes worse, and that President Trump is to blame. On CNN, political analyst John Avlon, in a segment titled “Reality Check,” suggested Trump is at fault for Hurricane Florence, and that his climate policies could kill up to 80,000 people per decade. Is Trump “complicit in this storm?” asked Alisyn Camerota in the segment introduction. “His policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change, which is often a blame for extreme weather,” Avlon answered. “On the same day Trump was discussing Florence, his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane. That’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump Administration.” Avlon rattled off a series of Obama-era environmental regulations the Trump Administration is rolling back — including pulling out of the Paris climate accord — and then boldly predicted a death toll in the thousands. “It is so bad according to two Harvard scientists, it could lead to 80,000 unnecessary deaths every decade,” Avlon said. “Warmer water means more intense storms. When President Trump called Hurricane Florence tremendously wet, he was on to something.” “This isn’t rocket science, it is climate science,” he concluded. “As long as we continue to aggressively ignore it, the cost in lives and dollars will escalate. That’s your reality check.” In the Washington Post, the paper editorialized that Trump is “complicit” in Hurricane Florence’s anticipated destruction. “When it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit,” the editors wrote. “He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address t

    Reply
  27. How many people died due to Fukushima or Chernobyl (other than the initial first responders)? Zero for Fukushima darn close to zero for Chernobyl.

    Reply
  28. Yes they are. You need to deal with your reality allergy dude!MEDIA POLITICIZE FLORENCE BLAME TRUMP FOR STORMS PREDICT MASS DEATHHurricane Florence is now bearing down on North Carolina and the media is looking to score political points.On MSNBC host Chris Hayes invited meteorologist Eric Holthaus on to argue global warming is making hurricanes worse and that President Trump is to blame.On CNN political analyst John Avlon in a segment titled Reality Check”””” suggested Trump is at fault for Hurricane Florence”” and that his climate policies could kill up to 80″”000 people per decade. Is Trump “”””complicit in this storm?”””” asked Alisyn Camerota in the segment introduction. “”””His policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change”” which is often a blame for extreme weather”””””” Avlon answered. “”””On the same day Trump was discussing Florence”””” his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane. That’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump Administration.””””Avlon rattled off a series of Obama-era environmental regulations the Trump Administration is rolling back — including pulling out of the Paris climate accord — and then boldly predicted a death toll in the thousands.””””It is so bad according to two Harvard scientists”” it could lead to 80000 unnecessary deaths every decade”””””” Avlon said. “”””Warmer water means more intense storms. When President Trump called Hurricane Florence tremendously wet”””” he was on to something.””””””””This isn’t rocket science”” it is climate science”””””” he concluded. “”””As long as we continue to aggressively ignore it”””” the cost in lives and dollars will escalate. That’s your reality check.””””In the Washington Post”””” the paper editorialized that Trump is “”””complicit”””” in Hurricane Florence’s anticipated destruction. “”””When it comes to extreme weather”” Mr. Trump is complicit”””””” the editors wrote. “”””He plays down humans’ role in increasing”

    Reply
  29. AGAIN where are your sources? You have no reputable sources. What a small man who believes he is a genius in his own mind and yet cannot support his declarations with facts or sources. Just another Troll with a key board

    Reply
  30. NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. That is the same as Bengazi gate? Throw enough crap and the chumps will believe it. I ask you AGAIN list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier position. You did not and cannot. LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS LIST of hundreds that disagrees with you: LINK to WIKI and search (Scientific opinion on climate change)

    Reply
  31. In addition, I strongly suggest molten salt reactors, with thorium and/or uranium for most of the reactors. They run at atmospheric pressure and have a number of inherent safety advantages. As Fermi said, “We want a reactor where if there is a problem, the crew can go out for coffee and spend an hour discussing what needs to be done.” Some of the reactors need to be advanced generation reactors that “burn up” most of the so-called nuclear waste. We don’t want to nuclear irradiate some of our tomb-raiding descendants ten thousand years from now.

    Reply
  32. Making up for the lack of great whale poop in iron poor parts of the ocean would likely be less harmful than monkeying with the effective solar constant. I’d also likely be a negative cost, since the value of the extra fish caught would greatly exceed the cost to purchase, and distribute iron compounds. It would help the reestablishment of whale populations too, since their food would be more abundant.

    Reply
  33. AGAIN where are your sources? You have no reputable sources. What a small man who believes he is a genius in his own mind and yet cannot support his declarations with facts or sources. Just another Troll with a key board

    Reply
  34. NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. That is the same as Bengazi gate? Throw enough crap and the chumps will believe it. I ask you AGAIN list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier position. You did not and cannot. LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS LIST of hundreds that disagrees with you:LINK to WIKI and search (Scientific opinion on climate change)

    Reply
  35. In addition I strongly suggest molten salt reactors with thorium and/or uranium for most of the reactors. They run at atmospheric pressure and have a number of inherent safety advantages. As Fermi said We want a reactor where if there is a problem”” the crew can go out for coffee and spend an hour discussing what needs to be done.”” Some of the reactors need to be advanced generation reactors that “”””burn up”””” most of the so-called nuclear waste. We don’t want to nuclear irradiate some of our tomb-raiding descendants ten thousand years from now.”””

    Reply
  36. Making up for the lack of great whale poop in iron poor parts of the ocean would likely be less harmful than monkeying with the effective solar constant. I’d also likely be a negative cost since the value of the extra fish caught would greatly exceed the cost to purchase and distribute iron compounds. It would help the reestablishment of whale populations too since their food would be more abundant.

    Reply
  37. I think it was Pournelle who proposed just putting the waste in the middle of a desert somewhere, surrounded by stone walls with carved signs in every language, including pictographs, declaring, “You will die if you go in here!” And leave it at that, the people who went in anyway would improve the gene pool by doing so.

    Reply
  38. Yes, you’d be looking at a “disaster” every 25 years, and based on the fatality rate from nuclear “disasters” at modern plants, (Not Chernobyl!) a disaster every 25 years would be… kind of inconsequential compared to most sources of energy. Per KWH, more people would die falling off roofs installing solar.

    Reply
  39. Whatever the reason, our history shows a major disaster every 6000 reactor years or so. Right now there are 450 nuclear plants producing 11% of the words electricity, so you would need 4000 plants. Even if you get the disaster rate to only every 100.000 years, your looking at a disaster every 25 years. And you need more plants to also cover heating and transportation.

    Reply
  40. Nuclear Power Plants create Atomic Waste that has to be GUARDED for Thousands of Years. What if a Terrorist stole some depleted Uranium and built a dirty bomb? Radioactive Fallout… The cost of Paying security guards for thousands of years makes nukes uneconomical.

    Reply
  41. I think it was Pournelle who proposed just putting the waste in the middle of a desert somewhere surrounded by stone walls with carved signs in every language including pictographs declaring You will die if you go in here!”” And leave it at that”””” the people who went in anyway would improve the gene pool by doing so.”””

    Reply
  42. Yes you’d be looking at a disaster”” every 25 years”””” and based on the fatality rate from nuclear “”””disasters”””” at modern plants”” (Not Chernobyl!) a disaster every 25 years would be… kind of inconsequential compared to most sources of energy.Per KWH”” more people would die falling off roofs installing solar.”””

    Reply
  43. Whatever the reason our history shows a major disaster every 6000 reactor years or so. Right now there are 450 nuclear plants producing 11{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the words electricity so you would need 4000 plants. Even if you get the disaster rate to only every 100.000 years your looking at a disaster every 25 years.And you need more plants to also cover heating and transportation.

    Reply
  44. Both nuclear power and renewable energy has effectively zero operating risks to the public. The nuclear vs renewable debate is a waste of time which only benefits the fossil fuel industry. The risks from renewable energy do not come from producing electricity, but rather from not producing enough energy to meet demand. In California, now deeply into solar energy, may have to purchase fossil fueled electricity to make up for the time periods when solar energy output falls below demand. In less developed areas in the world people have cut down trees that were higher on the mountain side where they lived. They did this tree cutting because they had exhausted all the trees in their neighborhoods. When the rains hit, many died in mud slides because the trees higher up had been cut down. Insufficient energy, renewable or not, has led to conflict, deaths, and large impacts on the environment. The burden on the renewable energy community is to show that they can reliably supply sufficient energy at a reasonable cost without nuclear power and still achieve a low carbon future. No advanced society has succeeded in doing this, including Germany with its Energiewende program. In New York it is even worse. The State plans to shut down the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants and replace them with gas plants. The GHG from these replacement gas plants is so large it will wipe out all the environmental gains the State’s environmental program (the REV program) has made since 2003 and all the future benefits of building the world’s largest off-shore wind farm. This enormous blunder is justified on fear mongering fictions that particular environmental groups have misled the government and public on for years. Now these fictions are backfiring since Indian Point will not be replaced by renewable energy, but by fossil fuels.

    Reply
  45. TMI, Fukushima, and Chernobyl all had zero offsite near term fatalities and off-site long term health effects, if any, that would be too small to be detectable. 28 people died at Chernobyl, 3 were in a helicopter that flew through the intense vertical plume and the rest were mainly firemen exposed to beta particles (electrons) that the radioactive fuel was emitting. They took off their outer coats because everything was so warm, only to have their skins cooked like a hot dog from the electrons…poor souls, another case where ignorance kills innocents. It is important to separate the zero off-site fatalities to on-site fatalities. The risks to the public from nuclear power are near zero.

    Reply
  46. Actually, a study was done last year on adjustments to the temperature records. Basically ALL the warming is due to the adjustments, the raw data isn’t showing an increase in temperature. Search for “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data” For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down. And, yes, I’m aware the Union of Concerned People Who Want to be Thought of as Scientists (You don’t have to be a scientist to join.) disputes the study.

    Reply
  47. Playing devil’s advocate, this doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how that sequestration effects atmospheric levels. One presumes the sequestered CO2 stock had much lower radiation levels, and the atmosphere exchanges rapidly with it. But this doesn’t imply that the amount of sequestered CO2 rises rapidly when atmospheric levels go up.

