Global Climate Disruption.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One thing I dont get; If we're right and we do nothing we pretty much lose 20% of earth's usable landmass, most of it our most usable farmland either to the rising waters or to the increased climate making some surviving areas uninhabitable. hundreds of millions will become homeless refugees, it's likely earth's population will shrink significantly from starvation. Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.

Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits and the cost we'd endure averting it is no more than the amount of money we waste year upon year in failed wars. Whereas if we do nothing, nothing happening is litterally the best thing we will get, so what's the problem exactly?

But the failed wars will continue, as they always have, so you are not likely to offset THESE added costs. Still, you've advanced the most reasonable argument vis-a-vis global climate shift that I have yet heard.

There can be little doubt of the change in climate. Arguing the anthropogenic character of this change is, in many ways, moot. With the climate changing, we must adapt. Thoughtful efforts to make this adaptation as smooth as possible are a reasonable response.

[HopAlongBunny]

The inertia of the present energy arrangements are the best argument for "no change".
With literally trillions in the ground, to expect the existing "energy companies" (oil, gas and coal) to initiate any meaningful change is not realistic.
Governments could act decisively, but until the political calculus lines up it is also unlikely.
By the time we act, the freight train we knew was coming will have flattened a nice chunk of the population and we will be in a situation of "damage control".

[Greyblades]

But the failed wars will continue, as they always have, so you are not likely to offset THESE added costs.

I am under no illusions that the useless wars will stop. I do however feel that if we as societies are spending trillions yearly on millitaries (that spend most of thier time doing nothing except intimidating everyone around us into inaction,) yet we're still be able to waste money on useless crap like the George W Bush museum and bankers bonuses without decending into complete bankruptcy, why cant we spend one or two hundred billion making sure the people paying for the useless crap dont find the ocean lapping at thier top floor windows?

[Fisherking]

You know what! Both sides right and at the same time, both wrong.

Now, just how can that be?

The warming is man made but it is not driven by greenhouse gasses.

Anyone knowing climate science will tell you that the upper atmosphere warms markedly when greenhouse gasses are involved. They will also tell you that CO2 rise is an indicator that warming has taken place but not the cause of it. The atmosphere is not heating from greenhouse gasses.

Anyone monitoring surface data will tell you that the warming is at the surface. Sea temperatures are climbing and a more serious greenhouse gas is being released. Methane is being released from the sea floor, also large areas of the ocean are turning into dead zones from a lack of free oxygen.

What ever is going on, what ever is happening, it doesn’t match previous models. Whether it is pollutants from chemicals or some other cause the atmosphere is not acting as it should.

Either that or someone is lying.

Warming has not occurred for the last 15 years but still we have conformation that UV-B has drastically increased and even some UV-C is reaching the surface. These are alarming. Rather than telling us something is wrong, we need to know what is wrong and what caused it. It is not carbon or CO2. That is a Red Herring. It is highly likely that the cause is man made but we need to know HONESTLY what that cause is and what did it.

Quit buying Ideological lines and look for your self.

[Fisherking]

The first step in fixing the problem is assigning blame. I'd first look to coalitions that make a living lobbying to deny climate change, like the American Legislative Exchange Council for example. Whether its green house gasses or some as yet undetermined pollutant, the obvious culprits are global industrial interests, and they are the ones who should pay to adapt. Barring that, they should be forcefully replaced or dismantled, though such a thing smells enough like communism that reactionary groups will be able to push denial until we are drowning in radioactive sea water or whatever.

What?

Look get it straight. Fixing blame does not fix problems.

The Global Warming crowd has lied about the cause and lied about the science. So the other side is right to point that out. So, if denial is the problem, it is the fault of those who obscured the facts.

But you would ban speech and just swallow the lies?

That is not going to get the answers and is not going to fix the problem.

The warming is not the problem. The warming is not at threat levels. UV is a problem, and sunscreen is not going to fix it. In fact it may be one of the problems.

Science has mislead us. Given us a false reason and a false fix. One they will still be happy to run with.

Yet, you still want to silence the opposition before the issue is clarified?

[HoreTore]

Warming has not occurred for the last 15 years but still we have conformation that UV-B has drastically increased and even some UV-C is reaching the surface. These are alarming.

Do you know what you are talking about...?

[CBR]

Do you know what you are talking about...?

