back to article 'Turn to nuclear power to save planetary ecology from renewable BLIGHT'

Sixty-six heavyweight boffins active in the field of biodiversity conservation have pleaded with the world's greens to get over their objections to nuclear power, pointing out that renewable energy means terrible losses of endangered animals and plants. "Biodiversity is not only threatened by climate disruption arising largely …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Dunno about warming

    There is another reason here too. It just does not work if nature goes haywire.

    Let's see how renewables fare against the backdrop of what we have this year in continental Europe. Let's take Southern and South Eastern Europe, shall we? Sunshine for 6+ months a year, perfect for solar, nice steady breeze along coasts, perfect for wind, etc. Some agricultural surplus for renewable fuels too.

    So how does this look this year as an example of climate change. This year the rain started in March and stopped last week. There was one sunny week - in August. Rain every day, every second day an inch of rain, every week at least one deluge with several inches at a time.

    Solar - you gotta be kidding.

    Biofuels - you gotta be kidding too. Last week I drove on a road between what used to be two sunflower fields for the last 20 years (used for biofuel in the last 10). The water was draining off one paddy field (looking like Vietnam) into another across the road in a nice steady 5 cm sheet. That was on a hill by the way, the ones further down looked like a lake.

    Wind - well, that may produce something, maybe. But that is just one reneweable and a flimsy one too. Goes to show - if nature decides to start toys out of the pram ALL of our renewable strategy is immediately OUT of the window.

    There _IS_ a renewable that can be made to work and one which has enough energy to run the whole Earth civilization for the foreseable future - it is the world oceans thermal gradient. However, we do not have a clue on how to exploit it and we are not investing into figuring out how to exploit it. So as long as we are not doing it, we might as well stick with something we can build to withstand Nature being pissed off - Nuclear (do not point Fukushima at me, that was _NOT_ built properly, other Japan nuclear stations with correct designs shrugged off the tsunami).

    1. ToddR

      Re: Dunno about warming

      "This year the rain started in March and stopped last week. "

      where do you live? Obviously not the UK.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dunno about warming

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly

        Looks like it was indeed a wetter than average summer, and also warmer.

        Dunno why people presume that hot means dry when we all know that if you want to get water into the air you heat it up.

        1. Mark Price

          Re: Dunno about warming

          These figures show that for England we've had above average sunshine for 3 of the 4 seasons

          Scotland not so lucky.

      2. sawatts
        Thumb Up

        Rain Power!

        Problem sorted.

      3. plrndl
        FAIL

        Re: Dunno about warming

        @ToddR

        Can you read English? "Let's take Southern and South Eastern Europe, shall we? "

      4. Terry 14

        Re: Dunno about warming

        Quote ""This year the rain started in March and stopped last week. "

        where do you live? Obviously not the UK."

        What part of " Let's take Southern and South Eastern Europe" did you not understand?

        1. Stuart 22

          Re: Dunno about warming

          What part of " Let's take Southern and South Eastern Europe" did you not understand?

          All of it, 'cos I didn't get wet in 12 consecutive days but got a great tan cycling in southern Europe during June/July. Must have been the wrong bit. Will try harder next year!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Dunno about warming

            September was good too, cycling across Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania.

            Plenty of lovely, sunny, warm days for swimming in Switzerland in the main Summer months as well. Perhaps you are like my wife - could make it rain in the Sahara by your mere presence.

      5. Cpt Blue Bear

        Re: Dunno about warming

        "This year the rain started in March and stopped last week. "

        "where do you live? Obviously not the UK."

        No, south eastern Europe from his second paragraph.

        The last time I was in the UK it was rather obviously not in south eastern Europe. If it had been the weather would have been better, the prices lower and the inhabitants less of a pack of miserable twats. Admittedly, I was stuck in London and crossing the M25 always makes me like England a whole lot more...

      6. Hans 1
        Joke

        Re: Dunno about warming

        I bet on Ireland or Holland^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe Netherlands, sorry Brabant.

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: Dunno about warming

      In amongst your damning of renewables you include solar. Wind is almost a disaster as an alternative power-source and biofuels totally are. But Solar actually has a very positive role to play. It has been middling so far but it's a very immature technology. Unlike wind and biofuels there are a lot of good reasons to expect it to improve rapidly over the next decade.

