RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Jan 2021

Filed under: — group @ 1 January 2021

A new open thread for climate solutions in the new year (and the soon-to-be new US administration actions). As for the climate science open threads, please try to renew your commitment to constructive dialog that prioritises light over heat (like LED bulbs for instance!). Thanks!

632 Responses to “Forced Responses: Jan 2021”

  1. 351
    nigelj says:

    This is new: ” Study: Accounting for value of nature reinforces Paris climate targets. Climate-economics models (IAMs) are said to grossly underestimate costs of climate damages to natural systems, such as flood protection and healthy ecosystems….”

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/study-accounting-for-value-of-nature-reinforces-paris-climate-targets/

    (This study is very critical of the Nordhaus economic model that seemed to diminish the costs of climate change. Here’s a related link critical of the Nordaus model, that I posted ages ago:

    https://liu.se/en/news-item/liu-forskare-riktar-skarp-kritik-mot-ekonomipristagare#:~:text=David%20EinarWilliam%20Nordhaus's%20work,alternative%20indicators%20of%20well%2Dbeing.

  2. 352

    BPL @346:

    Just because the specific cancer deaths can’t be trace to the accidents doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

    Moderate radiation exposure is associated with a DECREASE in cancers.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121451/

    Now contrast the quantifiable health damage from fossil fuels and the projected damage from climate change.

    BPL: Except that we were talking about nuclear versus renewables, not nuclear versus fossil fuels. Way to move the goalposts.

    Absent abundant hydro, the so-called “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.  They are inseparable.

    If you assert otherwise, SHOW ME a fossil-based grid which (a) supports an industrial base (no small islands), and (b) has decarbonized to the level France has achieved (which France achieved totally by accident).  No tricks like claiming that wood pellets (1500 gCO2/kWh) are “carbon-neutral” either.

  3. 353
    nigelj says:

    Regarding zero emissions energy at scale versus huge cuts in consumption of resources.

    Zero emissions energy and low carbon products look feasible in terms of both solving the climate issue, technically, economically, and in terms of convincing people, and it improves sustainability. Obviously its not problem free – its very resource intensive – but it clearly has some merits. Persuading people to reduce consumption dramatically looks much more difficult to me and if we put all our energy ONLY into that and it fails, we have lost precious time we cant get back. No matter what argument you put for the merits of massive reductions in consumption, we cant ignore the problems of trying to convince people which are rooted in human psychology which can be hard to shift. So I tend to put most of my efforts into persuading people to adopt zero emissions energy.

    Now I also promote cuts in consumption, although I keep my suggestions moderate so as not to “scare the horses” . With some good fortune consumption levels will reduce medium term, meaning that ultimately we wont NEED to build all that many renewables thus reducing the resource use problem. Obviously we wont be building a completely new electricity grid in just one decade, because there are too many obstacles, so there is a good chance for consumption levels to fall and thus the ultimate grid would be smaller.

    Likewise some sort of simplified lifestyles incubators / communities looks to have merit, but history is full of alternative lifestyle communities and you obviously cant force people into these and there’s unlikely to be some governmnet advertising campaign and so these ideas spread by word of mouth, which is a slow process. Again it would be great if the idea took off, but it looks like it would be a slow process and I would be very nervous about putting too much reliance on it short to medium term. But if it were to take off quite quickly we could scale back on building new electricity generation.

    This probably sounds a bit like what KM said. I’m afraid I just cant see it any other way. It just seems to me the most prudent, smart and realistic approach is to promote both a new energy grid at reasonable scale, and some reductions in consumption simultaneously and hopefully things meet in the middle and we dont need a truly massive new energy grid.

  4. 354
    nigelj says:

    “Twitterer: Sure… MMT is just a convenient PR operation to justify a new experiment, focusing on making asset holders much richer…nothing else But you would need to have a brain to understand how it works Now, get lost”

    Perhaps he means that in his view MMT could be inflationary, thus increasing the value of assets. But he didn’t say, and he just repeated his assertions, so everyone is left guessing.

  5. 355
    nigelj says:

    “Maybe we can steer the discussion here into some more productive channels by having nothing to do with the vitriol and pablum….So, I just ignore the Biden stupidity on growth..”

    Contradiction much?

