Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Sean K]

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.

NIMBY definitely a problem. Can't even get RE in some places due to that. Don't see a wind farm off the beach at Manly. Bob Brown was even against an offshore farm in Tassie. I think his justification was a sacred fish or something, but it was all about esthetics. We could maybe build one on the first proposed site in Nowra (I think ) where foundations were actually laid for a site.

It's a shame WW2 came along when it did. My understanding is that nuclear energy was being developed in the 30s for purely energy requirements but then the war started and someone had a good idea to change the direction of the program. If they had have just stuck with energy, we could be driving nuclear powered cars by now.

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

A big problem in Australia is that we have simply lost much of our engineering and scientific capability. Not the lot but we've lost a lot of it compared to what we used to have.

We did have 4 specific sites identified for nuclear power stations in Australia many years ago.

One did start early construction works but was scrapped due to economics and a government decision to end the other reasons for its construction.

Another was fully designed but didn't stack up economically.

Two others were less advanced but didn't proceed further due to economics.

Only one of the sites has ever generated electricity although that's from wind turbines installed many years later not nuclear.

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

I won't claim to know the full detail but from what I've seen, nuclear cost estimates tend to be based on best case scenarios.

Here's the plant design now if we can put that on a site, and everything goes perfectly, then we can build it for $ x.

As soon as someone checks the site geology and finds an imperfection, there's a blowout.

As soon as overcoming whatever problem leads to a delay, there's another blowout.

As soon as there's even the slightest price inflation, there's another blowout.

Now charge compounding interest on the blowouts over period of 10 or even 20 years during construction and it ends up being a big number.

 

[basilio]

I won't claim to know the full detail but from what I've seen, nuclear cost estimates tend to be based on best case scenarios.

Here's the plant design now if we can put that on a site, and everything goes perfectly, then we can build it for $ x.

As soon as someone checks the site geology and finds an imperfection, there's a blowout.

As soon as overcoming whatever problem leads to a delay, there's another blowout.

As soon as there's even the slightest price inflation, there's another blowout.

Now charge compounding interest on the blowouts over period of 10 or even 20 years during construction and it ends up being a big number.

To be fair this happens with any very big engineering project. This would be particulary the case when the proponents realise they need to solve problems that are still outstanding (or havn't even surfaced). It's probably less likely to happen to a relatively straightforward project that has already been done many times. Standard wind turbine and PV installations would fit into that category.

As noted earlier every nuclear power station the US has had massive cost blowouts. Most have been abandoned with sunk costs in the hundreds of millions.

The proposals for modular nuclear reactors have still not produced a working model. They do have a history of escalating costs.

For all these reasons it just isn't economically responsible to go the nuclear option when there are far more cost effective, build safe options already proven.

Having said that... If a consortium was able to build a modular nuclear reactor and demonstrate future ones could be produced at reasonable cost I could see the point. But that process does not seem to be even close to fruition. And lets be clear. Such a consortium would want many billions of dollars of government funding and guarantees to prove such a venture. It will not be a private industry funded project.

To sum up. That tweet trashing 3 trillion dollars of renewable projects as wasted money and then proposing the money should have been spent on 600 modular reactors is a waste of pixels. It's best value lies in analysing just why it is so far off reality.

 

[mullokintyre]

The topic of the thread is climate hysteria.
Heres an example.

I live on the edge of one of the new 'under water areas" on that map.
Our elevation is 340 feet oe 103.4 metres in non aviation terms.
The thermal anergy required to melt sufficient ice to raise the level by 340 feet is beyond my comprehension.
And if you think the above map is "junk science", have a look at the dudes next tweet.

Beyond comprehension how anybody could put up such rubbish.The calculations are enormous.
According to NASA, the amount of energy reaching the earth in a year is 44 Quadrillion watts (4.4 X 10 to 16 joules).
To heat the earths atmosphere by 1 degree celcius is 5.33 X 10 18 watts.
So, If ALL of the energy from the sun went into heating the atmosphere, it would take about 110 years to heat the atmosphere alone.
To heat the worlds oceans by one degree according to Climate.gov requires about 5.5 X 10 24 Joules, or around a million years to heat the worlds oceans. So if all the heat went into the oceans, it would take 1 10 to 6 or a million years.
I could not find any calcs for the land mass calculations,
There are other factors at play, such as the fact that 30% of incoming solar energy is reflected back to space, 47% absorbed by oceans and land mass, and 23% by the atmosphere.
There is also the fact that due to the albedo effect, most of the heat is absorbed at the equator, and less as you get to the poles, where far more is reflected.
There is also the changes within the earth itself where large amounts of energy are stored in molten rock, potential energy as tecktonic tension, and the large time scale changes in solar output, earth's axis, distance from the sun etc.
Whichever way you look at it, this is alarmist claptrap.
Mick

 

[Sean K]