      What solar cannot do is provide a good baseline. We don't have the energy storage technology and even if we did, we'd need huge areas of land to generate enough energy. But what it can do is provide an excellent compliment to nuclear power. Nuclear is by far the best power technology for a number of reasons (until Fusion comes along, maybe!) but it doesn't ramp up and down quickly / efficiently. So pair it with Solar which ramps up in the day when our usage rises and down in the evening when it falls, and you have a pretty nice pairing with nuclear. There are also regions where solar can be much better too - deserts of North Africa and parts of the Middle East. These are areas where there is little ecosystem and consistent daylight hours all year round. Build some large solar farms in the Sahara or wherever and you have a nice source of power where it's not going to bother anyone. At scale, this could be pretty effective.

      1. Andydaws

        Re: Dunno about warming

        Except, of course than in most cases peak demand isn't coinicident with maximum solar output - in the UK and western Europe the demand peak is typically in the early evening (7pm or so) in January/February.

        Even in the Middle East demand isn't particularly well aligned to solar peak - aircon demand tends to peak also in early evening, and sundown is normally about 6-6:30 pm

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Dunno about warming

        "deserts of North Africa and parts of the Middle East."

        Although I've often thought of areas like that too as being suitable for generating solar electrickery, the downside is that there is little demand in those areas so we need mahoosively long and expensive power lines to get the power to where it is needed. And in the current political climate, some way to protect those cables from being switched off by local governments (See Russian/Ukraine gas pipelines) and/or protect from terrorist attack.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: Dunno about warming

          >>"the downside is that there is little demand in those areas so we need mahoosively long and expensive power lines to get the power to where it is needed."

          Oddly enough, that's actually feasible and cost-effective. At least from the study I read on the idea. But it doesn't need to be done that way, either. I'm actually very in favour of using hydrogen fuel-cells to power vehicles. Middle East states could go from being main exporters of petrol to main exporters of hydrogen quite comfortably, if they wanted to. Toyota have a commercial hydrogen fuel cell car that has great range and power, far better than battery-power. So transmission by powerline is not the only way this can be hugely useful.

          1. Stoneshop

            Re: Dunno about warming

            hydrogen fuel cells

            There's also the option of building various hydrocarbons (for which we already have the distribution infrastructure) out of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and energy.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: Dunno about warming

              >>"There's also the option of building various hydrocarbons (for which we already have the distribution infrastructure) out of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and energy."

              True and if the numbers work out, that would definitely have the advantage you say - existing infrastructure. However, I would like to see a move to hydrogen fuel cells because it leads to much cleaner air and is a lot more pleasant to be around. Converting petrol to hydrogen for the sake of that would not make sense. But if it's a choice between turning your electricity into hydrocarbons or hydrogen, then long-term hydrogen would be preferable.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

                Please stop speaking about "hydrogen" It is the biggest fallacy there is. Hydrogen cannot be contained for lengthy periods, is VERY dangerous and takes more energy to produce than it will give back. Useless!

                If you are opposed to Nuclear, we have Natural Gas. CNG or LNG doesn't matter. It is as clean as any alternative because the percursors for all the "Alternative" energy sources create more CO2 than it does to EFFICIENTLY burn Natural Gas or use it in Fuel Cells.

                Much Sturm und Drang about nothing. The fluctuations in solar output have more to do with the climate than these so called "scientists" will admit. Liars every one! Follow their source of money and you'll understand.

                1. h4rm0ny

                  Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

                  >>"Please stop speaking about "hydrogen" It is the biggest fallacy there is. Hydrogen cannot be contained for lengthy periods, is VERY dangerous and takes more energy to produce than it will give back. Useless!"

                  Let's take this in order of easiest first. Hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it's a means of storing it. And no means of storing energy we have is 100% efficient. You could as easily say "batteries - we get less energy out of them as we do charging them up" and it would be just as true and just as useless as an argument for or against them. All that your statement proves is that you either don't understand that it's about storing energy rather than producing it, or you're trying to pull a fast one with things that sound Truthy. If the latter then you pick a forum with a bit less technical knowledge floating around it than an IT news site.

