Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

Strawman argument. No one is suggesting we don't do anything to tackle climate change. Its just that the viable methods (nuclear) are ones you don't like.

I am quite happy with the viable methods. It's just that the viable methods (solar and wind) are ones you don't like because you think they cost too much and won't get politicians elected.

But what do I mean by viable? Well it doesn't necessarily have to be profitable, but there's a line to draw. A grid based just on wind & solar would be far more expensive than one with a combination of nuclear/wind/solar/other low carbon. Both approaches would cut carbon emissions. Clearly, this is a repeat of what I've said before, but given your post, it clearly needs repeating.

You are well aware that it doesn't need repeating, since I already repeated it for you by quoting you in my post:

They aren't free, they cost money to install, and maintain. Running cost are cheap, but not zero, but the capital cost is a lot.
With tidal, there is also the issue of habitat loss in many places, and limited locations where it is practical.
All are limited in one way or other.
We can install these things of course, but there are costs.

Oh yes, we could but its always finite. And politicians want to get voted in next election.

So thank God that nuclear is free and doesn't cost money to install and maintain. In His wisdom, He has seen to it that capital cost for nuclear is negligible and gets politicians elected into office.
Riiiight!
Those poor investors and politicians. We must make sure that their money and careers don't fall victim to solar and wind ...

 

[dann]

You are being disingenuous, Roger Ramjets! You ask questions that were answered in the post you quote, but you cut out my answers:

Yes, I did notice "a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public" - for no good reason. If the reason had been good, some of all the other solutions might have occurred to them - and to you, too.

No, people had good reason to believe the 'other solutions' might not be satisfactory.

The first electric car produced in large numbers was the Nissan Leaf. Its stated range was 100 miles, but nobody ever got that. The battery was warranted for 8 years. But in California people were seeing severe capacity loss after only a few years, due to the heat. As someone who has a lot experience with Lithium-Ion batteries I could have told them that would happen. So this car only suited people who lived in temperate climates and didn't drive very far. That's a lot of people, but this car was not a 'solution' for most people in the US.

The current model Leaf gets double that range, but today this is still considered a bit low. The battery still doesn't have active cooling, but they changed the chemistry to make it a bit more tolerant of high temperatures.

Other manufacturers are making better vehicles, but they cost more. Nobody has yet managed to make an electric car for the same price as the equivalent gas car. In 2011 - when the Leaf was introduced - the technology simply wasn't there to get anywhere near the range most people needed at a reasonable price. So you can understand why they were skeptical of the idea that we could change the fleet to electric overnight.

Now you may say that there were 'other' other solutions too, to bridge the gap. But what would they be? Tell people they can't drive cars anymore if they have to go more than 100 miles? Force (!!!) them to ride in buses (which would also have to be electric) or only work in jobs within walking distance? Now you are talking massive disruption - not just buying an electric car instead of a gas car.

There was quite a bit more to it than that in my post:

Yes, I did notice "a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public" - for no good reason. If the reason had been good, some of all the other solutions might have occurred to them - and to you, too. It did occur to some countries, which you'll know if you look at what those countries did. Instead, you repeat the auto industry's skepticism and present it as if its favored solution to climate change, i.e. one that would allow it to continue as usual, was an insurmountable obstacle to doing anything. In other words: If the inability of the auto industry to make good electric cars was the problem, cities should have been rearranged, infrastructure should have been put in place to make the transition from cars to public transport and bikes [possible].Always looking out for the interests of the industries that were responsible for global warming is what has allowed them to carry on emitting CO₂, so it's no wonder nothing has been done: Cities were built and are still being built based on cars.
Boiled down to basics, your argument is that what big companies, the market economy, unfettered capitalism, require is what's possible. Anything else is an aberration. It is how you turn yourself into a defender of the interests of the auto and fossil fuel industries - in the name of an attempt to stop global warming.

By snipping the rest of it, you can pretend that the only imaginable solution would be a question of car & battery technology, so when the infrastructure of cities and suburbs was based on fossil-fuel cars, it wasn't a societal problem. It was all about insufficient technology! But it's not true. There were indeed other solutions, but they were solutions that car manufacturers, the fossil-fuel industry and their paid politicians weren't interested in!