  6. 356
    David B. Benson says:

    UAMPS wants nuclear power backup for their wind farms. NuScale is doing its best to provide. See the last few posts in
    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/405/smr-small-modular-reactors?page=6

  7. 357
    Killian says:

    345 prl:
    25 Jan 2021 at 8:59 PM

    Does anyone have a source for the 0.04 deaths/TWh figure for nuclear power?

    Don’t really care about this topic bc nuclear is stupid except for the possibility of very niche applications. It’s utterly unsustainable and dangerous. That said… an observation on deaths from nuclear.

    The lifecycle of nuclear is up to tens of thousands of years long. Even when considering the lifecycle of just build to decommissioning, it’s 50+ years and the vast majority of nuclear plants have not finished this lifecycle.

    We have no idea what the death rate for nuclear is, and will not for a very long time.

    We do know there are two areas of the planet made unliveable already, with more almost certain to follow.

    Out.

  8. 358
    Killian says:

    355 nigelj:
    26 Jan 2021 at 5:01 PM

    “Maybe we can steer the discussion here into some more productive channels by having nothing to do with the vitriol and pablum….So, I just ignore the Biden stupidity on growth..”

    Contradiction much?

    Nigel, Biden is not using this forum. mike’s context was clear: steer the discussion here.

  9. 359

    E-P 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    BPL: No, they replace it.

  10. 360

    E-P, #352–

    Absent abundant hydro, the so-called “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption. They are inseparable.

    Nope. Or at least, a pure, undemonstrated ‘proof-by-assertion.’

    If you assert otherwise, SHOW ME a fossil-based grid..

    Presumably a typo for “non-fossil-based grid,” or maybe “wind and solar based grid?” Seems kinda like a Freudian slip there.

    But anyway, while the process of decarbonization may not be complete anywhere (including the much-hyped France), there are numerous examples in recent years of nations progressively decarbonizing via massive deployments of wind and solar. They’ve been repeatededly cited already in this ongoing conversation, so I’ll forbear repeating them now. Yes, we need considerable storage capacity if we rely to a large degree on intermittent generation capacity. No, it doesn’t have to be hydro–though there’s no doubt that possession of this resource can provide a significant ‘leg up’. And again, repeated citations on this point have previously been presented.

    E-P here is essentially trying to make a double assertion: first, an almost certainly mendacious one about renewables, and second, that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees with him. But he’s the one making an extraordinary claim.

  11. 361
    Killian says:

    360 Kevin McKinney:
    27 Jan 2021 at 11:47 AM

    E-P, #352–

    Absent abundant hydro, the so-called “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption. They are inseparable.

    Nope. Or at least, a pure, undemonstrated ‘proof-by-assertion.’

    If you assert otherwise, SHOW ME a fossil-based grid..

    Presumably a typo for “non-fossil-based grid,” or maybe “wind and solar based grid?” Seems kinda like a Freudian slip there.

    But anyway, while the process of decarbonization may not be complete anywhere (including the much-hyped France), there are numerous examples in recent years of nations progressively decarbonizing via massive deployments of wind and solar.

    What strikes me here is how you *both* dance around the issue of true sustainability (because I could care less about a two year discussion of a tech that does not, cannot solve our problems) even as tipping points, bifurcations, abound and may already be triggered.

    Incomplete. Everywhere.

    I am watching a series now called “Climate Emergency: Feedback Loops.” Jennifer Francis, she of the wet, wavy noodle of a jet stream, asserts ASI volume is already down 75%.

    People, if that doesn’t make you understand “time’s up,” nothing will. As you may recall, I believe we are already several bifurcations along those bifurcation graphs and a step away from complete non-linearity/Chaos.

    Let’s let that sink in.

  12. 362
    Killian says:

    359 Barton Paul Levenson:
    27 Jan 2021 at 6:48 AM

    E-P 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    BPL: No, they replace it.

    No, they reduce it.

  13. 363

    BPL @359:

    “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    No, they replace it.

    I said SHOW ME where they have done so, to the degree of France.

    Your repeated failure to SHOW ME proves that you know your claim is a lie.

  14. 364

    Kevin McKinney @360:

    If you assert otherwise, SHOW ME a fossil-based grid..