UV exposure has increased over last 30 years but have stabilized since late 90's , thanks to the Montreal Protocol. That seems to be only thing in his two posts that was even close at being correct. For the remaining the best response is this:




Instead of making up stuff or reading weirdo/conspiracy blogs, maybe check out some science https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Fisherking]

@CBR

Sorry to disappoint you. But no conspiracies, just data. I know you likely only take someone else’s word for that and never bothered to look your self.

Both views are locked into an ideological viewpoint. Try checking a wider data sets and understand the science. Not just mouth the words of others.


What the data shows:
Atmospheric heating has reversed over the last 15 year. If you don’t know that you have not looked at the data.

Making it all about CO2 levels is putting the cart before the horse.

At the same time average sea temperatures, and land surface temperatures continue to climb. Atmospheric cooling should also reflect surface cooling, but it has not.

That means something is amiss. Either everyone is lying or some change has taken place that renders the old models useless.

That is as far as I have gotten. If you feel comfortable with revising climate theories go ahead.

[Montmorency]

^^^ This is hypocrisy unless you have personally collected the "data".

[HoreTore]

UV exposure has increased over last 30 years but have stabilized since late 90's , thanks to the Montreal Protocol. That seems to be only thing in his two posts that was even close at being correct.

I know, the reason I asked was because I failed to see the relevance, and the writing style lead me to believe that he did not really know what the terms he's using actually mean.

[CBR]

@CBR
Try checking a wider data sets and understand the science.

Why don't you show us the data?

It was predicted, and has been measured, that one consequence of AGW would be cooling in the upper atmosphere. It is complex and not everything is yet understood, but it is cooling

Making it all about CO2 levels is putting the cart before the horse.

It is not just about CO2. But CO2 is the main culprit:

At the same time average sea temperatures, and land surface temperatures continue to climb.

Correct!

Atmospheric cooling should also reflect surface cooling, but it has not.

Hm? Upper atmosphere is as predicted. Maybe you mean the lower atmosphere?

Either everyone is lying or some change has taken place that renders the old models useless.

As the scientists obviously don't know everything, models might need big or small adjustments. That is quite normal and does not mean anyone is lying or that a model is useless.

If you feel comfortable with revising climate theories go ahead.

I'm not the one doing the revising as I'm with the scientific consensus. A few contrarian scientists might have convinced you, but they don't make much of an impact among their fellow scientists. Science marches on and leave the few stubborn ones back in the dustbin, it has always been like that.

[HopAlongBunny]

A lot of the rap against global warming comes down to economics.
It's just too expensive to change! "Green techs" just don't work w/o government subsidies!!
But if we're going to face facts: Our present carbon based energy sources are massively subsidized:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...rgy-tax-breaks

So what is the problem with simply switching the "subsidy focus" from carbon to renewables?
Yes, it is a transfer of resources (public expenditures) from one pocket to another (howls of rage from coal, gas, petroleum) but the public benefit seems to favor it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A lot of the rap against global warming comes down to economics.
It's just too expensive to change! "Green techs" just don't work w/o government subsidies!!
But if we're going to face facts: Our present carbon based energy sources are massively subsidized:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...rgy-tax-breaks

So what is the problem with simply switching the "subsidy focus" from carbon to renewables?
Yes, it is a transfer of resources (public expenditures) from one pocket to another (howls of rage from coal, gas, petroleum) but the public benefit seems to favor it.

The better answer, short term, is nuclear power. Renewables are not yet mature enough as a tech set, but will be with expanded emphasis and 20-30 years more research. They will be well positioned to take up the slack as nuke power becomes more problematic with aging facilities and the like.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It took the most powerful recorded earthquake to ever hit Japan (not hyperbole) coupled with a gigantic tsunami with waves that reached over 40 meters tall, coupled with gross (and possibly highly illegal) negligence of a company to adhere to modern safety standards to partially take out a nuclear plant built in the late 1960s.

If some bean counter didn't refuse to implement safety updates that had been advised since the 1990s, everyone would still be pointing to an event almost 30 years ago.

[CBR]

For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ele...generation.cfm table 1 shows that nuclear is not cheaper than wind (columns Levelized capital cost and especially Total system LCOE are the important ones) Table 2 shows the regional differences, which makes solar competitive if used in the right places. Of course all that is moot unless there is a big government banning/taxing fossil fuels and/or subsidizing alternative energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/op...ef=paulkrugman

So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait.

