Global Warming----Climate Change.. !!

[New Vision]

Pretty impressive solar power output in Germany on Friday



http://www.rt.com/news/solar-energy-record-break-332/

=> Germany: New Record in Solar Energy Production

[C. Flower]

Greenhouse gases up overall. There was an increase in Japan because of the switch away from nuclear.

China's growth (producing stuff we use) added to it too.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/23733

[New Vision]

Greenhouse gases up overall. There was an increase in Japan because of the switch away from nuclear.

China's growth (producing stuff we use) added to it too.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/23733

Well. CO2 Soon to Bat 400. It’s been a Long, Long Time since we’ve seen that.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU"]Climate Denial Crock of the Week: "The Earth is Carbon Starved." - YouTube[/ame]

But sticking the head into the sand and pointing the finger to others doesn't help.

China Pledge to Invest $27 Billion in Renewable Energy in 2012

And... pulling out of nuclear doesn't mean more carbon gas emissions...

Busting the carbon and cost myths of Germany's nuclear exit

Critics of the atomic phase-out said energy emissions, costs and imports would all rise. They were wrong

...

(Tip: It's renewable energy and energy efficiency which is compensating nuclear power)

Also => Germany: New Record in Solar Energy Production

[morticia]

This is so depressing. You would think that the oil price and never ending recessions would be slowing emissions, but it appears not. I also cannot figure out why the nuclear shut down in places like Germany, which are never going to get hit by a factor 9 quake or 30 meter tsunami. The CO2 levels are more likely to flood them eventually than an earthquake. I guess the problem with fossil fuels is that they are just way too efficient. As we have just seen, too, society doesn't cope too well with plummeting living standards; unemployment causes massive unrest. Given the finite nature of oil supplies, this does not bode well for the future, even before we start worrying about climate change.

[New Vision]

This is so depressing. You would think that the oil price and never ending recessions would be slowing emissions, but it appears not. I also cannot figure out why the nuclear shut down in places like Germany, which are never going to get hit by a factor 9 quake or 30 meter tsunami. The CO2 levels are more likely to flood them eventually than an earthquake. I guess the problem with fossil fuels is that they are just way too efficient. As we have just seen, too, society doesn't cope too well with plummeting living standards; unemployment causes massive unrest. Given the finite nature of oil supplies, this does not bode well for the future, even before we start worrying about climate change.

As you could read in my recent post, the emissions went down in Germany due to more share of renewables in their energy mix.

Nuclear has about ten times the carbon footprint of wind energy.



Lifetime CO2 emmisions nuclear power (g/kWh)


Carbon Footprint Wind

But the WWF calculates the CO2 emissions per kWh elctricity coming from nuclear at 350g => G8 climate scorecards: "WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts. We therefore also adjusted the values for the G8 countries as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power would had produced 350 gCO2/kWh."

That would almost be the carbon footprint of modern CCGT gas power plants.

Also: Renewable energy is already cheaper than new nuclear.

=> Consumers electricity prices reduced with wind energy

=> Nuclear power 'would cost too much' -- ESRI

=> Debunking the myth that wind energy would be "theft of taxpayers money" and would "force high power prices"

Wind power is cheaper than nuclear and can even be cheaper than natural gas.

The future belongs to the renewables.

Scientific American (A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables) writes: "Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how"

[morticia]

Nuclear power in Germany was already up and running, so the carbon footprint of building more stations can be ignored. The only effect of closing existing nuclear installations is to raise fossil fuel usage. Yes, they have a great record on renewables, but what is wrong with a mix of the two ? Nuclear has the advantage of stable output. Wind needs Turlough hill style installations for similar stability and no one seems to want to build them. Haven't seen much progress from Spirit of Ireland on that front, pity.

[Yojimbo]

Nuclear power in Germany was already up and running, so the carbon footprint of building more stations can be ignored. The only effect of closing existing nuclear installations is to raise fossil fuel usage. Yes, they have a great record on renewables, but what is wrong with a mix of the two ? Nuclear has the advantage of stable output. Wind needs Turlough hill style installations for similar stability and no one seems to want to build them. Haven't seen much progress from Spirit of Ireland on that front, pity.