    Presumably a typo for “non-fossil-based grid,” or maybe “wind and solar based grid?” Seems kinda like a Freudian slip there.

    Disingenuous.  You’ve seen me use the same phrase often enough to know better.

    For those of you who don’t have the mental acuity to understand based on the straight words, I mean a grid that WAS ORIGINALLY FOSSIL-BASED (e.g. not hydro, like Norway) which has de-carbonized as successfully as France (and Sweden, and Ontario) using wind and solar, and supports the industrial base required to build more of the same.  There aren’t any.  Oh, there are some which claim to have de-carbonized (Denmark), but their CHP systems which used to be coal-fired are now fired by MSW and wood pellets (which spew some 1500 gCO2/kWh which will not be reclaimed until the clearcuts regenerate 30-40 years from now).

    there are numerous examples in recent years of nations progressively decarbonizing via massive deployments of wind and solar.

    List them, and their per-kWh emissions (don’t forget to include biomass).  Germany is backsliding.

    E-P here is essentially trying to make a double assertion: first, an almost certainly mendacious one about renewables, and second, that the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees with him.

    I keep waiting for this list of success stories you keep claiming, and I’m always disappointed.

    But he’s the one making an extraordinary claim.

    What, that France, Sweden and Ontario have almost fully decarbonized their electric grids using nuclear and hydro?  That Dr. James Hansen is right?  That we need to be able to maintain and expand the industrial base to build more of whatever succeeds fossil-fired energy?  What’s extraordinary about that?  It’s straight-talking common sense.

  15. 365
    Killian says:

    When I say gov’t cannot lead to sustainability it is usually because of the principles underlying the two very different systems. But there’s also this:

    45 Senate Republicans voted to declare Trump’s impeachment trial unconstitutional

    That’s an insane level of denial and/or partisanship that breaches the level of treason, imo. These are purely political stances with zero basis in reality and 100% grounded in maintaining party power and individual wealth, AKA treason.

    But it is all also a clear sign of entropy and collapse.

    We have one choice: Rapid regenerative simplification.

  16. 366
    Omega Centauri says:

    https://techxplore.com/news/2021-01-net-zeroand-negativeis-surprisingly-feasible.html
    Peer reviewed analysis of getting to net zero 2050, and whats requires getting to 2030.

  17. 367
    Piotr Trela says:

    David B. Benson (356): “UAMPS wants nuclear power backup for their wind farms”

    Why? If you build enough nukes to back up most?/all? of the GW installed in wind farms (to be able to back up when no wind over all wind turbines connected to the network, and no storage) then why build wind towers at all? It’s not like you are replacing GHG emissions when the wind blows (which is the case if you shut off gas turbines, when wind blows).

    DBB(356): See the last few posts in
    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/405/smr-small-modular-reactors?page=6

    So the only post on that page that is not yours: T2M: “Many are backing out of NuScale, (gasp) delayed completion and is more expensive”
    – not good?

  18. 368
    David B. Benson says:

    Piotr Trela @367 — Wind power, when available, is less expensive than the backup.

  19. 369
    David B. Benson says:

    Killian @357 — But there are the Babushkas who continue to live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, never having left.

    As for Fukushima, people are moving back. After having been pointlessly forced to leave.

  20. 370
    Piotr says:

    Poet: (352): Moderate radiation exposure is associated with a DECREASE in cancers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121451/

    Actually, your source says “low dose”, not “moderate”, and their conclusions are much more tentative than your shouting with capital letters (“DECREASE”) would suggest:

    – not clear how the lab experiments of mice, or cancer cells with some arbitrary amount of radiation, with short (e.g. 6-24hr) exposure are relevant to chronic exposure to radiation.

    – this _should_ have been answered by epidemiological studies, except their results are contradictory, and notorious for poor control for confounding factors, EVEN in studies where in theory you should have been easy to control for them – like workers of nuclear power plants.

    Their conclusion does not shout with capital letters: “DECREASE”, rather timidly: “ we believe that in the near future, it will be confirmed that there is at least no harm from low-dose radiation, and that low-dose radiation is beneficial to living organisms under specific conditions.

    I guess it beat the original version – “Well, another 3 months we will never get back – studies are crap, the effects are weak and contradictory, and we can’t say anything with any confidence one way or another“.

