Eturnage, still on the wobbling earth, but no comment on erring on the safe side for those countries that are in danger of being flooded?

@"But back to my question, what's in this for Putin and Russia? We all agree he is calling the shots, right?"

Perhaps it is to divide the US from their EU allies... but who knows. Maybe Trump went rogue on this one... (though if you actually look at the details, some people are claiming it is a simple oil deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDeRCLOUIaQ
Where Trump and Co. bought 19% of this Russian oil national oil company, just after Putin got him elected... )

So depending on who you ask, it's not about whos' in charge, it is about who can make the most money.

@Eturnage, i see no mention of climate change in that NASA article, because it doesn't seem to affect climate change.

Infact, my understanding is that climate change is driving this wobble.

(i may have misspoken earlier, it seems the melt water from the last iceage is pushing against the mantle, so as the water moves into the sea, the land is pushed back.... but the earth isn't getting any torque applied, only the mantle...)

But sure. pick and choose something to keep people confused. Especially something you don't fully understand. Well done.

Kasako8:

I was actually just entertaining myself by mocking those who believe that Trump is taking direction from Moscow.

But since you seem to somehow think the other 191 countries are taking "drastic measures...", I'd like to point out that the US has already taken those measures & more to protect the environment. It is the fake immediacy of the problem & the attitude that the US is again the culprit that bothers me. How is agreeing do something in 2030 keeping the seas from rising?

I am a Californian and am not a denier of climate change. I'm old now, I have seen the climate change in my own back yard. I have also seen California destroy various industries (mining, timber, now agriculture) in a vain attempt to save this or that. The environment is no better, but we sure feel good.

@orathaic

"@James, ignoring for a moment the carbon cost of building nuclear power plants, and of mining uranium, and/or reprocessing soent fuel."

then let's also ignore the carbon costs of building solar plants and wind farms across the country, and also let's ignore the fact that solar energy systems can impact the land in the process of materials extraction, exploration, manufacturing, and disposal, to a MASSIVE negative effect.


"Nuclear is cheap because decommissioning costs are not factored in. 1000s of years of isolation for highly radioactive components makes decommissioning a nuclear power plant incredibly expensive. Never mond the fact the huge amount of government funding was invested to get the plants you have at the moment."

except i already addressed that, nuclear waste recycling is actually turning old expenses into massive efficiency increases. look at France and their recycling, why can't we do it? the only real precedent set is JIMMY FUCKING CARTER in 1977 saying that it wasn't efficient, and it could lead to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons.

turns out he was wrong on both accounts: see France.


"I'm willing to bet that on a fair basis, watt for watt, measured on a full life cycle, that solar power is currently cheaper than nuclear, or that with similar levels of government investment it would be withon 5 years (and China is currently investing)."

and how much will that investment cost? because currently it is WAY behind other industries in terms of efficiency as it is right now. the only thing it has going for it it low maintenance cost. also, the article i linked actually mentioned this, but i'm glad to see you didn't read it in its entirety.


"Second nuclear power plants are great for base load. And not so great for varying loads. In the US max load is in the summer time powering loads of air conditioners (which i cidentally heat up the air outside your buildings, and make cities even worse hot spots... But that isn't a large climate issue, just a local one afaik). Nuclear can't be readily turned off (decommisioning plants take months and recommissioning them is expensive). So you need to look at base load - the minimum demand during the winter, and plan to have a maximum production of nuclear to supply only that demand."

this is a legitimate concern, but once again, Germany and France have amazing technology for nuclear power plants that operate as load-following.

"The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear energy, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, especially compared to fossile sources. Thus, operating at higher load factors is profitable for nuclear power plants as they cannot make savings on fuel costs while not producing electricity. In France, the impact of load-following on the average unit capac- ity factor is sometimes estimated at about 1.2%."

https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf

furthermore, SOLAR IS NOT AMAZING AT VARIABLE LOAD!!! look at Germany, they have surpluses where they PAY the German people to use energy, and then they have rationing other parts of the year. Jesus man, Solar isn't some god, neither is Nuclear. one has consistently worked when it's implementation has been achieved, and one is causing severe economic and energy problems that are only covered up by a strong economy. if Germany weren't flourishing elsewhere, economists have actually stipulated that they might be on the verge of an energy crisis!!!


"Then you can have other systems (like hydro) which can be turne on and off at will, to supply higher demands (though there isn't enough hydro to make much impact, and all the low hanging fruit is already massive hydro projects)."

if only we had more lakes and rivers... Dam :\


"Third, nuclear doesn't help address transport. We don't have decent/cheap alternatives to fossil fuels for carrying power around in a car. Nevermind all the rest of the transportation industry (UPS? Freight (lorries and trucks)? air freight? Train freight? Shipping?) the vast majority of the world depends on their food being shipped to them, and nuclear doesn't help solve that issue particularily well at all."


which is why alternative energies off better solutions? at the end of the day the only solution to transport based carbon emissions are cars that are cheaper but use electricity over fossil fuels. WHERE that electricity comes from is trivial, the only question is what is the cost. Nuclear gives us the best chance.