By leaving out the part of my paragraph about an infrastructure not based on cars, you have set the scene for your repetition of MAGA's anti-communist rants: "Force (!!!) them to ride in buses."
But, no, I wouldn't. You entirely ignore that cities were planned and developed in ways that 'forced' people to buy cars. And since you snipped my post, it is obvious that you ignore it deliberately. I have explained the concept of urban development and public transport several times, in this and the other thread. I have described how I could get to work faster on a bicycle and with the Metro system (depending on the weather, I might combine the two) than I would have been able to in a car.
Does that sound as if I was forced to do so? The point could be argued: If there had been no bike lanes and no Metro, it might have been faster by car. (Except that traffic would probably have been so congested that it would have slowed down traffic in general.)
Cities can be built (or renovated) to make non-polluting transport convenient and sometimes downright enjoyable.
For some reason, you prefer to be in denial of this and pretend that there were no alternatives to fossil-fuel cars because of insufficiently developed technology.

More snipping:

No, what I said was: "... which they won't if told they (!!!) have to stop using all fossil fuels now!" What I said was that the use of fossil fuel has to stop now.

A distinction without a difference. 'The use' is the same as 'all use'. People aren't stupid, they know what it means. If you mean something else you need to spell it out, but as it stands you are saying that nobody will be allowed to use any fossil fuels.

A distinction with a very big difference. And people are stupid. They have been made stupid by fossil-fuel propaganda that has made it impossible for them to see beyond the fossil-fuel solutions. And you help spread the propaganda.

And more snipping:

You present the problem the same way the U.S. Minitruth does: 'The commie mob is coming to take your gas stoves, your fridges and your cars

I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way. It certainly sounds like the kind of decree that a communist* government would make.

No, it doesn't. A 'communist government' (a contradiction in terms, but that's another discussion) would replace the stoves, fridges* and gas guzzlers with viable alternatives instead of issuing a 'decree'.


ETA: *Since Cuba is probably what you have in mind when you talk about a "communist government":

Cubans are famous for their extraordinary ingenuity in keeping pre-revolutionary vintage cars running. The talent, though, is not confined to automobiles.
Cuban authorities calculate there are at least 500,000 old refrigerators still in use. The problem with them all is that they consume four times more energy than modern refrigerators, and they use freon gas, which is damaging the Earth's ozone layer.
That's why authorities here have announced a plan to retire the old refrigerators.
CNN Havana Bureau Chief Lucia Newman went visiting some Havana kitchens to get the story of the fossil fridges
Cuba plans campaign to retire antiquated refrigerators (CNN, July 5, 2020)

The Deputy Minister also said in the opening of the Convention of Engineering and Architecture that every single light bulb has been changed, as well as all the water pumps in that area.
He added that electricity replaced cooking with kerosene and explained that this did not increase consumption. The compensation was achieved by replacing appliances by others more efficient and by increasing the fees.
The ongoing Energy Revolution poses a radical change of the whole process of energy production, distribution and consumption. It is aimed at saving electricity and fuel.
Almost every Cuban domestic refrigerator replaced (Cuba Headlines, Dec 11, 2008)

In addition to the problem of the fridges being outdated, there was also the problem that the rubber gasket seal strips of refrigerator doors had become so brittle that you would often see more ice on the outside of fridges than on the inside, i.e. they probably consumed considerably more power than just 4 times what modern fridges use.

 

[arthwollipot]

A quarter of Queensland’s energy now generated from renewables

Exclusive: minister Mick De Brenni says power prices will fall once clean energy dominates, with state on track to reach 50% renewables by 2030


A quarter of Queensland’s energy is now being generated by renewables and the state is on track to hit 50% within seven years, the state’s energy minister says.

Mick de Brenni said the clean energy supply had jumped by 20% over the past 12 months and more than 25% of the state’s power was now generated by renewables.

He said that once renewables “dominate the wholesale electricity market” the state would see long-term reductions in wholesale power prices.

“But we can only do this by transitioning away from coal and gas generation, which continues to set the wholesale electricity market and drive electricity prices up for Queenslanders.”

 

[dann]

Sounds good. Mentioning that renewables will lead to "long-term reductions in wholesale power prices" is probably a good signal to send to consumers. So is the reference to the "coal and gas generation, which continues to set the wholesale electricity market and drive electricity prices up for Queenslanders."

Australia was mentioned recently in the 'global warming hoax' thread.

 

[dann]

It's official: Hottest Month Ever

Copernicus and WMO: July 2023 is on track to be the hottest month on record (Climate.Copernicus.eu, July 27, 2023)

Following the hottest June on record and a series of extreme weather events, including heatwaves in Europe, North America and Asia, and wildfires in Canada and Greece, ERA5 data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S*) show that the first three weeks of July have already broken several significant records.