The topic of the thread is climate hysteria.
Heres an example.
View attachment 155567
I live on the edge of one of the new 'under water areas" on that map.
Our elevation is 340 feet oe 103.4 metres in non aviation terms.
The thermal anergy required to melt sufficient ice to raise the level by 340 feet is beyond my comprehension.
And if you think the above map is "junk science", have a look at the dudes next tweet.
View attachment 155568
Beyond comprehension how anybody could put up such rubbish.The calculations are enormous.
According to NASA, the amount of energy reaching the earth in a year is 44 Quadrillion watts (4.4 X 10 to 16 joules).
To heat the earths atmosphere by 1 degree celcius is 5.33 X 10 18 watts.
So, If ALL of the energy from the sun went into heating the atmosphere, it would take about 110 years to heat the atmosphere alone.
To heat the worlds oceans by one degree according to Climate.gov requires about 5.5 X 10 24 Joules, or around a million years to heat the worlds oceans. So if all the heat went into the oceans, it would take 1 10 to 6 or a million years.
I could not find any calcs for the land mass calculations,
There are other factors at play, such as the fact that 30% of incoming solar energy is reflected back to space, 47% absorbed by oceans and land mass, and 23% by the atmosphere.
There is also the fact that due to the albedo effect, most of the heat is absorbed at the equator, and less as you get to the poles, where far more is reflected.
There is also the changes within the earth itself where large amounts of energy are stored in molten rock, potential energy as tecktonic tension, and the large time scale changes in solar output, earth's axis, distance from the sun etc.
Whichever way you look at it, this is alarmist claptrap.
Mick

Is Alex James @basilio on twitter?

 

[rederob]

The topic of the thread is climate hysteria.
Heres an example.
View attachment 155567
I live on the edge of one of the new 'under water areas" on that map.
Our elevation is 340 feet oe 103.4 metres in non aviation terms.
The thermal anergy required to melt sufficient ice to raise the level by 340 feet is beyond my comprehension.
And if you think the above map is "junk science", have a look at the dudes next tweet.
View attachment 155568
Beyond comprehension how anybody could put up such rubbish.The calculations are enormous.
According to NASA, the amount of energy reaching the earth in a year is 44 Quadrillion watts (4.4 X 10 to 16 joules).
To heat the earths atmosphere by 1 degree celcius is 5.33 X 10 18 watts.
So, If ALL of the energy from the sun went into heating the atmosphere, it would take about 110 years to heat the atmosphere alone.
To heat the worlds oceans by one degree according to Climate.gov requires about 5.5 X 10 24 Joules, or around a million years to heat the worlds oceans. So if all the heat went into the oceans, it would take 1 10 to 6 or a million years.
I could not find any calcs for the land mass calculations,
There are other factors at play, such as the fact that 30% of incoming solar energy is reflected back to space, 47% absorbed by oceans and land mass, and 23% by the atmosphere.
There is also the fact that due to the albedo effect, most of the heat is absorbed at the equator, and less as you get to the poles, where far more is reflected.
There is also the changes within the earth itself where large amounts of energy are stored in molten rock, potential energy as tecktonic tension, and the large time scale changes in solar output, earth's axis, distance from the sun etc.
Whichever way you look at it, this is alarmist claptrap.
Mick

Not sure why you post verifiable nonsense.
There is more chance of fairies in the bottom of the garden.

FYI there are countless thousands of idiots posting anti and pro climate rubbish in social media that has no basis in science.
Hopefully we can just look at the stuff in this thread that might have a semblance of science attached.

 

[basilio]

Not sure why you post verifiable nonsense. Because we can and we can post the wildest piece of nonsense to rubbish something we don't want to acknowledge. Forget straw man. Its an entire wheat field...
There is more chance of fairies in the bottom of the garden. Actually I would be betting on the fairies = by a long shot

FYI there are countless thousands of idiots posting anti and pro climate rubbish in social media that has no basis in science.
Hopefully we can just look at the stuff in this thread that might have a semblance of science attached.

Nuh . No way the oceans will rise 100 metres in 10 years. Obviously. If in fact that is what the picture is supposed to suggest. After reading a few more posts by Alex James he seems to be the whole bx of loose screws.

The IPCC has produced a sea rise projection tool that attempts to predict sea level rises around the world under a range of CC circumstances. That is all based on current knowledge.

NASA Sea Level Change Portal

Visit NASA's portal for an in-depth look at the science behind sea level change.

sealevel.nasa.gov

 

[wayneL]

current knowledge.

?

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Nuh . No way the oceans will rise 100 metres in 10 years.

Yes , they will. When the meteor hits. And that's a cert within a decade.

 

[mullokintyre]

Not sure why you post verifiable nonsense.
There is more chance of fairies in the bottom of the garden.

Because ya goose, as the thread says, its about Climate hysteria.
Its a perfect example.

FYI there are countless thousands of idiots posting anti and pro climate rubbish in social media that has no basis in science.
Hopefully we can just look at the stuff in this thread that might have a semblance of science attached.