    Reply
  48. No, because the actual measurements are publicly available data and the data tampering to produce the appearance of warming is self evident, you have no reputable sources.

    Reply
  49. Let’s Generate Electricity and Clean Drinking Water at the same time. A Solar Powered Desalinization Plant Would Convert Seawater into Energy, Pure H2O and NaCl. We ought to build a giant solar power desalinization plant in Southern California. Convert Seawater into drinking water, salt and electricity. It would use solar reflectors to boil seawater and create steam. That steam would be used to drive turbines and create electricity. When the water cools it condenses into pure H2O and salt. The water would be sold to people for drinking, washing, watering livestock and watering plants. http://gvan42.blogspot.com/2018/08/lets-build-solar-powered-desalinization.html

    Reply
  50. There is no excuse to think any Chernobyl or so little as a TMI accident are even possible with the now up to 40 year old passively safe designs.

    Reply
  51. Nuclear Power Plants create Atomic Waste that has to be GUARDED for Thousands of Years. What if a Terrorist stole some depleted Uranium and built a dirty bomb? Radioactive Fallout… The cost of Paying security guards for thousands of years makes nukes uneconomical.

    Reply
  52. Both nuclear power and renewable energy has effectively zero operating risks to the public. The nuclear vs renewable debate is a waste of time which only benefits the fossil fuel industry. The risks from renewable energy do not come from producing electricity but rather from not producing enough energy to meet demand. In California now deeply into solar energy may have to purchase fossil fueled electricity to make up for the time periods when solar energy output falls below demand. In less developed areas in the world people have cut down trees that were higher on the mountain side where they lived. They did this tree cutting because they had exhausted all the trees in their neighborhoods. When the rains hit many died in mud slides because the trees higher up had been cut down. Insufficient energy renewable or not has led to conflict deaths and large impacts on the environment. The burden on the renewable energy community is to show that they can reliably supply sufficient energy at a reasonable cost without nuclear power and still achieve a low carbon future. No advanced society has succeeded in doing this including Germany with its Energiewende program. In New York it is even worse. The State plans to shut down the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants and replace them with gas plants. The GHG from these replacement gas plants is so large it will wipe out all the environmental gains the State’s environmental program (the REV program) has made since 2003 and all the future benefits of building the world’s largest off-shore wind farm. This enormous blunder is justified on fear mongering fictions that particular environmental groups have misled the government and public on for years. Now these fictions are backfiring since Indian Point will not be replaced by renewable energy but by fossil fuels.

    Reply
  53. TMI Fukushima and Chernobyl all had zero offsite near term fatalities and off-site long term health effects if any that would be too small to be detectable. 28 people died at Chernobyl 3 were in a helicopter that flew through the intense vertical plume and the rest were mainly firemen exposed to beta particles (electrons) that the radioactive fuel was emitting. They took off their outer coats because everything was so warm only to have their skins cooked like a hot dog from the electrons…poor souls another case where ignorance kills innocents. It is important to separate the zero off-site fatalities to on-site fatalities. The risks to the public from nuclear power are near zero.

    Reply
  54. Actually a study was done last year on adjustments to the temperature records. Basically ALL the warming is due to the adjustments the raw data isn’t showing an increase in temperature. Search for On the Validity of NOAA”” NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data””For instance”” their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up not the newly urban sites down.And yes”” I’m aware the Union of Concerned People Who Want to be Thought of as Scientists (You don’t have to be a scientist to join.) disputes the study.”””

    Reply
  55. Playing devil’s advocate this doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how that sequestration effects atmospheric levels. One presumes the sequestered CO2 stock had much lower radiation levels and the atmosphere exchanges rapidly with it.But this doesn’t imply that the amount of sequestered CO2 rises rapidly when atmospheric levels go up.

    Reply
  56. No because the actual measurements are publicly available data and the data tampering to produce the appearance of warming is self evident you have no reputable sources.

    Reply
  57. Let’s Generate Electricity and Clean Drinking Water at the same time. A Solar Powered Desalinization Plant Would Convert Seawater into Energy Pure H2O and NaCl. We ought to build a giant solar power desalinization plant in Southern California. Convert Seawater into drinking water salt and electricity. It would use solar reflectors to boil seawater and create steam. That steam would be used to drive turbines and create electricity. When the water cools it condenses into pure H2O and salt. The water would be sold to people for drinking washing watering livestock and watering plants. http://gvan42.blogspot.com/2018/08/lets-build-solar-powered-desalinization.html

    Reply
  58. There is no excuse to think any Chernobyl or so little as a TMI accident are even possible with the now up to 40 year old passively safe designs.

    Reply
  59. That’s the kind of thing Richard Muller was saying, till he got funding from the Koch brothers, et al, to do a detailed study of surface temperatures. Surprise, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study ended up pretty much exactly corroborating what GISStemp, Hadcrut, NOAA and other climate scientists all over the world had determined.

    Reply
  60. ‘temp data.. showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.’ 1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. 2016 was .56C hotter than 1998, with 2015 and 2017 not far behind. 2018 will likely be hotter than 2017 was. As for New York being underwater, parts of it were after Hurricane Sandy, and there’s plenty more coming down that train track.

    Reply
  61. ‘Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure. ‘ We can only hope that somebody invents the weather balloon in the next century or so.

    Reply
  62. Exponential growth in renewable will fix most of the problem. In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. Of course it will only happen when a lot of people start dying and not til then.

    Reply
  63. For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down. ” And yet, they expect people to take them seriously.

    Reply
  64. I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. Instead there might be some delay before the chickens come home to roost; those minding their business in 2001 get whacked for Reagan Era deep state interventions.

    Reply
  65. Plus they’re only going to bomb you with a dirty bomb if you’re a dhick, so just don’t be a dhick. ” Thing is, some people think minding your own business is you being a dhick — so you have to kill those people until they are not effective.

    Reply
  66. That’s the kind of thing Richard Muller was saying till he got funding from the Koch brothers et al to do a detailed study of surface temperatures. Surprise the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study ended up pretty much exactly corroborating what GISStemp Hadcrut NOAA and other climate scientists all over the world had determined.

    Reply
  67. ‘temp data.. showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.’1998 was a rampaging El Nino with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. 2016 was .56C hotter than 1998 with 2015 and 2017 not far behind. 2018 will likely be hotter than 2017 was. As for New York being underwater parts of it were after Hurricane Sandy and there’s plenty more coming down that train track.

    Reply
  68. ‘Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition temperature and pressure. ‘We can only hope that somebody invents the weather balloon in the next century or so.

    Reply
  69. Exponential growth in renewable will fix most of the problem. In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. Of course it will only happen when a lot of people start dying and not til then.

    Reply
  70. For instance their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up” not the newly urban sites down. “”And yet”””” they expect people to take them seriously.”””

    Reply
  71. I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. Instead there might be some delay before the chickens come home to roost; those minding their business in 2001 get whacked for Reagan Era deep state interventions.

    Reply
  72. Plus they’re only going to bomb you with a dirty bomb if you’re a dhick” so just don’t be a dhick. “”Thing is”””” some people think minding your own business is you being a dhick — so you have to kill those people until they are not effective.”””

    Reply
  73. And all of them use baselessly adjusted, not measured temperatures. There has been no actual program to accurately measure temperatures, only to adjust what measures there are until they agree with AGW theory.

    Reply
  74. 1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. ” But we know you are lying when you write that, because the temperatures are being adjusted to agree with that idea. Adjusted, not measured.

    Reply
  75. OK, let’s crunch some numbers for global warming and climate change, and the only realistic solution. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year Life cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants = 820 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants = 12 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants = 808 g of CO2 / kWh = 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWh Amount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation = 15,725,714,285,714 kWh per year = 15,725,714,286 MWh per year Power output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors)) = 4,000 MW = 35,040,000 MWh per year Number of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2 = 449 each nuclear plants equivalent to Palo Verde, or = 1,347 each 1,300 MW reactors Capital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors) = $11.3 billion in 2016 dollars (entire plant all three reactors) Total Capital Costs = $5.07 trillion in 2016 dollars World GDP (in 2016) = $75.4 trillion Summary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants, or about 1,350 1,300 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67% of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2%. So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe, clean nukes Other efforts (solar and wind, afforestation, direct carbon capture, fertilizing the oceans with iron sulfate, etc.) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy. Nukes can also use off-peak KWh to electrolysize water to create enough hydrogen (without fossil fuel reformatti

    Reply
  76. And all of them use baselessly adjusted not measured temperatures. There has been no actual program to accurately measure temperatures only to adjust what measures there are until they agree with AGW theory.

    Reply
  77. 1998 was a rampaging El Nino” with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. “”But we know you are lying when you write that”” because the temperatures are being adjusted to agree with that idea. Adjusted”” not measured.”””

    Reply
  78. OK let’s crunch some numbers for global warming and climate change and the only realistic solution.Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13760000000 tons / yearLife cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants= 820 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants= 12 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants= 808 g of CO2 / kWh= 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWhAmount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation= 15725714285714 kWh per year= 15725714286 MWh per yearPower output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 3 each 1300 MW reactors))= 4000 MW= 35040000 MWh per yearNumber of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2= 449 each nuclear plants equivalent to Palo Verde or= 1347 each 1300 MW reactorsCapital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 3 each 1300 MW reactors)= $11.3 billion in 2016 dollars (entire plant all three reactors)Total Capital Costs= $5.07 trillion in 2016 dollarsWorld GDP (in 2016)= $75.4 trillionSummary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants or about 1350 1300 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe clean nukesOther efforts (solar and wind afforestation direct carbon capture fertilizing the oceans with iron

    Reply
  79. gregory’ i agree with you, however, I think the fusion reactor is on the verge of being perfected. no more waste. the fusion reactor will be the answer to our energy and climate change problems.

    Reply
  80. gregory’i agree with you however I think the fusion reactor is on the verge of being perfected. no more waste. the fusion reactor will be the answer to our energy and climate change problems.

    Reply
  81. As long as we are unable to control a technology, it is insane to employ it E.g., Fukushima which will blow up even more into our faces in near future.