                  Let's talk about storage next. There is the oft-bandied around fact that Hydrogen can leak through steel. 'Goodness!' think most people - how can you ever contain it? Well the answer is that the "leaking through steel" is true but critics keep seeming to ask the question the rate at which it leaks through steel. It's not that fast. Fill up a tank with hydrogen and by the end of the year, you'll have a bit less hydrogen in it. It's not the big deal people make it out to be. The rate also obviously depends on the pressure which drops over time as well so the rate decreases. A bigger issue is hydrogren embrittlement but you know what? We have ways of dealing with that.

                  Finally, let's deal with "VERY dangerous" (your capitals). It's actually not that dangerous. People die from electric shocks every year - are you against mains electricity too? One nice thing about hydrogen, btw, is that it rises. VERY fast. You know all those Hollywood car explosions which are a giant ball of flame (not that realistic, but that's Hollywood for you). Instead picture a tall candle of flame that vanishes rapidly upwards. That's hydrogen. Nice, eh?

                  >>If you are opposed to Nuclear, we have Natural Gas

                  Wait, weren't you just attacking Hydrogen for being "VERY dangerous". And now you're in favour of something that explodes far more dangerously? I'm confused. Or you are. Let's go with you.

                  And I'm not opposed to Nuclear - that's pretty much the point of my posts here: Nuclear is great but it doesn't ramp up or down very quickly so to deal with fluctuations in demand run high and put the excess during dips into hydrogen to power our vehicles. Beautiful.

                  >>"CNG or LNG doesn't matter. It is as clean as any alternative because the percursors for all the "Alternative" energy sources create more CO2 than it does to EFFICIENTLY burn Natural Gas or use it in Fuel Cells."

                  CNG / LNG certainly aren't as clean as a hydrogen fuel cell at the end stage because hydrogen fuel cells waste product is water. And they're not cleaner to produce because your "Precursor" you seem to care so much about can be nuclear power. How anyone can compare the "EFFICIENT" burning of anything at all (your caps again) with nuclear power, I can't fathom. Combustion verses atoms splitting? You think the former could ever be more efficient than that? (Sorry - EFFICIENT). Several billions of tonnes of waste into the atmosphere versus a few hundred tonnes of easily collected and containable dense metals? And you talk about "clean" ?

                  >>"Much Sturm und Drang about nothing. The fluctuations in solar output have more to do with the climate than these so called "scientists" will admit. Liars every one! Follow their source of money and you'll understand."

                  You're mixing your messages badly here. You know that Lewis Page is actually quite the critic of AGW? One of the main points is that Nuclear makes sense regardless of which side of the debate you fall on (or even if you try to avoid picking one). Fossil fuels are running out sooner or later, they pollute the atmosphere with all sorts of things and they make us (speaking as a resident of a Western country) highly dependent on some very nasty and vicious regimes. Whereas we can get Uranium from Australians. Okay - they've inflicted some bad soap operas on us and their mice look funny and are seven foot tall, but they're generally pretty nice and I'd far rather buy a small amount of Uranium from them than endless tonnes from the Saudi and Qatar regimes.

                  Your post is ill-informed and all over the place as regards its point. But as you took the time to single me out in your topic title, enjoy my reply.

                  1. Dan Paul

                    Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

                    Hydrogen is not a method to store energy H4rmony and I never said it was, it is a gas that burns with an almost invisible flame and has no odor.

                    You continually offer the use of hydrogen as a "solution" to our energy needs, when it does not work. The only method of creating enough electricity, cheaply enough to make Hydrogen is Fusion and that isn't happening anytime soon and we would be better served to use the electricity directly if it were.

                    It leaks easily across even solid metal, especially the kind of metal tubing that would be used in any transportation device. It is the smallest atom in the table, so small that it penetrates metal seals and metals tanks right though the grain structure. Since you mention Hydrogen Embrittlement you should know that the only metals (Monel & Hastelloy) that help prevent it are daftly expensive, hard to machine, immpossible to weld and are jokingly called "unobtanium" by those who use it.