    And EVEN if benefits were OBVIOUS, it would still not falsify BPL’s: “Just because the specific cancer deaths can’t be trace to the accidents doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.” – the chance that as a result of a nuclear problem we would find ourselves at the just right dosage, with the just right duration of exposure, delivered in the right way into my body and me having the right type of cancer – not that great.

    And you know that the case can’t be very strong – if it were – we would be already buying radioactive mats for our kids in Walmart, and hang out with friends in unfinished and unventilated basements, deeply inhaling radon.

    And we would have returned to our practices of the past – have our feet X-rayed in the shoe store, get a Brazilian waxing the good old way – with an X-ray machine. while the Lancet would republish its old articles proposing X-rays as an alternative to beard shaving.

    Piotr
    P.S. I recommend a short story (2pages?) by SLAWOMIR MROZEK “Wesele w Atomicach” (“WEDDING IN ATOMICE”) – part of “The Ugupu Bird” short stories. A futuristic take on a village wedding from a classic Polish XIX century novel). Our Poet would fit right there. Below, for the taste,the first paragraph [sorry, couldn’t find online the best parts – Piotr]

    “The bridegroom had quite a sizeable laboratory near the wood and a couple of reactors over by the imperial highway, and in the farmyard itself a smallish but neat chemical synthesis workshop. The bride had from her father a dowry consisting of a whole power station, well situated in the centre of the village, near the church. And she must have had a good six patents dealing with biochemistry in her hope chest. Not surprising that the young couple were suited and the parents quickly agreed to the marriage. And so a wedding was announced in Atomice.” etc…

  21. 371

    E-P 363: I said SHOW ME where they have done so, to the degree of France. . . . Your repeated failure to SHOW ME proves that you know your claim is a lie.

    BPL: When all else fails, accuse your opponent of lying.

    You remind me of someone saying in 1910, “SHOW ME a country where cars have replaced horses and buggies! If you can’t do that, the idea that cars are replacing horses and buggies is a lie!”

  22. 372

    E-P 364: Germany is backsliding.

    BPL: Germans CO2 emissions were down in 2019 and 2020.

  23. 373
    Killian says:

    366:

    I published a plan ten years ago.

  24. 374
    Piotr says:

    E-P 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.
    BPL: 359 No, they replace it.
    Killian 362: No, they reduce it.

    No, because BPL didn’t say “replaced“. Ergo, to falsify “lock in” (and to prove E-P a liar), its enough to “ replace” SOME.

  25. 375
    Piotr says:

    Engineer-Poet (363) “I said SHOW ME where they have done so, to the degree of France.

    Except that BPL’s line: “No, they replace it” – did NOT refer to your “SHOW ME“, but to your line E-P(252): “ renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.
    “Lock in” – means keeping something at unchanged rate. Hence to prove the quoted line a lie, BPL did NOT have to “SHOW YOU” a country in which close to 100% of FF have been replaced by wind and solar. No, to show it a lie, it is enough if there is a country in which SOME of the FF generation has been “replaced” with wind or solar. Ever heard of Germany?
    https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts

    Engineer-Poet (363) “Your repeated failure to SHOW ME proves that you know your claim is a lie.

    No, it proves the ethics of the “Engineer-Poet” character – caught in the lie: “ wind and solar lock in FF consumption.” – he pretends that BPL reply to it was about … something else.

    And since BPL response, having being addressed to the quoted line, obviously addressed that line, not something else it wasn’t referring to – our Poet presents it as …. a “proof” that BPL is a liar and knows it:

    Your repeated failure to SHOW ME [the “something else” – P] proves that you know your claim [about the “lock in” line] is a lie.

    By the ethics of their arguments you shall know them.

  26. 376
    Killian says:

    Shark and ray populations have dropped 70% and are nearing ‘point of no return,’ study warns

    The collapse is already happening.

  27. 377
    nigelj says:

    David B. Benson @367 ” But there are the Babushkas who continue to live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, never having left.”

    I wonder what their health is like? Does anyone know of a study? While I think the fears of nuclear radiation are exaggerated to some extent, living in the exclusion zone would not be my first choice.

    ——————————-

    “Shark and ray populations have declined by more than 70 per cent since 1970, researchers have found, largely as a result of a massive increase in fishing pressure….”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shark-ray-fishing-extinction-oceans-b1793997.html

    Human overpopulation surely? And cultural factors. Promoting a fishing quota management systems would help.

