Apparently nuclear plants are out because they require precious water for cooling, or are vulnerable to sea level rise.
Climate change puts energy security at risk
Published 11 October 2022 Press Release Number: 11102022
Countries must triple investment in renewable energy
Geneva 11 October 2022 (WMO) – The supply of electricity from clean energy sources must double within the next eight years to limit global temperature increase. Otherwise, there is a risk that climate change, more extreme weather and water stress will undermine our energy security and even jeopardize renewable energy supplies, according to a new multi-agency report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
WMO’s State of Climate Services annual report, which includes inputs from 26 different organizations, focuses on energy this year because it holds the key to international agreements on sustainable development and climate change and, indeed, to the planet’s health.
“The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Switching to clean forms of energy generation, such as solar, wind and hydropower – and improving energy efficiency – is vital if we are to thrive in the twenty-first century. Net zero by 2050 is the aim. But we will only get there if we double the supply of low-emissions electricity within the next eight years,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof Petteri Taalas.
“Time is not on our side, and our climate is changing before our eyes. We need a complete transformation of the global energy system,” says Prof. Taalas.
Access to reliable weather, water and climate information and services will be increasingly important to strengthen the resilience of energy infrastructure and meet rising demand (an increase of 30% in the past ten years).
The 2022 State of Climate Services: Energy report has plenty of good news. It highlights the huge opportunities for green powered grids to help tackle climate change, improve air quality, conserve water resources, protect the environment, create jobs and safeguard a better future for us all.
The report includes practical case studies.
Early weather warnings are safeguarding energy supply in Beijing, China.
Climate stress tests are ensuring electricity is suitably distributed in the Italian Dolomites.
Warning systems in Tajikistan are providing advance notice of dry conditions for hydropower operations planning.
Localized wind-resource information is aiding wind industry decision-making;
Solar radiation measurements are supporting the placement of solar panels on noise barriers in Germany.
By 2050, global electricity needs- which will be increasing over the years being electrification a strategic lever to tackle Net Zero goals – will mainly be met with renewable energy, with solar the single largest supply source. African countries have an opportunity to seize untapped potential and be major players in the market. Africa is home to 60% of the best solar resources globally, yet with only 1% of installed photovoltaic capacity.
”We urgently need to respond to the growing impact of climate change on energy systems if we are to maintain energy security while accelerating the transition to net-zero. This requires long-term planning and bold policy action to spur investment, which in turn needs to be underpinned by comprehensive and reliable weather and climate data,” says Dr Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency Executive Director.
“Now is the time to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy future. Anything short of radical and immediate action will ultimately eliminate the chance of staying on the 1.5°C path. The intertwined energy and climate crises have dramatically exposed the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of an economic system heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Advancing the transition to renewables is a strategic choice to bring affordable energy, jobs, economic growth and a resilient environment to the people and communities on the ground,” said Francesco La Camera, IRENA’s Director-General.
More can and must be done. According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, bold climate action could deliver US$26 trillion in economic benefits by 2030. And yet, investment in renewable energy is much too low, especially in developing countries and too little attention is paid to the importance of climate services for energy to support both climate adaptation and decisions on how to reduce greenhouse gases.
WMO has issued annual reports on the state of climate services since 2019 in response to a UN request for more information on adaptation needs of countries. This year’s edition includes input from more partners than ever before. They include the International Energy Agency (IEA), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL), UN Energy, ENEL Foundation, Adaptation Fund, Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) and others, including private sector and civil society organizations.
“The Adaptation Fund is pleased to be a founding partner and contributor to this valuable report. The energy sector is crucial in helping curb emissions that cause climate change – at the same time, energy production itself needs to adapt to the climate impacts that are already taking place and accelerating. The Adaptation Fund funds projects that are based on the adaptation priorities of vulnerable developing countries, and we have been pleased to see an increasing number of country-driven activities that address the specific adaptation needs of the energy sector at different scales,” says Mikko Ollikainen, Head of the Adaptation Fund.