The month started with the daily global mean surface air temperature record being broken on four days in a row, from 3-6 July. All days throughout the rest of July were hotter than the previous record of 16.80°C, set on 13 August 2016, making the 29 days from 3-31 July the hottest 29 days on record. The hottest day was 6 July, when the global average temperature reached 17.08°C, and the values recorded on 5 and 7 July were within 0.01°C of this. During the first and third weeks of the month, temperatures also temporarily exceeded the 1.5°C threshold above preindustrial level – a limit set in the Paris Agreement, the first time this has happened during July.
As anticipated in a C3S press release on 27 July, C3S data now confirm that July 2023 has been the hottest July and hottest month in the ERA5 data record, which goes back to 1940 (See Supplementary Information section 2). The monthly average temperature was 16.95°C, well above the previous record of July 2019 (16.63°C) and virtually identical to our best estimate of the 1.5°C warming above preindustrial level for July (16.96°C).
July 2023 sees multiple global temperature records broken (Climate.Copernicus.eu, Aug 8, 2023)

Over the last four months, the globe as a whole has seen a long period of unusually high sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Global* average SSTs remained at record high levels for the time of year throughout April, May and June 2023, a situation that has continued into July 2023, with the largest SST anomaly for any July on record.

Global average SSTs are typically at their highest in March. However, data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S**) have shown that, after an initial sharp rise in early March and a slight dip during April and May, SSTs have continued to rise to reach the highest value in the C3S ERA5 dataset, 20.96°C on 31 July. This is slightly above the previous record, from March 2016, of 20.95°C. As well as daily SSTs remaining consistently above average, this year has seen the largest SST anomaly by far for any July in the dataset. At 20.89°C, the monthly average SST was on par with March 2016 as the highest for all months in the ERA5 record. It was also by far the highest on record for July, with an anomaly of 0.51°C.
Global sea surface temperature reaches a record high (Climate.Copernicus.eu, Aug 8, 2023)

The 1.5-degree threshold is significant because scientists consider it a key tipping point for the planet, beyond which the chances of extreme heat, flooding, drought, wildfires and food and water shortages will become even more unfavorable for life as we know it.
It’s the goal that scientists chose in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement to minimize the damage of the climate crisis while affording time to wean society and the economy off planet-warming fossil fuels.
It’s also not something that’s tracked by the day or month. Scientists are particularly concerned that global temperature will stay above 1.5 degrees for the long term. Through 2022, the world had warmed around 1.2 degrees.
July hit a crucial warming threshold that scientists have warned the world should stay under (CNN, Aug 8, 2023)

 

[dann]

Antarctica

Climate change: Antarctica could become planet's 'radiator' due to 'extreme' weather, fear scientists carrying out government review (Sky News, Aug 8, 2023)
Even frozen Antarctica is being walloped by climate extremes, scientists find (AP News, Aug 8, 2023)
Antarctica’s ‘staggering’ exposure to climate change exacerbates global threat (Financial Times, Aug 8, 2023)
Scientists sound alarm over extreme events in Antarctica, NZ in ‘firing line’ (NZ Herald, Aug 8, 2023)

 

[wobs]

I am quite happy with the viable methods. It's just that the viable methods (solar and wind) are ones you don't like because you think they cost too much and won't get politicians elected.

Where is your evidence that wind/solar are a viable option for relying on, and nothing else?

So thank God that nuclear is free and doesn't cost money to install and maintain. In His wisdom, He has seen to it that capital cost for nuclear is negligible and gets politicians elected into office.
Riiiight!
Those poor investors and politicians. We must make sure that their money and careers don't fall victim to solar and wind ...

More strawman arguments

 

[dann]

Where is your evidence that wind/solar are a viable option for relying on, and nothing else?

Where is your evidence that they aren't? It's a claim that seems to be very dear to you.

Forskere: Millioner af landvindmøller i Europa kunne skabe mere strøm, end hele verden bruger (Videnskab.dk, Aug 20, 2019)
Hvor grønne er vindmøller egentlig? (Videnskab.dk, May 19, 2021)
Vedvarende energi kan forsyne hele verden inden 2050 (Videnskab.dk, Aug 12, 2022)
Forskere: »Vi skal satse alt på vindkraft og solenergi« - Glem alt om atomkraft, bioenergi og CO2-lagring, mener forskergruppe. (Videnskab.dk, June 5, 2023)
‘No miracles needed’: Prof Mark Jacobson on how wind, sun and water can power the world (TheGuardian, Jan 23, 2023)

More strawman arguments

There is a not-at-all subtle difference between strawman arguments and irony.
I don't think anybody but you misunderstands my post as a strawman, but I'll repeat my message without the sarcasm:

It is peculiar how you always think of the costs of installing and maintaining nuclear power plants. With wind and solar, however, you are always going on about: "We can install these things of course, but there are costs."
Costs never occur to you when you are talking about nuclear.