  28. 378
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @374

    E-P 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    BPL: 359 No, they replace it.

    Killian 362: No, they reduce it.

    Piotr: No, because BPL didn’t say “replaced“. Ergo, to falsify “lock in” (and to prove E-P a liar), its enough to “ replace” SOME.

    Nigel: There is another possible explanation. Killian may be referring to fossil fuels consumption including petrochemicals.

  29. 379

    Perhaps the best example of a large economy in the process of decarbonizing with wind and (secondarily) solar is the UK. With 5.55 tonnes per capita of emissions, it’s roughly comparable to France (5.13–contrast the US @ 15.52.)

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade

    “Coal generation fell by close to 60% and accounted for just 2% of UK electricity last year – less than solar. Fossil fuels collectively accounted for a record-low 43% of the total, according to Carbon Brief analysis published at the start of January. Some 54% of electricity generation in the UK is now from low-carbon sources, including 37% from renewables and 20% from wind alone.”

  30. 380
    Piotr says:

    David B. Benson (368)” Wind power, when available, is less expensive than the backup.

    but it makes sense ONLY if you can switch off the backup, when there is wind.
    You CAN’T switch off, or even slow down, the radioactive decay – so you are losing your fuel whether you convert it into electricity or not. That’s why I found the idea of using nuclear as a back-up for wind – so perplexing.

    I guess, there might be some room for using it for _solar_ in mid-latitudes –
    in summer the solar there is at its best, when the demand is the highest and the nukes (and other thermal) are less efficient in warm weather, while in winter when the solar drops – the slack may be picked up by the increased efficiency of nuclear.

    Again, there are no comparable large seasonal differences for wind.

  31. 381
    Piotr says:

    E-P, 364: “ Germany is backsliding.

    Piotr: Could you point it out on the graphs in:

    https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts ?

  32. 382
    David B. Benson says:

    nigelj @377 — the Babushkas are quite healthy, living a vigorous life of gathering their food and fuel.

  33. 383
    David B. Benson says:

    Piotr @380 — Pressurized light water reactors can be controlled from 20% to maximum and reverse, sufficiently quickly to track wind power variation.

  34. 384
    Killian says:

    PSA:

    378 nigelj:
    28 Jan 2021 at 9:47 PM

    Piotr @374

    E-P 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    BPL: 359 No, they replace it.

    Killian 362: No, they reduce it.

    Piotr: No, because BPL didn’t say “replaced“. Ergo, to falsify “lock in” (and to prove E-P a liar), its enough to “ replace” SOME.

    Nigel: There is another possible explanation. Killian may be referring to fossil fuels consumption including petrochemicals.

    I said what I meant to say and it needs no interpretation. piotr is trying very hard to be the worst, least useful poster on these boards these days, and succeeding.

    Ignore him, nigel. You’ll get better use out of your day picking zits than engaging him.

  35. 385
    Killian says:

    369 David B. Benson says:
    28 Jan 2021 at 2:21 AM

    Killian @357 — But there are the Babushkas who continue to live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, never having left.

    This is not something I have heard, but it is still beside the point: It is not healthy for them to be there whether they choose to or not. Or are you proposing we base long-term energy and health policies on stupidity and/or weird individual choices?

    As for Fukushima, people are moving back. After having been pointlessly forced to leave.

    Again, not something I track. Regardless, as above, the hazard of nuclear is real and your points do not address this in the least. Did you have a point? It is not clear, if so.

  36. 386
    mike says:

    Solar panels floating on the lakes formed by Africa’s hydropower dams could be a major new source of power, according to a new study.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/floating-solar-panels-on-1-of-reservoirs-could-double-africas-hydropower-capacity?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Weekly%20Briefing&utm_content=20210129&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

    Seems like a fine idea.

