Resisting Climate Hysteria

[IFocus]

Yeah, they melt every year, just like they have always done.
Trouble is, the damn stuff keeps re freezing, just like it has always done.
The subtle difference now is that it is all due to man made climate change.
No chance that there may be other natural cyclic factors involved, none at all.
Mick

TBH I only wish that was true unfortunately the loss of ice from glaciers / oceans continues with no end insight (if you follow research re the Artic its really damming) I think there are only two glaciers in the Himalayas that are making a net gain the Antarctic is the serious scenario.

 

[IFocus]

Judith Curry gets some air time in The Australian on the latest Synthesis Report. Doubt you'd find anything like this on the ABC, Guardian, or Primary School teaching curriculum, of course. It goes against the narrative.

You will find her speaking at fossil fuel and Republican gigs.

Up to 2010 Curry had a different outlook when doing research on the effects of CC on hurricanes for which she copped criticism from the forces against CC.

I have read her stuff before noting Curry walks both side of the argument and comes across at least me to have a real issue with climate politics (politics often quoted here) and down playing the consequences while covering herself saying that there is a possibility that consequences could be catastrophic.

 

[Sean K]

You will find her speaking at fossil fuel and Republican gigs.

Up to 2010 Curry had a different outlook when doing research on the effects of CC on hurricanes for which she copped criticism from the forces against CC.

I have read her stuff before noting Curry walks both side of the argument and comes across at least me to have a real issue with climate politics (politics often quoted here) and down playing the consequences while covering herself saying that there is a possibility that consequences could be catastrophic.

Regularly speaking to the US Senate as well.

I genuinely believe that her only agenda is to try and keep the climate discussion scientific and not political.

There's very few out there. It's become a religion.

 

[wayneL]

And Berlin is one of the more woke cities, wow!

 

[Sean K]

And Berlin is one of the more woke cities, wow!

Crikey, that's a big rejection. I wonder how closely related that is to the recent issues with power prices and reliability of RE. Perhaps it's something that will happen in Australia once we shut down the remaining coal plants and realise that RE systems can not actually power industry and electricity starts to be rationed with rolling blackouts and costs explode. There will be an uprising at some point I imagine. Perhaps by the end of the decade.

 

[Sean K]

Or, maybe it was a technical issue with the numbers.

 

[basilio]

Or, maybe it was a technical issue with the numbers.

View attachment 155275

How interesting. So Will Jones turned a slightly positive vote to move quicker on CC programs into a resounding failure - simply by putting all the people who didn't vote into the No Camp. Yep wouldn't expect anything else. I wonder if Mark Pearce is aware of the full picture or just happy to promote the Will Jones distortion ?

It is interesting that less than 25% of the population voted at all. But maybe in a voluntary referendum most people are just too busy or whatever to vote.

 

[basilio]

After checking out the response from other tweeters on Mark Pearce thread its clear they are almost all very eager climate change deniers. They seemed delighted with the overwhelming result - and did'nt know or care how it was constructed. I reckon the next time we see it will be in The Hun.

Obviously Mark wouldn't want to cloud a good story with facts. But it does highlight why I very, very rarely give credanace to posts from our Wayne on this topic. His sources are just so suss.

 

[wayneL]

After checking out the response from other tweeters on Mark Pearce thread its clear they are almost all very eager climate change deniers. They seemed delighted with the overwhelming result - and did'nt know or care how it was constructed. I reckon the next time we see it will be in The Hun.

Obviously Mark wouldn't want to cloud a good story with facts. But it does highlight why I very, very rarely give credanace to posts from our Wayne on this topic. His sources are just so suss.

Haha, this from someone with a 8 year history of posting bs Trump conspiracy theories and probably 15 years of failed climate forecasts.

Nobody cares about the climate bs anymore, apart from WEF brown tongues, bro. That's what the Berlin result shows.

 

[basilio]

Haha, this from someone with a 8 year history of posting bs Trump conspiracy theories and probably 15 years of failed climate forecasts.

Nobody cares about the climate bs anymore, apart from WEF brown tongues, bro. That's what the Berlin result shows. (WTF ??? You didn't bother reading what Sean posted which showed what a load of xhite that story was )

Ha ha ha ha.. That mirror of yours must have shattered into a million pieces Wayne.

 

[Sean K]

The result of the referendum is not due to so-called 'climate deniers'. What a stupid term that is. Who denies that there's a climate? It's just plain moronic to use it really.

I've done a google on 'why people don't vote', which is why the referendum failed, and the general perspective is that they don't vote because they don't think their vote matters.

So, it seems either the climate catastrophists didn't think it worthwhile voting, or the people who wanted cheap and reliable power thought the vote was never going to get up, or the energy that went into promoting the yes vote seemed too overwhelming for them to have a chance.

Surprising such a big issue was not supported by eligible voters one way or the other. The consequences of bringing forward the net zero pledge was going to cost billions, but according to the catastrophists the oceans are going to start boiling imminently.

 

[IFocus]

The result of the referendum is not due to so-called 'climate deniers'. What a stupid term that is. Who denies that there's a climate? It's just plain moronic to use it really.

I've done a google on 'why people don't vote', which is why the referendum failed, and the general perspective is that they don't vote because they don't think their vote matters.

So, it seems either the climate catastrophists didn't think it worthwhile voting, or the people who wanted cheap and reliable power thought the vote was never going to get up, or the energy that went into promoting the yes vote seemed too overwhelming for them to have a chance.

Surprising such a big issue was not supported by eligible voters one way or the other. The consequences of bringing forward the net zero pledge was going to cost billions, but according to the catastrophists the oceans are going to start boiling imminently.

Suspect the lack of Russian gas / energy may have played into the out come.