                    Now where would you store H2 in an auto? A tank in the trunk most likely. Let that tank sit in the sun in a Texas parking lot all day and climb in and start the car. Since H2 requires a Class 1 Div 1 Group B, electrical rating there will not be a car in the world that will meet the explosion proof rating for Hydrogen gas and only a few dozen transport truck that could do it. Go find insurance.

                    At room temperature, liquid hydrogen tanks must be vented or they will explode. Otherwise they must be refrigerated at an excessive energy cost and the liquifaction temperature is -423 F. Go find a chiller system to produce that temperature. You can't afford it or the energy costs.

                    The Hydrogen trucks you see leaving an Air Liquide, Praxair, or Linde gas liquifaction facility all have one thing in common, a trail of leaking gas. You do not want to light a cigarette around those trucks.

                    If you "break" the atomic bonds of water to make H2 and O (Electrolysis), the electrical energy it takes to do so, is enormous compared to the process of combustion. It takes more energy to produce Hydrogen than you can ever get in return.

                    Since you OBVIOUSLY can't understand, check the following link. They (Praxair) are the experts on the subject and I have only got 24 years of industry experience and training on the selection and use of equipment for just such a Hydrogen application as electrical turbines, reduction furnaces, the control valves that direct the H2 in a chemical or power plant, the tubing that is acceptable to transport the H2 from the storage tank, the pressure relief valves that prevent the h2 from blowing up the tanks, the regulators that control the gas pressure being delivered, the analyzers that check the gas for purity (CO or CO2 contamination at less than 1 PPM in pure H2 is a difficult measurement)

                    http://h2bestpractices.org/h2properties/

                    As Hydrogen is not the best choice, then the only alternative gas is CNG or LNG. Both are being used as fuel right now and are far cleaner and safer than hydrocarbon liquid fuels like gasoline or kerosene.

                    1. h4rm0ny

                      Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

                      >>"Hydrogen is not a method to store energy H4rmony and I never said it was, it is a gas that burns with an almost invisible flame and has no odor."

                      So did you just out yourself as the AC I replied to? Well anyway, they or you wrote that Hydrogen gives back less energy than it takes to "produce" it. I pointed out that this is true of all the methods of storing energy that we have. And yes, Hydrogen is a method of storing energy. You can't be that dense. Unless you think that a battery is not a means of storing energy but just lithium, a silvery-white metal with a high reactivity.

                      You're also aware, since you bring up "burning", that Hydrogen Fuel Cells don't use combustion, I hope. No hydrogen is "burned".

                      >>"You continually offer the use of hydrogen as a "solution" to our energy needs,

                      I haven't done that even once. Your comprehension of my post is dreadful. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a way of storing it. Use electricity to produce it, instead of charging up a heavy battery with a very limited lifespan or pumping water uphill or whatever other means of storing energy you care to name. And then use a fuel cell to get the energy back later.

                      I have proposed nuclear as the "solution" (your extreme interpretation of my position, btw), possibly with solar alongside. These are the ways to meet our energy needs and replace fossil fuels. I'll repeat, since you got it wrong in the very first line of your post - hydrogen is a way of storing energy.

                      Most of the rest of your post is various facts you seem to have Google'd up but don't have the familiarity with to understand the context. For example your confident assertions about how hydrogen couldn't be stored in a car or how it would explode in Texas. You realize that Toyota are mass-producing a hydrogen car, yes? And that this is a road-legal vehicle in the USA (including Texas, you know). You dig up random bits of information to try and prove something can't be done even whilst it's happening! Example: you confidently assert "At room temperature, liquid hydrogen tanks must be vented or they will explode". What, any tank? Regardless of thickness / material / manufacturing process? Have you any idea how stupid what you've just said is? I'll tell you exactly what has happened here. Of course you know, but I want you to know how obvious it is to everyone else as well - you have gone to a search engine and typed in phrases like "hydrogen tank" and "temperature" and "explode" and found someone who makes hydrogen tanks that have to be refrigerated and then come back saying "Ah ha! Hydrogen tanks explode if they're not vented!". You'd better go and tell engineers who have built cars that run on hydrogen that their cars can only run in sub-zero temperatures. Because apparently you know better than them.

