This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Nuclear Is NOT a Low-Carbon Source of Energy

George Washington's picture




 

Why Do People Claim that Nuclear Power is a Low-Carbon Source of Energy?

Even well-known, well-intentioned scientists sometimes push bad ideas.   For example, well-known scientists considered pouring soot over the Arctic in the 1970s to help melt the ice – in order to prevent another ice age.  That would have been stupid.  Even Obama’s top science adviser – John Holdren – warned in the 1970′s of a new ice age … and is open to shooting soot into the upper atmosphere. That might be equally stupid.

In other words, scientists – even prominent ones – sometimes fall prey to hairball theories and dangerous proposals. (Remember, doctors used to bleed patients to remove the “bad humors”.)

Similarly, some scientists are under the mistaken impression that nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, and thus must be pushed to prevent runaway global warming. (If you don’t believe in global warming, then this essay is not aimed at you … although you might wish to forward it to those who do.)

But this is a myth.

Amory Lovins is perhaps America’s top expert on energy, and a dedicated environmentalist for close to 50 years.  His credentials as an energy expert and environmentalist are sterling.

Lovins is a former Oxford don, who taught at nine universities, most recently Stanford.  He has briefed 19 heads of state, provided expert testimony in eight countries, and published 31 books and several hundred papers.  Lovins’ clients have included the Pentagon,  OECD, UN, Resources for the Future, many national governments, and 13 US states, as well as many Fortune 500 companies, major real-estate developers, and utilities.  Lovins served in 1980-81 on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Research Advisory Board, and in 1999-2001 and 2006-08 on Defense Science Board task forces on military energy efficiency and strategy.

Lovins says nuclear is not the answer:

Nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard  climate protection.

 

Here’s how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings (“cogeneration”), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world’s 2009 electricity, nuclear 13%, reversing their 2000 shares–and made over 90% of the world’s additional electricity in 2008.

 

Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy market. Half the world’s new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable. In 2010, renewables except big hydro dams won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of four German states’ total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21% wind-powered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai’i plans 70% renewables by 2025.

 

In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide officially listed as “under construction” at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in centrally planned power systems–50 of those in just four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)–and zero were free-market purchases. Since 2007, nuclear growth has added less annual output than just the costliest renewable–solar power –and will probably never catch up. While inherently safe renewable competitors are walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper, nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety precautions would go even higher. Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous Fukushima bill.

 

Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been 100+% subsidized–yet they couldn’t raise a cent of private capital, because they have no business case. They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn’t even beat solar power. Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23 times over–leaving ample room to replace nuclear power’s half-as-big-as-coal contribution too–but we need to do it just once.

(Read Lovins’ technical papers on the issue here.)

Alternet points out:

Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Vermont Law School … found that the states that invested heavily in nuclear power had worse track records on efficiency and developing renewables than those that did not have large nuclear programs. In other words, investing in nuclear technology crowded out developing clean energy.

BBC notes:

Building the [nuclear] power station produces a lot of CO2 ….

Greenpeace points out:

When it comes to nuclear power, the industry wants you to think of electricity generation in isolation …..  And yet the production of nuclear fuel is a hugely intensive process. Uranium must be mined, milled, converted, enriched, converted again and then manufactured into fuel. You’ll notice the [the nuclear industry] doesn’t mention the carbon footprint of all steps in the nuclear chain prior to electricity generation. Fossil fuels have to be used and that means CO2 emissions.

An International Forum on Globalization report – written by environmental luminaries Ernest Callenback, Gar Smith and Jerry Mander – have slammed nuclear power as catastrophic for the environment:

Nuclear energy is not the “clean” energy its backers proclaim. For more than 50 years, nuclear energy has been quietly polluting our air, land, water and bodies—while also contributing to Global Warming through the CO2 emissions from its construction, mining, and manufacturing operations. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, milling, shipping, processing, power generation, waste disposal and storage—releases greenhouse gases, radioactive particles and toxic materials that poison the air, water and land. Nuclear power plants routinely expel low-level radionuclides into the air in the course of daily operations. While exposure to high levels of radiation can kill within a matter of days or weeks, exposure to low levels on a prolonged basis can damage bones and tissue and result in genetic damage, crippling long-term injuries, disease and death.

