Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Applying the Dharma for the preservation of planet Earth and its inhabitants
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Too Much Confidence in Renewables

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:08 am

Leeuwenhoek wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:42 pm
Germany had the foundations to be world leader for CO2 reductions. Instead it's going to miss emissions reductions targets with anti-nuclear ideology as a major cause.
...
A major political question is whether Greens, environmentalists, anti-nukers and many so-called eco-dharmists will be able to accept nuclear powerplants, carbon capture and natural gas as important contributors to carbon reduction. Pumped hydro for electricity storage might also belong on that list.
When explaining the course of climate mitigation future historians may well point to resistance from the Green ideology sector on par with fossil fuel interests.
I would like to see some justification for these opinions. Your slabs of text from the Bloomberg article do not justify them.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:29 am

Yet another step forward for solar power - a great idea from our least-sunny state. It comes from a Greens Party newsletter (the state government is Labor and is doing pretty good things already).
You may have seen the news that the Victorian Government plans to put solar on 650,000 homes, by giving homeowners a 50% rebate on solar panels. It’s exciting to see them announce such a big renewables policy, and we support it.

But it has a glaring omission. For too long, renters and low-income households have been locked out of solar. Without owning a roof, renters can’t generate their own clean power and reduce their bills.

That’s why it’s time to embrace the Solar Garden solution. Check out how it works here.

Solar Gardens are an exciting way for renters to buy into solar, without owning a roof.

How they work: A renter buys a solar panel on a public building near their home, like a train station. The renter’s energy bill is reduced by the amount of power their panels make, and if you move house, you still own the solar panel and the savings move with you. Easy, right?

Who manages them: The Greens' public energy retailer, Power Victoria, could manage the rollout of Solar Gardens across Victoria.

It’s kind of like a community garden - you own the solar panel and reap its rewards, but it’s not on your own home.

Clean energy shouldn’t just be for people who own their own home. We all want to save our planet and save on our energy bills. Renters and people on lower incomes deserve access to solar too. Share this idea to help us make solar a reality for all Victorians.

The Greens are excited about our plan for Solar Gardens. With enough support, Labor might just add it to their solar policy! It’s time to make solar available for everyone.
Re my point about Victoria being our least-sunny state: where I am, 1 KW of solar cells will typically produce an average of 4 KWh of electricity per day. Down in Victoria, the ratio is more like 1 KW of solar cells to 2 or 3 KWh of electricity. It's still good value.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:57 pm

Meanwhile in the world's fifth largest economy ...
California moves towards 100% carbon-free electricity after landmark vote

Legislators vote for complete shift to clean energy by 2045
Bill heads to state senate and then to Governor Jerry Brown

California has given fossil fuel-derived energy a hefty shove towards obsolescence after legislators voted to require that 100% of the state’s electricity come from carbon-free sources.

The bill, which will need to be approved by the state senate and Governor Jerry Brown, will require a complete shift to clean energy such as solar and wind by 2045. It would also demand that electric utilities source 60% of their power from renewable sources by 2030, up from the current target of 50%.

California ridding itself entirely of carbon-intensive energy has been a politically vexed proposition for the past two years, with state Republicans arguing it was unfeasible and would drive up electricity prices.

But the state has emerged as a bastion of defiance to the Trump administration on climate change, among other issues, as it has been scorched by record wildfires and a prolonged drought. A report released this week warned that the state is on course for punishing heatwaves, thousands of additional deaths and the erosion of two thirds of its coastline due to rising temperatures, wildfires and sea level rise. ...
:reading: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... solar-vote

:twothumbs:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:06 pm

Can't really put this in the Jokes thread, no matter how loony it is ...
Big oil asks government to protect its Texas facilities from climate change

PORT ARTHUR, Texas -- As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile "spine" of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority: to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas' 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation's refining capacity.

Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities. ...
:reading: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-prot ... tal-spine/

:rolleye:
Kim

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:25 am

The last couple of posts indicate that "Greens" in Germany, Australia and California view a single nuclear power plant as more dangerous than global warming. Effectively they see the risk of "climate catastrophe" as less of a worry than a nuclear catastrophe. In California for instance, they have been shutting down nuclear power plants one by one with the remaining plant scheduled to shut down in a few years. That final plant, on it's own, generates about %9 of the states electrical power. In the near to mid term that shutdown will almost certainly result in a significant increase in California's carbon emissions.