                      >>"the electrical energy it takes to do so, is enormous compared to the process of combustion. It takes more energy to produce Hydrogen than you can ever get in return.

                      Ah, I knew you thought hydrogen vehicles worked on combustion. You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact there are two things wrong with the above. Firstly, the obvious fact that you're talking about combustion which has - let me emphasize this - NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Secondly, that your objection is that you get less energy out than you put in. It is a STORAGE medium. You get less energy out than you put in with any energy storage mechanism whether that be even the best batteries, pumping water up hill or anything else. You're condemning hydrogen for not breaking the laws of physics!

                      >>"Since you OBVIOUSLY can't understand, check the following link"

                      I think I've figured out the search terms you used - you just typed in "hydrogen safety" didn't you? Your link is one of the first results for this. You might have copied selected parts from this link for your post but you plainly haven't understood it yourself (whilst asserting that I "can't understand"). For example, you talk about how you couldn't have a car in Texas that uses hydrogen because when it got hot it would explode. Your own link shows that hydrogen has an autocombust temperature over twice that of gasoline vapour.. It gets better. You use an argument about how you wouldn't want to smoke around a hydrogen truck. Well no, that would be a safety violation but again, your own link shows that hydrogen has a vapour density of less than 3% that of gasoline vapour. In fact it's about 7% that of air. You know what that means? It means smoking around a hydrogen truck is safer than smoking around a propane tank or a gasoline tank. Because whilst both of those are denser than air and will linger, hydrogen will disperse faster than any other gas. I mean smoking around either is silly but your own argument is shot down by your own link because you have not understood what you are saying.

                      >>"As Hydrogen is not the best choice, then the only alternative gas is CNG or LNG. Both are being used as fuel right now and are far cleaner and safer than hydrocarbon liquid fuels like gasoline or kerosene."

                      They're not cleaner - the output of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Safer is a relative thing - both are combustible materials but there are strong reasons why hydrogen can actually be safer, e.g. you never need to deliberately burn it and it disperses upwards immediately. In either case, both require sensible safety measures but the point is that hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas and in some ways safer. But the simple fact that you call the gas cleaner shows how very little you understand.

                      I honestly prefer arguing with Trevor Potts as at least he makes factual arguments and valid points even if accompanied by violent threats. You however, reach depths of ignorance I did not know existed. How you can know so little and yet not be aware of your own ignorance is a mystery that may never be solved. Go and inhale some hydrogen - it might increase the density of your head a little.

              2. Denarius
                Meh

                Re: Dunno about warming

                dunno Harmony. Liquid hydrocarbons have a safe well established infrastructure in place, established stuffup/failure procedures and fixups. Hydrogen has to start from scratch and is hard to handle and transport in bulk. Liquid H2 is not nice to have around a hot environment, like Earth.

            2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

              Re: Dunno about warming

              There's also the option of building various hydrocarbons (for which we already have the distribution infrastructure) out of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and energy.

              The last time I suggested that, someone pointed out that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so low that it really doesn't make sense to use it as feedstock for producing hydrocarbons. Garbage might be a more practical carbon source for that purpose - finding somewhere to put our organic waste is already a big problem. So cook it down, separate out the carbon, combine with hydrogen and oxygen (obtained by electrolysis of seawater), and crank out propane.

              Burning that propane obviously converts carbon in the feedstock into atmospheric CO2, but at lot of that - and, worse, methane - would have been produced from the garbage by bacterial decomposition anyway. (Methane particularly because capped landfills are mostly going to undergo anaerobic decomp.) And since this whole scenario presumes we're generating a lot more electricity, and that mostly from nuclear, there should be an overall reduction in CO2 emissions and equivalents.

        2. Tom 13

          Re: protect those cables from being switched off by local governments

          Sod that. Before you get there you have to solve the problem of the non-government locals stealing the live cables for its scrap value.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Facepalm

          Re: Dunno about warming

          So make it a point to cover all roofs with PV, and all those shiny tower blocks - might help a bit

      3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Dunno about warming

        @h4m0ny

        Solar is nice in a stable climate in a location where you have sunshine at a good angle 300 days a year. Solar sucks brick sidewize through a very thin straw the moment mother nature decides to throw toys out of the pram.