See this excellent photographic depiction of the huge amounts of fossil fuel which goes into building and operating a nuclear power plant.

Nature reported in 2008:

You’re better off pursuing renewables like wind and solar if you want to get more bang for your buck.”

 

***

 

Evaluating the total carbon output of the nuclear industry involves calculating those emissions and dividing them by the electricity produced over the entire lifetime of the plant. Benjamin K. Sovacool, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore, recently analyzed more than one hundred lifecycle studies of nuclear plants around the world, his results published in August in Energy Policy. From the 19 most reliable assessments, Sovacool found that estimates of total lifecycle carbon emissions ranged from 1.4 grammes of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO2e/kWh) of electricity produced up to 288 gCO2e/kWh. Sovacool believes the mean of 66 gCO2e/kWh to be a reasonable approximation.

 

The large variation in emissions estimated from the collection of studies arises from the different methodologies used – those on the low end, says Sovacool, tended to leave parts of the lifecycle out of their analyses, while those on the high end often made unrealistic assumptions about the amount of energy used in some parts of the lifecycle. The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the “frontend” of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions.

 

According to Sovacool’s analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. “A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms,” Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.

 

***

 

Money spent on energy efficiency, however, is equivalent to increasing baseload power, since it reduces the overall power that needs to be generated, says Sovacool. And innovative energy-storage solutions, such as compressed air storage, could provide ways for renewables to provide baseload power.

 

Thomas Cochran, a nuclear physicist and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group in Washington DC … argues that the expense and risk of building nuclear plants makes them uneconomic without large government subsidies, and that similar investment in wind and solar photovoltaic power would pay off sooner.

 

***

 

Another question has to do with the sustainability of the uranium supply itself. According to researchers in Australia at Monash University, Melbourne, and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited. As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise. “It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of … greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term,” conclude the researchers.  [And see this.]

Beyond Nuclear notes:

The energy consulting firm Ecofys produced a report detailing how we can meet nearly 100% of global energy needs with renewable sources by 2050. Approximately half of the goal is met through increased energy efficiency to first reduce energy demands, and the other half is achieved by switching to renewable energy sources for electricity production. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees and predicts close to 80% of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid?century.

 

***

 

Since nuclear power plants are reliant upon the electrical grid for 100% of their safety systems’ long?term power, and are shut down during grid failure and perturbations, it is “guaranteed” only as long as the electrical grid is reliable. When the Tsunami and earthquake hit and power was lost in the Fukushima Prefecture, nuclear energy wasn’t so “guaranteed.” Instead, it became a liability, adding to what was now a triple threat to the region and worsening an already catastrophic situation.

 

***

 

[The claim that] Nuclear power is “low?carbon electricity” … is the propaganda line commonly used by the nuclear industry which conveniently leaves out every phase of the nuclear fuel chain other than electricity generation. It ignores the significant carbon emissions caused by uranium mining, milling, processing and enrichment; the transport of fuel; the construction of nuclear plants; and the still inadequate permanent management of waste. It also ignores the release ? by nuclear power plants and reprocessing facilities ? of radioactive carbon dioxide, or carbon?14, to the air, considered to be the most toxic of all radioactive isotopes over the long?term.

 

In fact, studies show that extending the operating licenses of old nuclear power plants emits orders of magnitude more carbon and greenhouse gases per kilowatt hour from just the uranium fuel chain compared to building and operating new wind farms.

 

***

 

Nuclear might begin to address global carbon emissions if a reactor is built somewhere in the world every two weeks. But this is an economically unrealistic, in fact impossible, proposition, with the estimated construction tab beginning at $12 billion apiece and current new reactors under construction already falling years behind schedule.

 

According to a 2003 MIT study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” such an unprecedented industrial ramping up would also mean opening a new Yucca Mountain?size nuclear waste dump somewhere in the world “every three to four years,” a task still unaccomplished even once in the 70 years of the industry’s existence. Further, such a massive scale expansion of nuclear energy would fuel proliferation risks and multiply anxieties about nuclear weapons development, exemplified by the current concern over Iran. As Al Gore stated while Vice President: “For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program.”

Many experts also say that the “energy return on investment” from nuclear power is lower than many other forms of energy. In other words, non-nuclear energy sources produce more energy for a given input.