I agree that Germany could have handled the transition more carefully, but the reality is that they are a net energy exporter and they didn't have any brown-outs as predicted by the nuclear industry. The plants that were closed were out-dated and would have required very expensive upgrades to keep operating, so a rapid closure was a sensible option.

As to your point about mixing nuclear and renewables, the key problem with this is that they require very different network designs. Nuclear power results in a high level of concentration of power generation in specific nodes, renewables are decentralised. To pursue both options requires a massive overdesign of the network. That said, Germany is having significant problems with their network at present because of an imbalance between the concentration of solar power in the south in Bavaria, with wind in the north.

The notion that nuclear provides 'stable' output is a bit of a myth. Nuclear output is highly variable over a long period due to unplanned outages. You need far more spare capacity to provide constant power with a nuclear power system than for fossil fuels, as coal and gas stations have more predictable closure cycles. The particular issue for nuclear is that outages are often simultaneous - for example during a drought, where inland nuclear stations may need to be shut down due to lack of coolant water. There was even a case in Britain where two large coastal stations needed to be shut down due to jellyfish in the coolant water! The shut down lasted several months.

Renewables of course have huge problems (maybe even insurmountable ones) with intermitancy, but they are of a different nature, not a different extent than nuclear. For now, the reality is that both nuclear and renewables need natural gas generation in particular to fill in the gaps.

[morticia]

When, oh when, will we be able to implement a reliable system that is not dependent on diminishing resources? "modern society" is probably doomed

[New Vision]

Busting the carbon and cost myths of Germany's nuclear exit

Critics of the atomic phase-out said energy emissions, costs and imports would all rise. They were wrong

...

(Tip: It's renewable energy and energy efficiency which is compensating nuclear power)


Also => Germany: New Record in Solar Energy Production

[New Vision]

Push button. Save planet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxeg2Qiv7QM"]Push Button. Save Planet. - YouTube[/ame]

[New Vision]

(Lifetime CO2 emmision of nuclear power, g per kWh)

Meanwhile wind energy has a carbon footprint of 10-15 g-CO2/kWh.

Leave aside that French nukes only have a capacity factor of 77%... The study from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (112-166 g-CO2/kWh) does not include nuclear waste management (as there is no such - for 60 years now!).

The WWF calculates the CO2 emissions per kWh elctricity coming from nuclear at 350g => G8 climate scorecards: "WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts. We therefore also adjusted the values for the G8 countries as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power would had produced 350 gCO2/kWh."

Now let's come to the costs of nuclear power. Leave aside that the waste problem has not been solved - worldwide - for 60 years now. Greenpeace reports:

Nuclear power is in last place in the race against climate change

The leader in this so-called Third Generation of nuclear reactors is the European (or Evolutionary) Pressurised Reactor (EPR), designed by French nuclear giant, AREVA. The EPR, if any are ever completed, will be the largest nuclear reactor the world has ever seen. Three EPRs are currently being built worldwide at Olkiluoto in Finland, Flamanville in France and Taishan in China. News coming from the Finnish and French construction sites this week is alarming to say the least. New problems have been revealed in the two projects that were already billions of euros over budget and years behind schedule.

Finland’s EPR was supposed to begin operation in 2009 but – because of delays, safety concerns and lack of proper oversight - will not be working until 2013 at the earliest. Its initial cost of three billion euros has almost doubled. Now we hear there are yet more, new problems: despite being under construction since 2005, the reactor’s design is not yet complete. If the design does not pass inspection, yet more money and time will be wasted making any necessary changes.

When the Earthquake/tsunami closed down all of Japan’s nuclear power plants,wind was one of the only remaining reliable, tsunami proof sources of power. Wind is actually More Reliable, Less “Lumpy”, than Nuclear

[New Vision]

Declare a Global Sanctuary in the Arctic

[C. Flower]

A new study is reportedly showing that there has been a cooling trend over the last 2000 years.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

[fluffybiscuits]

A new study is reportedly showing that there has been a cooling trend over the last 2000 years.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

That would indicate that any change was going to be natural and not man made as its pre Industrial Revolution. Unless of course that man made problems are just contributing to speeding up the cycle. I dunno Costa Del Donegal,Santa Dingle anyone?...

[New Vision]

A new study is reportedly showing that there has been a cooling trend over the last 2000 years.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1589.html

Before recent and current rapid global warming