        Solar did not produce even 10% of its projected capacity in any of the installations around Southern/South Eastern Europe this year because the rain started in March and stopped last week - on the 12 of December. This is in a region which is supposedly optimal for solar (up to 300 days of sunshine in some locations).

        So the idea that solar will rescue us if climate change (warming or not) continues is a delusion because we do not know where to put it. We put it in a location which was supposed to deliver and it "delivered" this year. Nicely. A NIL by ZILCH squared worth of electricity.

        @ToddR

        I live in the UK. I just happened to be in Southern Europe in summer and last week and frankly, the Somerset levels winter of 2013/2014 pales compared to what is going on there at the moment. You have flooding even on hills. The underground water level everywhere is equal to surface level including places that usually see 250-300 sunny days a year.

      4. Tom 13

        Re: Dunno about warming

        It has been middling so far but it's a very immature technology. Unlike wind and biofuels there are a lot of good reasons to expect it to improve rapidly over the next decade.

        The 1970s called. Your license to use their mantra has expired.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dunno about warming

        The only problem with that is those fun loving inhabitants of North Africa and parts of the Middle East would then be threatening to cut the power lines instead embargo oil.

    3. TheVogon

      Re: Dunno about warming

      " Nonetheless there are many reasons to be sceptical about the idea that humanity faces a disastrous 21st century of hugely accelerated sea level rises, crop failures etc if carbon emissions aren't massively cut."

      No - there really are not. That isn't in scientific doubt. The only things in question are the exact timescale, and how bad it's going to get. The sea level keeps rising, the CO2 levels keeps rising, the average temperatures keep rising, etc. etc. We have just had the warmest 12 consecutive months globally since records began.

      Lewis - take a free lesson from people who actually know the subject:

      http://www.exeter.ac.uk/climatechangecourse/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_campaign=metoffice2

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dunno about warming

        We have just had the warmest 12 consecutive months globally since records began.

        Sorry Vogon but that doesn't cut any ice, they are talking about a 0.01 degree difference which is total crap, their instrument don't measure to that accuracy.

        The Met office has been caught out fudging figures to do with climate change too many times to have something like this taken seriously.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dunno about warming

          Ivan, they are measured with at least the same degree of accuracy as the historical records, and are made up of thousands of individual measurements. The clear fact is that the world is warming and continues to do so. We also know this from sea level measurements - the sea keeps on rising.

          A quick search shows that this was from NASA by the way:

          The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1998–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Dunno about warming

            Also of note on the current warmest 12 months in recorded history:

            On Monday, the NOAA also announced that global oceans are again record-warm—the third time this year that ocean temperatures have soared to new heights. The most recent record was set just last month. Ocean warming has implications for the health of coral reefs, sea level rise, and weather patterns worldwide.

            What’s most shocking about our planet’s current warm stretch is that the heat records are being broken without an El Niño—the periodic oscillation that warms the Pacific Ocean. But, one of those is on the way, too—and it might stick around for a while. If it happens, it would virtually guarantee a new global heat record in 2015 and could help usher in a decade or more of accelerated warming.

            1. Sacioz

              Re: Dunno about warming

              I´ve been following the Dundee Satellite Receiving Station pix for the last 12 years , Oceania , South America and the Caribbean , and last southern hemisphere summer and this (2014)summer are virtually repeating themselves ,so far . Apparently the jet stream ,(thnx pollution) is not on its natural path , but curved all over the place . So , be ready Albion, for some nasty weather ,if nothing plays otherwise . Lets hope not . Also the drought that Sao Paulo and environs is suffering is very odd .

              Nuclear seems to be the answer, for the time being at least .

              1. Marcelo Rodrigues

                Re: Dunno about warming

                "Also the drought that Sao Paulo and environs is suffering is very odd ."

                Not dismissing the climate change, but the São Paulo draught was caused by deforestation. Well, most of it. The government authorized the cut of about 75% of the trees at the... the... head of the river? Sorry, english is not my mother english. The point where the river starts.

                It played merry hell with the water cycle. Hence the draught.