Yes, the Greens argue that we don't need nuclear power. A lot of people scientists, engineers and policy experts don't agree. There are a lot of reasons to support or oppose nuclear power. But from the standpoint of the environment there is a strong argument that the balance of evidence points to no more environmentally-friendly technology of large-scale electricity production presently available.
Video: JAMES HANSEN ON NUCLEAR POWER

It seems hypocritical to speak of the opposition from "big oil" and "climate deniers" while ignoring the potentially reckless policies promoted by Green's.

-----------------------------------------------
In better news ...
The shock resignation of the French environment minister may mean that [French utility] EDF can not only extend the lifespan of its ageing reactors but could even build new reactors in France, the world’s most nuclear-reliant nation.

... French President Emmanuel Macron is an advocate of nuclear but the popular [ environment minister ] Hulot served as a counterbalance.

Macron had campaigned on a promise to respect the previous Socialist government's energy law to cut France's reliance on nuclear energy to 50 percent by 2025 from 75 percent now, the highest level in the world.

Hulot had been a strong backer of the plan. But within six months of taking office, the minister was sent out to announce that the target was being pushed back a decade. He said France would set a new timeline in early 2019.
-- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fran ... SKCN1LD27E [emphasis mine]
By resigning the environment minister may be making a important contribution to protecting the environment. Some will disagree with that assessment but it goes to show the sometimes "wicked" nature of the challenge.

Virgo
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Virgo » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:11 am

Leeuwenhoek wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:25 am

Yes, the Greens argue that we don't need nuclear power. A lot of people scientists, engineers and policy experts don't agree. There are a lot of reasons to support or oppose nuclear power. But from the standpoint of the environment there is a strong argument that the balance of evidence points to no more environmentally-friendly technology of large-scale electricity production presently available.
Video: JAMES HANSEN ON NUCLEAR POWER

It seems hypocritical to speak of the opposition from "big oil" and "climate deniers" while ignoring the potentially reckless policies promoted by Green's.
Yes, and here is another video:



Virgo

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:38 am

Mark Lynas is the author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans (UK edition), The God Species – Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans (US edition), High Tide: News from a warming world (2004) and Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet (2007).
Buddhists should be aware of the strength and depth of disagreement on the issue of nuclear power and climate change.

Without nuclear, the battle against global warming is as good as lost
Mark Lynas, Guardian, 2012
Let me be very clear. Without nuclear, the battle against global warming is as good as lost. Even many greens now admit this in private moments. We are already witnessing the first signs of the collapse in the biosphere this entails – with the Arctic in full-scale meltdown, more solar radiation is being captured by the dark ocean surface, and the weather systems of the entire northern hemisphere are being thrown into chaos. With nuclear, there is a chance that global warming this century can be limited to 2C; without nuclear, I would guess we are heading for 4C or above. That will devastate ecosystems and societies worldwide on a scale which is unimaginable.

It is nothing short of insane that politicians around the world, under pressure from populations subjected to decades of anti-nuclear fearmongering by people who call themselves greens, are raising our collective risk of catastrophic climate change in order to eliminate the safest power source ever invented.

More people die each day from coal pollution than have been killed by nuclear power in 50 years of operation, and that is even before factoring in the impact on global warming. That such populist irrationality should guide public policy in so many countries – and on such an important issue as energy – is nothing short of a disaster.
-- https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming
In recent tweets Lynas has not changed his mind. IMO his language drifts into hyperbole and excess but it tends towards the right direction on the science, engineering and on the politics too. I predict that parties and politicians pushing no-nuke climate policies will tend to run up against a backlash that even political moderates and the cautiously concerned about global warming will sees as extreme and lacking wisdom.

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:41 am

Here's a written transcript of the video posted by Virgo.
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... erlin-2017

This video recorded at COP-23 Is a good overview from 2 perspectives:
James Hansen & Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:58 am

Lib Dems' nuclear U-turn shows they realise we can't say 'no' to everything
Mark Lynas, 2013
Uniquely in the industrialised world, the UK now has a three-party consensus both on the reality of climate change and the clear need for new nuclear capacity to mitigate it. While Friends of the Earth and others provided predictable negative soundbites in response, the truth is that this consensus now includes much of the business community, and even – to an extent – the mainstream environmental groups.