"So in short, it isn't all about watts per cent. Free markets have never existed, and political there is some question as to whether they would work now."

perhaps i shouldn't say a 100% free market (especially not with Nuclear) but most of the regulations we have now have kept us WAY behind other countries, (SEE FRANCE!!!)


"History has shown some people perfectly willing to buy out the competition and then simply ignore it (new technologies which might threaten the position of oil and coal would be patentable, and pil giants would love to buy those patents and refuse to use them...) that is perfectly plausible in your 'free market' solution - and yes, is the effect of a government enforced monopoly (ie the patent system)."

1. what you're referring to is the vertical buy out of competition firms within an industry, and then the decommissioning of said firms. this is not applicable to Nuclear

2. if there's MORE profit to be made with Nuclear, then they won't just shut everything down: they'll take the profit. rich people like money.

3. the nuclear industry has been held back by regulation for so long, there is plenty of capital and investment waiting to be unleashed. they could easily rival "Big Oil" in terms of invest-ability

4. yes government sucks. glad you agree

5. you need to do research on anti-monopoly laws in the USA. what you're describing literally cannot happen, and has not happened in that last 30 years that i can find, probably longer.


"I don't see how regulation and/or public subsidy is any better or worse than enforcing a patent system. Unless the state is enthralled to large corporations who only have any interest in their own profits rather than the public good."

enforcing a patent system... what?
1. suspension of intellectual rights is commonly used in such matters
2. the current problem is that states are subsidizing big oil.


your entire rant is based off your own subjective feeling that nuclear wouldn't be efficient enough. you are pointing at problems like a population's variable energy consumption and the load capacity of nuclear facilities, but are ignoring the same problems with alternatives energies with wind and solar! then you say that decommission costs are too high, which MAYBE was true 10 years ago, but definitely isn't today. and the ONLY alternative you give me is to invest more in Solar, the least efficient of all the energy industries that is propped up by subsidies, and hope that it doesn't cost too much to get on par with even Fossil Fuels?




@Ogion

"Sounds like James has homework to do. 1) nuclear is not cheap. Not even close. It been left in the dust by renewables on cost a while ago"

this is simply not true. above in the post with @Orathaic i've address comparative costs, and i addressed it in my original post.

i'm not trying to insult alternative energies, and i've read articles discussing Nuclear vs Alternative energy from many alternative energy sites:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987577/renewable_energy_versus_nuclear_dispelling_the_myths.html

http://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2015/04/renewables-vs-nuclear-do-we-need-more-nuclear-power.html


while there are many great points brought up in these articles, there are a few main problems that i have.

1. they ONLY compare the old, outdated, gov't propped, super regulated Nuclear plants in the USA. not ONE of their points address the French model, which helps them be primarily energy independent, and also very economically prosperous with low energy costs.

2. they ALWAYS bring up decommissioning costs when comparing alternative vs Nuclear, but they NEVER bring up the subsidies when they tout their energy efficiency.

3. there is cunning circular logic, as they say that nuclear energy is getting less investment and renewables are getting more investment: so we need to invest less in nuclear and more in renewables. this entirely ignores the fact that they are self creating the trend that "proves" renewables are better.

i'm not against allowing the most efficient energy source to win, and i can even foresee a future that is 100% renewable, but going OUT OF OUR WAY to demonize Nuclear, throw us in with climate deniers, and then use misleading data to push a narrative doesn't really seem like the way to go.

Nuclear energy also has the highest potential energy efficiency ceiling, as it has had some of the least research hours put towards it recently compared to alternative energies. what we still might be able to achieve with Nuclear might be thousands of times more efficient than we have presently.

Furthermore, the anti-nuclear camp has also slowed down research in missile defense programs, and radiation shielding technology. All the way back from Reagan's "Star Wars" to even now, Nuclear War is still a horrifying prospect, and something that is better solved now that later.



"2) there are these nifty things called electric cars, orthaic, that do very nicely for powering transportation. I should know. I own two (and none of your smelly gas cars, thank you very much). They're quite practical and cheaper than your gas car for the most part

Do try to keep up"

also very true. electric cars are the future, and very soon are going to beat out older gas guzzlers

tuck frump

@James, thanks for the responce. It was rather refreshing.

I said i'd make a bet, but not being a gambling man, i'm not investing any money in either nuclear or solar... (though i am thinking of a wind system).