                But yes. The weather is quite crazy - and getting worse.

            2. Fluffy Bunny

              Re: Dunno about warming

              "If [an El Niño] happens, it would virtually guarantee a new global heat record in 2015 and could help usher in a decade or more of accelerated warming"

              Do you mean a real "warmest 12 months in recorded history" and not the fake one our press are making up. Look at the temperature records. Not even 5th warmest.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Dunno about warming

              That global warming is happening and is at least significantly anthropomorphic hasn't been in any scientific doubt whatsoever for at least a decade now. It's going to be global a record warm calendar 12 months this year too. And more of the same is on the way for 2015.

              http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

              17 December 2014 - The global mean temperature for 2015 is expected to be between 0.52 °C and 0.76 °C* above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, with a central estimate of 0.64 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

              Using the 1981-2010 long-term average of 14.3 °C, the range is between 0.22 °C and 0.46 °C, with a central estimate of 0.34 °C.

              Taking into account the range of uncertainty in the forecast, it is very likely that 2015 will be one of the warmest years in a series dating back to 1880.

              The outlook for 2015 is warmer than the Met Office's forecast for 2014, which had a range of 0.43 °C to 0.71 °C with a central estimate of 0.57 °C (using the 1961-1990 long-term average).

              The forecast for 2014 agrees with data from Jan-Oct, which shows the mean global temperature for 2014 so far is 0.57 °C** (+/- 0.1 °C). This currently places 2014 as one of the warmest years on record***, although the final number for the year may change.

              As the table below indicates, the forecast for 2015 - including the range of uncertainties - will also place the coming year among the warmest on record.

              The potential increase in global mean temperature in 2015 is expected to be based on the ongoing warmth of the tropical Pacific Ocean, weak El Nino conditions, the warmth of the Arctic and the ongoing increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

          2. Dr Dan Holdsworth

            Re: Dunno about warming

            The basic problem with a lot of historical temperature records is not the recording instrument accuracy, but the renormalisation of the records. As an example, take the weather thermometer at what is now Heathrow Airport.

            The records there began in 1930 or thereabouts, when it was a grass strip in open countryside. It is now situated in the middle of a huge expanse of concrete, in the Greater London heat island. To get an accurate record of temperatures, you clearly need a fiddle-factor to take the temperatures of each time and transpose them back to what they would be if the site was a grassy field in the middle of nowhere.

            It is therefore dead easy to slip in a little nudge so the renormalised figures go the "right" way by playing with the renormalisation formula.

            This is the fault with almost all long-term man-made temperature records, and quite a few supposedly accurate natural ones.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Dunno about warming

              "As an example, take the weather thermometer at what is now Heathrow Airport."

              As a representative example?

        2. Hans 1
          Boffin

          Re: Dunno about warming

          Ok, you know what, go to Brittany coast, or down south to Biaritz, south east to Gard, Herault, Aude .... so many places in France ... and tell the locals what you just wrote here ... you will not come back alive.

          There's this guy in the Gard (French departement), in his late forties, bought a house in the 90's, lived in it since. Now, since 2010, each and every year, he has floodings ... none between 1992 and 2010, not one, and ... they are getting worse each and every year.

          Biaritz beaches have shrunken so much they do not quite know what to do with seafront buildings, the casino, for example. In Brittany they spent Xmas to March with1.5m of water in the lounge.

          In the Gard, their house was an aquarium from August to late September, same for Aude, Pyrenees Orientales ... you name it.

          All these massive events never seen before in France. 2014 was the hottest and rainiest year on record. I agree it is not only climate change that is causing this. Although climate change is the prime suspect for heavy rains, the catastrophes were partly caused by deforestation and the soil being heavily chemically fertilized, which basically kills the earth (too long to explain, suffice to say it kills a central actor in the earth soil biosphere) and thus prevents water from being properly absorbed.

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Devil

        Re: Dunno about warming

        "That isn't in scientific doubt"

        Okay...., so you're going to give back all that lovely money your climate scientists have been taking in from our gullible pollies, are you? After all, if "the science is settled", we don't need to pay for scientists anymore.