Friends of the Earth, for example, has quietly but admirably accepted a scientific review of the evidence for and against nuclear power carried out on its behalf by academics at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The review makes clear how most of the standard anti-nuclear arguments – on proliferation, waste and safety for example, have much less factual basis than most greens assume, and concludes that if gas replaces nuclear generation in future then the UK's carbon emissions will inevitably rise.

Also to its credit, the renewable energy industry has begun to make common cause with the nuclear industry in supporting government moves towards a low-carbon economy. The wind energy lobby group RenewableUK has now issued several joint calls with the Nuclear Industry Association for an accelerated low carbon transition programme, even attracting support from the director of Greenpeace UK.

The realities on the ground are changing too. The UK now has the largest area of coastal continental shelf devoted to offshore wind in the world. Billions of pounds of investment are now being poured into wind energy, creating thousands of jobs and promoting the UK as a hub for a new clean energy development. In August our installed wind capacity reached 10 gigawatts, enough to power 5.5m homes.

Unlike Germany, which is now burning more coal because its dash to solar power is mainly aimed at eliminating nuclear rather than tackling climate change, the UK is taking a pragmatic approach that promises to be better for the environment in the longer-term. Nuclear is just as low-CO2 as wind, and takes up a much smaller area of land, so will be an essential part of the mix in future.

The challenge of decarbonisation on a global scale is nothing short of epic. Rapid industrialisation in countries like India and China is adding carbon emissions equivalent to twice those of Brazil every year to the global total. As my recent ebook Nuclear 2.0 showed, if we try to eliminate nuclear power globally at the same time as rapidly growing energy consumption, we head straight into the territory of catastrophic global warming with mathematical inevitability.

On the other hand, if we deploy a new generation of safer, cheaper nuclear plants on a worldwide scale – combined with an ever greater rollout of solar and wind generation – the world still has the option of keeping global temperature rise within 2C this century.

The Lib Dems have realised that in a world facing serious challenges like climate change and energy security we don't have the luxury of saying 'no' to everything. The task for the UK now is to go forward and make the major investments in both nuclear and renewables that can put us firmly on a track towards clean energy.
[emphasis mine]
-- https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change
Is it just me? Or are the vast majority, to nearly all, so called eco-Buddhist or Buddhist engaged action statements on climate change silent on this issue?

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:36 am

The various positions with respect to the use of nuclear power have to do primarily with how people perceive the risks and benefits of nuclear when compared with other options.
Speed of deployment
Waste
Security
Fail safe
Cost
Empowerment
Gov't involvement
others?
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:45 pm

This is adaptation rather than mitigation, for a change.
Climate change report warns of increased demand on emergency services in Queensland

An increased risk of fire and flood across the state will put extra demand on emergency services and require a "significant financial commitment", a new climate change strategy has revealed.

Emergency Services Minister Craig Crawford will today release a plan designed to help first responders get ready for future weather extremes.

It warns of the potential for climate change to increase the frequency, intensity, duration and distribution of bushfires, heatwaves and coastal inundation.

"We've all got to accept the world is changing. Queensland is changing," Mr Crawford said.

"There are plenty of people out there who are climate change sceptics... but the consensus is our fire seasons are getting hotter and longer and our flood and cyclone seasons are certainly getting stronger and more frequent."

... Queensland is no stranger to natural disasters and weather extremes.

This year the bushfire season started early, with crews battling more than 1,000 vegetation blazes in August alone.

Cyclone Debbie in 2017 and Cyclone Marcia in 2015 wrought billions of dollars in damage to parts of the central and North Queensland coasts.
:reading: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-07/q ... k/10209896

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:50 am

Back to mitigation - and coal.
Coal does not have an economic future in Australia

Renewables are stealing the march over coal in Australia, and the international outlook is for lower coal demand. Today the international Coal Transitions project released its findings, based on global coal scenarios and detailed case studies by teams in China, India, South Africa, Australia, Poland and Germany. ...