    Reply
  82. As long as we are unable to control a technology it is insane to employ it E.g. Fukushima which will blow up even more into our faces in near future.

    Reply
  83. Don’t know where you’re living, but New Zealand just had its warmest summer on record. Get outside a bit more. I spent decades hang gliding, skiing and gardening, and I watch what’s happening. Why would I lie ? ( Incidentally, regarding this article, the best years for skiing were right after Mount Pinatubo erupted, when I was just getting into it. Kind of ruined me for later years. )

    Reply
  84. ‘ In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. ‘ France, Sweden, Belgium, Ontario, Hungary, Ukraine, Switzerland – all built enough nuclear to cover their baseload. 40% or more. How many have an equivalent amount of wind or solar ? One – tiny Denmark, which is so embedded with the German and Scandinavian grids, that the two halves of the country are much better linked to Sweden, Norway and Germany than to each other. At the moment they’re getting 31% of their power from wind, as compared to 40% from Norwegian hydro, but during last summer’s high pressure periods wind production stayed low for six weeks in a row. The highest percentage from solar anywhere is about 9% ( Italy and Greece ), but in winter that figure is at least halved. Without lots of hydro, or more usually fossil fuel, as backup, wind and solar are useless, and average emissions from countries relying on them are nowhere near as low as those using mainly nuclear, hydro and geothermal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=DK-DK1

    Reply
  85. Don’t know where you’re living but New Zealand just had its warmest summer on record. Get outside a bit more. I spent decades hang gliding skiing and gardening and I watch what’s happening. Why would I lie ? ( Incidentally regarding this article the best years for skiing were right after Mount Pinatubo erupted when I was just getting into it. Kind of ruined me for later years. )

    Reply
  86. ‘ In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. ‘ France Sweden Belgium Ontario Hungary Ukraine Switzerland – all built enough nuclear to cover their baseload. 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more. How many have an equivalent amount of wind or solar ? One – tiny Denmark which is so embedded with the German and Scandinavian grids that the two halves of the country are much better linked to Sweden Norway and Germany than to each other. At the moment they’re getting 31{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their power from wind as compared to 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} from Norwegian hydro but during last summer’s high pressure periods wind production stayed low for six weeks in a row. The highest percentage from solar anywhere is about 9{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} ( Italy and Greece ) but in winter that figure is at least halved. Without lots of hydro or more usually fossil fuel as backup wind and solar are useless and average emissions from countries relying on them are nowhere near as low as those using mainly nuclear hydro and geothermal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=DK-DK1

    Reply
  87. Nothing wrong with having gas turbines as backup as long as you don’t often use them. All countries have more than enough wind and solar resources to do the job. Just a matter of building them. Like I said, the same way they build nukes they can build solar and wind power plants. In fact it would be cheaper and you won’t need the processing and the reprocessing nuclear plants and their radioactive waste.

    Reply
  88. Nothing wrong with having gas turbines as backup as long as you don’t often use them. All countries have more than enough wind and solar resources to do the job. Just a matter of building them. Like I said the same way they build nukes they can build solar and wind power plants. In fact it would be cheaper and you won’t need the processing and the reprocessing nuclear plants and their radioactive waste.

    Reply
  89. What do you feel confident controlling during a tsunami drowns 20,000 people in 5 minutes? Did anything work well that day? You are a f00l.

    Reply
  90. What do you feel confident controlling during a tsunami drowns 20000 people in 5 minutes? Did anything work well that day? You are a f00l.

    Reply
  91. Nuclear energy is safer than any other form of energy generation. No one died from radiation following Fukushima and no-one is expected to die. The real problem was fear of radiation – which killed >1500 people.

    Reply
  92. There is no conceivable scenario in which renewables can meet energy needs within the foreseeable future. That is why the fossil fuel industry loves renewables. They hate nuclear as it is only nuclear that poses an existential threat.

    Reply
  93. You are wrong about this for two reasons. (1) Intermittent supply meaning that it will be increasingly difficult to decrease fossil fuel use and impossible to eliminate it. (2) The vast footprint of the required wind turbines, solar panels, and connecting grid lines will devastate the environment and horrify citizens.

    Reply
  94. Nuclear energy is safer than any other form of energy generation. No one died from radiation following Fukushima and no-one is expected to die. The real problem was fear of radiation – which killed >1500 people.

    Reply
  95. There is no conceivable scenario in which renewables can meet energy needs within the foreseeable future. That is why the fossil fuel industry loves renewables. They hate nuclear as it is only nuclear that poses an existential threat.

    Reply
  96. You are wrong about this for two reasons. (1) Intermittent supply meaning that it will be increasingly difficult to decrease fossil fuel use and impossible to eliminate it. (2) The vast footprint of the required wind turbines solar panels and connecting grid lines will devastate the environment and horrify citizens.

    Reply
  97. The supply is not intermittent. The wind tower are installed in areas with a steady breeze. The blades have rotational inertia so that steady their output. Then the output of hundreds and even thousands of towers are integrated. The supply is steady. Most of the land used for wind towers and solar panels are marginal land without any other use. And the land is located in sparsely populated areas. Most of the transmissions lines to the cities and suburbs already exist. What they build is a tie from the area with the renewable to the already existing transmission lines and that normally goes over marginal land.

    Reply
  98. The supply is not intermittent. The wind tower are installed in areas with a steady breeze. The blades have rotational inertia so that steady their output. Then the output of hundreds and even thousands of towers are integrated. The supply is steady. Most of the land used for wind towers and solar panels are marginal land without any other use. And the land is located in sparsely populated areas. Most of the transmissions lines to the cities and suburbs already exist. What they build is a tie from the area with the renewable to the already existing transmission lines and that normally goes over marginal land.

    Reply
  99. CO2 is plant food. Plants are animal & human food. Truth is we’d be better off at 600 or 800 ppm than we are today at 400 ppm.

    Reply
  100. CO2 is plant food. Plants are animal & human food. Truth is, we’d be better off at 600 or 800 ppm than we are today at 400 ppm.

    Reply
  101. The supply is not intermittent. The wind tower are installed in areas with a steady breeze. The blades have rotational inertia so that steady their output. Then the output of hundreds and even thousands of towers are integrated. The supply is steady. Most of the land used for wind towers and solar panels are marginal land without any other use. And the land is located in sparsely populated areas. Most of the transmissions lines to the cities and suburbs already exist. What they build is a tie from the area with the renewable to the already existing transmission lines and that normally goes over marginal land.

    Reply
  102. The supply is not intermittent. The wind tower are installed in areas with a steady breeze. The blades have rotational inertia so that steady their output. Then the output of hundreds and even thousands of towers are integrated. The supply is steady. Most of the land used for wind towers and solar panels are marginal land without any other use. And the land is located in sparsely populated areas. Most of the transmissions lines to the cities and suburbs already exist. What they build is a tie from the area with the renewable to the already existing transmission lines and that normally goes over marginal land.

    Reply
  103. The supply is not intermittent. The wind tower are installed in areas with a steady breeze. The blades have rotational inertia so that steady their output. Then the output of hundreds and even thousands of towers are integrated. The supply is steady. Most of the land used for wind towers and solar panels are marginal land without any other use. And the land is located in sparsely populated areas.

    Most of the transmissions lines to the cities and suburbs already exist. What they build is a tie from the area with the renewable to the already existing transmission lines and that normally goes over marginal land.

    Reply
  104. Nuclear energy is safer than any other form of energy generation. No one died from radiation following Fukushima and no-one is expected to die. The real problem was fear of radiation – which killed >1500 people.

    Reply
  105. Nuclear energy is safer than any other form of energy generation. No one died from radiation following Fukushima and no-one is expected to die. The real problem was fear of radiation – which killed >1500 people.

    Reply
  106. There is no conceivable scenario in which renewables can meet energy needs within the foreseeable future. That is why the fossil fuel industry loves renewables. They hate nuclear as it is only nuclear that poses an existential threat.

    Reply
  107. There is no conceivable scenario in which renewables can meet energy needs within the foreseeable future. That is why the fossil fuel industry loves renewables. They hate nuclear as it is only nuclear that poses an existential threat.

    Reply
  108. You are wrong about this for two reasons. (1) Intermittent supply meaning that it will be increasingly difficult to decrease fossil fuel use and impossible to eliminate it. (2) The vast footprint of the required wind turbines, solar panels, and connecting grid lines will devastate the environment and horrify citizens.

    Reply
  109. You are wrong about this for two reasons. (1) Intermittent supply meaning that it will be increasingly difficult to decrease fossil fuel use and impossible to eliminate it. (2) The vast footprint of the required wind turbines solar panels and connecting grid lines will devastate the environment and horrify citizens.

    Reply
  110. There is no conceivable scenario in which renewables can meet energy needs within the foreseeable future. That is why the fossil fuel industry loves renewables. They hate nuclear as it is only nuclear that poses an existential threat.

    Reply
  111. You are wrong about this for two reasons. (1) Intermittent supply meaning that it will be increasingly difficult to decrease fossil fuel use and impossible to eliminate it. (2) The vast footprint of the required wind turbines, solar panels, and connecting grid lines will devastate the environment and horrify citizens.

    Reply
  112. What do you feel confident controlling during a tsunami drowns 20,000 people in 5 minutes? Did anything work well that day? You are a f00l.

    Reply
  113. What do you feel confident controlling during a tsunami drowns 20000 people in 5 minutes? Did anything work well that day? You are a f00l.

    Reply
  114. Nothing wrong with having gas turbines as backup as long as you don’t often use them. All countries have more than enough wind and solar resources to do the job. Just a matter of building them. Like I said, the same way they build nukes they can build solar and wind power plants. In fact it would be cheaper and you won’t need the processing and the reprocessing nuclear plants and their radioactive waste.

    Reply
  115. Nothing wrong with having gas turbines as backup as long as you don’t often use them. All countries have more than enough wind and solar resources to do the job. Just a matter of building them. Like I said the same way they build nukes they can build solar and wind power plants. In fact it would be cheaper and you won’t need the processing and the reprocessing nuclear plants and their radioactive waste.