David Swanson summarizes one of the key findings of the International Forum on Globalization report:

The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.

 

Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

Also not counted is any mitigation of the relatively routine damage done to the environment, including human health, at each stage of the process.

 

***

 

Nuclear energy is not an alternative to energies that increase global warming, because nuclear increases global warming. When high-grade uranium runs out, nuclear will be worse for CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuels. And as global warming advances, nuclear becomes even less efficient as reactors must shut down to avoid overheating.

Also not counted in most discussions is the fact that nuclear reactors discharge tremendous amounts of heat directly into the environment.  After all – as any nuclear engineer will tell you – a nuclear reactor is really just a fancy way to boil water.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted in 1971:

In terms of thermal efficiency, current nuclear reactors are even worse off than the coal plants.  Against the 50 per cent loss of heat in the newest coal plants, as much as 70 per cent of the heat is lost from nuclear plants.  This means that thermal pollution can be even more severe ….

1971 was a long time ago, but some nuclear plants are older.  For example, Oyster Creek was launched in 1969, and many other reactors were built in the early 1970s.   Most American nuclear reactors are old (and they are aging very poorly).

Indeed, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service claims:

It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy –heat– that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast.

It doesn’t make too much sense to dump massive amounts of heat into the environment … in the name of fighting global warming.

The German Example

Germany permanently shut down 8 nuclear power plants in 2011. Indeed, Germany’s phase-out of nuclear will speed up the reduction in its carbon footprint.

PhysOrg reported last year:

A special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by SAGE, “The German Nuclear Exit,” shows that the nuclear shutdown and an accompanying move toward renewable energy are already yielding measurable economic and environmental benefits, with one top expert calling the German phase-out a probable game-changer for the nuclear industry worldwide.

 

***

 

Freie Universität Berlin politics professor Miranda Schreurs says the nuclear phase-out and accompanying shift to renewable energy have brought financial benefits to farmers, investors, and small business;

 

Felix Matthes of the Institute for Applied Ecology in Berlin concludes the phase-out will have only small and temporary effects on electricity prices and the German economy;

 

***

 

Lutz Mez, co-founder of Freie Universit?t Berlin’s Environmental Policy Research Center, presents what may be the most startling finding of all …. “It has actually decoupled energy from economic growth, with the country’s energy supply and carbon-dioxide emissions dropping from 1990 to 2011, even as its gross domestic product rose by 36 percent.”

Beyond Nuclear notes:

Germany reduced its carbon emissions in 2011 by 2.1 percent despite the nuclear phaseout. The cut in greenhouse gases was mainly reached due to an accelerated transition to renewable energies and a warm winter. In addition, the EU emissions trading system caps all emissions from the power sector.

 

While eight nuclear power plants were shut down, solar power output increased by 60 percent. By the end of 2011, renewable energies provided more than 20 percent of overall electricity.

 

***

 

Even after shutting its eight oldest nuclear power plants, Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. In 2011, Germany exported 6 TWh more than it imported. Additionally, German electricity exports to Europe’s nuclear power house France increased throughout 2011.

The Big Picture

The former chief American nuclear regulator says that nuclear energy is unsafe and should be phased out. Whistleblowers at the Nuclear Regulator Commission say that the risk of a major meltdown at U.S. nuclear reactors is much higher than it was at Fukushima.

And an accident in the U.S. could be a lot larger than in Japan … partly because our nuclear plants hold a lot more radioactive material. Radiation could cause illness in huge numbers of Americans, and a major nuclear accident could literally bankrupt America.

More than 75 percent of American nuclear reactors leak radiation … and – contrary to what the snake oil salesmen say – radiation form nuclear plants is very damaging to our health.

Nuclear is wholly subsidized by the government … and would never survive in a free market.

Anyone who says the only choices are nuclear, oil or coal are wrong.  The question isn’t one type of centralized energy generation versus another.

Decentralizing energy production, increasing efficiency, and increasing energy conservation are the real solutions for the environment.

Watch this must-see talk by Lovins, and this inspiring talk by Justin Hall Tipping.