Most coal used in Australia is for power generation. We are at the start of a fundamental change in the system, where coal power will be replaced by renewables, with energy storage and flexible demand-side response to firm up the system.

This change now reflects market economics. New wind farms and solar parks can now provide energy at much lower cost than any new fossil fuel powered generators. A new coal fired power plant would need subsidies, take a long time to build, and suffer exposure to future carbon policy.

The competition is now between renewables and existing coal fired power stations. ...
https://theconversation.com/coal-does-n ... lia-102718

:thumb:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:13 am

And again - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... to-climate - mostly about Adani's Galilee Basin project which has been slashed repeatedly since it was announced in 2010 because it is increasingly uneconomic.

:twothumbs:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:49 pm

Doomsday Vault needs to plug leak caused by climate change

Climate change in the Arctic is happening so quickly that the Norwegian Government has been forced to spend $AU17 million to fix a subterranean vault that is preserving the world's seeds.

The Global Seed Vault, better known as the Doomsday Vault, stores seeds from 40 per cent of plant species from around the world on the remote Svalbard archipelago, a little more than 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole. ...

But the changing Arctic climate means design assumptions made when the vault was built 10 years ago are no longer valid. ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-22/d ... e/10291928

When a project intended to avert one ecological disaster is in trouble because of another, I think we're in a mess.

:tantrum:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:03 pm

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/18/th ... ge-report/
The Hope at the Heart of the Apocalyptic Climate Change Report
... Last week’s special report includes an exciting new scenario that—for the first time—does not rely on speculative technology. Developed by an international team of scientists, it projects that we can reduce emissions fast enough to keep under 1.5 degrees but only if we’re willing to fundamentally change the logic of our economy. Instead of growing industrial output at all costs, it proposes a simple alternative: that we start to consume less.

The new IPCC model calls for us to scale down global material consumption by 20 percent, with rich countries leading the way. What does that look like? It means moving away from disposable products toward goods that last. It means repairing our existing things rather than buying new ones. It means designing things so that they can be repaired (modular devices such as Fairphones rather than proprietary devices such as iPhones). It means investing in public goods and finding ways to share stuff—from cars to lawn mowers—shifting from an ethic of ownership to an ethic of usership.

Reducing our industrial output will slash our need for energy, making it much easier to decarbonize the economy in time to avert climate breakdown. ...

There’s just one catch. This approach requires evolving beyond the rigid constraints of capitalism. Whatever else capitalism might be, it is ultimately a system that is dependent on perpetual growth, which places immense pressure on our living planet. Such a system might have seemed reasonable enough when it first emerged in the 1800s, but in an era of ecological breakdown, it just won’t do.

The good news is that rich countries no longer need aggregate growth. In a recent statement to the European Union, 238 scientists argued that we can improve people’s lives and provide meaningful work right now, without any growth at all, simply by distributing what we already have more fairly. ...
Can we do it? Yes.
Will we do it? I hope so.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:41 am

Hey! The US has become a role-model for Aussies wanting renewable power!
:twothumbs:

Well, one particular US city, at least -
A city in southern California has become the first city in the world to be zero net energy with solar farms powering the entire city, and now it is inspiring Australian cities to follow its lead.

Being zero net energy means the city produces more solar electricity through solar farms than it can use.

Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris has attributed an increase in employment, new manufacturers moving to the city, and a reduction in crime to the approach to alternative energy.

This week, Mr Parris has been in Kiama on the NSW south coast at the Cities Power Partnership summit, speaking to local council representatives from around Australia about how they might be able to do something similar.

He said he had decided to take the lead on alternative energy for the safety and wellbeing of his constituents, and this continued to drive him forward. ...
:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-21/ ... s/10401642

:clap:
Kim

kirtu
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:23 pm

Re: Too Much Confidence in Renewables

Post by kirtu » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:47 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:08 am
Leeuwenhoek wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:42 pm
Germany had the foundations to be world leader for CO2 reductions. Instead it's going to miss emissions reductions targets with anti-nuclear ideology as a major cause.
...
A major political question is whether Greens, environmentalists, anti-nukers and many so-called eco-dharmists will be able to accept nuclear powerplants, carbon capture and natural gas as important contributors to carbon reduction. Pumped hydro for electricity storage might also belong on that list.
When explaining the course of climate mitigation future historians may well point to resistance from the Green ideology sector on par with fossil fuel interests.
I would like to see some justification for these opinions. Your slabs of text from the Bloomberg article do not justify them.