    Reply
  116. Nothing wrong with having gas turbines as backup as long as you don’t often use them. All countries have more than enough wind and solar resources to do the job. Just a matter of building them. Like I said, the same way they build nukes they can build solar and wind power plants. In fact it would be cheaper and you won’t need the processing and the reprocessing nuclear plants and their radioactive waste.

    Reply
  117. Don’t know where you’re living, but New Zealand just had its warmest summer on record. Get outside a bit more. I spent decades hang gliding, skiing and gardening, and I watch what’s happening. Why would I lie ? ( Incidentally, regarding this article, the best years for skiing were right after Mount Pinatubo erupted, when I was just getting into it. Kind of ruined me for later years. )

    Reply
  118. Don’t know where you’re living but New Zealand just had its warmest summer on record. Get outside a bit more. I spent decades hang gliding skiing and gardening and I watch what’s happening. Why would I lie ? ( Incidentally regarding this article the best years for skiing were right after Mount Pinatubo erupted when I was just getting into it. Kind of ruined me for later years. )

    Reply
  119. ‘ In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. ‘ France, Sweden, Belgium, Ontario, Hungary, Ukraine, Switzerland – all built enough nuclear to cover their baseload. 40% or more. How many have an equivalent amount of wind or solar ? One – tiny Denmark, which is so embedded with the German and Scandinavian grids, that the two halves of the country are much better linked to Sweden, Norway and Germany than to each other. At the moment they’re getting 31% of their power from wind, as compared to 40% from Norwegian hydro, but during last summer’s high pressure periods wind production stayed low for six weeks in a row. The highest percentage from solar anywhere is about 9% ( Italy and Greece ), but in winter that figure is at least halved. Without lots of hydro, or more usually fossil fuel, as backup, wind and solar are useless, and average emissions from countries relying on them are nowhere near as low as those using mainly nuclear, hydro and geothermal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=DK-DK1

    Reply
  120. ‘ In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. ‘ France Sweden Belgium Ontario Hungary Ukraine Switzerland – all built enough nuclear to cover their baseload. 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more. How many have an equivalent amount of wind or solar ? One – tiny Denmark which is so embedded with the German and Scandinavian grids that the two halves of the country are much better linked to Sweden Norway and Germany than to each other. At the moment they’re getting 31{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their power from wind as compared to 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} from Norwegian hydro but during last summer’s high pressure periods wind production stayed low for six weeks in a row. The highest percentage from solar anywhere is about 9{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} ( Italy and Greece ) but in winter that figure is at least halved. Without lots of hydro or more usually fossil fuel as backup wind and solar are useless and average emissions from countries relying on them are nowhere near as low as those using mainly nuclear hydro and geothermal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=DK-DK1

    Reply
  121. As long as we are unable to control a technology, it is insane to employ it E.g., Fukushima which will blow up even more into our faces in near future.

    Reply
  122. As long as we are unable to control a technology it is insane to employ it E.g. Fukushima which will blow up even more into our faces in near future.

    Reply
  123. Don’t know where you’re living, but New Zealand just had its warmest summer on record. Get outside a bit more. I spent decades hang gliding, skiing and gardening, and I watch what’s happening. Why would I lie ? ( Incidentally, regarding this article, the best years for skiing were right after Mount Pinatubo erupted, when I was just getting into it. Kind of ruined me for later years. )

    Reply
  124. ‘ In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. ‘ France, Sweden, Belgium, Ontario, Hungary, Ukraine, Switzerland – all built enough nuclear to cover their baseload. 40% or more. How many have an equivalent amount of wind or solar ? One – tiny Denmark, which is so embedded with the German and Scandinavian grids, that the two halves of the country are much better linked to Sweden, Norway and Germany than to each other. At the moment they’re getting 31% of their power from wind, as compared to 40% from Norwegian hydro, but during last summer’s high pressure periods wind production stayed low for six weeks in a row. The highest percentage from solar anywhere is about 9% ( Italy and Greece ), but in winter that figure is at least halved. Without lots of hydro, or more usually fossil fuel, as backup, wind and solar are useless, and average emissions from countries relying on them are nowhere near as low as those using mainly nuclear, hydro and geothermal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=DK-DK1

    Reply
  125. gregory’ i agree with you, however, I think the fusion reactor is on the verge of being perfected. no more waste. the fusion reactor will be the answer to our energy and climate change problems.

    Reply
  126. gregory’i agree with you however I think the fusion reactor is on the verge of being perfected. no more waste. the fusion reactor will be the answer to our energy and climate change problems.

    Reply
  127. gregory’
    i agree with you, however, I think the fusion reactor is on the verge of being perfected. no more waste. the fusion reactor will be the answer to our energy and climate change problems.

    Reply
  128. And all of them use baselessly adjusted, not measured temperatures. There has been no actual program to accurately measure temperatures, only to adjust what measures there are until they agree with AGW theory.

    Reply
  129. And all of them use baselessly adjusted not measured temperatures. There has been no actual program to accurately measure temperatures only to adjust what measures there are until they agree with AGW theory.

    Reply
  130. 1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. ” But we know you are lying when you write that, because the temperatures are being adjusted to agree with that idea. Adjusted, not measured.

    Reply
  131. 1998 was a rampaging El Nino” with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. “”But we know you are lying when you write that”” because the temperatures are being adjusted to agree with that idea. Adjusted”” not measured.”””

    Reply
  132. OK, let’s crunch some numbers for global warming and climate change, and the only realistic solution. Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32,000,000,000 tons per year Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43% Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13,760,000,000 tons / year Life cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants = 820 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants = 12 g of CO2 / kWh Life cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants = 808 g of CO2 / kWh = 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWh Amount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation = 15,725,714,285,714 kWh per year = 15,725,714,286 MWh per year Power output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors)) = 4,000 MW = 35,040,000 MWh per year Number of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2 = 449 each nuclear plants equivalent to Palo Verde, or = 1,347 each 1,300 MW reactors Capital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors) = $11.3 billion in 2016 dollars (entire plant all three reactors) Total Capital Costs = $5.07 trillion in 2016 dollars World GDP (in 2016) = $75.4 trillion Summary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants, or about 1,350 1,300 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67% of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2%. So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe, clean nukes Other efforts (solar and wind, afforestation, direct carbon capture, fertilizing the oceans with iron sulfate, etc.) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy. Nukes can also use off-peak KWh to electrolysize water to create enough hydrogen (without fossil fuel reformatti

    Reply
  133. OK let’s crunch some numbers for global warming and climate change and the only realistic solution.Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities = 32000000000 tons per yearFraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks) = 43{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere = 13760000000 tons / yearLife cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants= 820 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants= 12 g of CO2 / kWhLife cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants= 808 g of CO2 / kWh= 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWhAmount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation= 15725714285714 kWh per year= 15725714286 MWh per yearPower output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 3 each 1300 MW reactors))= 4000 MW= 35040000 MWh per yearNumber of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2= 449 each nuclear plants equivalent to Palo Verde or= 1347 each 1300 MW reactorsCapital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde 3 each 1300 MW reactors)= $11.3 billion in 2016 dollars (entire plant all three reactors)Total Capital Costs= $5.07 trillion in 2016 dollarsWorld GDP (in 2016)= $75.4 trillionSummary: There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants or about 1350 1300 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes. Safe clean nukesOther efforts (solar and wind afforestation direct carbon capture fertilizing the oceans with iron

    Reply
  134. That’s the kind of thing Richard Muller was saying, till he got funding from the Koch brothers, et al, to do a detailed study of surface temperatures. Surprise, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study ended up pretty much exactly corroborating what GISStemp, Hadcrut, NOAA and other climate scientists all over the world had determined.

    Reply
  135. That’s the kind of thing Richard Muller was saying till he got funding from the Koch brothers et al to do a detailed study of surface temperatures. Surprise the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study ended up pretty much exactly corroborating what GISStemp Hadcrut NOAA and other climate scientists all over the world had determined.

    Reply
  136. ‘temp data.. showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.’ 1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. 2016 was .56C hotter than 1998, with 2015 and 2017 not far behind. 2018 will likely be hotter than 2017 was. As for New York being underwater, parts of it were after Hurricane Sandy, and there’s plenty more coming down that train track.

    Reply
  137. ‘temp data.. showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.’1998 was a rampaging El Nino with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. 2016 was .56C hotter than 1998 with 2015 and 2017 not far behind. 2018 will likely be hotter than 2017 was. As for New York being underwater parts of it were after Hurricane Sandy and there’s plenty more coming down that train track.

    Reply
  138. ‘Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure. ‘ We can only hope that somebody invents the weather balloon in the next century or so.

    Reply
  139. ‘Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition temperature and pressure. ‘We can only hope that somebody invents the weather balloon in the next century or so.

    Reply
  140. Exponential growth in renewable will fix most of the problem. In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. Of course it will only happen when a lot of people start dying and not til then.

    Reply
  141. Exponential growth in renewable will fix most of the problem. In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. Of course it will only happen when a lot of people start dying and not til then.

    Reply
  142. And all of them use baselessly adjusted, not measured temperatures. There has been no actual program to accurately measure temperatures, only to adjust what measures there are until they agree with AGW theory.

    Reply
  143. ” 1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. ”

    But we know you are lying when you write that, because the temperatures are being adjusted to agree with that idea. Adjusted, not measured.

    Reply
  144. OK, let’s crunch some numbers for global warming and climate change, and the only realistic solution.

    Amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by human activities
    = 32,000,000,000 tons per year
    Fraction retained in the atmosphere (not absorbed by existing carbon sinks)
    = 43%
    Annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere
    = 13,760,000,000 tons / year

    Life cycle CO2 emissions from coal power plants
    = 820 g of CO2 / kWh
    Life cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants
    = 12 g of CO2 / kWh
    Life cycle CO2 reduction using nuclear power plants
    = 808 g of CO2 / kWh
    = 1.75 lbs of CO2 / kWh

    Amount of energy to be replaced and eliminate CO2 accumulation
    = 15,725,714,285,714 kWh per year
    = 15,725,714,286 MWh per year
    Power output of large nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors))
    = 4,000 MW
    = 35,040,000 MWh per year

    Number of large nuclear plants required to replace coal plants emitting excess CO2
    = 449 each nuclear plants equivalent to Palo Verde, or
    = 1,347 each 1,300 MW reactors

    Capital cost of nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, 3 each 1,300 MW reactors)
    = $11.3 billion in 2016 dollars (entire plant all three reactors)
    Total Capital Costs
    = $5.07 trillion in 2016 dollars

    World GDP (in 2016)
    = $75.4 trillion

    Summary:

    There are currently 467 operational nuclear power plants world wide. We can eliminate all excess CO2 by adding another 450 plants, or about 1,350 1,300 MW reactors. The cost would be about 6.67% of world GDP. Annual percent of world GDP spent on the military is about 2%.

    So we solve global warming by doubling the number of nuclear plants world wide. We simply cannot prevent global warming without lots of nukes.

    Safe, clean nukes

    Other efforts (solar and wind, afforestation, direct carbon capture, fertilizing the oceans with iron sulfate, etc.) can help but they are not nearly as cost effective as expanding nuclear energy.

    Nukes can also use off-peak KWh to electrolysize water to create enough hydrogen (without fossil fuel reformatting) to create a hydrogen fuel cell economy that avoids the chief problem with relying on batteries for energy storage. Even the best rechargeable battery wears out over time and will no longer take a charge. Disposing of these batteries will be a major toxic waste disposal problem.

    Reply
  145. For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down. ” And yet, they expect people to take them seriously.

    Reply
  146. For instance their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up” not the newly urban sites down. “”And yet”””” they expect people to take them seriously.”””

    Reply
  147. I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. Instead there might be some delay before the chickens come home to roost; those minding their business in 2001 get whacked for Reagan Era deep state interventions.

    Reply
  148. I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. Instead there might be some delay before the chickens come home to roost; those minding their business in 2001 get whacked for Reagan Era deep state interventions.

    Reply
  149. Plus they’re only going to bomb you with a dirty bomb if you’re a dhick, so just don’t be a dhick. ” Thing is, some people think minding your own business is you being a dhick — so you have to kill those people until they are not effective.

    Reply
  150. Plus they’re only going to bomb you with a dirty bomb if you’re a dhick” so just don’t be a dhick. “”Thing is”””” some people think minding your own business is you being a dhick — so you have to kill those people until they are not effective.”””

    Reply
  151. Both nuclear power and renewable energy has effectively zero operating risks to the public. The nuclear vs renewable debate is a waste of time which only benefits the fossil fuel industry. The risks from renewable energy do not come from producing electricity, but rather from not producing enough energy to meet demand. In California, now deeply into solar energy, may have to purchase fossil fueled electricity to make up for the time periods when solar energy output falls below demand. In less developed areas in the world people have cut down trees that were higher on the mountain side where they lived. They did this tree cutting because they had exhausted all the trees in their neighborhoods. When the rains hit, many died in mud slides because the trees higher up had been cut down. Insufficient energy, renewable or not, has led to conflict, deaths, and large impacts on the environment. The burden on the renewable energy community is to show that they can reliably supply sufficient energy at a reasonable cost without nuclear power and still achieve a low carbon future. No advanced society has succeeded in doing this, including Germany with its Energiewende program. In New York it is even worse. The State plans to shut down the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants and replace them with gas plants. The GHG from these replacement gas plants is so large it will wipe out all the environmental gains the State’s environmental program (the REV program) has made since 2003 and all the future benefits of building the world’s largest off-shore wind farm. This enormous blunder is justified on fear mongering fictions that particular environmental groups have misled the government and public on for years. Now these fictions are backfiring since Indian Point will not be replaced by renewable energy, but by fossil fuels.

    Reply
  152. Both nuclear power and renewable energy has effectively zero operating risks to the public. The nuclear vs renewable debate is a waste of time which only benefits the fossil fuel industry. The risks from renewable energy do not come from producing electricity but rather from not producing enough energy to meet demand. In California now deeply into solar energy may have to purchase fossil fueled electricity to make up for the time periods when solar energy output falls below demand. In less developed areas in the world people have cut down trees that were higher on the mountain side where they lived. They did this tree cutting because they had exhausted all the trees in their neighborhoods. When the rains hit many died in mud slides because the trees higher up had been cut down. Insufficient energy renewable or not has led to conflict deaths and large impacts on the environment. The burden on the renewable energy community is to show that they can reliably supply sufficient energy at a reasonable cost without nuclear power and still achieve a low carbon future. No advanced society has succeeded in doing this including Germany with its Energiewende program. In New York it is even worse. The State plans to shut down the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants and replace them with gas plants. The GHG from these replacement gas plants is so large it will wipe out all the environmental gains the State’s environmental program (the REV program) has made since 2003 and all the future benefits of building the world’s largest off-shore wind farm. This enormous blunder is justified on fear mongering fictions that particular environmental groups have misled the government and public on for years. Now these fictions are backfiring since Indian Point will not be replaced by renewable energy but by fossil fuels.

    Reply
  153. TMI, Fukushima, and Chernobyl all had zero offsite near term fatalities and off-site long term health effects, if any, that would be too small to be detectable. 28 people died at Chernobyl, 3 were in a helicopter that flew through the intense vertical plume and the rest were mainly firemen exposed to beta particles (electrons) that the radioactive fuel was emitting. They took off their outer coats because everything was so warm, only to have their skins cooked like a hot dog from the electrons…poor souls, another case where ignorance kills innocents. It is important to separate the zero off-site fatalities to on-site fatalities. The risks to the public from nuclear power are near zero.

    Reply
  154. TMI Fukushima and Chernobyl all had zero offsite near term fatalities and off-site long term health effects if any that would be too small to be detectable. 28 people died at Chernobyl 3 were in a helicopter that flew through the intense vertical plume and the rest were mainly firemen exposed to beta particles (electrons) that the radioactive fuel was emitting. They took off their outer coats because everything was so warm only to have their skins cooked like a hot dog from the electrons…poor souls another case where ignorance kills innocents. It is important to separate the zero off-site fatalities to on-site fatalities. The risks to the public from nuclear power are near zero.

    Reply
  155. Actually, a study was done last year on adjustments to the temperature records. Basically ALL the warming is due to the adjustments, the raw data isn’t showing an increase in temperature. Search for “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data” For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down. And, yes, I’m aware the Union of Concerned People Who Want to be Thought of as Scientists (You don’t have to be a scientist to join.) disputes the study.

    Reply
  156. Actually a study was done last year on adjustments to the temperature records. Basically ALL the warming is due to the adjustments the raw data isn’t showing an increase in temperature. Search for On the Validity of NOAA”” NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data””For instance”” their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up not the newly urban sites down.And yes”” I’m aware the Union of Concerned People Who Want to be Thought of as Scientists (You don’t have to be a scientist to join.) disputes the study.”””

    Reply
  157. Playing devil’s advocate, this doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how that sequestration effects atmospheric levels. One presumes the sequestered CO2 stock had much lower radiation levels, and the atmosphere exchanges rapidly with it. But this doesn’t imply that the amount of sequestered CO2 rises rapidly when atmospheric levels go up.

    Reply
  158. Playing devil’s advocate this doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how that sequestration effects atmospheric levels. One presumes the sequestered CO2 stock had much lower radiation levels and the atmosphere exchanges rapidly with it.But this doesn’t imply that the amount of sequestered CO2 rises rapidly when atmospheric levels go up.

    Reply
  159. No, because the actual measurements are publicly available data and the data tampering to produce the appearance of warming is self evident, you have no reputable sources.

    Reply
  160. No because the actual measurements are publicly available data and the data tampering to produce the appearance of warming is self evident you have no reputable sources.

    Reply
  161. Let’s Generate Electricity and Clean Drinking Water at the same time. A Solar Powered Desalinization Plant Would Convert Seawater into Energy, Pure H2O and NaCl. We ought to build a giant solar power desalinization plant in Southern California. Convert Seawater into drinking water, salt and electricity. It would use solar reflectors to boil seawater and create steam. That steam would be used to drive turbines and create electricity. When the water cools it condenses into pure H2O and salt. The water would be sold to people for drinking, washing, watering livestock and watering plants. http://gvan42.blogspot.com/2018/08/lets-build-solar-powered-desalinization.html

    Reply
  162. Let’s Generate Electricity and Clean Drinking Water at the same time. A Solar Powered Desalinization Plant Would Convert Seawater into Energy Pure H2O and NaCl. We ought to build a giant solar power desalinization plant in Southern California. Convert Seawater into drinking water salt and electricity. It would use solar reflectors to boil seawater and create steam. That steam would be used to drive turbines and create electricity. When the water cools it condenses into pure H2O and salt. The water would be sold to people for drinking washing watering livestock and watering plants. http://gvan42.blogspot.com/2018/08/lets-build-solar-powered-desalinization.html

    Reply
  163. There is no excuse to think any Chernobyl or so little as a TMI accident are even possible with the now up to 40 year old passively safe designs.

    Reply
  164. There is no excuse to think any Chernobyl or so little as a TMI accident are even possible with the now up to 40 year old passively safe designs.

    Reply
  165. Nuclear Power Plants create Atomic Waste that has to be GUARDED for Thousands of Years. What if a Terrorist stole some depleted Uranium and built a dirty bomb? Radioactive Fallout… The cost of Paying security guards for thousands of years makes nukes uneconomical.

    Reply
  166. Nuclear Power Plants create Atomic Waste that has to be GUARDED for Thousands of Years. What if a Terrorist stole some depleted Uranium and built a dirty bomb? Radioactive Fallout… The cost of Paying security guards for thousands of years makes nukes uneconomical.

    Reply
  167. That’s the kind of thing Richard Muller was saying, till he got funding from the Koch brothers, et al, to do a detailed study of surface temperatures.
    Surprise, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study ended up pretty much exactly corroborating what GISStemp, Hadcrut, NOAA and other climate scientists all over the world had determined.