If i was i might do some deeper background. I think part of your arguement is that Nuclear works now, and that Solar needs decades of research. Which is basically tying us to choices made in the past (in the US and USSR) to develop a nuclear fuel cycle which could be used to produce weapons.

And you may be right, it is possible that all the research done in the 50s, 60s and 70s makes Nuclear the obvious choice (though it has become politically unpopular in Germany, and Ireland will never build a nuclear power plant for the same political reasons... )

If you are right, i am still surprised that Coal is such a large percentage of the global power supply. According to wikipedia: Oil is at 34%, Coal/Peat/Shale 29%, Natural Gas 21%.

That amounts to only 84% of global power coming from fossil fuels. Nuclear has proven itself incapable of displacing these other technologies.

I'm not sure i entirely buy your claims that it is all down to regulations. But we can't re-run the last 50 years with heavy regulation (A : because governments were funding a fuel cycle which they were using to produce weapons and B : because the public is shit scared of 'invisible' radiation, the idea that you can't see it, but it is still going to kill you. Actually made nuclear politically very difficult).

At 4.8% of global supply, nuclear isn't doing particularly well.
Hydro at 2.4% is great, we both agree.
Other renewables at 1.1% is terrible.

But of course you can easily point to specific markets; the EU is listed as 20% coal 26% oil&gas 29% nuclear and 26% renewable (presumably including solar, wind and hydro). There could well be an arguement that the EU should aim for 50% nuclear and 50% renewables to meet various CO2 targets... But i'm not going to put in the research to make such a case (i hope that is a strong enough rebuttal).

@orathaic

at the very least i think every TRUE free market conservative, and every true Liberal can agree: oil, coal and natural gas do not deserve subsidies.

the fact that we can't even get THAT right, is horrifying enough.

but you are right that Wind power does seem to be the next alternative to thoroughly overtake fossil fuels. i personally think that the future of energy in America is going to be very much based around renewables, although this is also because there is a ver libertarian-esque idea around having your own personal solar panels on houses, and being personally energy independent. i live in Oklahoma, and it gets so amazingly hot and sunny in the summer that when i get extra cash, it might be going towards one such generator. it really is a smart choice even financially, because it's not even "pay off in the long run" it's a smart financial decision in the short-medium AND long run!!!

also i do love how so many people are scared about radiation... people living in Oklahoma living next to a Nuclear danger have less radiation exposure than people living in the mountains of Colorado.

there's an old saying to put it into perspective: the amount of radiation that a nuclear power plant emits if you live next to it is roughly equivalent to sleeping in bed with your wife and one other person (and it's considerably less dangerous than the latter)

Renewables are coming, leaving the agreement may actually make it happen faster. The coal companies in the U.S. told Tump to keep the U.S. IN the agreement because it would be better for them to have some say in how the proceedings of all members of the accord will go as the transition to renewables is made. Now they will have no chance to plead their case for the inclusion of some fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Trump is really good at creating his own problems. His intentions were to help the U.S. fossil fuel companies, but he may have just sealed their fates sooner than if the U.S. remained in the agreement.

I think i can agree easily on the 'no subsidies' for oil/gas/coal. I still don't understand how it happens (ie the mechanism) but i strongly suspect it is because the energy industry has serious lobbying power.

They are a critical part of the economy of most any modern nation, and thus if they tell the government that there is a vital investment needed, then they must be listened to.

That said, (again according to wikipedia) the US spends:
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
(figures from 2013)

And yes, i really like the fact that many renewables are efficient on a small enough scale to produce your own power in your home (even if that means exporting it to the grid). You can't do that with Uranium, or at least nobody will let you... And using subcritical radioactive substances to generate heat (for electricity) seems only to be useful on spacecraft too far from the sun to use solar...

Jimmy, that is just nonsense first that the US has taken drastic steps and more. The two modest steps the US took were to implement fuel efficiency standards (which Trump has reversed) and the Clean Power Plan (which Trump has reversed). People hold up the Us as the culprit because the US IS the culprit. The Us makes up about 5% of the population but roughly a third of cumulative emissions (don't forget it is cumulative emissions that matter to the physics). Now the Us is being agains singularly obstructionist. Yes, the Us is unequivocally the problem.

Furthermore, ending stupid destructive practices have done a lot to improve the environment. Clearly you don't live in the LA basin or are pretty new to California. Also, there have been major advances in biodiversity protections. People talks about how beautiful California is without understanding that's because a lot of environmentalists worked hard to protect that beauty.

S finally, people treat the problem as urgent because it is. Realistically the physics says that we need to end fossil fuel emissions in roughly five years. That's a pretty urgent timeframe and isn't going to happen. So, yes it is urgent

People talk of sea level rise and climate disruption, but there are significant areas of the IS that may become physiologically uninhabitable as well. Too hot for mammals, essentially.