Most people would have said that the few math calcs about energy that I put up might be science, but perhaps its above your head.
mick

 

[rederob]

Because ya goose, as the thread says, its about Climate hysteria.

Please go back to the first post as it was about the supposed science and a view that it reflected a degree of hysteria.

Most people would have said that the few math calcs about energy that I put up might be science, but perhaps its above your head.

I studied physics and was pretty good at calculus and maths induction so your figures were somewhat below my level.
By the way, if all the ice on land sheets melted the sea level would only increase by about 217 feet (190 Antarctica and about 26 Greenland + 1 the rest) so you are safe.

That said, you made a big mistake with your temperature calcs.

 

[mullokintyre]

Please go back to the first post as it was about the supposed science and a view that it reflected a degree of hysteria.

I studied physics and was pretty good at calculus and maths induction so your figures were somewhat below my level.
By the way, if all the ice on land sheets melted the sea level would only increase by about 217 feet (190 Antarctica and about 26 Greenland + 1 the rest) so you are safe.

That said, you made a big mistake with your temperature calcs.

You say you have studied just about everything,.
I seem to recall you telling me you were an expert on modelling because you wrote some models on a hp45.
problem is, like a lot of academic geniuses, for all your studying, you don't seem to have learned much.

Mick

 

[rederob]

You say you have studied just about everything,.
I seem to recall you telling me you were an expert on modelling because you wrote some models on a hp45.
problem is, like a lot of academic geniuses, for all your studying, you don't seem to have learned much.

I didn't present a lot of numbers that had zip to do with how the earth's surface temperature increases.
Unless you present something on climate sensitivity your ideas about how our planet will warm will be off the mark.

 

[mullokintyre]

I didn't present a lot of numbers that had zip to do with how the earth's surface temperature increases.
Unless you present something on climate sensitivity that totally agrees with everything I say , your ideas about how our planet will warm will be off the mark.

There ya go, i fixed it for ya.
Mick

 

[basilio]

To heat the worlds oceans by one degree according to Climate.gov requires about 5.5 X 10 24 Joules,

Interesting. Was the figure referring to the entire volume of the earths oceans ? It suggests that doesn't it ?
From a global warming POV the critical part of ocean warming is the top layers. From CC accelerated extreme weather conditions the increase in ocean temperatures can be a quite thin surface layer. For a scientific analysis of how much extra heat is going into the oceans check out the URL.

For example hurricanes intensify their energy from warm and then increasingly warmer waters. Coral reefs are dying off because of increased temperatures in the top 10-30 metres. These are already reaching levels that are degrading large areas.

It's fair enough to point out that Alex James post shows he is a wacko. But that does not somehow denigrate the issue of how real and serious Global Warming is.

This whole thread was started and continued with the intention of undermining any discussion about an issue that is going to be about the survival of our current ecosystems. That objective still seems to be in place.

Ocean Heat Content | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[basilio]

Yes , they will. When the meteor hits. And that's a cert within a decade.

Indeed.. Is that before or after AI gets control of the whole world and takes due measures to rid the world of the human rabbit plague ?

They may keep a few compliant ones as necessary feeders and pet. Who feels lucky?

 

[mullokintyre]

Interesting. Was the figure referring to the entire volume of the earths oceans ? It suggests that doesn't it ?

Bit difficult to reply to that one.
Which figure from which source?

It's fair enough to point out that Alex James post shows he is a wacko. But that does not somehow denigrate the issue of how real and serious Global Warming is.

Thats Right Bas, the thread is about Climate Hysteria.
As I tried to point out to Commie Rob, the posts by James are exactly that - Climate hysteria.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Bit difficult to reply to that one.
Which figure from which source?

Thats Right Bas, the thread is about Climate Hysteria.
As I tried to point out to Commie Rob, ? the posts by James are exactly that - Climate hysteria.
Mick

To heat the worlds oceans by one degree according to Climate.gov requires about 5.5 X 10 24 Joules, or around a million years to heat the worlds oceans. So if all the heat went into the oceans, it would take 1 10 to 6 or a million years.

I clarified the issue by highlighting just how much the oceans have warmed in the past 50 years. Is that serious stuff or not ? Or does all the science employed by NASA to calculate how the earth is heating up come under the heading of Climate Hysteria ?

By the way not cool to trash other posters Mick.

This thread was started to undermine discussions on the reality and seriousness of global warming. It continues in that vein.

 

[Sean K]

By the way not cool to trash other posters Mick.

This thread was started to undermine discussions on the reality and seriousness of global warming. It continues in that vein.

Is trashing posters only allowed if it's targeted at the skeptics?

While there's been a lot of posting questioning the veracity of the CAGW hypothesis in general, I think the purpose of this thread was to point out the hysterical claims made by warmists who continue to argue the World is going to explode, or oceans are going to boil, or ecosystems are being lost and billions of people will be displaced by XX year. The latest updated tipping point date seems to be 2030, just seven years away.