At least things improving, sort of. In 2013, Fox News, the most watched cable news network, was 28% correct when it reported on the climate. A huge improvement over the 7% in 2012

[drone]

For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.

Obligatory thorium comment here.

[CBR]

Obligatory thorium comment here.

Heh, I know. Just need some R&D on that first before it is an option.

edit: I'll throw in this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
It is Lockheed Skunk Works so maybe it is not all hype.

With that fixed we just need something for the transportation sector and the future is bright!

[a completely inoffensive name]

For base load, nuclear would be ok'ish. There is just not that much uranium for everyone to go nuclear.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ele...generation.cfm table 1 shows that nuclear is not cheaper than wind (columns Levelized capital cost and especially Total system LCOE are the important ones) Table 2 shows the regional differences, which makes solar competitive if used in the right places. Of course all that is moot unless there is a big government banning/taxing fossil fuels and/or subsidizing alternative energy.

I am going to request a source for the first sentence there.

Second I think, the LCOE is obviously not the whole picture. Wind may be cheaper, but it is not consistent and this is highlighted very well by the difference in capacity factor, 35/37 for wind vs. 90 for nuclear. For base load I believe that nuclear is as close to perfect as possible and absolutely the way to go, especially as we transition to electric cars which from some books I have read, will level off the daily fluctuations of power consumption (i.e. more consumption at night for recharging the car).

[CBR]

I am going to request a source for the first sentence there.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...ly-of-Uranium/

Current usage is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.3 Mt) in the cost category around present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

With just 11% of global electricity provided by nuclear, a major increase in consumption would quickly exhaust the current stocks and force prices up. I'll assume that more of it can be found but it will still mean operating costs would go up.

Second I think, the LCOE is obviously not the whole picture. Wind may be cheaper, but it is not consistent and this is highlighted very well by the difference in capacity factor, 35/37 for wind vs. 90 for nuclear.

Yes, which is why wind needs to be supplemented with solar energy, and ways of storing it in batteries or maybe liquefied air

edit: and a better power grid too.

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nu...ly-of-Uranium/

With just 11% of global electricity provided by nuclear, a major increase in consumption would quickly exhaust the current stocks and force prices up. I'll assume that more of it can be found but it will still mean operating costs would go up.

Come on, CBR, you can't cherry pick that one statement and expect me to not read the entire page.

An initial uranium exploration cycle was military-driven, over 1945 to 1958. The second cycle was about 1974 to 1983, driven by civil nuclear power and in the context of a perception that uranium might be scarce. There was relatively little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2003, so the significant increase in exploration effort since then could conceivably double the known economic resources despite adjustments due to increasing costs. In the two years 2005-06 the world’s known uranium resources tabulated above and graphed below increased by 15% (17% in the cost category to $80/kgU).

[...]

Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.

[...]

Supply forecasters are often reluctant to consider the additive impacts of exploration on new supply, arguing that assuming discoveries is as risky and speculative as the exploration business itself. Trying to predict any single discovery certainly is speculative. However, as long as the goal is merely to account for the estimated total discovery rate at a global level, a proxy such as estimated exploration expenditures can be used. Since expenditures correlate with discovery rate, the historic (or adjusted) resources discovered per unit of expenditure will provide a reasonable estimate of resource gains to be expected. As long as the time lag between discovery and production is accounted for, this kind of dynamic forecasting is more likely to provide a basis for both price increases and decreases, which metals markets have historically demonstrated.
Without these estimates of uranium resource replenishment through exploration cycles, long-term supply-demand analyses will tend to have a built-in pessimistic bias (i.e. towards scarcity and higher prices), that will not reflect reality. Not only will these forecasts tend to overestimate the price required to meet long-term demand, but the opponents of nuclear power use them to bolster arguments that nuclear power is unsustainable even in the short term. In a similar fashion, these finite-resources analyses also lead observers of the industry to conclude that fast breeder reactor technology will soon be required. This may indeed make a gradual appearance, but if uranium follows the price trends we see in other metals, its development will be due to strategic policy decisions more than uranium becoming too expensive.

And here is in my opinion, the real thing to consider.