The report will be launched at a high-level event on 11 October and will also be presented to the World Energy Council summit on 13 October in Scotland. It is accompanied by an interactive digital story map.
Climate change is putting energy security at risk globally
Climate change directly affects fuel supply, energy production as well as the physical resilience of current and future energy infrastructure. Heatwaves and droughts are already putting existing energy generation under stress, making it even more important to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
The impact of more frequent and intense extreme weather, water and climate events is already clear.
For example, in January 2022, massive power outages caused by a historic heatwave in Buenos Aires, Argentina affected around 700 000 people. In November 2020, freezing rain coated power lines in the Far East of the Russian Federation, leaving hundreds of thousands of homes without electricity for several days.
Concerns about impact of global temperature increase on energy security are therefore paramount in the race to net zero emissions (NZE).
Net zero emissions are achieved when CO2 emissions from human activities are balanced globally by CO2 removals over a specified period. Net zero CO2 emissions are also referred to as carbon neutrality.
Water resources are scarce
In 2020, 87% of global electricity generated from thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric systems directly depended on water availability. Meanwhile, 33% of the thermal power plants that rely on freshwater availability for cooling are in high water stress areas. This is also the case for 15% of existing nuclear power plants, a share expected to increase to 25% in the next 20 years.
Eleven per cent of hydroelectric capacity is also located in highly water-stressed areas. And approximately 26% of existing hydropower dams and 23% of projected dams are within river basins that currently have a medium to very high risk of water scarcity.
Nuclear power plants not only depend on water for cooling but are also often located in low-lying coastal areas and hence are potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise and weather-related flooding. For example, the Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida (United States of America), which sits at sea level, will be threatened in the coming decades. Regular improvements in operational practices and evolving regulatory obligations can substantially reduce production losses of nuclear power plants due to severe weather, according to the International Atomic Energy Authority.
Climate action plans must prioritize energy
Despite these risks, just 40% of climate action plans submitted by governments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) prioritize adaptation in the energy sector, and investment is correspondingly low.
Supply from low-emissions sources needs to double by 2030 if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, according to the report.
A transition to renewable energy will help alleviate growing global water stresses because the amount of water used to generate electricity by solar and wind is much lower than for more traditional power plants, either fossil-fuel- or nuclear-based.
But current pledges by countries fall well short of what is needed to meet the objectives set by the Paris Agreement, leaving a 70% gap in the amount of emissions reductions needed by 2030.
Renewable energy pledges represent less than half of what is needed. The pathway to reach the Paris Agreement’s long-term global goal on temperature requires 7.1 TW of clean energy capacity to be installed by 2030, according to figures cited in the report.
The world is set to fall short of achieving the goal of universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy by 2030, as set out in SDG 7, by a wide margin.
The necessary policies and regulations to enable decarbonization in the energy sector are still particularly weak in Africa, South America and Asia, according to the World Bank. And the recognition of the need for services to support renewable energy is particularly low in Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement.
Investments in renewables need to triple by 2050
Investments in renewable energy need to triple by 2050 to put the world on a net zero trajectory by 2050, according to figures quoted in the report. In 2019–2020, most renewable energy investments were made in the East Asia and Pacific region (mainly China and Japan), followed by Western Europe, and North America.
Developing countries are underrepresented when it comes to accessing clean energy finance.
International public financial flows to developing countries in support of clean energy and SDG 7 achievement decreased in 2019 for the second year in a row, falling to US$ 10.9 billion. This level of support was 23% lower than the US$ 14.2 billion provided in 2018, 25% lower than the 2010–2019 average, and less than half of the peak of US$ 24.7 billion in 2017.
Africa could be major renewables player
Africa is already facing severe effects from climate change, including massive droughts, despite bearing the least responsibility for the problem.