      3. JGT

        Re: Dunno about warming

        In science there is ALWAYS doubt, or skepticism. Consensus is not a valid scientific statement, it is a political one. Peer review is good, but it is not the gold standard. Replication of results by ANYONE is the gold standard. Go look at the cold fusion excitement of the late 80s.

        If we are seeing records high temperatures, why are we NOT seeing new high temperature records being set? 90% of record high temperatures in the US were set before 1950.

        The need for change to stop, or reduce "climate change" has been based on the 1992 treaty "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php In the opening page is the following statement.

        "Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind,"

        In Article 1: Definitions, is this definition.

        ""Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

        The idea from the start (1992) was that anthroporgenic CO2 was THE problem, period. The duty of the IPCC was (and is) to confirm CO2 as the problem. Go read the "Mandate" in the assesment reports. Very similar wording to the above. The bias was towards CO2 as the cause, period.

        If you want a good look at the Earth's climate, go read John Kehr's book "the inconvenient skeptic" Yes, it is lower case.

      4. Mark Pawelek

        Re: Dunno about warming

        "The sea level keeps rising"

        - by a little. IPCC expect the sea to rise between 0.2m and 0.6m by the end of the century.

        I'd say Lewis is right to be "sceptical about ... hugely accelerated sea level rises"

    4. leaway2

      Re: Dunno about warming

      Yes I will point Fukushima at you, because it happened. If we could rely on all the nuclear station to be built properly, but we can not. Fukushima proves the point, and from one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Dunno about warming

        >>"Fukushima proves the point, and from one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet."

        Perhaps not the point you think it proves, though. To me it's an example of how multiple reactors from 1960's designs, built over four decades ago not only survived one of the worlds most powerful recorded earthquakes without melting down or leaking significant radiation, but also survived the following tsunami still without significant leakage.

        Add on four decades of improvements and safety features, I'm pretty happy about it. Is that the point you were thinking it proved?

        1. baseh

          Re: About the Fukushima case

          Just to reiterate: 24 thousand lives were lost in the tsunami v/s 0 (zero) due to the reactors.

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Holmes

        Re: Dunno about warming

        "from one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet"

        Japan is far from being one of themost technologically advanced countries on the planet, when it comes to nuclear power. Since they had a couple of atom bombs dropped on them to end WWII, they have been quite pathological about radiation. Witness the massive over-reaction by the then PM to every bit of news about radiation from the plant.

      3. Duncan Macdonald

        Fukushima

        The plant at was hit by a tidal wave almost twice the design worst case.

        If the Japanese government had the slightest competence then the plant could still have been rescued after the tsunami. There was a window of about 12 hours in which if they had flown in (via helicopter) a 1MW generator then the plant could have been saved.

        Even with the problems - the death toll at the Fukushima plant - 3 - 2 people were drowned and one was knocked off a ladder. Observed radiation deaths - zero.

        The radiation level 1km from the plant is lower than the normal background level in Cornwall (where the average radiation dose is 7.8 mSv/year).

      4. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Dunno about warming

        Fukushima is the reason we need more nuclear power.

        Best we evolve and develop nuclear power gently now, and work through these problems, the alternative is a point in the future when we run out of other options and have to rush in a lot of nuclear capacity. Our descendants won't thank us for faffing around and leaving them in the sh!t because a few of us can't handle the idea.

    5. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Solar - price per tonne-year of averted CO2

      A recently opened solar farm in California has a peak (noon) power of 550MW. It cost $2.5B and averts the emission of 377,000 tonnes-per-year of CO2.

      That's about $6,600 per tonne-per-year of averted CO2.

      Some sources state that we need to avert as many as 30 billion tonnes-per-year of CO2.

      $6,600 x 30,000,000,000 = $200,000,000,000,000 ($200 Trillion).

      All the Money in the World (world wealth) is about $240 Trillion.

      So if solar is used to avert CO2, then we'll get some change back from All the Money in the World.

      I think that innumeracy is a greater menace than 'denial'.

      We need to find cheaper solutions. The keyword is "need". It's *not* optional.

      1. slidders

        Re: Solar - price per tonne-year of averted CO2

        Look up velocity of money.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.