Since uranium is part of the energy sector, another way to look at exploration costs is on the basis of energy value. This allows comparisons with the energy investment cost for other energy fuels, especially fossil fuels which will have analogous costs related to the discovery of the resources. From numerous published sources, the finding costs of crude oil have averaged around US$ 6/bbl over at least the past three decades. When finding costs of the two fuels are expressed in terms of their contained energy value, oil, at US$ 1050/MJ of energy, is about 300 times more expensive to find than uranium, at US$ 3.4/MJ. Similarly, the proportion of current market prices that finding costs comprise are lower for uranium. Its finding costs make up only 2% of the recent spot price of US$ 30/lb ($78/kgU), while the oil finding costs are 12% of a recent spot price of US$ 50/bbl.

By these measures, uranium is a very inexpensive energy source to replenish, as society has accepted far higher energy replacement costs to sustain oil resources. This low basic energy resource cost is one argument in favour of a nuclear-hydrogen solution to long-term replacement of oil as a transportation fuel.

And if we are going to be honest here, lets take the original argument that further increase in nuclear will only result in a higher cost due to resource scarcity. This argument also applies to solar power which heavily relies on various elements that are also comparable if not more scare in the Earth's crust than Uranium (if I am not mistaken). So then the most rational thing to do would be to stick with conventional coal which in the first link you provided, already provided a lower LCOE. But clearly, we can agree that is not the answer.

Yes, which is why wind needs to be supplemented with solar energy, and ways of storing it in batteries or maybe liquefied air

edit: and a better power grid too.

I completely agree about a better grid, and I am sure eventually politicians will wake up to that fact and get on it. However, in my opinion, trying to introduce batteries or liquefied air will only add on more inefficiencies and take up resources that would be better utilized elsewhere than if we simply increased nuclear power as a percent of our total electrical generation.

[CBR]

On the contrary, I like it when people read my links.

I can see that Hitachi apparently does have a fast breeder design although skeptics claim it might still be 25 years away. The nuclear industry is rather notorious for delays and cost overruns, so it becomes a bit meh; yes it is potentially a great thing but how long are we supposed to wait. But OK, in the long term next-gen technology means uranium shouldn't be a problem.

One could argue solar power might get more expensive the more widespread it is, but so far the price has been dropping and there is also the potential of using other materials. Storage technologies will cost extra but that does not mean it will cost more than nuclear. IMO there are uncertainties on the costs which makes it rather difficult to declare which one is best, so I prefer to keep all options open. Bigger budgets for R&D would be nice.

[Fragony]

China loves you very big

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My own personal hope is that we can get to a combination of renewables and fusion.

Me in charge?: Manhattan-style effort on fusion power dev; second, not quite manhattan, on battery improvement; expand fission and natural gas while renewables tech is ramped up (coal and especially oil have huge value in other usages that aren't burnt); greenlight NASA for Lunar colony, Mars exp, research on extra terrestrial mining.

But don't worry, I won't be in power ever....even in my own family

[HoreTore]

My own personal hope is that we can get to a combination of renewables and fusion.

Fusion, eh?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nuclear power will come unless:

1. We decide to keep using fossil fuels.
2. We decide to die as a species.

Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.

If we want energy independence for good, the way is a nuclear-hydrogen economy or bust.

[HoreTore]

Nuclear power will come unless:

1. We decide to keep using fossil fuels.
2. We decide to die as a species.

Many of the elements needed for solar are mined (almost exclusively) by China. I would consider it a failure on a colossal scale if we managed to remove our energy dependence on the Middle East and decided to hand it over to China. Sad thing is that many of you wish to do just that.

If we want energy independence for good, the way is a nuclear-hydrogen economy or bust.

Who are "we"?

While I don't doubt that we'll figure out a way to replicate what's happening at the sun eventually, the emphasis is on eventually. We're miles away from using fusion, and most of the claims of its awesomeness are just hackery. I'm sure it'll be a nice fuel when we build the first Milennium Falcon, but for the time being we should focus on more realistic options.

Fission still works wonders though.

[Beskar]

Who are "we"?

Human beings, Society, Everyone.

[HoreTore]

Human beings, Society, Everyone.

So, the Chinese needs to find resources outside China so that the Chinese have energy indepedence?

Or are the Chinese not considered humans?

[Husar]

It's not like computer technology wasn't heavily dependent on rare earths from China, but you rarely see people saying we should stop using computer technology on the Internet. I wonder why.

[Beskar]

So, the Chinese needs to find resources outside China so that the Chinese have energy indepedence?
Or are the Chinese not considered humans?

I was speaking generally, but in that specific example, 'Murica.