The bottom line – as discussed above – is that scientists pushing nuclear to combat global warming are misinformed.  (True, nuclear industry lobbyists may be largely responsible for the claim that nuclear fights climate change. Indeed, Dick Cheney – whose Halliburton company builds nuclear power plants, and which sold nuclear secrets to Iran – falsely claimed that nuclear power is carbon-free in a 2004 appearance on C-Span. But there are also sincere environmental scientists who are pushing nuclear because they have only studied a small part of the picture, and don’t understand that there are better alternatives.)

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:36 | 3447071 Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

"...you should double check the veracity of your source."

That is exactly what Lord Monckton told the climate rent-seekers in Doha!

"Posing as a delegate from Myanmar, the climate skeptic, Lord Monckton, spoke at the UN climate change negotiations in Doha, Qatar. The impostor was later expelled from the conference."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mwjC-MMKwRY#!

its only 1 min 34 sec, more LOL than you can shake a stick at!

 

 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 21:01 | 3447963 Plumplechook
Plumplechook's picture

Lord Monckton!  Don't embaress yourself by quoting that imbecile.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:20 | 3447024 logicalman
logicalman's picture

I occasionally step outside and watch what's going on - real simple, but you are obviously even simpler than that.

Global warming is unlikely to warm everywhere evenly.

Based on my personal observations:

1. The earth's climate is changing

2.You are a mentally challenged idiot.

 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:42 | 3447249 failsafe
failsafe's picture

I wish I could vote plus 10000 but I am laughing too hard. Climate change is so obvious ... What has to happen for people to believe it. Do people realize what a difference just one or two degrees can make on a global scale? what happens especially to water since it holds heat? The impact that one species' increase or decrease in population can have? I will shut up. No convincing people who don't want to understand.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:51 | 3447278 logicalman
logicalman's picture

None so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:42 | 3447093 Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

"Based on my personal observations"

you personal measured the world global mean temperatur?

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:43 | 3447197 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Global mean is about as helpful as the average wage.

Do you realize you have more than the average number of  legs.

Dumb comment.

I also noticed that you didn't argue with the 'mentally challenged idiot bit.

I must, therefore, be correct in my assessment.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:53 | 3446556 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Above, when I said the only solution was the Second Coming of Jesus, I wasn't kidding.

Think about it on a practical level, not religion.

We have a debt/ponzi economy, based on two things, more and more people, and more and more cheap energy.

That is GONE. Not going, but GONE.

Anyone left after the shitstorm of war, pestilence and famine that will ensue once a critical mass of people realize there is no more ckeap energy, and no more economy, any SURVIVORS will have to deal with...

the radioactivity from 450+ destroyed and ruined nuclear power plants

the radioactivity from deployed and exploded nuclear ordnance

the radioactivity from abandoned and damaged but unused nuclear weaponry

That's a SHITLOAD of ionizing MUTHERFUCKING radioactiity. What are the chances any higher forms of life can survive it?

Welcome to the cockroach planet.

Of course, all of that radioactive SHIT could be incinerated, but it's global, everywhere, and we have no more fossil fuel...

Da-DUMMMM! That's where Jesus comes in. Damn, He thought of everything!

 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:43 | 3446672 Matt
Matt's picture

Well, if we can postpone doomsday, in 10 years or so we may have efficient mobile LASER platforms that can cleanly and efficiently breakdown radioactive elements. Looks like technology is our only likely savior.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:10 | 3446605 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Or that's when a great silence will fall upon the earth, lasting many years ...

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:23 | 3446501 bogbeagle
bogbeagle's picture

In my view, the major problem with nuclear power is that it locks both us ... and future generations ... into Statism.

 

This is because it can only be funded by taxation ... in build, in operation and in de-commissioning. Thus, many future generations will be forced to fund the costs of our present-day power generation. 

 

I suppose that nuclear power is analogous to our debt-based financial system, in that respect.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:01 | 3446962 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

Not true.
The new designs don't create waste of the old type.
As Matt said above new technologies will provide for much better processing of waste into relatively harmless material.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 19:33 | 3446722 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

You forgot an important point.  The security needs of the plutonium state.  Spread plutonium around and ....... you'll need suffocating security everywhere. 

This is the most important post I've ever made.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:41 | 3446535 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Nuclear power IS our debt-based financial system, and is poised to keep poisoning, long after the banks that created it are dead.

But hey, everyone wants a legacy!

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:23 | 3446500 yt75
yt75's picture

Anyway, the crucial problem these days, and also the basic reason for the crisis, is below one :
http://iiscn.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laherrere_all_liquids_productio...