    Cheers

    Mike

  37. 387

    @370:

    Actually, your source says “low dose”, not “moderate”, and their conclusions are much more tentative than your shouting with capital letters (“DECREASE”) would suggest

    The POSITIVE effects of chronic radiation exposure have been DOCUMENTED for over 60 years.  Read this, starting at page 30, paragraph #14 (bottom right):

    http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/1958,%2013th%20session%20%28Suppl.%20No.17%29/1958final-3_unscear.pdf#page=30

    The LEAST increase in mean lifespan was over 25% (305 days vs. 240 days for the control group).

    not clear how the lab experiments of mice, or cancer cells with some arbitrary amount of radiation, with short (e.g. 6-24hr) exposure are relevant to chronic exposure to radiation.

    The above references a full-lifespan test.

    this _should_ have been answered by epidemiological studies

    THEY’VE BEEN DONE.  The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that the results contradict the reigning LNT dogma, so people work very hard to find ways to ignore them.

    Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing.  Overcoming it requires more self-honesty than most people have.

  38. 388
    mike says:

    Marketplace is calling off some nuclear projects. I strongly encourage all the nuclear enthusiasts here to move all of their money into investment vehicles that can move nuclear projects forward.

    End of plans for new nuclear power station
    The nuclear industry expressed disappointment at the withdrawal of an application for a new power station in north Wales.

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/end-of-plans-for-new-nuclear-power-station-40022937.html?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210129&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily

    I did not find any news on Nuscale SMR projects. DOE funded those in Oct 2020, but I am not aware of any updates.

    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-approves-up-to-14b-to-test-12-module-nuscale-reactor/587265/

    Cheers

    Mike

  39. 389
    Piotr says:

    David B. Benson(383) “Pressurized light water reactors can be controlled from 20% to maximum

    of their electrical output, right? Because the fuel would decay at the same rate, determined by the physics, regardless whether you are using it to produce max or at 20% of the max. of electricity And the costs of building and operating the plant would be roughly the same, again whether you produce electricity at max or at 20% of max.

    Hence you are not saving anything, when you reduce your nuclear plant’s electric output to 20%.

  40. 390
    David B. Benson says:

    Killian @385 — On the contrary, the Babushkas live physically active so mentally heathy lives.

    Don’t believe what you read about low-level radiation; BEIR VII executive summary is flat out wrong:
    https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/312/wade-allisons-radiation-critique?page=2

  41. 391
    Piotr says:

    Nigel(378): “ There is another possible explanation. Killian may be referring to fossil fuels consumption including petrochemicals

    It would make no sense: the discussion was about energy generation and how could wind and solar “lock in” … petrochemical fossil fuel consumption? But we are talking about Killian, so I see why you not exclude that possibility… ;-)

    But what we can exclude, is the possibility that it would have saved Killian’s face, after his self-confident “correction” of BPL:

    E-P 352: “wind and solar lock in fossil fuel consumption.
    BPL: 359 No, they replace it.
    Killian 362: No, they reduce it.

    As I have shown, to falsify E-P’s “lock in” – all BPL needed was for wind and solar to replace SOME of FFs, not to replace ALL FFs.

    So adding petrochemicals would inflate the “ALL”, but would not nullify the “SOME”.
    Say, if wind and solar replaced 10 % of FFs used for electricity, but only 7% of FFs used for electricity AND petrochemicals.
    This would STILL falsify the E-P’s claim that wind and solar “locked in” the use of FFs. And would still render Killian’s contribution to this discussion – petty and unfair to BPL. But not like we had a reason to expect anything different … ;-)

  42. 392
    Piotr says:

    Killian(384): “piotr is trying very hard to be the worst, least useful poster on these boards these days, and succeeding. Ignore him, nigel. You’ll get better use out of your day picking zits than engaging him.

    What a most useful and the best post. And “Ouch” for the zit part. Powerful stuff.
    And it almost distracted from Killian … not being able to falsify my argument:

    1. EP 352: “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.
    2. BPL 359: No, they replace it.
    3. Killian 362: No, they reduce it.

    This would be fair ONLY, if BPL meant “replaced ALL”. However:
    4. Piotr 374: to falsify “lock in” (and to prove E-P a liar), it’s enough to “replace” SOME.

    i.e. to justify your “3.”, Killian would have to prove that it CAN’T be “SOME”, but has to be “ALL”. He can’t, and he can’t admit, to himself and to BPL, so he shoots the messenger:
    piotr is trying very hard to be the worst, least useful poster on these boards these days, and succeeding. You’ll get better use out of your day picking zits than engaging him.” Killian

  43. 393
    Killian says:

    386 mike:
    Solar panels floating on the lakes formed by Africa’s hydropower dams could be a major new source of power, according to a new study.

