Eric Worrall writes:
The mainstream media is awash lately with messages of optimism about the upcoming Lima conference, about the thousands of people gathering in Lima (no doubt after a long wind powered sea voyage) to help the international climate process reach a legally binding conclusion. But at least one green outlet – the Scientific American – is taking a more pragmatic view, acknowledging the likelihood that Lima will not produce anything of value, and urging green readers not to lose hope.
According to the Scientific American;
“No matter what comes out of the traveling circus known as the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Lima, Peru over the next few weeks, nations are taking action to curb global warming on their own. And by the end of the meeting in Lima, the world should be well on its way to delivering national commitments for combating climate change.”
Interestingly the Scientific American is talking up the benefits of nuclear power – a rare acknowledgement of the nuclear elephant in the room, when it comes to CO2 emissions;
“Electricity generated by the wind and sun has boomed in recent years, as has the hydropower from dams. China is building more nuclear power plants instead of coal-fired ones—and has pledged to increase such low-carbon energy to 20 percent of its supply by 2030.”
Nuclear power should be where greens and skeptics meet up. Most of us skeptics love nuclear power, because it is the future, the next stage of human civilisation. Greens should love nuclear power, because it reduces CO2 emissions. But as long as most greens irrationally reject the only option which can deliver what they want, in a realistic timeframe, the debate will remain stalled. No change to the status quo can or will occur.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am sitting in front of my lovely coal fire with a glass of ginger wine in hand. If someone can make a nuclear fireplace small enough to warm my feet I’ll change from fossil fuels. Otherwise, in the words of the great Glaswegian, F**k o**!
You can get some quite nice electric ‘fireplaces’ these days which will not only keep your feet toasty warm but will also simulate flickering flames to create that nice mood as well. The nuclear part you keep in a nice big safe building run by experts somewhere away from where you live. I do understand the attractions of a real fire, but not mucky stinky coal though. I much prefer burning wood.
Ginger wine?
I shouldn’t criticze it having never tried it, but my first thought is yuk.
Larry Geiger said December 3, 2014 at 12:45 pm:
Nuclear or space based solar (I know, it’s a problem getting it down here). That’s the only two that make any real sense long term with our current understanding of physics.
In the mid seventies my thermodynamics professor had just returned from a project with NASA looking at space-based solar power. As far as I can tell the physical obstacles have not been overcome and the enviro-political ones will never be overcome.
If you think that the Ivanpah solar farm is tough on birds and aviation, consider the concept of beaming vast quantities of microwave energy down to receiving stations. Now consider the possibility of this energy scattered by precipitation and dust, or “accidentally” mis-aimed.
I am worried enough about the potential for hacking into a smart grid or internet infrastructure. I would rather not consider a scenario wherein “Honey, they cooked the kids”.
That rag stopped being scientific years ago.
Hopefully the Gore effect will occur and Lima will experience record lows and snowfalls.
I’ll take oil and coal over nuclear, any day. And, not that you can tell over the internet, I work in the nuclear world (a major federal nuclear research facility — when I say “I herd nuclear physicists for a living”, I mean I handle their dosimetry). I am not afraid of radioactivity as such; I resent the EPA trying to limit how much radon I’m allowed to have in my home (search “Bernard Cohen radon studies”). And IMO nuclear power can go to Hades where it belongs, although I’m open to maybe being persuaded by thorium power.
I’m not fond of the carbon MONoxide that’s part of the oil/coal deal, to say nothing of the partially-burned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. But nothing’s perfect, and both are more tolerable than a Fukushima. I’d personally accept a vastly-“reduced” “standard of living” in order to avoid going nuclear. But I know some of you would not, and the poison of imposing my views on you is, to me, worse than Fukushima. Going nuclear, though, imposes your (maybe) views on me, which is equally toxic, so we do need to talk.
[Despite the above paragraph, someone lambastes me for trying to impose my views on them in 3…2…]
Considering America’s well-known obesity issue, I’d love to see municipal gyms, where I could go run the rowing machine–hooked up to a municipal generator–in exchange for a local tax break. I don’t suppose it would amount to more than a percent or two of civic needs, but my son-in-law and daughter do an awful lot of exercise that, apart from their fitness, is just going to waste. Why not use it?
mellyrn, you probably couldn’t even power the gym itself with human effort:
Well, crumbs.
Remind me again of how many people have died as a result of the events at Fukushima?
After that one, see if you can provide an example of an industry with a 60 year long record for safety and reliability than that of commercial nuclear generation.
Perhaps your views are a result of working at a government nuclear facility. With the track record of places like Rocky Flats, Hanford and SRP, I see why you might feel the way you do. But comparing federal facilities to commercial generation is comparing apples to horse shit. Sure the stuff from the horse might have elements similar to the apple, but would you treat it the same?
😀 Well, ya got me there, regarding govvamint.
But, indeed, how many people — or other critters; sorry, but I do also care about my fellow Earthlings, all of them; I believe healthy neighboring species are essential to good human health — have died or will die from Fukushima? See, the thing about a stochastic problem, like increased cancer, is that you can’t pin any individual cancer on any specific stimulus. E.g., my dad quit smoking at age 50 and died of lung cancer at 75; Mom kept on smoking (both started at around age 14) and was cancer- and emphysema-free when she died at 80; go figure. And I even know that low-level radiation — call it 3x background for “low” — has an immune-system boosting effect.
And still there are increased cancers around both Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Seriously, there’s got to be a better way. It’s sort of like seat belts: it’s possible to tease out stats that suggest seat belts may be slightly more harmful than helpful (the push against drunk driving coincides with the push for seat belts; how much of the increased safety is due to the decreased drunk driving?) But the, shall we say, obsession for seat belts may have delayed the development of a better technology.
That’s why I say I am open to maybe being persuaded by thorium power. What little I’ve heard of it suggests that it produces much less high-level waste, and/i> is inherently safer. I could be wrong. I hope not.
The only thing I see coming out of Lima is a two week cold snap.
No matter what those perverted skeptic free-thinkers tell you, KEEP THE FAITH!!!
For any new lurkers, that was (SARC!)
Peru Is a great place to visit! The food there is wonderful and I highly recommend Machu Picchu. I hope the delegates have a good time there because that is all that is going to come of this.
I am hopeful that Lima succeeds in making the world a better place… by failing.
Hurry up with the Thorium already! Get electrical power down to 1 Cent U.S per megawatt, and we gots ourselves a future.
I day dream of course, but if our energy costs were a mere 1% of our income, me and my seven billion close genetic friends would all be getting ahead.
And there’s the vision that’s lacking in the Green Movement, all of humanity lifted up, instead of the commie desire to level everyone to a medieval peasantry.
Some day in the future, our descendants will look at this period of our history, and weep for its cruelty and madness. As usual, promulgated by the do-gooders, who wanted to save the Earth (by killing Humans!), so much for the road to Hell yadda,yadda.
/Rant Ends
/Rollback #Rant
They are still denying the pause
http://globalnews.ca/news/1706917/un-weather-agency-says-2014-on-track-for-hottest-year/
I don’t think sailing boats are on the agenda; albeit that Lima is a port, so perhaps there will be more than the usual number of private yachts during the summit.
given the excesses seen at Copenhagen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
I doubt that this bunch of hypocrites has anything more on its mind than luxury hotels, too much food and maybe a bit of Latina on the side! (I don’t mean to be rude, but if you look at the telegraph article, you will see that the delegates were offered free sex by the local hookers in Copenhagen).
For the advocates of space based power a note of caution. Any concentrated high energy beam that can be pointed will be pointed.
The climate gurus visiting Lima would be well advised to visit Machu Pichu and learn a little about the history. Until about 1200AD, the Urubamba valley was a high desert, supporting only subsistence farming along the banks of the rivers flowing off the rain deprived west side of the Andes. Then climate change happened (Medieval warm period?) and the valley became much warmer and wetter than before. Population soared and the Inca climax civilization grew until around 1500 when the Spanish arrived and stole all their cool stuff. They never found Machu Pichu though.
However, the real end of the Inca empire was brought about when the warm wet period ended. Even in the 1500s, the Spanish optimistically built their South American capital in Cusco. The climate changed back to what it is now, cold high desert, and the Spanish departed for Lima, a pit, but at least on the coast so you could escape by ship. The Incas reverted to the subsistence farmers they had been before the climate change.
When you travel up the Urubamba Valley to Machu Pichu today, you can still see the terraces and irrigation channels built hundreds of feet up the mountains, far above the highest point of agriculture today.
Owen said ” Even after the elections there are not enough votes to impeach him …………….”
There are enough votes to impeach Obama as all that that requires is a simple House majority.
There aren’t enough to convict as the Senate requires two-thirds to convict.
Carry on!
Yes, I was using an imprecise shorthand. It is true; the Senate convicts with a two-thirds majority and quite frankly we would have difficulty reaching cloture on a censure proclamation in the Senate even in January.
“Nuclear power should be where greens and skeptics meet up.*
Keep on dreaming.
Ivanpah, the largest, most successful, operational solar power plant. Cost USD 2.2 billion, gross income annualized 28 million, after deducting maintenance, gas, eco guards, zero. Yes very effective.,
The supporters point out it is not a grant its getting but a payment to repay loans????????????????????
Gas usage, well the law specifies 2% max but they use 5 hours and dont address that little aberration.
I was a multi decades-long subscriber to SA. Had several years to go on my subscription. I cancelled and asked for refund on the remaining unused subscription due specifically to the CAGW/CACC position SA had elected to support, damn the empirical evidence and good science. Did the same with my Nat Geo subscription as well, for the very same reason. Could no longer stomach the one-sided – and dicey – “science” being pushed down my throat. Told ’em both so, too. Probably just a tiny drop in their respective financial buckets, but at least I felt better.
Can’t everyone just agree to follow China’s “historic commitment” and agree to stop increasing CO2 output by 2030? If it is such a great thing for China to do, according to Western Greenies, then we should all be able to kick back for the next 15 years and stop worrying!
timg56 says:
Remind me again of how many people have died as a result of the events at Fukushima?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The fabulous feature of radiation deaths is that you can hide them in the general population, or, like the 1/2 million Americans that died as a consequence of Merck’s’ Vioxx(TM), you can simply not report it at all! Instead of referring to an act of “manslaughter” (killing by stupidity and negligence) you can report a few “excessive deaths” and move on to the next story. Euphemisms are the key to good P.R.
But I digress…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — Rare cancers, blindness, birth defects and now, two deaths.
“Hundreds of U.S. sailors who took part in rescue efforts following Japan’s earthquake and tsunami say they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Now a federal judge has ruled their class-action lawsuit against the Tokyo Electric Power Company can go forward.
“We sat in this plume for over 5 hours,” said Simmons.
All the while his commanders insisted there was no danger.
“I’ll be honest, I hit the ‘I believe’ button,” he said.
But within months, Simmons, once an avid hiker, began feeling weak and sick with uncontrolled fevers and severe night sweats. Soon he was in a wheelchair, unable to walk. He says military doctors would never tell him what was wrong.
“Every one of them wanted to discredit radiation as a possible cause,” Simmons said.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/11/21/navy-sailors-report-radiation-sickness-japan-quake-tsunami-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So remind me again: how much does it cost to clean up after a nuclear disaster?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“The Japanese government just announced that it’s borrowing about $30 billion more to cover costs related to Fukushima, bringing the total amount the Japanese government has borrowed to clean up the mess to around $80 billion, more than three times the amount BP spent to clean up the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. ”
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-staggering-costs-to-clean-up-fukushima/
“Decommissioning the four reactors is estimated to cost at least 1.15 trillion yen [$15 billion (USD)].”
http://fukushima.ans.org/report/cleanup
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(That’s just the beginning of a long and messy process. Conservative estimates put the eventual cost at between $250-$500 Billion)
What price do you put on an exclusion zone?
If nuclear power is so wonderful and efficient, why can’t it compete in the free market?
i.e., Why it so heavily subsidized?
What happened to the promise that it would be “too cheap to meter“?
‘the fabulous feature of radiation deaths is that you can hide them in the general population,’
you can also claim 101 things ‘must be ‘ down to radiation , no matter how poor the link, because you just known they are , its has if before nuclear power there was no cancer and natural radiation just did not exist.
Khwarizmi December 3, 2014 at 10:22 pm
The fabulous feature of your claim about Vioxx is that while Vioxx was indeed recalled for causing an increase in heart attacks and strokes, at the end of the day there was a class-action lawsuit, which included anybody and everybody who thought they were injured. The court found in favor of Merck, and forced Merck to pay for deaths and suffering. It cost Merck well over a billion dollars to settle the claims.
The fabulous feature was that in that lawsuit, it was found that Vioxx was responsible for a total of 2,878 deaths from heart attacks and 590 deaths from stroke. And while that’s far too many, and represented a huge failure by the FDA … it’s a long way from your claim of half a million deaths.
Such a wild exaggeration, of course, calls into question all the rest of your claims … and it’s a quite unnecessary exaggeration. Your claims need to stand or fall on their own, they have nothing to do with Vioxx.
Finally, you report the “Rare cancers, blindness, birth defects and now, two deaths” from Fukushima as though they were established facts. They are not. All the court ruled was that the suit could go forwards, not that the claims were correct.
As I said, this doesn’t invalidate your argument, which seems to be that if you build a poorly-designed nuclear power plant right on the coast in a known tsunami zone, you’re asking for trouble … but then I doubt many people would dispute that.
Best regards,
w.
I agree with Willis that exaggerated claims and figures should be avoided when presenting your case. Such exaggerations only makes it easy for your essential argument to be refuted.
Willis,
I definitely agree with you. The fantastical claims detract from the argument. I don’t agree with the implication that a civil court ruling proves the death is caused by the one forced to pay. I personally think the courts get it wrong as often as they get it right on scientific issues. There was a black box warning on Vioxx and most of the physicians prescribed it as a last resort pain reliever for the severe cases. They were supposed to be doing workups on these patients to make sure there were no heart problems developed as treatment progressed. Some physicians failed on that part and some patients didn’t take the warning about the severity of the side effects seriously enough and report any changes to their physician, but for many patients this pain killer was the only thing that allowed them to live a normal life. If I were told that my pain level would cause me to be a recluse unable to leave my house because of the pain involved in moving and live for 20 more years, or I could live a fairly normal life with the risk that I might develop heart trouble and die in 5 years and nothing else would give me any relief, I’d take the risk for the normal life. Other’s mileage may vary.
On Fukishima’s building in a tsunami zone. That isn’t really the problem. The problem is that they didn’t follow the design suggestions the engineers made for building at that site. The problems were: 1. Backup generators in the basement, 2. Use of standard diesels rather than marine diesels on the backup generators, 3. Lack of easy external power hookups.
If they had addressed any of those concerns individually, the disaster would not have occurred. If they had addressed all three, few outside of Fukishima would even know the name. If they had placed the generators above the reactor chamber or pool chamber, the backup generators would not have flooded and cooling would not have been interrupted. If they had used marine diesels on the generators they could have pumped the water out of the basement and started the generators in about a day which would have prevented most of the crisis though there would have been reactor damage. If they had made easy external power hookups, a frigate would have been able to power the coolant pumps until the generators were brought back on line. Thus avoiding a crisis. If all three had been done this was a non-crisis.
The original design engineer left the project because of the refusal of the company to make the first two changes. I actually thought up the third with full 20/20 hindsight. So really Fukishima was not caused by a natural disaster, but by human failings in decisions made more than 40 years ago.
The problem now is we have people who want to dump all nuclear power because “it’s too dangerous!!!!!!”, (See Germany) when the newer generations of designs don’t exhibit these problems. The German decision makes no sense unless all their power stations were on the coast in an area prone to tsunami. (I always thought the German coast was very sheltered from such events, but what do I know?) Their decision makes absolutely no sense for inland power station and especially not for any newer generation inland stations. So now they are stuck burning brown coal with all the problems inherent in scrubbing those emissions of a bunch of nasty stuff (no not CO2, but SOx NOx Hg, etc) or freezing to death in the northern European winters. Makes no environmental sense to this outside observer, but more sense than relying on solar power at 40N latitude in the winter.
Greens should love nuclear power
That assumes that Greens actually want us to have an effectively unlimited source of power.
They don’t, they want the very opposite, in fact.
The Greens are for any power source that doesn’t work. They are against all sources that do work. The reason is simply because they are shooting for global deindustrialization, and to do that requires massively reduced power generation. This will get them to their “final solution” – greatly reduce human global population to a few million. This requires many early deaths, and few births. The Greens are the most evil movement in the history of humanity, surpassing the evil confronted during WWII. If they win, the world will choke with blood.
Willis,
Perhaps I should have said “perhaps,” or “it’s very likely” that Merk killed 1/2 a million Americans with Vioxx.
But it’s not a wild exaggeration.
=====================================
“The headline of the short article that ran in the April 19, 2005 edition of USA Today was typical: “USA Records Largest Drop in Annual Deaths in at Least 60 Years.” During that one year, American deaths had fallen by 50,000 despite the growth in both the size and the age of the nation’s population. Government health experts were quoted as being greatly “surprised” and “scratching [their] heads” over this strange anomaly, which was led by a sharp drop in fatal heart attacks.
On April 24, 2005, the New York Times ran another of its long stories about the continuing Vioxx controversy, disclosing that Merck officials had knowingly concealed evidence that their drug greatly increased the risk of heart-related fatalities. But the Times journalist made no mention of the seemingly inexplicable drop in national mortality rates that had occurred once the drug was taken off the market, although the news had been reported in his own paper just a few days earlier.
A cursory examination of the most recent 15 years worth of national mortality data provided on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website offers some intriguing clues to this mystery. We find the largest rise in American mortality rates occurred in 1999, the year Vioxx was introduced, while the largest drop occurred in 2004, the year it was withdrawn. Vioxx was almost entirely marketed to the elderly, and these substantial changes in national death-rate were completely concentrated within the 65-plus population. The FDA studies had proven that use of Vioxx led to deaths from cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks and strokes, and these were exactly the factors driving the changes in national mortality rates.
[…]
Patterns of cause and effect cannot easily be proven. But if we hypothesize a direct connection between the recall of a class of very popular drugs proven to cause fatal heart attacks and other deadly illnesses with an immediate drop in the national rate of fatal heart attacks and other deadly illnesses, then the statistical implications are quite serious. Perhaps 500,000 or more premature American deaths may have resulted from Vioxx, a figure substantially larger than the 3,468 deaths of named individuals acknowledged by Merck during the settlement of its lawsuit. And almost no one among our political or media elites seems to know or care about this possibility.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/
=====================================
As with the rise and drop in mortality rates correlating with the introduction and withdrawal of Vioxx, it is probably just a coincidence that a significant number of the crew on the U.S.S. Reagan who spent 5 hours in the radiative plume have been afflicted with rare cancers and other debilitating medical problems.
And there is still the problem of the heavy subsidies involved in nuclear power, plus the tremendous cost of the cleanup operation when it blows up in our faces. Those problems can’t be whitewashed quite so easily.
“… is taking a more pragmatic view, acknowledging the likelihood that Lima will not produce anything of value, and urging green readers not to lose hope.”
—
The “losing hope” is an artifact of the inescapables of falling real-wages, rising utility bills, rising impatience with taxation backed government-corruption and the spending the pubic purse into unaffordable debt-oblivion and interest-servicing (to bankers of course … who are the primary political donors to said politicians); all of this is in fact going to stick a red cigarette tip to the engorged global blood-sucking leach, regardless of another primadonna encrusted snouts-in-trough Lima conference.
Those facing an election cycle in the near term will of course continue the trumpet loudly need to act, and will continue to grandstand vocalize to hither to unseen levels of BS making, tisk-tisking and endless public demonstrations of deep concern and galvanized disappointment.
hahaha! … what warming???
I only know what I read, but on that basis it appears unavoidable that the whole energy conundrum requires a wide-ranging rethink. To wit:
The idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with ‘man-made global warming’ is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so say voices from the IPCC themselves: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf
That AGW fraud has one beneficial side effect: “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.” http://tinyurl.com/ptgrz34
Does that mean we should forget about pollution and carry on regardless? No, for we can all agree that pollution is not a ‘good thing’ – we all could not miss seeing it from pictures of those dirt laden grey and black smokestacks and smog laden Chinese and other cities (and I well remember the heavy London smogs in the early 60s when even some London Underground platforms had to close because of nearly nil visibility, apart from deaths from breathing that stuff). Only one thing is sure in these circumstances: what you can see, is with 100% certainty not CO2, which is invisible. What is visible is pollution, consisting of NOX, SOX and OBNOX (nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, particulates and anything else obnox-ious) all of which are the province of Clean-Air-Acts (as so blatantly in London) and have nothing to do with global climate – they are simply the ‘dirt in the linen’ that has to be ‘washed out from’, or never put into these smokestacks of sorts, in the first place. CO2 per se appears far too trivial to consider as Global Climate driver.
The climate driver of all climate drivers I found described by John L Casey in his COLD SUN, introduced here http://tinyurl.com/p6ra4f3 together with a BBC NEWS video with comment on Robert Felix’s web site: http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/video-sun-sleep/
An elementary order-of-magnitude calculation – relying on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics – shows that, even when allowing the IPCC calculation of man-mad global warming by 2100 reputedly caused by CO2, it’s so trivial when compared to solar input variability alone, as to be totally irrelevant to ‘climate’: http://cleanenergypundit.blogs…
Some further study of probably the most underrated book on energy also appears necessary, as in: http://tinyurl.com/obhq3w9
The role of Civic Energy is also destined to play a significant role especially, but not only for rural empowerment: http://tinyurl.com/oedupee