:coffee:
Kim
Well, German eco-activists are really quite anti-nuclear. They cannot conceive of nuclear power as a positive contributor to the Green energy mix. And they lack sufficient alternatives like hydo power resources unlike some other major industrial powers. So while they have done well wrt wind, solar and bio renewables Germany still relies on coal specifically (and they have a lot of coal). The idea that they missed the boat as a global example for Green energy transition because of their reliance on coal and because of their failure to consider nuclear power in the Green mix has not gone unvoiced and is not unique.

Kirt

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Persistent Anti-Nuclear Bias

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:04 pm

Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change
We are writing as scientists, scholars, and concerned citizens to warn you of a persistent anti-nuclear bias in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.[1]

While many of the scenarios in the IPCC report call for the expanded use of nuclear energy, the report nonetheless repeats misinformation about nuclear energy, contrasts nuclear negatively to renewables, and in some cases, suggests an equivalency with fossil fuels.

While IPCC authors note that public fears of nuclear are an obstacle to its diffusion, in several instances they reinforce unfounded fears. Please consider the following:
  • Nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity[2] and has saved over 1.8 million lives that would have been lost prematurely to deadly air pollution.[3]
  • Nuclear plants produce just 12 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as compared to coal plants, natural gas plants, biomass plants, and solar farms which produce 820, 490, 230, and 48 grams of CO2/kWh, respectively, as used in the IPCC’s own publications.[4]
  • Of humankind’s exposure to ionizing radiation, 88% comes from natural causes and 12% from human-made causes with just 0.04% from nuclear plant emissions.[5]
  • The increased risk of mortality from living in a large city, where concentrations of air pollution are high, is 2.8 times greater than the increased risk of mortality for Chernobyl clean-up workers who received the highest levels of radiation exposure.[6]
  • There is a consensus among leading radiation scientists that nobody should have been relocated after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi because the evacuation caused far more harm than the radiation that escaped from the plant could have.[7]
  • Because uranium has an energy density one to three million times higher than coal, nuclear plants require the fewest fuel and material inputs, giving them the smallest mining and land use impact of all energy sources.[8]
  • While nuclear provided 11% of electricity globally last year, solar and wind provided only 1.3% and 3.9%.[9]
  • Because of their inherently intermittent nature, solar and wind energy sources rarely substitute on a one-to-one basis for fossil fuels and must be backed up by fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams, or some other form of large-scale storage.[10]
  • The peak deployment of nuclear energy around the world has occurred more than 10 times faster than the peak deployment of solar and wind, according to a 2016 study published in the journal Science.[11]
  • The above facts are crucial for putting the role of nuclear in context and yet were either not included in the IPCC report or were insufficiently highlighted.
Moreover, in several instances IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:
  • An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;
  • The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];
  • A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];
  • A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
  • A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;
  • Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]
Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. As IPCC itself acknowledges, public fears of nuclear are behind the technology’s slower-than-desirable development.[22] Equally troubling, public fear of nuclear drove the panicked over-reaction to past nuclear accidents, including mass evacuations, which health experts agree had a far larger negative impact on human health than the low-levels of radiation that escaped from the plants.[23]

Where nuclear has proven capable of providing cheap and reliable zero-carbon power to large modern economies from France to Canada to Sweden, solar and wind, which IPCC treat more favorably, have not, in large measure because they require a constant source of back-up energy. And where IPCC report authors offer “policy interventions” to mitigate the challenges of scaling up solar and wind, they do not offer similar policy interventions for nuclear.

While we are gravely disappointed by the double standard with which the IPCC treated nuclear and other low-carbon energy sources, we are hopeful that you, as the head of state of a large modern economy, can rectify such misinformation through your words and actions.

We strongly encourage you to do everything in your power to speak out for nuclear and expand its share of electricity production, heating, and transport, including shipping production, to achieve the intertwined goals of climate change mitigation, pollution reduction, and poverty alleviation.
-- https://www.axios.com/scientists-expert ... a9a20.html
-- www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/ ... ate-change
See also:
https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/ke ... ear-energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change
How Not to Debate Nuclear Energy and Climate Change https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... ate-change

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

IPCC and uranium supply limits?