 

[dann]

Correction:

It is peculiar how you always --> never think of the costs of installing and maintaining nuclear power plants. With wind and solar, however, you are always going on about: "We can install these things of course, but there are costs."
Costs never occur to you when you are talking about nuclear.

 

[wobs]

Where is your evidence that they aren't? It's a claim that seems to be very dear to you.

I have already posted links to studies showing they aren't (see below for the them again).

Forskere: Millioner af landvindmøller i Europa kunne skabe mere strøm, end hele verden bruger (Videnskab.dk, Aug 20, 2019)
Hvor grønne er vindmøller egentlig? (Videnskab.dk, May 19, 2021)
Vedvarende energi kan forsyne hele verden inden 2050 (Videnskab.dk, Aug 12, 2022)
Forskere: »Vi skal satse alt på vindkraft og solenergi« - Glem alt om atomkraft, bioenergi og CO2-lagring, mener forskergruppe. (Videnskab.dk, June 5, 2023)
‘No miracles needed’: Prof Mark Jacobson on how wind, sun and water can power the world (TheGuardian, Jan 23, 2023)

You have linked a number of articles that largely make the same claim by Jacobson, which is already addressed here (posted earlier):
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
Which found:

In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modelling tools, contained modelling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

None of this is something to object to. It advocates building the safest energy we have that can provide continuous supply, with a carbon footprint at about the same level as wind & solar. And use far less material and land than wind/solar for the same supply

It is peculiar how you always think of the costs of installing and maintaining nuclear power plants. With wind and solar, however, you are always going on about: "We can install these things of course, but there are costs."
Costs never occur to you when you are talking about nuclear.

Again, strawman, given the above link addresses costs of nuclear. Again I'll say:
Including nuclear in the energy mix makes decarbonising places like the US and UK viable. Without it, it would be have serious consequences for us. Just because a nuclear power plant costs a big chunk of money, doesn't make it unviable.

Of course all systems cost money to build, and nuclear is no exception, but the cost for wind/solar increase above a certain level of grid penetration. And as has been shown, it makes it far too expensive on its own.

The other study I referenced earlier:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Under every scenario, cases that were restricted to using fuel-saving and fast-burst technologies had a higher overall cost of electricity than cases using firm low-carbon sources as well, “even with the most optimistic set of assumptions about future cost reductions,” Sepulveda says.

That’s true, Jenkins adds, “even when we assume, for example, that nuclear remains as expensive as it is today, and wind and solar and batteries get much cheaper.”

I urge you to read them.

Another link, this time from the UN:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572

 

[dann]

I have already posted links to studies showing they aren't (see below for the them again).

You have linked a number of articles that largely make the same claim by Jacobson, which is already addressed here (posted earlier):
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
Which found:

May I recommend that you provide a couple of practical details when you post links? For instance, in this case it would have been nice if you had mentioned that the PNAS article is from June 19, 2017. My links came with dates and years:

Jake Badger and Peter Enevoldsen?! (1st article, Aug 20, 2019)
ustine Beauson, Brian Vad Mathiesen, Per Kalvig, Stig Irving Olsen, Asger Bech Abrahamsen?! (2nd article, May 19, 2021)
Jette Bredahl Jacobsen? Christian Breyer; Siavash Khalili; Dmitrii Bogdanov; Manish Ram; Ayobami Solomon Oyewo; Arman Aghahosseini; Ashish Gulagi; A. A. Solomon; Dominik Keiner; Gabriel Lopez; Poul Alberg Østergaard; Henrik Lund; Brian V. Mathiesen; Mark Z. Jacobson; Marta Victoria; Sven Teske; Thomas Pregger; Vasilis Fthenakis; Marco Raugei; Hannele Holttinen; Ugo Bardi; Auke Hoekstra; Benjamin K. Sovacool?! (3rd article, Aug 12, 2022)
Mark Jacobson?! (4th article, June 5, 2023, - based on the Jacobson interview in The Guardian, Jan 23, 2023)

It is admirable that the PNAS article was prescient enough to know what Jacobson would write in 2023! (By the way, the article in The Guardian coincided with Jacobson's book No Miracles Needed - How Today's Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air, Cambridge University Press, Feb 2023). I haven't read it yet, but I just kindled it, so it's next on my list.)