    Reply
  168. ‘temp data.. showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.’
    1998 was a rampaging El Nino, with average temperature more than .2C higher than anything on the record. Now it would barely scrape into the top ten hottest years. 2016 was .56C hotter than 1998, with 2015 and 2017 not far behind. 2018 will likely be hotter than 2017 was.
    As for New York being underwater, parts of it were after Hurricane Sandy, and there’s plenty more coming down that train track.

    Reply
  169. ‘Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure. ‘
    We can only hope that somebody invents the weather balloon in the next century or so.

    Reply
  170. Exponential growth in renewable will fix most of the problem. In the same way France decided to build nukes they and other countries can build renewable. Of course it will only happen when a lot of people start dying and not til then.

    Reply
  171. I think it was Pournelle who proposed just putting the waste in the middle of a desert somewhere, surrounded by stone walls with carved signs in every language, including pictographs, declaring, “You will die if you go in here!” And leave it at that, the people who went in anyway would improve the gene pool by doing so.

    Reply
  172. I think it was Pournelle who proposed just putting the waste in the middle of a desert somewhere surrounded by stone walls with carved signs in every language including pictographs declaring You will die if you go in here!”” And leave it at that”””” the people who went in anyway would improve the gene pool by doing so.”””

    Reply
  173. Yes, you’d be looking at a “disaster” every 25 years, and based on the fatality rate from nuclear “disasters” at modern plants, (Not Chernobyl!) a disaster every 25 years would be… kind of inconsequential compared to most sources of energy. Per KWH, more people would die falling off roofs installing solar.

    Reply
  174. Yes you’d be looking at a disaster”” every 25 years”””” and based on the fatality rate from nuclear “”””disasters”””” at modern plants”” (Not Chernobyl!) a disaster every 25 years would be… kind of inconsequential compared to most sources of energy.Per KWH”” more people would die falling off roofs installing solar.”””

    Reply
  175. ” For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down. ”

    And yet, they expect people to take them seriously.

    Reply
  176. ” I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. ” <-- First off, you are such a pathological skeptic, it's more likely it's your Rodina. And it's a certainty you don't know any real history.

    Reply
  177. I can’t think of one instance where my own USA had a problem because it minded its business. Instead there might be some delay before the chickens come home to roost; those minding their business in 2001 get whacked for Reagan Era deep state interventions.

    Reply
  178. ” Plus they’re only going to bomb you with a dirty bomb if you’re a dhick, so just don’t be a dhick. ”

    Thing is, some people think minding your own business is you being a dhick — so you have to kill those people until they are not effective.

    Reply
  179. Whatever the reason, our history shows a major disaster every 6000 reactor years or so. Right now there are 450 nuclear plants producing 11% of the words electricity, so you would need 4000 plants. Even if you get the disaster rate to only every 100.000 years, your looking at a disaster every 25 years. And you need more plants to also cover heating and transportation.

    Reply
  180. Whatever the reason our history shows a major disaster every 6000 reactor years or so. Right now there are 450 nuclear plants producing 11{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the words electricity so you would need 4000 plants. Even if you get the disaster rate to only every 100.000 years your looking at a disaster every 25 years.And you need more plants to also cover heating and transportation.

    Reply
  181. Both nuclear power and renewable energy has effectively zero operating risks to the public. The nuclear vs renewable debate is a waste of time which only benefits the fossil fuel industry. The risks from renewable energy do not come from producing electricity, but rather from not producing enough energy to meet demand. In California, now deeply into solar energy, may have to purchase fossil fueled electricity to make up for the time periods when solar energy output falls below demand. In less developed areas in the world people have cut down trees that were higher on the mountain side where they lived. They did this tree cutting because they had exhausted all the trees in their neighborhoods. When the rains hit, many died in mud slides because the trees higher up had been cut down. Insufficient energy, renewable or not, has led to conflict, deaths, and large impacts on the environment. The burden on the renewable energy community is to show that they can reliably supply sufficient energy at a reasonable cost without nuclear power and still achieve a low carbon future. No advanced society has succeeded in doing this, including Germany with its Energiewende program.

    In New York it is even worse. The State plans to shut down the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants and replace them with gas plants. The GHG from these replacement gas plants is so large it will wipe out all the environmental gains the State’s environmental program (the REV program) has made since 2003 and all the future benefits of building the world’s largest off-shore wind farm.

    This enormous blunder is justified on fear mongering fictions that particular environmental groups have misled the government and public on for years. Now these fictions are backfiring since Indian Point will not be replaced by renewable energy, but by fossil fuels.

    Reply
  182. TMI, Fukushima, and Chernobyl all had zero offsite near term fatalities and off-site long term health effects, if any, that would be too small to be detectable. 28 people died at Chernobyl, 3 were in a helicopter that flew through the intense vertical plume and the rest were mainly firemen exposed to beta particles (electrons) that the radioactive fuel was emitting. They took off their outer coats because everything was so warm, only to have their skins cooked like a hot dog from the electrons…poor souls, another case where ignorance kills innocents. It is important to separate the zero off-site fatalities to on-site fatalities. The risks to the public from nuclear power are near zero.

    Reply
  183. Actually, a study was done last year on adjustments to the temperature records. Basically ALL the warming is due to the adjustments, the raw data isn’t showing an increase in temperature. Search for “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data”

    For instance, their response the the growing urban heat island effect has been to adjust the rural sites up, not the newly urban sites down.

    And, yes, I’m aware the Union of Concerned People Who Want to be Thought of as Scientists (You don’t have to be a scientist to join.) disputes the study.

    Reply
  184. AGAIN where are your sources? You have no reputable sources. What a small man who believes he is a genius in his own mind and yet cannot support his declarations with facts or sources. Just another Troll with a key board

    Reply
  185. AGAIN where are your sources? You have no reputable sources. What a small man who believes he is a genius in his own mind and yet cannot support his declarations with facts or sources. Just another Troll with a key board

    Reply
  186. NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. That is the same as Bengazi gate? Throw enough crap and the chumps will believe it. I ask you AGAIN list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier position. You did not and cannot. LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS LIST of hundreds that disagrees with you: LINK to WIKI and search (Scientific opinion on climate change)

    Reply
  187. NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. That is the same as Bengazi gate? Throw enough crap and the chumps will believe it. I ask you AGAIN list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier position. You did not and cannot. LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS LIST of hundreds that disagrees with you:LINK to WIKI and search (Scientific opinion on climate change)

    Reply
  188. Playing devil’s advocate, this doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how that sequestration effects atmospheric levels. One presumes the sequestered CO2 stock had much lower radiation levels, and the atmosphere exchanges rapidly with it.

    But this doesn’t imply that the amount of sequestered CO2 rises rapidly when atmospheric levels go up.

    Reply
  189. In addition, I strongly suggest molten salt reactors, with thorium and/or uranium for most of the reactors. They run at atmospheric pressure and have a number of inherent safety advantages. As Fermi said, “We want a reactor where if there is a problem, the crew can go out for coffee and spend an hour discussing what needs to be done.” Some of the reactors need to be advanced generation reactors that “burn up” most of the so-called nuclear waste. We don’t want to nuclear irradiate some of our tomb-raiding descendants ten thousand years from now.

    Reply
  190. In addition I strongly suggest molten salt reactors with thorium and/or uranium for most of the reactors. They run at atmospheric pressure and have a number of inherent safety advantages. As Fermi said We want a reactor where if there is a problem”” the crew can go out for coffee and spend an hour discussing what needs to be done.”” Some of the reactors need to be advanced generation reactors that “”””burn up”””” most of the so-called nuclear waste. We don’t want to nuclear irradiate some of our tomb-raiding descendants ten thousand years from now.”””

    Reply
  191. ” NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. ” <-- Yes, they have. preview.tinyurl.com(slash)ybluc3cu " That is the same as Bengazi gate? " <-- You mean where the Obama administration inarguably let an American ambassador die, hanging him and his team out to die without support when they were assaulted by Islamists? You think that was made up, no it happened. It does not mater how many people have for the sake of grant money signed on to the AGW fraud, it's still true they cannot measure a correlation, they have to adjust the actual measure to agree with their theory.

    Reply
  192. ” NOAA is showing cumulative 0.9C for 2017. ” <-- And none of NOAA's corrupt data showing increase is actual measurement, it is baseless adjustment to the actual data. The car is always going towards a wall at around 5 to 10 MPH, and it always changes which wall every 30 years or so. A random walk between periods of glaciation. The periods of glaciation have the same kind of random walk to them, just averaging several degrees colder. There is no correlation to atmospheric CO2. That's what the actual measurements show.

    Reply
  193. Let’s Generate Electricity and Clean Drinking Water at the same time. A Solar Powered Desalinization Plant Would Convert Seawater into Energy, Pure H2O and NaCl. We ought to build a giant solar power desalinization plant in Southern California. Convert Seawater into drinking water, salt and electricity. It would use solar reflectors to boil seawater and create steam. That steam would be used to drive turbines and create electricity. When the water cools it condenses into pure H2O and salt. The water would be sold to people for drinking, washing, watering livestock and watering plants. http://gvan42.blogspot.com/2018/08/lets-build-solar-powered-desalinization.html

    Reply
  194. Nuclear Power Plants create Atomic Waste that has to be GUARDED for Thousands of Years. What if a Terrorist stole some depleted Uranium and built a dirty bomb? Radioactive Fallout… The cost of Paying security guards for thousands of years makes nukes uneconomical.

    Reply
  195. Making up for the lack of great whale poop in iron poor parts of the ocean would likely be less harmful than monkeying with the effective solar constant. I’d also likely be a negative cost, since the value of the extra fish caught would greatly exceed the cost to purchase, and distribute iron compounds. It would help the reestablishment of whale populations too, since their food would be more abundant.

    Reply
  196. Making up for the lack of great whale poop in iron poor parts of the ocean would likely be less harmful than monkeying with the effective solar constant. I’d also likely be a negative cost since the value of the extra fish caught would greatly exceed the cost to purchase and distribute iron compounds. It would help the reestablishment of whale populations too since their food would be more abundant.