Declining clean technology costs hold new promise for Africa’s future, and there is a huge opportunity for Africa to help close the gap in the need for renewable energy. Achieving Africa’s energy and climate goals means more than doubling energy investment this decade, with a huge increase in adaptation. Only 2% of clean energy investment in the last two decades was made in Africa. Bringing access to modern energy for all Africans calls for an investment of US$ 25 billion annually, which is around 1% of global energy investment today.
Climate services provide reliable information
Renewable energy systems are weather and climate dependent, so the transition to clean energy calls for improved climate information and services to support decisions on site selection and operations, maintenance and management.
Climate services are defined as the production and delivery of relevant, credible and usable climate information. The energy industry has extensive experience using weather services. Still, it needs to do more to incorporate climate information into its decision-making to increase the resilience of energy systems to climate-related shocks and to boost energy efficiency.
There is huge room for improvement. Less than 50% of WMO Members provide tailored products for the energy sector, which shows the untapped potential of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) and the efforts required to address the emerging needs of this sector.
Why do we need climate services?
Energy-sector planning and operations are affected by weather and climate variability and change. As energy systems become increasingly dependent on weather variations, it is apparent that the information flow from weather and climate data and forecasts needs to be properly incorporated into the decision support systems.
Although the power sector routinely uses weather forecasts up to 15 days, there is less experience in using climatological data.
More effective use of climate information helps scale up renewable energy infrastructure, but they will also promote clean energy system efficiency and climate resilience. Increased, sustained investments in such services, supported by recognition of the need for such services through enhanced policies, are required to achieve this.
Examples of applications of climate services for energy include:
Planning purchases of gas and electric power;
Managing responses in emergency situations;
Managing capacity and resources (e.g. grid/distribution management, electricity production/pricing);
Optimizing renewable power plant operation, especially reservoirs and hydropower operations;
In the energy sector, studies have demonstrated the economic value of very short-term, sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasts (e.g. for temperature, wind speed, stream flow) for fuel purchasing decisions, demand and generation forecasting, and system planning. Temperature forecasts allow managers to forecast peak loads more accurately and optimally schedule power generation plants to meet demands at a lower cost. Hydropower operations benefit from daily, weekly and seasonal precipitation and streamflow forecasts, which can help to optimize operations.
For example, the use of streamflow forecasts increases energy production from major Columbia River (United States) hydropower dams by 5.5 TWh/year, resulting in an average increase in annual revenue of approximately US$ 153 million per year.
Similarly, the use of forecasts to manage hydropower operations in Ethiopia produces cumulative decadal benefits ranging from US$ 1 to US$ 6.5 billion, compared to a climatological (no forecast) approach.
The development and application of targeted climate products and services through the Global Framework for Climate Services can support both adaptation and mitigation.
The World Meteorological Organization is the United Nations System’s authoritative voice
on Weather, Climate and Water
For further information contact: Clare Nullis, WMO media officer, cnullis@wmo.int. Tel 41-79-7091397
Given solar is only available 20% of the time, to replace a 1GW nuclear reactor (70-90% availability factor), you would need 3.5GW of solar (ignoring battery inefficiencies), which would require between 24 million to 70 million litres of water per week.
There are various claims of waterless cleaning systems, and the document I based this estimate on is at least six years old. But I find it difficult to believe water use can be eliminated, particularly in hostile environments like sandy deserts.
Wind is not such a water hog, but those turbines still need the occasional wash, to maintain aerodynamic efficiency.
The WMO hydroelectric push is a little sad. Hydroelectric is a wonderful low cost source of energy, a good way for poor countries to get their foot on the industrialisation ladder, but it would be nice to leave some rivers unspoiled. I remember when greens chained themselves to trees to prevent the construction of hydroelectric dams. Todays greens list the rivers which haven’t been exploited yet, and demand the clearance of vast wilderness areas to make way for solar panel farms.