    Seems like a fine idea.

    Cheers

    Mike

    If you want dead lakes rather than productive lakes, sure.

  44. 394
    mike says:

    At DB re Fukushima:

    Do you have a link to any science or public health data that suggests that the evacuations at Fukushima were pointless?

    I did a quick search and conclude that there appears to have been good reason to evacuate the area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

    Links please.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/10/fukushima-disaster-first-residents-return-to-town-next-to-nuclear-plant

    Cheers

    Mike

  45. 395
    mike says:

    at K at 393: are you thinking that sunlight reduction would cause the lakes to die because of placement of solar panels (aka solar on a boat).

    I skimmed the article and there was discussion that suggested 1% coverage options that penciled out. Almost anywhere we deploy solar we have to consider the loss of sunlight below the panels. That’s just a fact.

    There is discussion in the article that said impact on water quality needed to be studied.

    Lakes created by impounding water and destroying flowing rivers are not a great idea to my mind, but I am open to some ideas on maximizing power generation from existing lakes that are linked to hydro.

    What are your thoughts? Is small array and distributed solar grid power the way that Africa should look at getting a bit of solar electric grid established?

    Cheers

    Mike

  46. 396
    Piotr says:

    Killian(393): “ If you want dead lakes rather than productive lakes, sure

    Not if they cover 1% of their surface (the title of the discussed paper: “Floating solar panels on 1% of reservoirs could double Africa’s hydropower capacity”).

    And ecosystems are usually not as simple as non-biologist imagine:

    – oligotrophic lakes are nutrient-, not light-limited – hence the impact of floating panel on prim. production probably won’t be noticeable (nutrients not picked under the panel, will be picked up once the water moves to the adjacent, panel-free, area)

    – eutrophic lakes with are light-limited – typically have already too much productivity for their own good, which leads to hypoxic/anoxic/dead zones in deeper water. So a little less productivity would actually make them LESS dead ;-).
    Not mentioning that anoxic waters in eutrophic lakes produce a lot of methane.

    I would look though into the effects of the physical barrier – whether it would reduce wind mixing – could limit nutrients brought into surface layer in oligotrophic lakes, and oxygen brought down in eutrophic ones.

    – Floating structures may have artificial reef effect – e.g. nurseries providing hiding places and safety from birds and, to some extent, from aquatic visual predators. And on top of this – offer birds a safe place to rest or even nests (actually the authors worry that they will be so popular with birds that they are concerned about “bird fouling”).

    – Their physical presence makes the system more heterogenous – which is good for biodiversity.

    – Reducing of evaporation would increase the output of hydro and save water for other uses, on the continent where water is increasingly scarce (“0.17% increase in available water from 1% of the surface area covered”).

    – Energy from panels and increased hydro would be replacing natural gas or coal that come with their toxic pollution.

    So your dismissal “ If you want dead lakes rather than productive lakes, sure” sounds rather flippant.
    But please, do lecture me how it is me who is “ the worst, least useful poster on these boards these days” ;-)

  47. 397

    @362:

    “renewables” (wind and solar) lock in fossil fuel consumption.

    No, they replace it.

    No, they reduce it.

    That depends.  Let me take you on a little trip down memory lane.  Remember this post from the “trillions of trees” thread back in 2019?  I went into things like heat rates and turndown ratios.

    But this time, it’s about the 9HA and what happens when your need for fast-reacting backup forces you to adopt a less-efficient cycle.  Referring back to the 9HA spec sheet, the 9HA.02 has a ramp rate of only 88 MW/min in 1x combined-cycle service.  If you need to ramp fast, you can’t have such limitations.  The simple-cycle version doesn’t even have a ramp-rate limitation specified.

    However, the simple-cycle version has a heat rate of 8201 kJ/kWh, vs. 5613 kJ/kWh for the 1x CC version.  That’s 46% more fuel to produce a kWh to get the fast ramp rate.  It takes a LOT of “fuel savings” from “renewables” to overcome that inherent penalty, and given the low capacity factors of wind and solar in so many places, it’s certain that said penalty causes MORE fuel to be burned than if there was no need to accommodate the ups and downs of the unreliable generation.