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:24 | 3446496 yt75
yt75's picture

Anyway, the crucial problem these days, also the basic reason for the crisis, is below one :
http://iiscn.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/laherrere_all_liquids_productio...

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:11 | 3446475 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

The Met Office is now predicting more Arctic like winters in the UK. This is claimed to because of the melting of the polar ice cap (due to the the global warming, which the met office has said has not been occurring for the last 15 years.)

As for nuclear power, the UK has decided not to replace the capacity from the existing nuclear power plants that are due to be decommissioned, and instead, import surplus nuclear energy from France.

The UK has been forecasting, an planning for,  a decrease in demand for electricity due to warmer winters (due to the global warming that has not been occurring over the last 15 years).

However, it looks like the UK will be looking forward to cold winters and forced black outs.

Nuclear power is considered unsafe. However, it has a lot better record in the UK than the coal industry, where thousands of people died down the coal mines.

Nobody has demonstrated that global warming of 1.4 degrees over the next century would have harmful effects that outweigh the benefits.

 


 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:46 | 3446542 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Hard to hide a corpse in a mine.

Easy to hide deaths from radionuleides in the overall cancer statistics (given the nature of statistics)

I doubt your analysis - if that's what it is - stands up to close scrutiny.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:02 | 3446966 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

What a stupid argument!
If it's easy why all the fuss?

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 13:06 | 3446735 shuckster
shuckster's picture

Cancer takes years, if not decades to kill you. Starvation from overpopulation takes about 30 days. If and when we run out of accessible oil, which we will, we will either have the infrastructure to make the transition to nuclear/solar/etc or we won't. This is about using the petroleum we have to build the infrastructure neccessary, instead of using it to fill the shelves at Walmart with pet rocks

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 16:30 | 3447384 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

"the infrastructure to make the transition to nuclear/solar/"

When we run out of oil, we will run out of the energy it takes not only in nuclear energy, as this article indirectly points out, but also of solar power, and food. The same goes for the Chevy Volt - not a "green car" if you take into account all the "brown energy" it takes to build it and to recharge it.

Mon, 04/15/2013 - 20:53 | 3454102 shuckster
shuckster's picture

As with any undeveloped technology, the upfront costs are high. During the Manhattan Project, the power sucked up by the facility where the first nuclear bomb was being made was 10% of the entire nation's energy. No small undertaking. And a huge carbon footprint. But you have to invest resources in order to make the process more efficient. Economies of scale. If the government subsidizes nuclear power, its doing so in an effort to make nuclear a dependable source of energy. If you want to know the difference between nuclear and conventional energy, look no farther than the difference between nuclear and conventional weapons. Its orders of magnitude more efficient, so don't tell me about "brown energy" being used to make nuclear. We will save ourselves billions of gallons in oil (and trillions in dollars) if we move to nuclear energy

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:07 | 3446601 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Especially easy to hide, if most of them aren't even born yet  ;-)

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:27 | 3446508 Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

The Met Office:" Scotty, We Need More Power!"

It has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget. So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercompute...

..must leave one hell of a carbon-footprint..a lot more than manbearpig's

 

 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:39 | 3446530 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?:

..because even a carbon-spewing supercomuter is till subject to the primal rule of computing:

"Garbage in, garbage out."

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:39 | 3446666 Svendblaaskaeg
Svendblaaskaeg's picture

..or agenda in - agenda out

IPCC admit in one of the first reports that it is impossible to model a chaotic system

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:12 | 3446473 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

Super insulated homes don’t need a furnace. The residual heat from refrigeration, lights, cooking, body heat etc. is enough to keep the house warm. The house will need an air to air heat exchanger to bring in fresh air or course. Why aren’t homes built this way? Wouldn’t it be a good investment and a good ROI? The insulation techniques are all hidden and expensive and nobody is willing to pay and the builder sure isn’t going to up the price of the McMansion. 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:49 | 3447270 css1971
css1971's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

A link for those interested. As you say, there's a premium on these at the moment. As energy prices rise, so will the demand though. It'll take 100 years for the housing stock to cycle through though.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:09 | 3446604 Urban Roman
Urban Roman's picture

An idea that isn't all that popular in Texas. 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 16:52 | 3447433 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

there was a time in the late '70s where the temperature didn't go below 100 F for like 3 weeks.  But, then again, given politics, he'd probably wish to fry hissef a whole mess o' tessicanz.