The prejudice against nuclear is the most intriguing part of the document. All the problems they listed are fixable.
Nuclear power plants could be designed to use air cooling instead of evaporative water cooling, for siting in places which experience water stress, by simply running the cold end a little hotter, and relying on air cooling like the radiator on your automobile. This isn’t done normally, because plant operators naturally want to squeeze out every drop of efficiency, which means running the cold end of the reactor as cold as possible.
Alternatively, even the most pessimistic sea level rise projections can be addressed with better siting. Sea water for cooling could simply be pumped uphill a hundred feet or so to a slightly elevated reactor site, which would ensure an endless supply of water, and complete protection from sea level rise.
The WMO document makes no attempt to discuss such simple fixes for the issues they claim rule out nuclear power as an option, which in my opinion makes their negativity towards nuclear power a case of irrational prejudice.
The worst places for photovoltaic?
Why, that would be the UK, most of Europe. Who knew? Is that why we’ve been so enthusiastically building solar subsidy farms in the UK? We need much more (even in Scotland), because they are so bloody useless?
And the other standout is China. Why is China shown as having crap solar potential? And they are the top producer of wretched solar panels, also!?!
Using clean, efficient, reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy, of course.
The CCP maybe perhaps the most wicked ‘government’ on the planet. But at least they aren’t corrupt muppets like our Beloved Leaders.
Internal human rights abuses aside (and Jan 6th protestors would know all about that) I don’t really see China as the bogey man it’s portrayed by the west.
I mean, hand everything to them on a silver platter and what do we expect them to do? While they are building their economy the west is determined to destroy its economy. We can blame it on what we want, The Great Reset, NetZero or the WEF, it doesn’t matter, the Chinese are just watching in complete bewilderment. The rest of the BRICS nations are much the same and making moves to divorce themselves from the self implosion of the west.
While northern Africa has a lot of sun, it also has a lot of sand. How much power do you get out of solar panel when it is covered by sand or dust?
Chris
October 11, 2022 11:38 pm
Dislike of nuclear power tells me that this is nothing about the environment – and everything about fundamentally changing the way society works. The fact that the citizens of the UK just sit back and say thank you for saving the planet – and giving us daily 3 hour blackouts also tells me the average person is just a useful idiot.
michael hart
October 12, 2022 12:46 am
A significant part of the Netherlands is at, and below, sea level.
A Dutch woman once explained the difficulties of dredging to me. She said “All you need is an asshole on a boat.”
Just heard on the news that the UK government are to introduce a cap on how much renewable energy providers can charge, as they are presently profiteering by charging at the same rate as reliable thermal generation would cost. Energy companies are already panicking saying that such measures will put off potential investors. I say it’s a huge step in the right direction, next logical step (I hope!) will be drop all green taxes on coal, gas and oil, cancel “carbon offsetting”, and pay the renewable generators only for what they provide, and penalise them whenever they fall short.
Right. Government needs to get out of the energy business, all governments. But of course, with these socialists all over its difficult or near impossible.
Get government out of the business, stop all subsidies for all energy related products, services and projects across all energy industries. Let green energy go up against fossil fuel energy in a free unsubsidized environment and see what happens. We know what would happen, it would be the instant start of the death of grid scale green energy.
I think that the only way solar makes some sense is individual roof top installations.
I know a guy in the neighborhood who has had solar installed for 10 years. He did it mostly because he got a large subsidy. He said that it is still working well and he has seen no difference in output over that time. I asked him how long until he recoups his investment; another 8 years. (That doesn’t count the savings on his bill I suppose although I don’t know) He’s 79 and healthy. So at 87 he’ll have the array paid off.
Roof top solar only makes sense because of the heavy subsidies.
First the installation costs are highly subsidized, then, by law, they get to sell the energy they produce to the power companies at a price that is many times higher then what that power is worth.