    So now you know why gas interests are so hot for “renewable energy”.  It greenwashes their product and locks in their markets.

  48. 398

    And in a momentous event which no doubt presages the end of the world, I am now forced to agree with Killian.

    In @389, Piotr let forth with the most ignorant statement I’ve ever seen here.

    of their electrical output, right? Because the fuel would decay at the same rate, determined by the physics, regardless whether you are using it to produce max or at 20% of the max. of electricity

    While it’s true that nuclear plants don’t get any benefit from turning their output down, it’s not because the reactor is always running at the same thermal power.  It’s because the logistics of refueling pretty much require fuel to be changed on a schedule, rather than by the amount of burnup (though there are limits of burnup too, imposed by factors like fuel swelling and cladding damage).

    Someone who thinks that a nuclear reactor runs by “decay” hasn’t bothered to learn the first thing about fission plants and chain reactions and half-lives of the various isotopes of uranium.  Yup, he really did open his mouth and remove all doubt.

  49. 399
    Piotr says:

    Poet (387): “The POSITIVE effects of chronic radiation exposure have been DOCUMENTED for over 60 years. Read this, starting at page 30, paragraph #14 (bottom right)

    My post from Jan. 28 was about your use of your original source from EP(352), NOT of the source you … would give IN THE FUTURE (your par. #14″ on Jan.29). Specifically, I took you to the task for:

    a) your CHANGING the “ low-doses” in your 2018 source to your “ moderate“,

    b) your presenting the tentative and cautious tone of the 2018 authors:
    we believe that in the near future, it will be confirmed”; “low-dose radiation may have beneficial effects depending on the conditions; otherwise, it may have no effects
    as if it were an …undeniable fact:
    EP(352): “ Moderate radiation exposure is associated with a DECREASE in cancers [capitalization by EP(352)]

    And when I called you on that – you … changed the subject – from your 2018 paper
    to … some appendices in some report summarizing the state of current knowledge in … 1958.^* You’d make the cherry pickers blush.

    Piotr (370) “This _should_ have been answered by epidemiological studies”

    EP(387) “ THEY’VE BEEN DONE

    Try to read the sentence to the end _before_ you start shouting with capital letters. Here is the rest of the sentence:
    “…, except their results are contradictory, and notorious for poor control for confounding factors, EVEN in studies, where, in theory, it should have been easy to control for them – like workers of nuclear power plants.”

    See? Its not about their non-existence of these studies (which could have been falsified with: THEY’VE BEEN DONE“), BUT about their _quality_.

    EP(387):” The problem is that the results contradict the reigning LNT dogma, so people work very hard to find ways to ignore them.

    No, the problem was identified in the deleted by you part of my sentence.
    Or in words of the authors of your OWN reference, who said about those epidemiological studies that “HAVE BEEN DONE”:
    the least reliable type, since they are subject to many biases”. “Epidemiological studies are inherently associated with large biases, and it should be evaluated whether the observed differences are due to radiation or other confounding factors.
    See, _that’s_ the problem, as identified by your own earlier source.

    EP(387) “ Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing.
    You should know… (see above)

    EP(387) Overcoming it requires more self-honesty than most people have.
    Glad to see that self-deprecation is not dead … ;-)

    *^ your current preferred source of knowledge: appendices of a 1958 report, is from the same era when the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission stated that nuclear power would make the electricity for their children generation – “ too cheap to meter“. How has this worked out for you ?

  50. 400
    nigelj says:

    EP @387 posted “The POSITIVE effects of chronic radiation exposure have been DOCUMENTED for over 60 years. Read this, starting at page 30, paragraph #14 (bottom right):…The LEAST increase in mean lifespan was over 25% (305 days vs. 240 days for the control group).”

    Ok the source material does say this, but I would like to see more studies than just a couple of studies on a few mice before jumping to conclusions that its therapeutic for humans. However I was wondering this: Its well known that too much sunlight exposure is a human carcinogen yet small doses of sunlight produce vitamin D without which we get bone problems. Humans must have evolved to benefit from this low dose of sunlight exposure. So by the same logic it seems at least plausible we MIGHT POSSIBLY get some significant benefit from low dose nuclear background radiation that outweighs any downsides.