The PNAS article from 2017 is about something Jacobson et al published in 2015: Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes (PubMed)

As for PNAS itself, I haven't had much confidence in NAS since its 'Havana syndrome' report, but maybe I'm being unfair. Their report on anthropogenic global warming seemed to be OK, so let's take a look at the arguments in the PNAS article against energy production based on wind and solar:

it is not in question that it would be theoretically (!) possible to build a reliable energy system excluding all bioenergy, nuclear energy, and fossil fuel sources. Given unlimited (!) resources to build variable energy production facilities, while expanding the transmission grid and accompanying energy storage capacity enormously (!), one would eventually (!) be able to meet any conceivable load.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar (PNAS, June 19, 2017)

Not theoretically! It would be technologically possible! (But with costs, right?!)
Unlimited is a stupid thing to say. It would be possible to calculate the resources needed.
Enormously! How much, approximately, does enormous mean?
And as for eventually, it implies that it would be something that couldn't be done in this century - as if the fabled nuclear power plants could be built and ready next week, on Thursday, 10 past noon.

Wind and solar are variable energy sources, and some way must be found to address the issue of how to provide energy if their immediate output cannot continuously meet instantaneous demand. The main options are to (i) curtail load (i.e., modify or fail to satisfy demand) at times when energy is not available, (ii) deploy very large amounts of energy storage, or (iii) provide supplemental energy sources that can be dispatched when needed. It is not yet clear how much it is possible to curtail loads, especially over long durations, without incurring large economic costs. There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.

Over weeks! Yeah, right! So we are asked to imagine a scenario where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow anywhere on the grid! I wonder what they'd do in Antarctica!
No, actually. No need to wonder. It isn't quite there yet, but ...

While the renewable energy systems that power the station are reliable and continuously checked, even in the harsh conditions of Antarctica, two generators were installed for security and backup. They are also used to provide scheduled full load cycles which are part of the battery bank life performance.
In the future, the station's engineering team plans to install hydrogen fuel cells as an additional intermediary backup system.RUNNING ON RENEWABLE ENERGIES (AntarctcStation)

Sorry, but I don't want to dive into details about an arcticle criticizing something that was published eight years ago, so please go ahead and tell us what exactly is wrong with what Jacobson published in 2023. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you may not have read much more of the PNAS article than the claim about "the importance of a broad portfolio of electricity generation technologies."

None of this is something to object to. It advocates building the safest energy we have that can provide continuous supply, with a carbon footprint at about the same level as wind & solar. And use far less material and land than wind/solar for the same supply

Safe?! Riiiiight!
UN nuclear watchdog finds no explosives at Zaporizhzhia plant (The Guardian, Aug 4, 2023)
Ukraine Is Preparing for Russia to Sabotage Europe's Biggest Nuclear Plant (Time, Aug 1, 2023)
Zaporizhia braces itself for Russian nuclear tricks (Economist, July 16, 2023)
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a 'dry bomb' waiting to happen (TheConversation, July 13, 2023)

It sure ain't the kind of safety that makes me feel safe!

Again, strawman, given the above link addresses costs of nuclear. Again I'll say:
Including nuclear in the energy mix makes decarbonising places like the US and UK viable. Without it, it would be have serious consequences for us. Just because a nuclear power plant costs a big chunk of money, doesn't make it unviable.

And yet, the costs of solar and wind was your major argument against them: "We can install these things of course, but there are costs."
The link may address the costs of nuclear, but you don't, i.e. also not a strawman this time.

Decarbonising the USA and the UK using solar and wind is certainly viable. And it is too bloody banal to point out that it isn't free and comes with costs. Nuclear also isn't free, just because solar and wind also cost 'a big chunk of money'. The renewables actually provide us with clean, safe energy. Nuclear doesn't. Solar and nuclear don't expose large areas, including neighboring countries (I'm thinking of you, Barsebäck!), to radioactive contamination unless the turbine manufacturers start incorporating plutonium into the composite materials used to make turbine windmill wings.

Of course all systems cost money to build, and nuclear is no exception, but the cost for wind/solar increase above a certain level of grid penetration. And as has been shown, it makes it far too expensive on its own.
The other study I referenced earlier:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Far too expensive for what?!!! Make it explicit: Far too expensive for what? Tell us! What is a 100% renewable-based power grid too expensive for?
Yes, the cost increases above a certain level, but the pollution doesn't, which is the point. I don't give a **** about the cost! Send the bill to the ******** who extracted and sold fossil fuels. In particular, those who continued to do so after the impact on the atmosphere was made unambiguously clear! That they still haven't been locked up and their fortunes confiscated is a major scandal.

I I urge you to read them.

Another link, this time from the UN:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572

I have read enough, thank you. I urge you to read Jacobson's book! I have a busy schedule the next couple of weeks, so maybe you'll beat me to it.

In the new technology brief published on Wednesday, the agency warned that “time is running out to rapidly transform the global energy system,” as fossil fuels still account for over half of electricity generation in the UNECE region, which include the countries of Europe, but also countries in North America, Central Asia and Western Asia.
The report highlights how only hydropower has played a greater role in avoiding carbon emissions over the past 50 years.
Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE (UNECE, Aug 11 2021)

Of course, it has! Nuclear power plants have existed on a major scale since the mid-1950s, i.e. for almost 70 years. Large-scale wind turbines and solar panels providing energy for the grid are adolescents in comparison. Using this as a comparison is partisan and idiotic!

