I didn't actually know whether we could generate enough, but that study concludes that we do.

Where the in-groups are busily demonizing the out-groups.

It's nuts. The issue is very simple. The enemy is fossil fuels. Effort spent attacking others who are fighting that same common enemy is self-defeating. It turns the effort from a battle for species survival into an ideological pillow-fight over purity and group status. One that the world will lose.

Alas, human nature was ever thus.

but it's a damn sight better than coal/etc.

Technology and Economics are fast making this a moot point. Nuclear power plants take forever to build, billions to build, sometimes fail to be completed, are uninsurable, high risk, etc. It's making them less and less viable all the time.

No point in two groups of environmentalists, both focusing on carbon output, to be going at each other with knives over it anymore. Clean renewables (And conservation) are winning in the marketplace, and that's actually all that matters now.

Last edited Fri Dec 25, 2015, 02:17 PM - Edit history (3)

...to adjudge the value of the stupid claim that nuclear energy has a carbon footprint that is comparable to any other form of energy.

As for cost, we have just spent half a century on the expensive and essentially useless so called "renewable energy" solar and wind energy scheme, spending nearly two trillion bucks in the last ten years on that toxic and unsustainable garbage with the result that it doesn't produce 5 of the 560 exajoules humanity consumes each year.

I note that none of these realities have stopped the chanting nonsense that it is remotely sane to continue to repeat these failed strategies.

By contrast, more than 30 years ago, in less than 20 years, people were educated enough about basic engineering to construct more than 400 nuclear plants that produced for a period of close to 30 exajoules a year for half a century with an extraordinary low loss of life, this while airheads carried on out about "insurance," even though nobody bothers to insure the 7,000,000 people who die each year from air pollution.

The dead from air pollution don't count, of course. But some theory that someone might die someday from a nuclear event - an event that will trigger thousands upon thousands of air pollution deaths so dumb people can power their computers to prattle on about the great tragedy - is important.

There's nothing more annoying than an atheist chanting faith based pablum that is not even remotely connected to reality.

The so called "renewable energy" scheme is a plan to entrench natural gas mining and burning until the last molecule of it finds its way into the atmosphere.

You do know what the fastest growing source of energy on this planet is, don't you?

It's um, natural gas. A basic chemistry book would explain what natural gas forms when it burns, and a cursory search in the scientific literature could tell you about the radium and radon released by fracking for it so we can run our computers at midnight on a windless night at the winter solstice to mutter stupid complaints about the form of energy developed by oodles of Nobel Laureates and their close colleagues.

If you can't open a scientific paper or book to read the contents, you could at least open the link for the carbon dioxide content of the planetary atmosphere: As of December 24, 2015 we're over 402 ppm

And what do we have here? A declaration of "victory" for so called "renewable energy." Some "victory!" The "renewable energy" "victory" reminds me of the time that they let Admiral Doenitz out of Spandau prison and asked him what the world should remember about Hitler, and he replied, "The vundervul vay he solved ze unemployment problem in Germany."

History, should it survive climate change, will never forgive anti-nuke stupidity, fear and ignorance.

Merry Christmas. Enjoy the holiday weekend.

Nuclear energy clearly requires a capacity for responsible management and governing that we used to sometimes see in old science fiction stories.

The geopolitics alone are unworkable, and basically amounts to "nuclear for me but not for thee". The more nuclear spreads outside the west, the more powerful it'll make warmongers in western politics. I would go so far as to say that even in the west, the spread of nuclear power drives the politics of the police state; The very high level of surveillance in France revealed by Snowden's documents are a stark indicator.

As a humanist, I won't give up hope that we could someday build a society that can responsibly handle some of the most dangerous technologies. But looking at the complete lack of ethics surrounding GMOs, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that kind of society. What we've got now is not going to work.

See for example,
"Restricting nuclear power has little effect on the cost of climate policies"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112731877

What you mis-characterize as "support" for nuclear isn't just "support", it's the false claim that nuclear is necessary.

I "support" some limited research on 4th generation reactors, but I'm not under the delusion they are necessary or even desirable.

Unfortunately, Hansen has fallen for nuclear industry hype and bullshit.

I believe that renewables will never be able to supply the amount of power needed with the consistency demanded by a modern economy. However, I am not so arrogant as to claim infallible knowledge on the subject. As such, I am happy to see all forms of carbon free power being developed for several years, maybe a decade, and then provide more money to the source that proves in the real world that it has produced more generating capacity than the others.

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

And your reasoning suffers severe deficiencies.

We've known for more than 3 decades from study preceding the 1992 Rio Earth Summit that renewables with present and near term technology can, indeed, provide the power for modern culture.

If you understood the problem better you'd know that nuclear and renewables are, by nature of their operational attributes and the consequent economics, not compatible.