    Reply
  197. How many people died due to Fukushima or Chernobyl (other than the initial first responders)? Zero for Fukushima, darn close to zero for Chernobyl.

    Reply
  198. How many people died due to Fukushima or Chernobyl (other than the initial first responders)? Zero for Fukushima darn close to zero for Chernobyl.

    Reply
  199. I think it was Pournelle who proposed just putting the waste in the middle of a desert somewhere, surrounded by stone walls with carved signs in every language, including pictographs, declaring, “You will die if you go in here!”

    And leave it at that, the people who went in anyway would improve the gene pool by doing so.

    Reply
  200. Yes, you’d be looking at a “disaster” every 25 years, and based on the fatality rate from nuclear “disasters” at modern plants, (Not Chernobyl!) a disaster every 25 years would be… kind of inconsequential compared to most sources of energy.

    Per KWH, more people would die falling off roofs installing solar.

    Reply
  201. Yes, they are. You need to deal with your reality allergy, dude! MEDIA POLITICIZE FLORENCE, BLAME TRUMP FOR STORMS, PREDICT MASS DEATH Hurricane Florence is now bearing down on North Carolina, and the media is looking to score political points. On MSNBC, host Chris Hayes invited meteorologist Eric Holthaus on to argue global warming is making hurricanes worse, and that President Trump is to blame. On CNN, political analyst John Avlon, in a segment titled “Reality Check,” suggested Trump is at fault for Hurricane Florence, and that his climate policies could kill up to 80,000 people per decade. Is Trump “complicit in this storm?” asked Alisyn Camerota in the segment introduction. “His policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change, which is often a blame for extreme weather,” Avlon answered. “On the same day Trump was discussing Florence, his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane. That’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump Administration.” Avlon rattled off a series of Obama-era environmental regulations the Trump Administration is rolling back — including pulling out of the Paris climate accord — and then boldly predicted a death toll in the thousands. “It is so bad according to two Harvard scientists, it could lead to 80,000 unnecessary deaths every decade,” Avlon said. “Warmer water means more intense storms. When President Trump called Hurricane Florence tremendously wet, he was on to something.” “This isn’t rocket science, it is climate science,” he concluded. “As long as we continue to aggressively ignore it, the cost in lives and dollars will escalate. That’s your reality check.” In the Washington Post, the paper editorialized that Trump is “complicit” in Hurricane Florence’s anticipated destruction. “When it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit,” the editors wrote. “He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address t

    Reply
  202. Yes they are. You need to deal with your reality allergy dude!MEDIA POLITICIZE FLORENCE BLAME TRUMP FOR STORMS PREDICT MASS DEATHHurricane Florence is now bearing down on North Carolina and the media is looking to score political points.On MSNBC host Chris Hayes invited meteorologist Eric Holthaus on to argue global warming is making hurricanes worse and that President Trump is to blame.On CNN political analyst John Avlon in a segment titled Reality Check”””” suggested Trump is at fault for Hurricane Florence”” and that his climate policies could kill up to 80″”000 people per decade. Is Trump “”””complicit in this storm?”””” asked Alisyn Camerota in the segment introduction. “”””His policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change”” which is often a blame for extreme weather”””””” Avlon answered. “”””On the same day Trump was discussing Florence”””” his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane. That’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump Administration.””””Avlon rattled off a series of Obama-era environmental regulations the Trump Administration is rolling back — including pulling out of the Paris climate accord — and then boldly predicted a death toll in the thousands.””””It is so bad according to two Harvard scientists”” it could lead to 80000 unnecessary deaths every decade”””””” Avlon said. “”””Warmer water means more intense storms. When President Trump called Hurricane Florence tremendously wet”””” he was on to something.””””””””This isn’t rocket science”” it is climate science”””””” he concluded. “”””As long as we continue to aggressively ignore it”””” the cost in lives and dollars will escalate. That’s your reality check.””””In the Washington Post”””” the paper editorialized that Trump is “”””complicit”””” in Hurricane Florence’s anticipated destruction. “”””When it comes to extreme weather”” Mr. Trump is complicit”””””” the editors wrote. “”””He plays down humans’ role in increasing”

    Reply
  203. Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure. For example: what is the temp 100 ft above your house? How about 1000? Same for the oceans. It may seem picky but reviewing the three body problem and the delta epsilon definition of divergence would be useful. The atmosphere and the oceans belong to a class of systems that cannot be accurately modeled with a model smaller then the actual system.

    Reply
  204. Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition temperature and pressure. For example: what is the temp 100 ft above your house? How about 1000? Same for the oceans.It may seem picky but reviewing the three body problem and the delta epsilon definition of divergence would be useful.The atmosphere and the oceans belong to a class of systems that cannot be accurately modeled with a model smaller then the actual system.

    Reply
  205. Sorry you cannot increase the level of nuclear globally to the levels of France with the current technology. The risks of more nuclear disasters will be almost certain. The effects of the Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters are still lingering and we still do not fully understand them fully. Continued effort in shift to renewable energy along with reforestation in land and maybe in the ocean as well in the form of Kelp growth is the only viable solution in the short term.

    Reply
  206. Sorry you cannot increase the level of nuclear globally to the levels of France with the current technology. The risks of more nuclear disasters will be almost certain. The effects of the Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters are still lingering and we still do not fully understand them fully. Continued effort in shift to renewable energy along with reforestation in land and maybe in the ocean as well in the form of Kelp growth is the only viable solution in the short term.

    Reply
  207. The radiocarbon decrease rate observed after the moratorium upon atmospheric nuclear testing, gives insight as to how fast new additions of carbon to the atmosphere are sequestered by natural processes. The residence time for human’s carbon influence, injecting this C14 carbon tracer into the stratosphere, was 1.5 years –>troposphere, and a further 2.5 years–>ocean.

    Reply
  208. The radiocarbon decrease rate observed after the moratorium upon atmospheric nuclear testing gives insight as to how fast new additions of carbon to the atmosphere are sequestered by natural processes. The residence time for human’s carbon influence injecting this C14 carbon tracer into the stratosphere was 1.5 years –>troposphere and a further 2.5 years–>ocean.

    Reply
  209. some excuse to not list one.” As in: Why bother…because you will just shoot them down with some BS garbage slander. Yeah. That’s called a FACT. Not an ‘excuse’. “overwhelming evidence to the contrary?” What overwhelming evidence? We were told twenty-five years ago that New York would be underwater. Instead, we got one scandal after another of ‘reputable scientific organizations’ fraudulently modifying temp data because it showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since. NOAA, NASA, University of E. Anglia (remember those dâmning emails proving them engaging in fraudulent data modification…along with their pals all over the world) But like I said, the RESULTS..or rather lack thereof…speak for themselves. Totally.

    Reply
  210. some excuse to not list one.””As in: Why bother…because you will just shoot them down with some BS garbage slander.Yeah. That’s called a FACT. Not an ‘excuse’.””””overwhelming evidence to the contrary?””””What overwhelming evidence? We were told twenty-five years ago that New York would be underwater. Instead”” we got one scandal after another of ‘reputable scientific organizations’ fraudulently modifying temp data because it showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.NOAA NASA University of E. Anglia (remember those dâmning emails proving them engaging in fraudulent data modification…along with their pals all over the world)But like I said”” the RESULTS..or rather lack thereof…speak for themselves. Totally.”””””””

    Reply
  211. In ten years, you’ll be wondering how you bought into all this fraud. In ten years, we will be in or starting to go into another Mini Ice Age. Sunspot activity does not lie. That is called ‘real science’. Not ‘consensus science’.

    Reply
  212. In ten years you’ll be wondering how you bought into all this fraud. In ten years we will be in or starting to go into another Mini Ice Age.Sunspot activity does not lie. That is called ‘real science’. Not ‘consensus science’.

    Reply
  213. HEY monkey man where is that reputable scientific organization that agrees with you denial BS. I ask you before and you used some excuse to not list one. Come on a smart guy like you should be able to list just one in the entire world. What do you call some one who cannot support their position with facts or even worse cannot admit they are wrong with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Reply
  214. HEY monkey man where is that reputable scientific organization that agrees with you denial BS. I ask you before and you used some excuse to not list one. Come on a smart guy like you should be able to list just one in the entire world. What do you call some one who cannot support their position with facts or even worse cannot admit they are wrong with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Reply
  215. Well goat GUY exactly where did you get you numbers for warming. NOAA is showing cumulative 0.9C for 2017. That means just 1.1C by the end of the century which should IMO happen in the next 15 years. It seems to be accelerating but then denialists will go back to their oil industry funded web site for some more BS. Just ask the folks in Alaska if they believe in global warming as they watch their glaciers melt away. The cars is going a hundred MPH towards the wall and we have not been killed yet so lets keep it up?

    Reply
  216. Well goat GUY exactly where did you get you numbers for warming. NOAA is showing cumulative 0.9C for 2017. That means just 1.1C by the end of the century which should IMO happen in the next 15 years. It seems to be accelerating but then denialists will go back to their oil industry funded web site for some more BS. Just ask the folks in Alaska if they believe in global warming as they watch their glaciers melt away. The cars is going a hundred MPH towards the wall and we have not been killed yet so lets keep it up?

    Reply
  217. I don’t doubt that global warming and climate change are going to be a large problem. Except that it may no longer be that big a problem when it gets here, depending on how we react now. We’ve already doubled down on tech and couldn’t stop if we wanted to (unless a Bond villain triumphs and makes us do so). The solution for this won’t come from austerity. Humans are lousy at that. Like Matt Damon’s character in that movie, we are going to have to science the *&$! out of this. Anything else is like a daredevil approaching a big motorcycle jump over flaming buses, then deciding he might not make it and hitting the brakes . . . long after he is past the point where the brakes can possibly stop him in time. The correct move is to double-down and accelerate. I’m not saying we should we shouldn’t try to get this stuff under control, save the snail darters, keep the rivers from becoming flammable again, et cetera. What I’m saying is we won’t do it entirely with composting toilets and windmills, or even by all of us becoming subsistence farmers. Science and technology is the bus driver that got us here and trying to snatch the wheel away because we might have an accident coming up is the wrong move. Fission, then fusion as we can, absolutely! Artificial photosynthesis, bio-engineering, and improved solar, geo-thermal, and wind power? Go for it! Cheap desalinization, mining and refining land fills, solar shades, asteroid mining, and orbital manufacturing? Bring it all on. These aren’t luxuries, they are existential needs. Of course, this is probably preaching to the choir on this site.