The UN article stresses that nuclear power has caused less CO₂ to be emitted than if fossil fuels had been used to generate that power instead. However, it doesn't go into too much detail about what else nuclear has emitted. In fact, it just briefly mentions the risks of "radiological accidents" as if they were just risks and hadn't already happened:

Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source that has avoided about 74Gt of CO2 emissions over this period, nearly two years’ worth of total global energy-related emissions, it noted.
(...)
Nuclear power is cost-competitive in many parts of the world, it states. But the UN agency warns that to prevent radiological accidents and manage radioactive waste, risks must be properly anticipated and handled.

Wow! Two whole years' worth of global energy-related emissions avoided in the course of 70 years! So without nuclear, we would have had the current temperatures in 2021 instead of now! (Not to say that two years' worth of emissions doesn't exceed the contributions to avoiding CO₂ emissions achieved by means of cold showers, bottle recycling and bicycle rides ...)

And risks must be properly (as opposed to improperly, I guess) anticipated and handled! Who would have thought of that?!
Yes, I'm sure that will make all the difference!

 

[wobs]

Safe?! Riiiiight!
UN nuclear watchdog finds no explosives at Zaporizhzhia plant (The Guardian, Aug 4, 2023)
Ukraine Is Preparing for Russia to Sabotage Europe's Biggest Nuclear Plant (Time, Aug 1, 2023)
Zaporizhia braces itself for Russian nuclear tricks (Economist, July 16, 2023)
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a 'dry bomb' waiting to happen (TheConversation, July 13, 2023)

It sure ain't the kind of safety that makes me feel safe!

You are referring to a soviet era power station, and even then the risk is low.

Just because you feel unsafe, doesn't make it so.
We need to think about nuclear power as a whole. Even if you ignore the fact that passive safety systems are in place in modern reactors, it is still safer than you imagine.
https://cambridgehouse.com/news/797...lds-safest-source-of-energy-will-surprise-you

This is an interesting one:
https://energy.glex.no/footprint
As you can vary the weighting of different factors, such as deaths per unit of energy, land use, materials use, critical metals, solid waste, not operating % (all per unit of energy). And shows which energy source comes out best.
It also explains why

On another page from same site we have:

With nuclear, there would be no annual deaths among the inhabitants, only a maximum of one death every 14 years, including both the Chernobyl and mining accidents. Without Chernobyl, where the numbers are uncertain, there will be approximately one death each century. The shutdown of nuclear power in Germany is estimated to cost over a thousand German lives a year because renewables are not building up fast enough, and an article in Nature concludes that nuclear power so far has saved around two million lives globally by replacing fossil fuels.

When it comes to deaths related to accidents and air pollution, nuclear along with solar and wind are by far the safest energy sources we have. It makes relatively little sense to differentiate when at a level of a few deaths per 27,000 inhabitants every hundred years. However, it may be of interest to learn that in the period 1990-2013, wind power caused four times more fatalities per TWh than nuclear power. If deaths due to mining are included, the death rate for renewables is higher than for nuclear. Much of this is related to the larger material consumption for renewables, causing increased mining activity. Mortality rate is nonetheless very far from the levels caused by fossil fuels

Our world in data
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Shows nuclear is between solar and wind for deaths per unit of electricity.

Now remember that nuclear plants are getting safer.

 

[wobs]

May I recommend that you provide a couple of practical details when you post links? For instance, in this case it would have been nice if you had mentioned that the PNAS article is from June 19, 2017. My links came with dates and years:

Jake Badger and Peter Enevoldsen?! (1st article, Aug 20, 2019)
ustine Beauson, Brian Vad Mathiesen, Per Kalvig, Stig Irving Olsen, Asger Bech Abrahamsen?! (2nd article, May 19, 2021)
Jette Bredahl Jacobsen? Christian Breyer; Siavash Khalili; Dmitrii Bogdanov; Manish Ram; Ayobami Solomon Oyewo; Arman Aghahosseini; Ashish Gulagi; A. A. Solomon; Dominik Keiner; Gabriel Lopez; Poul Alberg Østergaard; Henrik Lund; Brian V. Mathiesen; Mark Z. Jacobson; Marta Victoria; Sven Teske; Thomas Pregger; Vasilis Fthenakis; Marco Raugei; Hannele Holttinen; Ugo Bardi; Auke Hoekstra; Benjamin K. Sovacool?! (3rd article, Aug 12, 2022)
Mark Jacobson?! (4th article, June 5, 2023, - based on the Jacobson interview in The Guardian, Jan 23, 2023)

It is admirable that the PNAS article was prescient enough to know what Jacobson would write in 2023! (By the way, the article in The Guardian coincided with Jacobson's book

Jacobson has made the same claim for a number of years in a number of reports. They have been discredited.