Nuclear powered submarines are designed to cope with “sea level rise.” /sarc
Sea level rise is not a game changing event that cannot be factored into the design of the initial layout of a nuclear plant. My contention is that all nuclear plants should be designed to cope with the contingency of a flooding event that may last for an extended period of time.
For instance – watertight doors should be fitted to all exterior accesses to spaces that contain vulnerable equipment and these doors should be located several floors above ground level.
Emergency diesel generator back-up could possibly be similarly protected or physically located on high ground in the vicinity of the power plant. Essential cables could be run underground back to the nuclear plant. Provision to occasionally top up the generator fuel tanks (if found to be necessary) could be by fixed underground pipelines that should not be affected by flooding.
Obviously these safety precautions would entail additional costs and minor day to day operating inconvenience with regard to the doorways.
It should be noted that dredgers are routinely designed so that the only way to pass from pump room to hold space is to climb the stairs to deck level and then descend again into the next space. The flooding risk on dredgers is considerable because large diameter pipes are transporting spoil that contains sharp rocks that may fracture and compromise the watertight integrity of the vessel. This minor inconvenience is tolerated in the interests of safety!
As with virtually all the scientific organizations, they have become political pawns in establishing one-world totalitarian governance. Only political science is practiced.
The WMO experts are the first to whine when someone outside of meteorology comments about the weather and climate but feel that they have the background and experience to pontificate about energy resources. Hypocrites!
Rod Evans
October 12, 2022 1:52 am
I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch ‘Spam wonderful Spam’ when I read a piece of propaganda as pathetic as this from the WMO.
If you want to know the level of ignorance that is acceptable at the BBC when they choose their university educated weather team then enjoy this reality of how deep that ignorance is.
One of the proposals for renewable energy supply to Europe and UK is for huge solar plants in Egypt , to supply southern Europe, and in North Africa to supply UK . Both via thousands of miles of electrical “pipe” line. Now in the light of recent events can anyone see a serious flaw in those suggestions?
Well first, that will provide NO electricity at night, and little when they are covered in dust.
Then there’s Islamofascsists potentially getting control over their electricity generation and other potential ‘saboteurs’ with navies that could cut the ‘feeders.’
In the section “Why do we need climate services?” it says ” ….. the information flow from ….. climate data ….. needs to be properlyy incorporated into the decision support systems.”
If they do that their whole argument disintigrates.
Nah it will just be “adjusted” to say what they want it to say.
Gregory Woods
October 12, 2022 3:08 am
The War On Energy (WOE) goes on…
H.R.
October 12, 2022 3:39 am
Triple down on unreliables to stabilize the grid?!?
– Was there anything, anything in that WMO paper based on reality? I should probably take a double dose of Soma and read it again.
Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 3:41 am
From the article: “Climate change puts energy security at risk”
No, it is climate change stupidity that puts energy security at risk.
😎
Most of cooling water is returned to the the source. What is released as steam will fall as rain.
Those dark clouds you see in photos implying “pollution” is just water vapor shot at sunset or sunrise. It will return as dew or rain.
(I’ve heard the steam clouds described as “a ton of water”. I don’t know the timespan of one ton of steam released but one ton of water is only about 240 gallons of water.)
Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 3:54 am
From the article: ““Time is not on our side, and our climate is changing before our eyes. We need a complete transformation of the global energy system,” says Prof. Taalas.”
The leader of the WHO is delusional. The Climate is changing before his very eyes, he says. Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it. At least in his mind.
There’s no evidence backing up your delusions, Prof. Taalas. You are assuming things not in evidence. You are making leadership decisions based on delusions of human-caused climate change.
The Ruling Class is heavily invested in the Human-caused Climate Change Delusion. It gives them purpose, and status, and power and money and control. All based on something they couldn’t prove if their lives depended on proving it.
Mother Nature is in charge of the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise, and it has NEVER been proven otherwise, yet our so-called leaders proceed as if it were. They do so for delusional and/or selfish reasons.