The fact that those like you and Hansen choose to base your conclusions on manufactured bullshit from the nuclear industry (as it tries to corner the quadrillion dollar global energy market for the next hundred years) instead of actually listening to the independent people who have spent their lives dissecting and analyzing the human use of energy systems is what makes you similar to climate deniers.

That was 30+ years ago and we've confirmed the findings of that exhaustive study innumerable times since.

There is ZERO scientific support for the position of the nuclear and coal industry that you are promoting in your OP.

I don't know any simpler way to say it.

I'm sure NNadir could provide dozens of other 'studies' that say exactly the opposite of what yours do. The bottom line is until someone goes and actually builds what you claim is possible, it remains speculation.

This is no more controversial than someone saying they know how to build a transistor radio. We know what the pieces are, we know what they need to do and we know what they do.

The ONLY places originating claims that renewables are not sufficient to meet our needs are the INDUSTRIES engaged in profiting off of centralized thermal generation. The closest that objective organizations devoted to analyzing the problems associated with transitioning away from carbon will come your position is to say that nuclear MIGHT technically be a small part of the solution since it is low carbon. The fact is, however, that the economics of time and money rule out its potential to be a meaningful contributor.

Doubling down on ignorance based claims doesn't help your case. We have built everything that is involved. There is no mystery, there is no secret waiting to be discovered. IOWs, your claims are pure bunk.

Tell you what, show the science that says we require nuclear; or that we need to learn something in order to build a renewable based global distributed grid, a national distributed grid, a local distributed grid or even a microgrid.

I think you and I have such different ideas of what constitutes 'proof' that further conversation would be fruitless.

Take care.

The way you are using "proof" precisely parallels the way climate deniers use it. You clearly have no grasp of what the literature actually says nor how to evaluate the validity of the literature, so, it becomes a dodge that can never be satisfied.

...given the date and overall content of the paper along with real world events since then?

I believe the meaning is fairly clear.

If you decommission nuclear plants, alternative power sources will be used, but those probably will not be renewable.

I’m a great fan of renewable sources. I am not a fan of nuclear fission.

I think we have enough of a challenge in front of us as it is.

Our first goals should be:

1. Stop increasing the rate of GHG emissions growth.
2. Stop increasing GHG emissions.
3. Decrease GHG emissions.
4. Go “carbon neutral.”
5. Go “carbon negative.”

1. (Non-CCS) coal plants.
2. (Non-CCS) natural gas plants.
3. (If there are any left—non-CCS) oil-burning plants.
4. (Non-CCS) biomass plants.
5. CCS plants (clearly, CCS is not a good long-term solution.)

That is one of the weakest links in your analysis.

In point of fact, the replacements probably will be efficiency, renewable generation and natural gas; which, even if it means a small immediate uptick in emissions, is preferable to the continued operation of the nuclear plant. The lack of flexibility in the nuclear plant actively obstructs high volume deployment of renewable energy (yes that's documented). That means it does nothing to assist in closing coal plants and reducing (short or long term) carbon emissions.

The uptick in emissions is the cost of adjusting 'the machine' for the far greater emissions reductions that are able to be realized by a high renewable penetration grid. The natgas plant can cycle in support of variables in a way that nuclear cannot. This allows it to be used less and less as more and more renewables come online.

It's like that adage asking if you can make an omelet without breaking eggs. When you are deconstructing a system as complex as the grid you have to expect that all progress will not be measured as immediate forward movement. Clinging blindly to that kind of point while ignoring the obstructive nature of the eggshell is not rational.

The paper itself was probably commissioned by supporters of Germany's nuclear operators. While it is legitimate research it is crafted in a manner that opens it to critical discussion. For example, using overnight costs for nuclear doesn't begin to capture the full costs with interest and produces a major distortion of the numbers when comparing it to the small scale projects on the renewable side. And even then they used the absurd number of $3000/kw for overnight costs, when the projects being built are easily more than double that.

Also, there is literally no discussion on the trend lines for renewable costs - which must be one of the most significant inputs into their model. Since 2012, the costs of both wind and solar have continued their drop and made them the go-to option for most new investment in energy - without a carbon price.

Finally the discussion above is not addressed in this paper at all. The claim being made is that we cannot power our culture with renewable energy sources. That claim is unequivocally false.

1) As noted in my previous post, the paper you are referencing offers nothing in the way of discussion on the cost trends for renewable energy sources. Since solar is expected to hit grid parity globally by 2018 don't you think that might have been an important consideration in building the model?

2) I think it's meaningful that renewable energy is NOW capturing the lion's share of global energy investment, don't you?

3) You also ignored the point I raised regarding the low-ball cost for nuclear. Is there a reason to believe that the cost of nuclear power they've used has any validity at all?

4) Do you understand the way economic modeling works?