 

[mullokintyre]

Mick

 

[Sean K]

View attachment 155474
Mick

Would be interesting to see a similar comparison to Australia. #BlackOutBowen has continued to say that nuclear was too expensive and the Green-Marxists call nuclear powered subs 'floating Chernobyl's' but what if a proper cost benefit analysis was actually done to compare RE v nuclear as base load power?

 

[basilio]

Would be interesting to see a similar comparison to Australia. #BlackOutBowen has continued to say that nuclear was too expensive and the Green-Marxists call nuclear powered subs 'floating Chernobyl's' but what if a proper cost benefit analysis was actually done to compare RE v nuclear as base load power?

This story makes some critical points about the costs of building a nuclear power station.There is much more detail on plants in Europe, China and elsewhere. It appears not a single plant gets built if it is even finished at anywhere near original estimates.
Plenty of references to check the information.

Too cheap to meter or too expensive to matter?

Despite the abundance of evidence that nuclear power is hopelessly uncompetitive compared to renewables, the nuclear industry and some of its supporters continue to claim otherwise.

Those economic claims are typically based on implausible cost projections for non-existent ‘Generation IV’ reactor concepts. Moreover, the nuclear lobby’s claims about the cost of renewables are just as ridiculous.

Claims about ‘cheap’ nuclear power certainly don’t consider real-world nuclear construction projects. Every power reactor construction project in Western Europe and the US over the past decade has been a disaster.

The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.5 billion leading Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017. Criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the project are ongoing, and bailout programs to prolong operation of ageing reactors are also mired in corruption.

The only remaining reactor construction project in the US is the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The current cost estimate of A$37.6-41.8 billion is twice the estimate when construction began. Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts. The project is six years behind schedule.

In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as A$2.0 billion, 10 times lower than the current estimate for Vogtle.

The Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee began operation in 2016, 43 years after construction began. That is the only power reactor start-up in the US over the past quarter-century. The previous start-up was Watts Bar 1, completed in 1996 after a 23-year construction period.

In 2021, TVA abandoned the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama, 47 years after construction began and following the expenditure of an estimated A$8.1 billion.

There have been no other power reactor construction projects in the US over the past 25 years other than those listed above. Numerous other reactor projects were abandoned before construction began, some following the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 2022, nuclear power’s future looks grimmer than ever

As new renewable energy capacity continues to boom, nuclear power generation declined in 2021 and the industry’s future is grimmer than it has ever been.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Suspect the lack of Russian gas / energy may have played into the out come.

The situation with Russia and EU gas supplies is one that's been widely discussed in the industry since the 1990's.

It's a classic demonstration of what's wrong with our political system in general - governments are in general simply naive and ignorant of even relatively recent history. Far too many politicians have backgrounds in law, the arts or politics itself (including unions) and far too few have backgrounds in hard sciences, trades, business or other practical things.

As the EU ought be well aware given history, the whole reason governments took an interest in energy in the first place was due to the geopolitical risk associated with oil and gas. That's the actual reason "energy policy" became a thing in the first place.

We've far too many politicians who could recite the words of Shakespeare and get it spot on correct but who'd give a blank stare if anyone asked them about energy resources.

 

[Smurf1976]

Despite the abundance of evidence that nuclear power is hopelessly uncompetitive compared to renewables, the nuclear industry and some of its supporters continue to claim otherwise.

Ultimately nuclear versus renewables is a game of seriously big money and politics.

That's what it comes down to really. There are places where it does make sense but not that many.

Energy's a dirty business in every sense of the word.

 

[Sean K]

Ultimately nuclear versus renewables is a game of seriously big money and politics.

That's what it comes down to really. There are places where it does make sense but not that many.

Energy's a dirty business in every sense of the word.

Any idea why the cost blowouts for nuclear reactor development? Safety and regulation or material and labour costs? Perhaps SMRs will be cheaper and more competitive on a pure price basis. But, I've seen reports that even 500Mw SMRs have gone up 50% to close to $10b.

Part of the cost benefit analysis that's not sufficiently analysed and hard to qualify and quantify is the reliability benefit. What value can you place on 24/7 power compared to intermittent and unreliable RE ( plus any overall emissions reductions)? Until there's a mass storage and distribution solution to RE there must be a very large cost associated with that. Maybe $40b for a nuclear plant offsets equivalent power from something that costs 1/10th but isn't actually fit for purpose.

 

[rederob]

Any idea why the cost blowouts for nuclear reactor development?

There was never a blowout as Lazard's LCOE - unsubsidised - of 5 years ago shows:

In the meantime all renewables costs have declined while conventional energy costs have increased.
As they say in the classics, renewables is a no brainer.

Until there's a mass storage and distribution solution to RE there must be a very large cost associated with that. Maybe $40b for a nuclear plant offsets equivalent power from something that costs 1/10th but isn't actually fit for purpose.

There are mass storage options in pumped hydro, and many short term battery storage options, such as via batteries. However, there has been no imperative for the private sector to develop them as there is a cost to them sitting idle until needed. Some American States have solved this problem by requiring all renewables projects to have a mandatory amount of dispatchable backup.

 

[IFocus]

Any idea why the cost blowouts for nuclear reactor development? Safety and regulation or material and labour costs?

Nuclear plants are difficult and managing the risks even more so.

For Australia double the lead times and costs simply because we have zero technical / engineering combability plus the sovereign risk of not having the technical knowhow or process to process nuclear fuel with out that you have no way of making nuclear energy.

Given the lead times by the time you finish building and sorting processing fuel the whole thing will be obsolete both in control systems / equipment and means of energy generation.

The really hard issue of all is where to build it... not in my backyard syndrome would see any local member of parliament get thrown out

All the work and costs only make sense if you go making nuclear weapons with the fuel for plants a spin off.