There is massive destruction coming and we have a duty to reduce that impact

And this notion that solar requires decades of research was true... in the 1970s. Today nearly all new capacity of renewables because it is simply cheaper. There was anew solar and battery plant bid into the Arizona market at 4.5c/kWh. Coal and gas cannot touch that. Period.

I'd say, events like Hurricane Katrina will become a regular annual events, and the rare extreme events will kill thousands. This is not good, but may not be extinction level stuff for humanity.

However it may crush our civilisation - which depends heavily on trade, very few countries are capable of surviving without trade. And a collapse of global markets will have a massive impact on quality of life. Particularly for the poor.

So, i am predicting bad weather affecting everyone, and terrible life conditions killing millions of poor people, revolutions collapsing states, and international trade breaking down. But i'm hoping we can take serious steps before it is too late.

Hell, wind and solar cost.. zero to produce so they can virtually always undercut gas and coal any time of the day. Furthermore, has and coal can't shut down. They have to run. Solar and storage can just fill to charging mode. When that happens, the fossil fuel producers MUST dump power which means they have to pay people to take their power because the price they're competing against on the spot market is zero. How many businesses stay profitable if the have to pay people to take some of their product? Not many. Gas and coal are utterly doomed.

As soon as you introduce retail and wholesale markets for power they go belly up fast

Trump wants to negotiate a new deal. Who would sign any deal with the US? The US is the quintessential serial backstabber.

"5% of the population but roughly a third of cumulative emissions"

Now I don't like that word, cumulative. Yes, if you're pointing the figure at who to blame for the destruction of the world, it is appropriate. But in how much work needs to be done, it is not. Annually, the US is much closer to 14%-15% of global emissions.

Also, I don't get the fight of nuclear vs renewable. We need both, and quickly. Both do damage to the environment in their own ways, but both are better than fossil fuels.

Finally, yes it sucks that we withdrew from the Paris agreement. It doubly sucks since it was completely unnecessary, as the US is likely going to hit the target anyways. The target was 26-28% decrease from 2004 levels. Well, as of 2016, we're 14% below 2005 levels. And enough major states and companies have pledged to meet Paris goals (NY, Cali, General Electric, etc) that it's very likely we'll hit the Paris goals regardless of who is in office. It's merely a matter of what more could've been done, which is the shame of it.

even though i don't like the idea of us withdrawing from the Paris accords... something makes me feel a little bit better that Trump in no way is going to be affecting what standards they create.

it's like we need to move forward in energy...

...but Trump is the guy holding the compass

overall very non-reassuring

MAKE OUR PLANET GREAT AGAIN!!!

Surely the people who are responsible for causing the damage and got rich off it bear a special responsibility for fixing it. Maybe you don't like pointing the blame to the people who caused the problem, but it is entirely fair. After all, China sure as hell didn't benefit from all that pollution

@Ogion

what's truly horrifying is that not only aren't there reparations, at the VERY LEAST stop subsidizing coal/oil/natural gas. i mean jesus christ people that's not even a free market value BUT IT'S STILL HAPPENING!!!

Right, in terms of funding and such maybe. But like, in terms of what needs to be done to prevent further warming, the bulk of the work has to be done in the developing world.

And if you think a 3200% growth rate since 1980 isn't a benefit, I'm not too sure what is. And you're acting like the US and UK and the rest of the world didn't go through the levels of pollution China is seeing today. Maybe China is worse, but not much worse than we were in the 50s

And the correct way to view pollution contribution is relative to a country's GDP, not it's population. US has 20% of the GDP, 14% of the pollution. We're ahead of the curve (as we should be with our wealth). The threat comes from countries whose gdp is set to explode over the coming century - mainly in South Asia and Africa, in countries that have yet to fully industrialize

And don't take this to mean that I support us pulling out - I do not. I'm just combating the thought that the US is going to screw over the entire world by not joining. On one hand I don't believe our citizens or companies want to move away from reduced emissions, and on the other hand we're not going to be the factor that makes or breaks the world, though with our money we can do an awful lot to point it in the right direction

You do realize. Big emissions started in the 1700s right?

If we had only the pollution since 1980 to deal with things wouldn't be so dire by then we had already gone from 280 to 370ppm. Since then we have added another 30ppm. But sure, it is all China's fault. The fact is that yes, emissions have to be addressed in the developing world but it is the Us that ought to pay the bulk of those costs because we have caused the bulk of the problem.

But polluters always get off scot free in a "free market" which is why free markets suck

The threat comes from those countries not being able to use the same efficient low pollution technologies that we can afford in the west.

And the fact that massive GDP growth will entail massive CO2 output. If all the poorest countries double their economic output in the next 10-20 years, then they will also massively increase their energy consumption.

We need to give them zero CO2 energy production capabilities. (which we don't even know how to do for ourselves...)