;-)

- Ned

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:37 | 3446525 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

I think you answered your own question, and made a subtle comment on the short-term thinking/optimism bais of humanity, the one trait that made us successful as a species, and the one that will ensure our self-extinction.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:06 | 3446465 The Abstraction...
The Abstraction of Justice's picture

Just cut the subsidies and the bad technology shall disappear.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:02 | 3446441 Mototard at Large
Mototard at Large's picture

One of the weirded aspects of the gloabl warming debate that gets missed is baby trading credits.  Seriously.

Consider the case of President Obama’s science czar John Holden. He was an advocate of baby credits to control global COOLING and overpopulation before he advocated carbon credits to control global warming. You cannot make this stuff up.    http://tinyurl.com/d9cdqwe

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 13:10 | 3446709 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

They just want to create another "trading platform", so parasites like the banks and government can skim the action.

If they thought they could trade and tax "jizz" credits, then excessive masturbaters would be in great demand.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 10:44 | 3446404 fatman51
fatman51's picture

Many zero-hedgers hopefully realize by now that Washington Blog is run by anti-nuclear activists. Take what these people say with a very large grain of salt. The technique of anti-nuclear propaganda, as with any other propaganda, is to find a few people with some credentials who say what you want to hear (they are always there, it is a big world) amplify their message, envelope it in thousands upon thousands of words of your own assertions. When challenged, respond with the word "debunked", pointing to a web site citing the aforementioned credentialed persons. Rinse and repeat.Ignore or better yet denounce everyone who might say what you do not want to hear. If you ever get into power, rapidly move beyond denouncing.

I happen to agree with Washington Blog on big banks and the damage these do. Since I do have some knowledge on things nuclear however, I have grown more sceptical of this blog on all matters. Like with being half pregnant, I have troubles with half integrity.

As far as contents of the post: carbon neutral is irrelevant. Carbon dioxide has little to do with the climate. If anything, it may be beneficial. However, if you look for carbon neutral, windmills aren't carbon neutral either. Ever saw one? Windmills are enormous structures built with steel and concrete. A single blade needs a flatbed truck to transport. They do not last forever, and need to be replaced and repaired. If you place windmill farms on the open water, these tasks of maintenance become more difficult and energy intensive. WIndmill farms cause low frequency noise pollution when placed on land near settlements. There are rumors that these things kill large numbers of birds. I am not sure if wind is a good solution for anything. Conservation is always good and may still be a low hanging fruit, as long as it is not turned into a worship of scarcity for the masses (never for activists, read some Orwell for the rundown on that part). Solar energy is getting cheaper, but it is not cheap enough yet. I live in Arizona now. I looked into installing solar panels on my house. Financially, makes no sense unless I live in my house for a minimum of 10 years, even with government subsidies. Nonetheless, this is the route for solar to enter the grid. We still need the base load though, which today can come only from fossil or nuclear.  More broadly, the population of the world doubled in my lifetime, mostly in poorer parts of the world. These people want better life, which requires energy. We can not appropriate their resources forever. Therefore, we need a viable, robust energy mix. Nuclear has its problems, but the solution to these problems is to modernize, not to abandon. Antinuclear activism actually retards modernization and thus has a paradoxical effect of creating a greater danger from aging plants and spent fuel.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:00 | 3447146 The Heart
The Heart's picture

"Antinuclear activism actually retards modernization and thus has a paradoxical effect of creating a greater danger from aging plants and spent fuel."

No one is going to modernize these ancient relics because there is no more money to repair them, thus leaving only one destiny for man IF they are not shut down, or EMP shielded. People that promote the nuklear energy industry for profits and gain will have more to think about when these reactors fail, and they find themselves downwind of the inescapable radioactive fallout that will permeate the entire world eventually.

No, sorry to differ, but the fact is, if these issues are not addressed RIGHT NOW, then the future, no matter what else happens, only has one eventuality. On The Beach!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxvx9gQ8k0

Partt 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7JAE5D39o

 

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 16:48 | 3447425 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

dude, what is this "EMP" boogieman of which you speak?

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:06 | 3447162 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Upvote for "On the Beach"

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 10:51 | 3446419 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Unfortunately there has not been any breakthrough in physics, enabling us to get rid of what you so nonchalantly call "spent fuel", ever since we began to create this hazardous waste. In this regard, there simply is NO modernization ...

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:08 | 3446983 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

Bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor is one, and there are other new approaches, as well as fusion and Thorium reactors.
Of course the fanatical GW couldn't mention any of that as he was concerned the article will be too long. Oh wait...

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 11:34 | 3446505 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

In regards to "spent fuel", otherwise known as "WHAT THE FUCK??? I CAN'T GET RID IF THIS POISONOUS SHIT!!!!, and the "safety" (OTW known as "OH SHIT...WHOOPS! DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING!") of nuclear power, sometimes an analogy is useful:

Bad habits compared to nuclear power...

Smoking compared to Russian Roulette the same as

Coal compared to Nuclear

The safety of nuclear power is an economic factor. Engineers have found only clumsy soluitions to the containment and cooling of the poisonous shit that makes the water hot. Those solutions involve miles of pipes, electric pumps, wires everywhere, relays, all sorts of related electrical and plumbing sub-systems, etc, etc.

Of course, these "parts" are manufactured in factories. These factories are run, every last one of them, within the PONZI DEBT SYSTEM we call an "economy".

Here is the scenario no-one wants to talk about:

"UH, boss, there's a red blinking light on the control panel..."

"Yep, it looks like the susbsystem bypass relay has malfunctioned, and molten radioactive SHIT is starting to corrode the main transfer jack-box. Quick, get on the horn and order another one!"

(Five minutes later)

"Uh, boss, the outfit that made that part went out of business three years ago, because they were bought by Bain Capital, who sucked all the equity out and left nothing but an empty shell. A substandard quality relay made in China is unavailable here in the States, due to the collapse in shipping, and shipping collapsed due to high fuel prices and the stock market collapse.  All the other power plants are hoarding their supply of irreplaceable spare parts."

"OK. Put your head between your legs-"

"Huh?"

"... and kiss your ass goodbye, 'cause this BITCH IS GONNA BLOW!"

Of all the stupid ideas that have their origin in the hubris of man, splitting the atom has to take the cake.

If you (aimed at the average middle-aged, white ZH troglodyte) think nuclear power will do anything except ensure that Jesus comes back, for no other reason than to cleanse this planet with fire, in order to clean up the RADIOACTIVE SHIT we've spewed all over it, then you might as well keep buying gold, since you're hopelessly wedded to the current paradigm, beyond any hope of change.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:05 | 3446594 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Thanks to my profound knowledge of nuclear physics, I'm able to create any needed amount of gold out of platinum. So i don't need to buy any. As for the waste ... just wait a measly 200 million years and the problem will have solved itself

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:28 | 3447051 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Thanks to your complete lack of knowledge of nuclear physics, you don't know that the stable isotope of gold is made from mercury by neutron capture.

Good luck if you make it from Platinum - you'll get radioactive gold.

Don't play with your keyboard if you don't know anything about the subject - just makes you look stupid.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3447122 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Thank you so much for showing great lack of humor, while erroneously thinking I don't know what I'm talking about.  ;-)

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 15:38 | 3447238 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Then don't make it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 16:02 | 3447274 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Okay! I'll try. I thought of it as sort of an inside joke. That the only one who gets it (this would be you) doesn't think it's funny - well, I didn't think of that.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 18:38 | 3447683 logicalman
logicalman's picture

What's funny about my kids' lack of a future?

Just thought I'd ask.

I think you know the answer.

I may have misjudged you. Prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

Mon, 04/15/2013 - 05:48 | 3448737 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

logicalman: You abruptly sobered me. Being a father myself, I have to admit that there is nothing funny at all about kid's lack of a future. I acknowledge that the "joke" about gold was tasteless. I apologize for that.

Sun, 04/14/2013 - 16:45 | 3447419 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

kid, we'll try, but u are prob a recycled troll, so, well, ya gotta' fight.

Mon, 04/15/2013 - 01:26 | 3448726 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Ned - I've read ZH long enough, to know what you talk about. I don't mind a fight, to show everyone, that I'm no recycled robotretard or trav 123. I will respect the 7th rule.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!