    Reply
  218. I don’t doubt that global warming and climate change are going to be a large problem. Except that it may no longer be that big a problem when it gets here depending on how we react now.We’ve already doubled down on tech and couldn’t stop if we wanted to (unless a Bond villain triumphs and makes us do so). The solution for this won’t come from austerity. Humans are lousy at that. Like Matt Damon’s character in that movie we are going to have to science the *&$! out of this.Anything else is like a daredevil approaching a big motorcycle jump over flaming buses then deciding he might not make it and hitting the brakes . . . long after he is past the point where the brakes can possibly stop him in time. The correct move is to double-down and accelerate.I’m not saying we should we shouldn’t try to get this stuff under control save the snail darters keep the rivers from becoming flammable again et cetera. What I’m saying is we won’t do it entirely with composting toilets and windmills or even by all of us becoming subsistence farmers. Science and technology is the bus driver that got us here and trying to snatch the wheel away because we might have an accident coming up is the wrong move.Fission then fusion as we can absolutely! Artificial photosynthesis bio-engineering and improved solar geo-thermal and wind power? Go for it! Cheap desalinization mining and refining land fills solar shades asteroid mining and orbital manufacturing? Bring it all on. These aren’t luxuries they are existential needs. Of course this is probably preaching to the choir on this site.

    Reply
  219. Whatever the reason, our history shows a major disaster every 6000 reactor years or so.
    Right now there are 450 nuclear plants producing 11% of the words electricity, so you would need 4000 plants. Even if you get the disaster rate to only every 100.000 years, your looking at a disaster every 25 years.
    And you need more plants to also cover heating and transportation.

    Reply
  220. The AGW parish and choir are getting desperate because of that serious lack of apocalypse. Contrarily to other religions, where they can say that the end is nigh but that it will come when the almighty decides (that is, who knows?), this one has been making catastrophic predictions with time and temperature charts for a while.

    Reply
  221. The AGW parish and choir are getting desperate because of that serious lack of apocalypse.Contrarily to other religions where they can say that the end is nigh but that it will come when the almighty decides (that is who knows?) this one has been making catastrophic predictions with time and temperature charts for a while.

    Reply
  222. [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F] … we believe that the present human-mediated (almost for sure) increase in atmospheric CO₂ poses a SIGNIFICANT risk of accelerated-acceleration type global warming. The stuff of scary nighttime stories and B grade movies. Moore’s Tales. I am — every year — reminded that the projections of the past 25 years (the period of increased confidence of a Global Catastrophe a’coming) have failed to materialize. There are plenty of sites that show past IPCC projections for the state of the Global Climate, projected in the 2000’s, which indicated a rise of 2.0° C or greater by 2020. Well, its nigh into 2018.7, and the record hardly shows much warming at all. Half a degree? Maybe if you squint? Seriously: Woolly Mammoths revivals notwithstanding… (Who wouldn’t want the Big Woolly’s back?) Geoëngineering notwithstanding,… Nuclear power is a great resource, and we definitely should be using it. Bigly. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  223. [I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F⋅F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F][I] ⋅ ⋅ [F⋅F]… we believe that the present human-mediated (almost for sure) increase in atmospheric CO₂ poses a SIGNIFICANT risk of accelerated-acceleration type global warming. The stuff of scary nighttime stories and B grade movies. Moore’s Tales. I am — every year — reminded that the projections of the past 25 years (the period of increased confidence of a Global Catastrophe a’coming) have failed to materialize. There are plenty of sites that show past IPCC projections for the state of the Global Climate projected in the 2000’s which indicated a rise of 2.0° C or greater by 2020. Well its nigh into 2018.7 and the record hardly shows much warming at all. Half a degree? Maybe if you squint?Seriously:Woolly Mammoths revivals notwithstanding…(Who wouldn’t want the Big Woolly’s back?)Geoëngineering notwithstanding…Nuclear power is a great resource and we definitely should be using it. Bigly. Just saying GoatGuy”

    Reply
  224. And yet: The Watermelons are hostile to both Nuke power and Geoengineering Why? Because they don’t want anything perceived to be an actual solution to the so-called Global Warming Fraud problem to be implemented in reality. That would ruin the party for them.

    Reply
  225. And yet: The Watermelons are hostile to both Nuke power and GeoengineeringWhy? Because they don’t want anything perceived to be an actual solution to the so-called Global Warming Fraud problem to be implemented in reality.That would ruin the party for them.

    Reply
  226. AGAIN where are your sources? You have no reputable sources. What a small man who believes he is a genius in his own mind and yet cannot support his declarations with facts or sources. Just another Troll with a key board

    Reply
  227. NOO Warrent NASA has not been caught rigging the numbers. That is the same as Bengazi gate? Throw enough crap and the chumps will believe it.

    I ask you AGAIN list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees with your denier position. You did not and cannot.

    LET ME HELP YOU WITH THIS LIST of hundreds that disagrees with you:
    LINK to WIKI and search (Scientific opinion on climate change)

    Reply
  228. In addition, I strongly suggest molten salt reactors, with thorium and/or uranium for most of the reactors. They run at atmospheric pressure and have a number of inherent safety advantages. As Fermi said, “We want a reactor where if there is a problem, the crew can go out for coffee and spend an hour discussing what needs to be done.” Some of the reactors need to be advanced generation reactors that “burn up” most of the so-called nuclear waste. We don’t want to nuclear irradiate some of our tomb-raiding descendants ten thousand years from now.

    Reply
  229. Making up for the lack of great whale poop in iron poor parts of the ocean would likely be less harmful than monkeying with the effective solar constant. I’d also likely be a negative cost, since the value of the extra fish caught would greatly exceed the cost to purchase, and distribute iron compounds. It would help the reestablishment of whale populations too, since their food would be more abundant.

    Reply
  230. Yes, they are.

    You need to deal with your reality allergy, dude!

    MEDIA POLITICIZE FLORENCE, BLAME TRUMP FOR STORMS, PREDICT MASS DEATH
    Hurricane Florence is now bearing down on North Carolina, and the media is looking to score political points.

    On MSNBC, host Chris Hayes invited meteorologist Eric Holthaus on to argue global warming is making hurricanes worse, and that President Trump is to blame.

    On CNN, political analyst John Avlon, in a segment titled “Reality Check,” suggested Trump is at fault for Hurricane Florence, and that his climate policies could kill up to 80,000 people per decade.

    Is Trump “complicit in this storm?” asked Alisyn Camerota in the segment introduction.

    “His policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change, which is often a blame for extreme weather,” Avlon answered. “On the same day Trump was discussing Florence, his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane. That’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump Administration.”

    Avlon rattled off a series of Obama-era environmental regulations the Trump Administration is rolling back — including pulling out of the Paris climate accord — and then boldly predicted a death toll in the thousands.

    “It is so bad according to two Harvard scientists, it could lead to 80,000 unnecessary deaths every decade,” Avlon said. “Warmer water means more intense storms. When President Trump called Hurricane Florence tremendously wet, he was on to something.”

    “This isn’t rocket science, it is climate science,” he concluded. “As long as we continue to aggressively ignore it, the cost in lives and dollars will escalate. That’s your reality check.”

    In the Washington Post, the paper editorialized that Trump is “complicit” in Hurricane Florence’s anticipated destruction.

    “When it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit,” the editors wrote. “He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.”

    Back on MSNBC, host Katy Tur invited on media personality Bill Nye and former director of communications for President Obama’s White House Climate Change Task Force, Paul Bledsoe, to setup Trump as the fall guy for Florence.

    Tur introduced the segment claiming “climate deniers” in the Trump Administration make it “incredibly difficult to deal with this disaster.”

    The current levels of CO2 were dumped into the atmo over a period of 150 years, right?

    So Trump was involved in all that…the main driver even?

    Libtards Are On Crack!

    Reply
  231. Mankind does not even have the technology in place to accurately measure atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure.

    For example: what is the temp 100 ft above your house? How about 1000?

    Same for the oceans.

    It may seem picky but reviewing the three body problem and the delta epsilon definition of divergence would be useful.

    The atmosphere and the oceans belong to a class of systems that cannot be accurately modeled with a model smaller then the actual system.

    Reply
  232. Sorry you cannot increase the level of nuclear globally to the levels of France with the current technology. The risks of more nuclear disasters will be almost certain. The effects of the Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters are still lingering and we still do not fully understand them fully. Continued effort in shift to renewable energy along with reforestation in land and maybe in the ocean as well in the form of Kelp growth is the only viable solution in the short term.

    Reply
  233. The radiocarbon decrease rate observed after the moratorium upon atmospheric nuclear testing, gives insight as to how fast new additions of carbon to the atmosphere are sequestered by natural processes.

    The residence time for human’s carbon influence, injecting this C14 carbon tracer into the stratosphere, was 1.5 years –>troposphere, and a further 2.5 years–>ocean.

    Reply
  234. “some excuse to not list one.”

    As in: Why bother…because you will just shoot them down with some BS garbage slander.

    Yeah. That’s called a FACT. Not an ‘excuse’.

    “overwhelming evidence to the contrary?”

    What overwhelming evidence? We were told twenty-five years ago that New York would be underwater. Instead, we got one scandal after another of ‘reputable scientific organizations’ fraudulently modifying temp data because it showed a PEAK in 1998 and no real increase since.

    NOAA, NASA, University of E. Anglia (remember those dâmning emails proving them engaging in fraudulent data modification…along with their pals all over the world)

    But like I said, the RESULTS..or rather lack thereof…speak for themselves. Totally.

    Reply