Far too expensive for what?!!! Make it explicit: Far too expensive for what? Tell us! What is a 100% renewable-based power grid too expensive for?

Anyone country such as the US or UK where studies have been done.

Yes, the cost increases above a certain level, but the pollution doesn't, which is the point. I don't give a **** about the cost! Send the bill to the ******** who extracted and sold fossil fuels. In particular, those who continued to do so after the impact on the atmosphere was made unambiguously clear! That they still haven't been locked up and their fortunes confiscated is a major scandal.

I'm not suggesting we continue to use fossil fuels, so what's your point?

I have read enough, thank you. I urge you to read Jacobson's book! I have a busy schedule the next couple of weeks, so maybe you'll beat me to it.

Jacobson has largely been making the same point for a number of years, hence the discrepency earlier. Repeating that his claim doesn't make it valid.

The UN article stresses that nuclear power has caused less CO₂ to be emitted than if fossil fuels had been used to generate that power instead. However, it doesn't go into too much detail about what else nuclear has emitted. In fact, it just briefly mentions the risks of "radiological accidents" as if they were just risks and hadn't already happened:

Because risks are so small.

Regarding "viability", that you throw scorn on... This is important, as the more we spend on decarbonising the grid(s), the less we can spend on other important issues, such as poverty, changing agriculture, and transport:

Sepulveda also emphasizes the importance of cost-effective paths to carbon-free electricity, adding that in today’s world, “we have so many problems, and climate change is a very complex and important one, but not the only one. So every extra dollar we spend addressing climate change is also another dollar we can’t use to tackle other pressing societal problems, such as eliminating poverty or disease.” Thus, it’s important for research not only to identify technically achievable options to decarbonize electricity, but also to find ways to achieve carbon reductions at the most reasonable possible cost.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-power-choices-reduces-cost-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

Climate change is complex, and an expensive issue to address. While wealthy nations have a lot of money, it is still finite. As it is, we need to build a huge amount of new systems, which will be costly (eg. green hydrogen the wind/solar we will build anyway, and the additional systems to support those), but we also need to look at whole range of other issues as well, such as flood defences, redesigning our cities, etc.

 

[dann]

You are referring to a soviet era power station, and even then the risk is low.

If I remember correctly, Chernobyl was a Soviet era power station, wasn't it?

Just because you feel unsafe, doesn't make it so.

Just because you say it's safe doesn't make it so.

We need to think about nuclear power as a whole. Even if you ignore the fact that passive safety systems are in place in modern reactors, it is still safer than you imagine.
https://cambridgehouse.com/news/797...lds-safest-source-of-energy-will-surprise-you

Nuclear power as a whole ... as opposed to as a part??!
I don't ignore passive safety systems. I assume they are much needed.

"The World’s Safest Source of Energy Will Surprise You"
Really?!
And you won't believe your own eyes when you see what comes next!

This is an interesting one:
https://energy.glex.no/footprint
As you can vary the weighting of different factors, such as deaths per unit of energy, land use, materials use, critical metals, solid waste, not operating % (all per unit of energy). And shows which energy source comes out best.
It also explains why

On another page from same site we have:

Our world in data
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Shows nuclear is between solar and wind for deaths per unit of electricity.

Now remember that nuclear plants are getting safer.

How could I ever forget! And cheaper, right?!
Why would they even need to become safer?!

As for Our World in Data, I notice this: "Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016); UNSCEAR (2008; & 2018)".
And when I look at the abstract of Anil Markandya & Paul Wilkinson's article Electricity generation and health (2007), it says that

Health risks are smaller for nuclear fusion [than for those based on lignite, coal, and oil], but commercial exploitation will not be achieved in time to help the crucial near-term reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. The negative effects on health of electricity generation from renewable sources have not been assessed as fully as those from conventional sources, but for solar, wind, and wave power, such effects seem to be small.

 

[lobosrul5]

If I remember correctly, Chernobyl was a Soviet era power station, wasn't it?




Just because you say it's safe doesn't make it so.



Nuclear power as a whole ... as opposed to as a part??!
I don't ignore passive safety systems. I assume they are much needed.

"The World’s Safest Source of Energy Will Surprise You"
Really?!
And you won't believe your own eyes when you see what comes next!