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:10 pm

Finnish physicist Jani-Petri Martikainen published an analysis on his blog showing that IPCC modelers restricted the role of nuclear by assuming a scarcity of uranium — something that has not been a concern since the late 1950s but has been a talking point of anti-nuclear campaigners since the 1970s. IPCC modelers assume uranium mining comes to a halt for an unspecified reason. “For some weird reason, humanity stops mining uranium even when the fuel cost is still massively lower than for fossil fuels,” Martikainen writes.
IPCC and uranium supply limits? wrote:I have been reading the database (and associated literature) of the recent IPCC 1.5 degrees special report. I am disappointed that there clearly is no consistent reporting requirements for the IAM models and for example most scenarios do not report critical input assumptions such as capital costs. However, I had a more careful look on how modellers choose to treat uranium supplies. I have noted earlier how some models restrict nuclear power in the scenarios by claiming world runs out of uranium. These seemed very silly to me already then, but now, having read more, they seem totally absurd.

... the underlying assumption, for example, REMIND modellers use as an input, is that uranium is the first resource to “run out”. Constraint is so strict that nuclear power can only cover a small fraction of the energy consumption (something around 100ZJ probably) over the century.

For some weird reason, humanity stops mining uranium even when the fuel cost is still massively lower than for fossil fuels. What is going on? Why would this make any sense? The used references certainly do not support this. (Incidentally, is this why uranium supply curve is given in different units …to make this comparison harder? I hope not.) Many people read these scenarios as outcomes of “science”. Computer magically optimizes something and then gives us a guideline on how to behave and what decisions to take. This is not at all the case. Scenario modelling has its uses, but mainly in illustrating sensitivities etc. If silly constraints are imposed from the outset, silly outcomes will appear. Garbage in, garbage out.
-- https://passiiviidentiteetti.wordpress. ... ly-limits/
Martikainen describes himself as "a physicist with a keen interest on science and environmental and energy issues."

------------------------------------
Why It Matters:
Nuclear power, provides approximately 30% of the world's zero-carbon electricity but as a social issue it's faces international skepticism over past accidents and public fear about its radioactive waste.

In the U.S., numerous plants are poised to shut down earlier than their licenses allow — and some already have — due in large part to policy and politics which often doesn't it recognize it as zero-carbon energy. Natural gas has largely made up the difference after these plants have shut down, so greenhouse gas emissions ticked up in some parts of the U.S. Germany has decided on a complete phase-out and has already shut down about half it's reactors.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:47 am

Coal dumped as IEA turns to wind and solar to solve climate challenge

One of the world’s most conservative energy institutions, the International Energy Agency, has effectively abandoned the thermal coal industry, saying coal generation would have to be drastically scaled down if the world has any hope of getting anywhere near the targets needed to address climate change.

Instead, the IEA – in its annual World Energy Outlook – turns to wind and solar, which it says will need to produce more than seven times the amount of coal power by 2040 if the “well below 2°C” limit to average global warming agreed to in Paris is to be met.

In its latest report, known as WE0 2018, the IEA says that in its “Sustainable Development” scenario – the one that keeps the world on track for its climate goals, and removes global energy poverty (i.e. providing power to those that don’t currently have it) – then by 2040 two-thirds of the world’s electricity generation will need to come from renewables. ...

By 2040, wind and solar will produce more than coal, oil, gas and nuclear combined, with more than 14,100 terawatt hours (TWh). That’s up from 1,500TWh in 2017.

Coal is reduced from nearly 10,000TWh to less than 2,000TWh, oil almost disappears as a fuel for the gird, gas generation falls by nearly 20 per cent, and only nuclear among the fossil fuels grows, but produces only one-third of the output of wind and solar. Hydro jumps 50 per cent and “other renewables” increase five-fold.

... in a world where conservatives and vested interests are thumping the table about the supposed advantage of “cheap coal”, and its essential role in providing “reliability” and access to power, this report is something of ground-breaker.
:reading: https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-dumped ... nge-66916/

:thumb:
Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests