Pakistan: Give Us Climate Cash or We’ll Keep Burning Coal

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Pakistan has noticed their share of the $100 billion per annum climate cash they were promised has not started appearing in their bank accounts.

Pakistan needs access to global funds to cope with climate change

By Awais Umar
Published: August 14, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The world’s geographical history shows that climate change is not a new phenomenon as scientists have tracked historical changes in the drivers of climate change such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and continental drift.

According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Pakistan is ranked number 7 in the list of most vulnerable countries, suffering economic losses of $3.823 billion in the last two decades due to climate change and climate extremes.

At the 2016 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Federal Minister for Climate Change Zahid Hamid said: “We emit less than 1% of total annual global greenhouse gases, yet we are ranked amongst top 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change. Millions of people are affected and colossal damage is caused on a recurring basis.”

At the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) under UNFCCC, the developed countries agreed to pay at least $100 billion every year to the developing countries as a climate adaptation fund till 2020.

We should look for funds to build capacity of the workforce, improve the technological resource base and strengthen institutions for renewable energy sources.

“It’s our need to consume coal to meet our development targets to fulfill needs of the growing population. We can cut out GHG emission if we are provided with sufficient resources, technology, capacity and finances to move for green energy and renewables,” said Mountain and Glacier Protection Organisation (MGPO) CEO Aisha Khan.

Read more: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1480833/pakistan-needs-access-global-funds-cope-climate-change/

In my opinion, Pakistan doesn’t need US climate cash to reduce emissions. They could run their economy with nuclear power.

Pakistan currently only produces around 3% of their power from nuclear reactors. But Pakistan could easily build more.

Pakistan has an advanced domestic nuclear programme; so advanced that according to top Pakistani nuclear physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan taught North Korea how to build the atomic bombs which are currently menacing US targets.

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “Pakistan: Give Us Climate Cash or We’ll Keep Burning Coal

    • Yes, this is how they managed to get all the poor nations to sign up to Paris. They bribed them.

      We should look for funds to build capacity of the workforce, improve the technological resource base and strengthen institutions for renewable energy sources.

      Pakistan has severe flooding nearly every year. This nothing to do with “climate change” and all to do with climate.

      Rather than wasting any money they can get solar panels they need to build resilience to flooding or stop occupying flood zones.

      • “Greg August 16, 2017 at 2:14 am

        Rather than wasting any money they can get solar panels they need to build resilience to flooding or stop occupying flood zones.”

        If CO2 is the climate dragon, then they could use their nuclear skills in making power rather than bombs. That’ll stop the flooding eh?

      • Bribed them with public money that wasn’t even appropriated–yet. Sounds like a typical socialicommimarxifascist operation to me.

      • Slightly off-thread, but linked.
        At least Pakistan is fairly close to the Equator, where solar makes some sense during daylight hours.
        This link indicates that the religion seems to have infected even canny Scottish folk: –
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-40941994

        The proposed site is about 57 degrees North.
        Even at mid-summer, the Sun will be no more than – fleetingly, at noon – 57 degrees above the horizon.
        November, December, and January, the Sun will – at noon, be less than twenty degrees above the horizon, and above the horizon at all for about six hours a say. The weather – too – may not be good for gathering solar: clouds, rain, snow all possible [though, fairly close to the coast, possibly snow may not be a great problem. Possibly.]

        I would be intrigued to know what subsidy – if any – is to be paid. The BBC article does not mention any.
        The nameplate capacity is 20 MW, and the permission is good for 30 years.

        One quote: –

        “Councillor Claire Feaver, chairwoman of Moray Council’s Planning and Regulatory Services Committee, said: “A significant amount of renewable energy will be generated by this solar farm over the next 30 years.

        “”The opportunity to continue grazing on the land, together with the habitat management plan, will maintain and enhance the diverse range of species in and around the site.

        “”I see this as a win-win.””

        The Councillor, must, of course, be allowed her opinion. With most of the site covered by solar panels, closely stacked, I wonder how good the grass productivity will be, even with CO2 at 400 ppm or above
        [400 ppm is, to the nearest one tenth of one percent – zero.]

        Auto

      • Yep, you’re right. To the extent that all money is fungible, we are paying them to by the rope with which to hang us.

      • Do you mean PM2.5s particulate matter like baby powder or face powder – we are assured that inhalation of such PM2.5s are fatal by EPA. Not sure whether that was before or after Richard Windsor (aka Lisa Jackson) powdered her nose.

      • There are more particulates and problems with coal burning than the PM2.5s. Sulpher, etc. It’s why we have scrubbers and blue skies, China has none and gray skies. Sometimes one really does need to clean up a power supply.

      • @Sheri that’s a fine illustration of why the US should burn its coal, and stop exporting industry to “developing” nations like China and India – because the US has better controls on REAL pollution, and the environmental damage (ACTUAL, as opposed to imaginary) will actually be greater the more the US penalizes fossil fuel use in pursuit of non-solutions to the non-“crisis” of “climate change.”

    • So they don’t emit much GHGs, but will be highly affected by climate change, which of course is not related to the first.

      My recommendation; it almost always works:

      …. MOVE ,,,,

      G

  1. Firstly Pakistan should be required to give a detailed breakdown of how global warming of the past 2 decades has cost them $3.823 billions. That should make a very interesting spreadsheet. John Nethery

      • Quarrelsome islam split India seventy years ago with death and destruction and has continued eversince.
        Sad.

      • Yes they know what a spreadsheet is but they’d rather live off other people than profit from their own labour. And anyone who denies that the current Pakistan is the most racist nation in South Asia or the biggest exporter of terrorism, knows nothing of its history, especially the purely racial exploitation of Bengalis who bravely fought to be free in 1970 with terrible losses. Long live Bangladesh! No true leftist will side with the Pakistani fascists.

      • bruce August 16, 2017 at 2:24 am

        … they’d rather live off other people than profit from their own labour. …

        Of all the folks I’ve worked with, Pakistanis have usually been humble hard-working and effective. The nutcase troublemakers were all American born and bred (all one of him). Work ethic isn’t the problem.

        … Long live Bangladesh! …

        Agreed.

        George Tetley August 16, 2017 at 3:06 am

        … CUTTING GIRLS HEADS OFF FOR GOING TO SCHOOL !!! …

        … and we used to lynch black folks, in similar numbers, for similar crimes. link

        Pakistan has to answer for a lot. The regular Pakistani people, on the other hand have nothing to do with that. Don’t be like the Soviets who always tarred all Americans with the same brush.

    • $3.823 bilion? Did anybody check the math here? It might be only $3.822 billion. That’s $ one million less! We can’t be too careful here. We’re dealing with taxpayer dollars.

    • Surely you know by now that Pakistan has no obligation of the kind. These numbers are always made up, not by the receiving country, but by the autolesionistic idiots in the West who are sucking at the public teat.
      In the present case it’s the German federal government pulling the numbers game. Interesting that a document with climate risk in the title lists costs of weather damage, so nonchalantly treating the two nouns as equivalent.

  2. CO2 is good:

    There’s actually *zero* evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures. And, 20,000 years ago we were on the verge of total extinction as CO2 levels dropped below 180ppm. Until man added a little supplementary CO2 nature wasn’t doing the job anymore of keeping CO2 as healthy level for plants. 280ppm is still near starvation levels for many plants. 400ppm remains very low. Ideal would be 1500ppm. We should not pay any country to cut their CO2 emissions. Indeed, they should be encouraged to increase CO2, as apparently we’re encouraging China to do that anyway:

    • Water is also essential for plant growth. Therefore catastrophic floods cannot be bad as water is needed for plant growth. In other words, the issue is not the substance, but the amount.

      • Exactly.
        For plants and CO2 the optimal is in the vicinity of 1000 ppm.
        The dose is the toxin, which is why low dose radiation <about 25mGy is harmless or slightly beneficial to health, stimulating the immune system and prolonging life / suppressing cancer in countless animal experiments. That's why the anti-nuclear fraud is as egregious as the AGW one.

      • Hi Gareth just wondering how much CO2 should be in the air?
        Also would you know what the globe’s average temperature should be?
        Thanks in advance.

      • Let us know how those catastrophic floods work out for your garet. Or for that matter, the massive amounts of drugs you must be taking.

      • The more water the better as one can see from tropical rain forests. Compare that with desserts.

        Countries like India in particular rely upon the monsoon, and when the monsoon is weak this not only leads to famine but also has a signifantly adverse effect on their economy.

        But the point being made by Eric Simpson is that CO2 is way too low and if we were to return nearer to the conditions in which plants developed that would be a good thing. Say 1200 to 2000 ppm.

        Eric also makes the point that there is no.observational evidence establishing that CO2 causes any warming. I would add that the planet is way too cold (not only for us whose natural habitat is Ethiopia/Sudan and tropical rain forests) but for all life in general) such that if by some happy coincident more CO2 does lead to some warming that would be a WIN WIN scenario. An increase in temperature of 3 to 5 degC would be a godsend.

      • @Gareth Phillips What you say doesn’t make any sense. The very graphic that I presented showed that the more CO2 there is the bigger the tree got. And speaking of water and CO2 we see that increased CO2 leads to dramatic increases in the performance and adaptability of plants to reductions in water availability:

        The idea that increases in CO2 will cause reductions in agricultural output is diametrically false (… the opposite is true).

      • Are you really this clueless. The comment was about the amount, and the evidence is in. More is better.

      • “””””….. Also would you know what the globe’s average temperature should be? …..”””””

        Yes I would.

        It has been between +12 and +24 deg. C for the last 650 million years.

        And where I live, the Temperature changes much more than that in just 24 hours, and quite regularly. Like almost any week it will happen.

        G

  3. I loved the quote from the NGO ‘Mountain and Glacier Protection Organisation’ :
    “We can cut out GHG emission if we are provided with sufficient resources, technology, capacity and finances to move for green energy and renewables,” said Mountain and Glacier Protection Organisation (MGPO) CEO Aisha Khan.” Of course they would say that, wouldn’t they?

    • I love the name of the NGO. For some reason it reminds me of Monty Python’s Humber and District Catholic River Wideners Club, or the more recent Blue Mountains and Nepean Districts Amateur River Wideners Club.

      Protecting mountains and glaciers for fun and profit!

      • Well, since we’re on the humour kick, remember Terry Pratchett’s “Society for recovering accordion players”.

      • What they do to protect those mountains ?

        And for why? Afraid somebody might walk off with them ?

        g

      • Actually it’s the other way round.

        Mountains force CO2 to diminish, in order to get over the mountains.
        g

  4. Quote: … suffering economic losses of $3.823 billion in the last two decades due to climate change and climate extremes …

    Oh yes. Do tell. First where in Pakistan has the climate changed. Second how has that resulted in economic losses and who lost. Third for bonus points tell us about these climate extremes.

    Bollocks to propaganda.

  5. Pakistan is an enemy of the United States. We should not send them money, we should send them bombs..

  6. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Pakistan is ranked number 7 in the list of most vulnerable countries, suffering economic losses of $3.823 billion in the last two decades due to climate change and climate extremes.

    I would like to see an itemized accounting for the claimed losses with evidence that the cause was not simply bad weather. I suppose that these days any damage or loss resulting from severe weather is due to climate change. Were there no floods, droughts, typhoons, tornadoes, thunderstorms, heat waves or blizzards when CO2 concentration was a mere 330 ppm?

  7. Australia stands ready to ship Pakistan as much Coal as they need to implement their threat. This will also help all the World’s plants to thrive and recover from CO2 starvation.

  8. “According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Pakistan is ranked number 7 in the list of most vulnerable countries, suffering economic losses of $3.823 billion in the last two decades due to climate change and climate extremes.”

    And US taxpayers are responsible for this how? Is this the cost of even attending the UN COP events? Deep pockets?

    So now apparently, the US is in charge of climate and anyone can tap into the revenue stream it represents. In historical settings, this was called “Danegeld”; once you pay the Dane, you must keep paying him. And so fell Rome.

    • I thought that Danegeld was to pay the Vikings to go away and stop bothering the Saxons, around Alfred the Great’s time, in Britain and had nothing to do with Rome. What reference supports your assertion?
      John

  9. Pakiustan suffered a big flood a few years back. Maybe that’s been attributed to climate change.

  10. As Trump points out, there is responsibility on both sides here. the alt.USA for encouraging alt.Pakistan to behave in this way, and alt.Pakistan having corruption which alt.USA subtly supports Apparently no one side or person is guilty any more.

    • In the real world the group that shows up to attack the group lawfully gathering with a permit is the guilty party.

      • Fascists show up to intimidate and incite violence… that’s part of the fascist way to power.

        My country has a long and honourable tradition of standing up to fascist street demonstrations…
        http://www.cablestreet.uk/

        I’m proud that my prime minister has condemned the US president’s remarks.

      • In the minds of the left, violence isn’t violence, if you use against groups the left doesn’t like.

      • Hey Griff; I seem to remember your Prime Minister delivering “Peace in our time.” All he had to do to get it was to give away other people’s freedom to the ultimate Facist. How’d that work out?

      • @Griff
        You, your prime minister, and the US Lame Stream Media are all spin and no facts regarding Charlottesville. The Donald got it pretty right, for once.

      • Oh yeah Griff you should be proud of your leaders. So how many refugees have you and your leaders taken in? You have one of the harshest policies on refugees in Europe but there is no racism in that, they just aren’t British old chap are they. Like Australia your leaders have no leg to stand on and call others racist.

    • All Trump does is tell the truth. The Elites can’t stand the truth and they lash out violently and try to portray Trump and his supporters as racists for speaking it.

      Standard Operating Procedure for the opponents of Personal Freedoms, although the intensity against Trump is an order of magnitude greater than anything in the past. The good news is Trump doesn’t hesitate to go to battle with the Left and point out their lies and distortions of reality. They lie, and he calls them liars. They don’t like that. They don’t like conservatives. They don’t like Trump. So they lie. Also SOP.

  11. The nuclear armed and Islamic-extremist Pakistan of today points to the indescribable idiocy of the USA’s historic policy of supporting Pakistan simply because India was leaning toward the Soviet Union / Russia.
    American Russophobic racism is an infinitely more self-destructive racism than anything connected to the trite and cutesy issue of black skin. The left establishment in the USA is however doubling down on its Russophobia. They would rather have more 911’s than a few pretty looking spies in their midst. Morons. They’ll get all that they deserve.

    • The mere fact that Russia was actively trying to subvert American allies doesn’t matter. It’s all the fault of the US for opposing Russian advancement.

    • “American Russophobic racism is an infinitely more self-destructive racism than anything connected to the trite and cutesy issue of black skin. ”

      It’s all about the nukes and the threat they pose to the U.S. It has nothing to do with racism.

      The Democrats used to admire the Russians until they needed a political ploy to deflect blame from themselves for their failures in the last election. Obama knew the Russian were meddling back in 2013 but wasn’t concerned enough about it to do anything about it.

      There is no evidence Russia influenced the U.S. election one iota. Anyone who disagrees please provide an example of such. No influence from Russian internet trolls or Russian RT tv because noone pays any attention to either of them, and there is no evidence the Russians were the ones who released the DNC/Podesta emails. Wikileaks says it was *not* the Russians who did it. No evidence. Lots of claims but no evidence. Sounds like CAGW.

  12. USA won’t give them a dime any time soon now that O-sucker is gone.
    Let’s see how much Merkel & Macron hand over via their UN play thing.
    Well nothing and that’s why the Pakeys are pissed!
    No free money from the US middle & working class.
    Well that won’t last too many more years as the libtards will get back in once and again turn on the middle-class faucet.
    Feel very sorry for the US middle &working class BECAUSE THEY PAY FOR THE IDEOLOGY OF LIBERALS AND GLOBALISTS AND VESTED INTERESTS MOST NOTABLY THE PENSION FUNDS all now fully hijacked by the green mafia.

      • Planet is more black than blue.

        But you can’t see the black planet (73% of it) because of the scattered blue sunlight.

        And when the sun isn’t shining all that blue scattered light, you can then see the black.

        Yes and it’s the same whether you look up or down.

        Looking up at night you see black sky plus stars.

        Looking down at night you see black planet plus street lights (except in NK).

        G

    • I trust all the Hollywood elites and global warming prevention do-gooders will make up the difference. After all, this is their chance to put their money where their mouth is.

      • Yeah, there are a lot of disasters going on in Pakistan that don’t have anything to do with the climate.

        Not only is Trump not going to be sending money to Pakistan through the UN’s Green Climate Fund, he is also considering cutting off some other money that the U.S.gives to Pakistan as aid of one kind or another, because Trump isn’t happy that Pakistan is providing a safe haven for the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.

  13. Had someone knock on the door yesterday asking if I wanted to contribute to the flooding in Pakistan , I said I’d love to but my hose only reaches as far as the front fence .

  14. They will continue to use coal no matter how much money anyone gives them. This whole scam is about money, not “climate” or “environment”.

  15. The red herring here is the mistaken belief that by limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that is put into the atmosphere, that somehow natural disasters will cease to occur.
    It is not explicitly stated, but this is what is implied by these assertions. If it was plainly stated that would clearly be absurd. Not even the most jackass warmista could possibly think that natural disasters have not always occurred and will not always occur.
    In my opinion this is the weak link in the entire chain of argumentation they use to try to extract money from wealthy nations.
    It is transparently obvious that the whole thing is nothing but a power grab, attempting to take control of countries’ economies by limiting their access to cheap fossil fuel power.
    The entire effort must be strenuously resisted by everyone who wishes to see the world emerge from the chaos of economic deprivation.

  16. Hopefully they will burn more coal. The added CO2 has no significant effect on climate and helps plants grow. I wonder if they will use precipitators, etc. to remove the real pollutants such as particulates, NOX & sulfur like more advanced countries do.

  17. How can they stuff their Swiss bank accounts if the
    …Calif Taliban destroying monuments
    doesn’t give them $$$$

    Repent sinner!
    The Taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamiyan March 2001 and now you must
    help destroy all the history that they don’t “religiously believe”!
    …they are supreme doodle and you are a sinner!

    Just look at Hollywood blathers for the guide!
    …unless they go off script….
    ……since they “religiously believe” but are dumber than a sack of hammers.
    Get your mind right, sinner!
    (and your dirt out of the Captain’s ditch, Luke)

  18. According to Germanwatch, the apparent publisher, “The Global Climate Risk Index 2017 analyses to what extent countries have been affected by the impacts of weather-related loss events (storms, floods, heat waves etc.).” That is, the damages are all from *weather*, not *climate*.

    They do go on to say “This year’s 12th edition of the analysis reconfirms that, according to the Climate Risk Index, less developed countries are generally more affected than industrialised countries.” No surprise there. Economic development provides the resources to adapt to weather better — and everything else. It follows that anti-AGW policies that reduce economic development also have the side effect of making populations more vulnerable to weather events.

    Of course, they also say “Regarding future climate change, the Climate Risk Index may serve as a red flag for already existing vulnerability that may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe due to climate change.Regarding future climate change, the Climate Risk Index may serve as a red flag for already existing vulnerability that may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe due to climate change.” Of course, to this point efforts to show that any events *have* become more frequent or more severe due to climate change have been most underwhelming, and it’s absolutely certain that no mitigation strategy will eliminate them. Any dollar spent trying to prevent AGW could be more productively spent to directly counter weather events that have happened before and will happen again regardless of AGW.

  19. Doing anything with Pakistan has been mostly futile. The Pakistanis have been a major support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, as much or more than the Gulf Arabs, with the result that the US has been directly or indirectly financing both sides in that civil war through aid to Pakistan.

  20. With apologies to the Trammps (Disco Inferno)

    (Burn baby burn) Earth Inferno
    (Burn baby burn) Burn up all the coal
    (Burn baby burn) Greenhouse Gas Inferno
    (Burn baby burn) Burn up all the coal

  21. The pro-nuclear sentiment here is disturbing, from a bunch of people who are otherwise pretty free thinking. I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics. Around 2005 I started hearing how nuclear was now being considered “green”. This is shortly before I started catching on to the scams related to the entire financial system, including the lies and intended massive wealth transfer related to CO2 and “Global warming”. So I thought it was “cool” that nuclear was being called green, it was high tech, and from a young lad being exposed to Cook Nuclear plant and all the great lies of “too cheap to meter”….I did not look further.

    After Fukushima, I started studying the industry and what they have been doing, and was rather appalled at the highly risky ways they handled their most dangerous product, spent fuel, and their superficial focus on “safety” in stupid ways. A welder friend who does work at nuke plants states how they go through advanced safety training on vacuous type things as “if you are using a cart on a sloped floor stand behind it or it will run you over”. And they ignore the elephant in the room, storing spent fuel, often hundreds of tons, in water pools that are often located at the top of the reactors. In fact, they do calculations, to “prove” that tighter packing densities are possible if they use boron sheets to separate them. And then ignore the fact that these boron sheets degrade with time.

    The direct costs of an accident at a nuke plant, will more than wipe out any long term financial benefits of even a fleet of nuclear plants. Fukushima will see direct costs of over $1 Trillion, and the indirect costs of pain, suffering, loss of productivity, loss of life will also be enormous. Chernobyl was “not as bad” it was just one reactor, and they took effective action, although it put hundreds of thousands of people at risk in the mitigation effort, it was the right thing to do.

    But when you get to studying the industry, you see that the whole thing, from the bottom up, is built upon a stack of lies. Starting with “background” which they pretend is around 6 mSv, even though in reality it is less than 1 mSv. Then the ICRP dose model, which models the human body as a bag of water with energy being “deposited” by ionizations. This dose model makes a mockery of science and epidemiological studies that clearly show that even low dose radiation causes cancers and contributes to many other diseases / morbidity.

    But it’s big money projects, and when those happen, money can be siphoned off for bribes, kickbacks, and so industry and politicians love them. And it has the entire backing of the Military/Industrial complex.

    But to see those who don’t even buy into the CO2 lies, support nuclear on “other grounds” that I find hard to even establish, is disappointing. Study it with an open mind, and it is very likely you will come to the same conclusions that I have, it is time to phase out all civilian nuclear power plants.

    Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY. And there is no solid, safe way to store it for the tens of thousands of years that it needs to be stored.

    • Fukushima was an inept design putting standby generators where they were susceptible to flood. Had the standby generators been above the flood there would have been no problems with any of the plants. Putting generators in a secure position above floods with sufficient fuel to run for 150% of the expected worse case is a sensible approach but one that is beyond architects to understand. This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.

      • Incorrect, the pipes with irradiated water from the reactor that goes directly to the turbine buildings were broke as radiation alarms were going off even before the tsunami hit. Fukushima was placed at sea level because GE didn’t want to have to design with high head pumps. The fuel tanks were placed right at waters edge for “convenience”.

        They also realized before the earthquake that potential of a tsunami to swamp the plant, and they did nothing about it. This is the whole industry, secretive and greedy. In 2015 Pilgrim in Boston was one step away from a massive release of radiation, the torus heat exchanger worked and they were able to reject heat. That was the last step of their “defense in depth”. Think MSM covered how close that was? No way.

        It’s a systemic problem in what is basically the most dangerous thing on earth. In an EMP or CME was percent of plants wouldn’t shut down correctly, say 10% (note 440 running nuke plants on earth, not all would be effected by the CME or EMP, but you get the drift).

        It is nothing short of insane, chasing after the most expensive free lunch we could conjure up.

      • Ian said “This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.

        uh, yeah, I think when nuclear power plants blow up and create vast sacrifice zones, I would yes, that is in fact a problem with nuclear power.

    • stock that is one of the worst bits of layman science ever. This bit I really love

      quote => Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY.

      So lets explain this radiation is an emission of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles and a percentage of that emission will be used to sustain the reaction (you extract heat to make the electricity) but the process irradiates materials in the reactor and cooling water etc which is the waste.

      Once you close the reactor the radiation stops. The problem is the materials that got irradiated along the way which are waste continue to emit radiation. So how long your run the process and your 3 nuclear bombs per day garbage is of little importance, what is important is what got irradiated. The fuel rods and much of the steel in the reactor itself are the main worries. There is a complete list of decommissioned plants on wiki
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

      You will note many of those closed ran for 25-30 years and several are now greenfield with only the fuel rods and close reactor structure stored. They produced your 3 nuclear bombs of radiation per day and it doesn’t really mean a dam thing it’s a layman nonsense statistic.

      The moment you have to start using emotive nonsense to try and validate an argument you have already lost.

      • Its not a “laymans nonsense statistic” it is a way to make the amount of dangerous materials created very real. Say in 30 years, some of that radioactive material has half lifed away, but most haven’t. It’s being stored, usually in water pools that require circulation for cooling. Very little is dry casked (safer but only a can kick down the road for 50 to 100 years).

        Once you close the reactor, the radiation does not stop, the fission stops. The used fuel is not as you say irradiated, new radioactive elements have been created by the splitting of the atom which occurs in a controlled by somewhat random way called the double hump.

        http://www.nukepro.net/2015/09/radiation-education-how-fission-works.html

        My 3 bombs worth of radiation per day, IS WHAT IS STILL in the used fuel. If you are going to support “nuclear science” you ought to man up on facts.

      • Again wrong Stock. Radiation = Energy so you would be pumping energy into the rods and defying the laws of physics, the rods provide energy not store it. You just invented the impossible energy perpetual machine that makes and store energy.

        So please stop dribbling rubbish.

        The rods become more radioactive because they have been changed to other elements you at least read that bit right. Those new elements have quicker radioactive decay rates than the original fuel. So they release more energy in a shorter time (that is they are more radioactive). So the fuel rods will become inert in about 10,000 years as opposed to the original 700 Million years but they unload energy faster while doing it which includes radiation and heat. Any basic search would have given you the answer

        https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/292958/why-is-nuclear-waste-more-dangerous-than-the-original-nuclear-fuel

        So none of this has anything to do the rods storing radiation which is a pretty funny layman statement and I got a good laugh.

      • I took a liberty with half-life and the word inert (it would only be half inert), but you probably don’t have the background to pick that up but just in case lets clear that as well.

      • Menicholas

        Could you please point out 2 examples of misinformation, and 2 examples of panic mongering?

        Thank you in advance.

      • Stock,
        Two of my neighbors are retired nuclear physicists; one has intimate knowledge of both Chernobyl & Fukushima incidents having spent 2 years at Chernobyl & 1 yr at Fukushima, came for a meal tonight.

        They just read your posts …& laughed at your ill-informed drivel (not the actual words used) & suggested that science, radiation, probability and statistics were obviously ‘not your thing’.

      • 1savenergy– Oh that is just precious, you must live in New Mexico. What a coincidence that you have 2 neighbors that are both nuclear physicists. What is the likelihood of that?

        I call bullshit on you, and your blatant ad hominem. But if you want to debate specifics, I still will.

      • Stock,
        Like some of your other assumptions, you are wrong…again –

        “Oh that is just precious, you must live in New Mexico. ”
        I live ~7,580 km from New Mexico.

        “What a coincidence that you have 2 neighbors that are both nuclear physicists. What is the likelihood of that? ”
        Quite high;
        Within a 5mile radius we have at least 3 nuclear physicists, 4 nuclear plant shift engineers, 1 chemical engineer, 2 wind turbine maintenance engineers, 1 retired Grid controller & several grid operatives that I know about.
        #####

        You mention thorium and molten salts theories & state “But this new stuff lacks a working model,”

        Its not ‘new stuff’ ; they were running in the 1950s (closed by politicians because they didn’t produce weapons grade plutonium), India & China are now streets ahead of us.
        Most people I know in the nuclear industry have wanted to move away from uranium for years but ignorant politicians control the system.

        You say
        “combining carbon steels, high temp, corrosive materials, and radiation is inherently a bad idea.”
        Just shows how ill informed you are about the nuclear industry in general & materials in particular.

        Here’s a brief overview – http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx

        I note you advocate solar….
        well, good luck with that when you are on an operating table at midnight in winter.

      • Typo alert
        [ Most people I know in the nuclear industry have wanted to move away from uranium for years but ignorant politicians control the system. ]
        should read –
        Most people I know in the nuclear industry have wanted to move away from PLUTONIUM for years, but ignorant politicians control the system.

    • Informative. Thank you.

      For the ad-hominem morons, the facts presented were:

      1.Highly risk handling of spent fuel, even in a technologically leading country such as Japan (Fukushima)
      2.Superficial focus on safety, even in a technologically leading country such as Japan (Fukushima)
      3.Inadequate boron shielding.
      4.The enormous, incalculable costs of an “accident”.
      5.Inadequate ICRP modelling .
      6.Fraudulent background radiation reference.
      7.The lay understanding that each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation per day.

      Have you assessed the “walk away safe” designs, such as the one described here:
      https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/first-walk-away-safe-molten-salt.html

      • flanslogin, thanks for the adept summary to bullet points. I have reviewed some thorium and molten salts theories. Much better than uranium, but that just plays to my point anyway….it shows the incredible hubris within the nuclear industry to keep the insane uranium cycle going on 75 years, and ignore newer, better, safer technology. It shows how corrupt the industry is. But this new stuff lacks a working model, combining carbon steels, high temp, corrosive materials, and radiation is inherently a bad idea.

        Regardless, we have such better and cheaper solar technologies, and nuclear (including so called modular reactors which lose out on economy of scale) is so amazingly expensive, always over budget, and never on time, whilst carrying huge interest costs…..well nuclear is no longer in the running.

      • At DP, that is one of the classic lies of the nuclear industry. Indeed the nuke industry polices itself for industrial accidents pretty well, they are willing to spend our rate payer dollars to keep up the semblance of “safety” in operation. They need to promote the idea of safety, even though every nuclear plant releases radiation on a normal basis.

        But its not the industrial types accidents, which you kind of cite, that are the problems that we should focus on: Toxins in the environment related to the uranium cycle, normal operation, the over 100 nuclear accidents we know about that were not covered up, and the ever present problem of what to do with the nuclear waste.

        In Canada, by an existing plant, they want to bury the nuclear waste on a peninsula sticking into Lake Huron. Therein lies the absolute disregard for any semblance of risk control, the greed, the hubris that engulfs the industry.

      • Dan P, that is a balderdash link, it doesnt add to any argument, its a basic CDC cause of death summary.

        In 1900 about 6% of us died due to “consumption” aka cancer. Now 50% of women and 66% of men get cancer. Cancer rates skyrocketed after WW2. But radiation causes more than just cancer, it enables morbidity of all sorts.

      • @ Stock
        August 16, 2017 at 8:23 am
        You said “I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics”…sounds like a bright guy !!
        you then come out with a string of nonsense about nuclear (of which you clearly know little/nothing about).

        Now you state ( August 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm ) “In 1900 about 6% of us died due to “consumption” aka cancer.”
        You seem to lack basic research & statistical skills –
        1. Consumption or Pott’s Disease refers to tuberculosis TB… ( NOT cancer )
        2. In 1900 USA ~ 12% died of TB & ~ 4% died of cancer
        Stop being a Pratt,
        Some more reading for you.
        http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v05/i02/html/02timeline.html
        https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

    • “Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY”
      BOLLOCKS!

      • catweazle666—I guess you find it easier to pot shot against anyone bringing statistics about nuclear energy. I suggest research and facts instead of BOLLOCKS!

        Gofman is a pHD,
        https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/fission.html

        Reminders: This number (1130) applies to a 1000-Megawatt (electrical) nuclear power reactor — see Point 2, above. Also: The energy of the reactor and of the bomb are totally from nuclear fission. Hence, if we have compared equal energy production, we have automatically compared equal fission-product production. And since, for long-lived fission products, we can neglect the decay, we conclude that the inventory of long-lived fission products in a 3000 Megawatt (thermal) reactor, per year of constant operation, is equal to the long-lived fission-products produced by explosion of about 1130 Hiroshima bombs.

      • “Gofman is a pHD,”

        Really.

        Well, Yacky-Daa!

        Perhaps you mistake for someone who gives a flying ferret’s foreskin for how many pieces of paper someone has hung on their wall to reassure themselves how clever they are, I have a few myself, and I assure you, they prove nothing whatsoever.

        It’s still BOLLOCKS, and entirely irrelevant.

        You just keep right on believing all the scary bovine excrement and sleeping on your rubber sheet and hooting and screeching and waving your little arms and impotently stamping your tiny feet, and the rest of will get on with our lives and point at you and laugh.

        Basically, you haven’t a clue what you’re wittering about.

      • cat, your rantings and just plain attempts at insults are non-becoming to this site. I will suggest that you be banned.

        Also noted, pure adhominem without any specific address to the data presented. All of the calculations for “creating 3 bombs worth of radiation per day per running nuke plant” have been presented and cross checked.

      • Look out Cat, stock’s got his gander up, you’re going to be banned !! (:-((
        stock majors on research and facts… & he’s got influence….he knows someone with a “pHD”.

        I guess that’s much more important than our lowly PhDs

      • “I guess that’s much more important than our lowly PhDs”

        Indeed.

        Funny thing, the first thing that occurred to me when reading Stock’s post was that despite claiming to have a PhD, he/she/it couldn’t even spell it.

        And after that, it was downhill all the way…

      • catweasel, what a great name. Your reading comprehension is low. I am a MSME, and did not claim to be a pHD however you wish to spell it. Spelling Nazi’s and in the same Kamp as grammar Nazi’s.

      • Cat,
        stock is correct in saying he/she, claimed –

        “I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics”

        & knows someone with a “pHD”

  22. I’ll tell you what, give Pakistan money and LESS THAN 10% WILL BE USED FOR cc. Then just try to tell them how they should spend the money and see what their response is. Liberals are sooo gullible!

  23. Who in their right mind would trust Pakistan. It will go into nuclear arms, or someone’s pocket. THey are just looking to us to be stupid enough to feed their over populated country. They are a corrupt country who produces and hides terrorists and we promised them money? Well if the USA back out of Paris I doubt they intended to supply the whole $100M, where would the money come from? Europe thought they could get out of it as did other countries dumb enough to sign it. So – burn coal Pakistan!

  24. This is priceless. Give us cash or we’ll flood the world with greenhouse gases. Talk about extortion.

    How about we just SELL them the coal? Win/win.

  25. Informative. Thank you stock.

    For the ad-hominem morons, the facts presented were:

    1.Highly risk handling of spent fuel, even in a technologically leading country such as Japan (Fukushima)
    2.Superficial focus on safety, even in a technologically leading country such as Japan (Fukushima)
    3.Inadequate boron shielding.
    4.The enormous, incalculable costs of an “accident”.
    5.Inadequate ICRP modelling .
    6.Fraudulent background radiation reference.
    7.The lay understanding that each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation per day.

    Have you assessed the “walk away safe” designs, such as the one described here:
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/first-walk-away-safe-molten-salt.html

  26. Pakistan currently only produces around 3% of their power from nuclear reactors. But Pakistan could easily build more.

    Untrue. They cannot build their own reactors. Only China or South Korea are able to build reactors cheap enough for them. South Korea is thinking of giving up on nuclear power. Leaving China with a monopoly.

  27. 1savenergy has this to say

    You said “I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics”…sounds like a bright guy !!
    you then come out with a string of nonsense about nuclear (of which you clearly know little/nothing about).

    Now you state ( August 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm ) “In 1900 about 6% of us died due to “consumption” aka cancer.”
    You seem to lack basic research & statistical skills –
    1. Consumption or Pott’s Disease refers to tuberculosis TB… ( NOT cancer )
    2. In 1900 USA ~ 12% died of TB & ~ 4% died of cancer
    Stop being a Pratt,
    Some more reading for you.

    ————————————————————————-
    funny, you talk a string of nonsense about nuclear, of which I have several thousand hours of knowledge….but you fail to mention any specifics that we could debate.

    Instead, you take a shot at my comment that in 1900 only 6% of us got cancer and I further stated that it was called consumption.

    Then you go on to prove my point, which was the point, not the terminology, that very few people died or contracted cancer back in the day. You state 4% I state 6%.

    Regarding “consumption” that term was used for centuries for any disease that consumed the body. In your defense, it did evolve into more usage to describe TB, but even in 1900 medical summaries were still using consumption to describe cancerous consumption. I know this because I am well read, but thanks for the refining information.

    Now how about your specifics on that “string of non-sense on nuclear”

  28. I’ll start a fresh thread for 1savenergy who said

    1saveenergy
    August 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Stock,
    Like some of your other assumptions, you are wrong…again –

    “Oh that is just precious, you must live in New Mexico. ”
    I live ~7,580 km from New Mexico.

    “What a coincidence that you have 2 neighbors that are both nuclear physicists. What is the likelihood of that? ”
    Quite high;
    Within a 5mile radius we have at least 3 nuclear physicists, 4 nuclear plant shift engineers, 1 chemical engineer, 2 wind turbine maintenance engineers, 1 retired Grid controller & several grid operatives that I know about.
    #####

    You mention thorium and molten salts theories & state “But this new stuff lacks a working model,”

    Its not ‘new stuff’ ; they were running in the 1950s (closed by politicians because they didn’t produce weapons grade plutonium), India & China are now streets ahead of us.
    Most people I know in the nuclear industry have wanted to move away from uranium for years but ignorant politicians control the system.

    You say
    “combining carbon steels, high temp, corrosive materials, and radiation is inherently a bad idea.”
    Just shows how ill informed you are about the nuclear industry in general & materials in particular.

    Here’s a brief overview – http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx

    I note you advocate solar….
    well, good luck with that when you are on an operating table at midnight in winter.

    Hilarious your argumentative technique, it’s like reduction to the non-relevant. I was making a joke about new Mexico because so many multi-million nuke guys live there…..and your response is a 7580km from New MExico, somehow proving me wrong, LOL. NM is big also, did you pick the epi-center in order to claim credibility with a specific number?

    “new stuff” sure, they worked on it way back when, and are trying to again, so if it comes back in real form, it will be “new stuff”. The stress corrosion cracking that they had back then had no easy solution, and has no easy solution, although “industry experts” assure us they have a handle on it now. SHOW ME.

    Combining carbon steels, high temp, corrosive materials, and radiation (Winger effect for one) ARE BAD IDEAS, and your refutation was none existent except to pot shot/ad hominem “ill informed”. Perchance the lady should head to Zerohedge where at least you can say bittcheees!.

    And then how precious, to end with the old lie “if you don’t accept nuclear, you will be in the cold and dark”

    If you can muster an actual argument, bring it on.

    • Stock,
      How kind & thoughtful to open a thread just to debate with me;

      You claim to be “well read” yet make howler after howler, you make bold statements but don’t provide any sensible refs; sadly

      Your ref 1-
      http://www.nukepro.net/2015/09/radiation-education-how-fission-works.html
      appears to be a USA ‘Prepper site’ fixated on Nuclear Armageddon.

      Your comment about ref 2-
      “Gofman is a pHD,”
      … & the significance is ???…Al Gore has a Nobel prize & he’s a prize pillock.
      https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/fission.html
      Turns out John W. Gofman, started
      “The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility was formed as a “political and educational organization to disseminate anti-nuclear views and information to the public”. The goals of the organization were a moratorium on nuclear power and the commercialization of alternative energy sources.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Nuclear_Responsibility
      Paul Ehrlich was involved…nuf said

      I do hope you will open threads for others,
      so you can prove your prowess as a mass debater.

      • Excuse me? I think you misspelled “mass debater”? Or is that how they say it in France, being all cosmopolitan and what not?

      • Stock stated –
        “But if you want to DEBATE specifics, I still will.”
        his wish to debate (presumably with more than just me ! ).

        You are free to interpret my choice of words as you wish…that’s the beauty of language.

    • 1SaveEnergy

      I expected nothing less from you, simple adhominems. The nukepro site is a nuclear and radiation education site. Contrary to your simplistic summary, it does not focus on “Nuclear Armageddon” but rather civilian nuclear power plants. They also choose to not be against nuclear weapons (because it’s a losing battle, no government is going to give them up)

      Your pot shot at Gorman is just that. If you had the ability or desire, you could counter with an argument on how his calculations or assumption are incorrect. But OF COURSE, nothing of the sort is coming from you.

      I am documenting all your comments at another blog. It will be a curious record. And some embarrassment for WUWT, which is not my goal, but the low level and quality of discourse should be noted and corrected.

      • So, you are happy for –
        1. governments to have control over the bad uses of the atom (weapons);
        2. but will not allow the benefits of the atom to bring people out of poverty, so they will burn finite resources; That’s interesting thinking !

        Or, do you think we should follow Paul Ehrlich’s ideas & reduce the population quickly & efficiently [see 1.] (though probably better than slowly starving to death).

        I am exited that you are documenting all my comments at another blog…
        does this mean I will become a celebrity & be seen on TV & get a private jet, mix with Al Gore & DeCaprio, walk on red carpets & everything !!!!
        Bugger, I’ll have to get a spray tan & a comb over.

        I agree with your comment – “the low level and quality of discourse should be noted and corrected”,
        please let us know when you decide to improve.

  29. 2hotel9 August 20, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    “Yep. Still waiting for facts, still getting hysteria.”

    To be fair, stock is trying (very) & did supply some alternative facts from his/her friend with a “pHD” & from the preppers site.

    • “alternative facts” Pretty much says all ya need to hear. I will stick to actual facts from people who actually know something about nuclear power systems. Such as Bechtel, Westinghouse, General Atomics, General Dynamics Electric Boat. Ya know? People who actually do it.

      • LOL “thats all I have to hear”, some label something as alternative, and no longer longer need anything more. Funny, in a sad way. Par for the course. WUWT might as well be ZeroHedge

      • Yep, nobody needs to hear or read idiotic crap from you, we go to the actual source, people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about. That is how reality works.

      • LOL

        I’m bereft to see stock go,
        it means the end of having all my comments “documented at another blog”…

        Very poor comprehension, my quoting another “Thats all I have to hear” was in relation to another’s comment of “alternative facts” and once labelled as such, was all the proof that dunce number 2 needed.

      • Ahhh, you gonna cry now? When I want to know about nuclear power systems I ask people who know, which is certainly not you. Though you are entertaining, much like watching a monkey flinging its poop at people too stupid to back away from the bars, you have about run your comedic course. Toddle on back to hufpo and brag how you bested all us evil climate deeeniers! I’m sure they will believe you.

      • ” radiation can be killing off so many important parts of the food chain ” And yet it is not. Grow out that scraggly beard, get yourself a hairshirt and a signboard painted with “The End Is Nigh” and stake out a busy corner, the easier for people to point and laugh at you.

      • Oh, and I will save some time. Climate changes, constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. See, I am considerate. No, no need to thank me, just toddle along.

      • I’m bereft to see stock go,
        it means the end of having all my comments “documented at another blog”…
        this means I will NEVER become a celebrity & be seen on TV & get a private jet & mix with Al Gore & DeCaprio & walk on red carpets & everything !!!! (:-((

        But, at least I wont have to get a spray tan & a comb over. (:-))

      • Doomcriers always say they are going to leave, but like the bumpersticker says”How can I miss you if you don’t go away?”.

        And hey! Treat yourself! Spray tans are cheap and temporary and the combover is coming back, just look at all the TV news “reporters” sporting them.

  30. What would it cost to replace Pilgrim Nuclear Plant with Solar PV?

    First we look at the average annual energy Pilgrim has generated

    Then we look at how much solar PV would be need to exceed that

    Then we look at what that PV would cost

    Then we look at what the cost per kWH would be to the PV owner.

    Finally, how much wildlife land or agricultural land would we have to take to achieve that (the answer is zero)

    ————————————————————————————-

    Actually let me give you all the answers, and then you can review the calculations below.

    First we look at the average annual energy Indian Point has generated 3,687,000,000 kWH/Yr

    Then we look at how much solar PV would be need to exceed that 10 Million Panels, Exceeding Pilgrim Production at 3,850,000,000 kWH/Yr

    Then we look at what that PV would cost $2,034,000,000

    Then we look at what the cost per kWH would be to the PV owner. 1.79 cents per kWH

    http://www.nukepro.net/2015/06/replacing-indian-point-nuclear-plant.html

Comments are closed.