How could I ever forget! And cheaper, right?!
Why would they even need to become safer?!

As for Our World in Data, I notice this: "Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016); UNSCEAR (2008; & 2018)".
And when I look at the abstract of Anil Markandya & Paul Wilkinson's article Electricity generation and health (2007), it says that

Chernobyl was dangerous because of rank stupidity, cost cutting, and arrogance. That Putin is holding a NPP "hostage" is basically irrelevant since he has nuclear weapons at his disposal anyways.

 

[dann]

Jacobson has made the same claim for a number of years in a number of reports. They have been discredited.

I guess I'm just assumed to believe your claim, right?!

JAnyone country such as the US or UK where studies have been done.

Is this supposed to be your answer to my questions?: "Far too expensive for what?!!! Make it explicit: Far too expensive for what? Tell us! What is a 100% renewable-based power grid too expensive for?"

I'm not suggesting we continue to use fossil fuels, so what's your point?

That I don't give a **** about what it costs. I made it so clear that most people wouldn't have had to ask what my point was.

Jacobson has largely been making the same point for a number of years, hence the discrepency earlier. Repeating that his claim doesn't make it valid.

Nor does your claim make it invalid, and yet you keep making the same point.

Because risks are so small.

So small???

Regarding "viability", that you throw scorn on... This is important, as the more we spend on decarbonising the grid(s), the less we can spend on other important issues, such as poverty, changing agriculture, and transport:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/adding-po...st[/hilite]-risk-carbon-free-electricity-0906

As if every penny (allegedly) saved would somehow automatically end up in the pockets of the poor, the farmers and the commuters. And while you are building your (allegedly) cheap nuclear power plants, consider my previous post: "commercial exploitation will not be achieved in time to help the crucial near-term reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions."

Climate change is complex, and an expensive issue to address. While wealthy nations have a lot of money, it is still finite. As it is, we need to build a huge amount of new systems, which will be costly (eg. green hydrogen the wind/solar we will build anyway, and the additional systems to support those), but we also need to look at whole range of other issues as well, such as flood defences, redesigning our cities, etc.

Well, that is convincing, and it will come as a big surprise to everybody that climate change isn't simple and cheap, and that other things need to be looked at as well.

 

[dann]

Chernobyl was dangerous because of rank stupidity, cost cutting, and arrogance. That Putin is holding a NPP "hostage" is basically irrelevant since he has nuclear weapons at his disposal anyways.

Chernobyl was dangerous!
Rank stupidity, cost cutting and arrogance helped make it melt down.
We are fortunate to be living in times when people have stopped cutting costs and being stupid and arrogant.

And fortunately, it is unimaginable that any other person on Earth might consider turning a nuclear power plant into another Chernobyl.

 

[lobosrul5]

Chernobyl was dangerous!
Rank stupidity, cost cutting and arrogance helped make it melt down.
We are fortunate to be living in times when people have stopped cutting costs and being stupid and arrogant.

And fortunately, it is unimaginable that any other person on Earth might consider turning a nuclear power plant into another Chernobyl.

The design of Chernobyl NPP itself was dangerous compared to other designs at the time.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Let me explain things as I understand them;

whether or not you buy the (frankly crass) idea that CO2 is "bad" because it's a "greenhouse gas", one's "carbon footprint" is a measure of one's consumption - of everything and anything, food, goods, travel, EVERYTHING. Simple as that

Reducing your "carbon footprint" entails consuming less. Simple as that

There is no such thing as "carbon neutral" and "zero emissions", these are (literally) meaningless advertising slogans, used to sell something akin to perpetual motion, a con, to blindside (gullible) people to what should be the obvious intention - to reduce their standard of living, primarily by taxing the snot out of them (**). Simple as that.

Electric cars and "ultra low emissions zones"? The intention is to make the car (or motor vehicle) unaffordable for all but the very affluent. Simple as that.

You may or may not see all this as desirable depending on ... various things, but I prefer that the arguments at least be honest.

(** Quiz; when the point is reached that almost all earnings are paid to the state as tax, what do you have?)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That's...nonsense.

The Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zones are designed to reduce air pollution and increase air quality. They have reduced the air pollution in London by an incredible amount.

Zero Emissions means...zero emissions. They do not emit any greenhouse gases, and with regards to some types zero anything at all.

Carbon Neutral means that the effect of using whatever it is is outweighed in some way by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Usually this is either by planting trees or by using carbon capturing technology to extract the CO2 out of the air and then store it (or use it potentially).

CO2 emissions ARE bad (as a generality) because they are a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increasing the heat capture of the atmosphere increasing the temperature of the planet.

So apart from the general concept of reducing your carbon footprint involving consuming less, everything you said is wrong.