We are being led off the cliff by climate change connivers and their useful idiots. Maybe we will see where they are leading us to this coming winter.
They sucked the fun (HA) out of life that was WHAMO
Speed
October 12, 2022 4:11 am
Apparently nuclear plants are out because they require precious water for cooling, or are vulnerable to sea level rise.
Precious cooling water is returned to the lake or river or ocean that it came from. Vulnerability to sea level rise is eliminated by not building reactors near the sea.
Problems solved. I’ll send you the bill 🙂 Still working on the problem of putting fools in charge.
Worst case, sea levels will only rise a few inches to a foot during the expected life of the power plant. No need to fear sea level rise in the first place.
Pure bureacraticese from people who have no skin in the game nor knowledge of what is required to accomplish the fanciful goals. Someone needs to charge them with also creating a global Gantt chart or similar project management program detailing how this will be done! It needs to be done country by country showing resource allocations, production schedules, and cost projections.
These people are not God presenting tablets with rules to Moses! Although I am sure they have the attitudes that they are prescience, omniscient, and very knowledgeable of what is needed.
Has anybody actually looked at the paper?
More renewable energy, solar & wind power, is needed to prevent all sorts of climate change doom and gloom. IPCC RCP8.5 models used.
PDF 52 pages.
– – – – – – – – –
2022 STATE OF CLIMATE SERVICES
The past seven years have been the warmest on record. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world.
There is now consensus that without immediate and strong reductions in greenhouse gas GHG) emissions, limiting global warming to 2 °C is beyond reach. As it accounts for almost three quarters of global GHG emissions, major transitions are required in the energy sector.
Please notice that I pointed out the study uses IPCC RCP8.5 models. So, I know it is not based on reality. Everyone should realize this.
sniffybigtoe
October 12, 2022 8:40 am
Small nit to pick, but “which means running the cold end of the reactor as cold as possible.” is incorrect.
Real world efficiency happens when the condensate is kept at just a few degrees subcooled. You don’t want it flashing to steam and preventing you from pumping it, but the cooler it gets the more you have to heat it.
Carlo, Monte
October 12, 2022 10:08 am
Here’s an idea griff will embrace: a HV transmission line from the Kalahari to the UK.
A geoengineered solution to solar power’s Achilles heel:
Spend a few trillion to orbit mirrors that will reflect sunlight to the entire globes 24/7. No need for backups!
(Hmmm … clouds get in my way… Reverse the polarity on the pinwheels so they blow the clouds away! Problem solved!!)
As well as the costs of upkeep, water for cleaning being mentioned by many, there is little to no consideration that both solar and wind generation have short life-times and need to be replaced within 25 years or so.
The $trillions needed now will be ever-increasing and ongoing expenses for the future generations they are attempting to save
Loved the Photovoltaic Power Potential map.
The worst places for photovoltaic?
Why, that would be the UK, most of Europe. Who knew? Is that why we’ve been so enthusiastically building solar subsidy farms in the UK? We need much more (even in Scotland), because they are so bloody useless?
And the other standout is China. Why is China shown as having crap solar potential? And they are the top producer of wretched solar panels, also!?!
Using clean, efficient, reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy, of course.
The CCP maybe perhaps the most wicked ‘government’ on the planet. But at least they aren’t corrupt muppets like our Beloved Leaders.
They are also corrupt, just in a more direct way. Rather than setting up fake subsidy schemes, they just skim it straight off the top.
Internal human rights abuses aside (and Jan 6th protestors would know all about that) I don’t really see China as the bogey man it’s portrayed by the west.
I mean, hand everything to them on a silver platter and what do we expect them to do? While they are building their economy the west is determined to destroy its economy. We can blame it on what we want, The Great Reset, NetZero or the WEF, it doesn’t matter, the Chinese are just watching in complete bewilderment. The rest of the BRICS nations are much the same and making moves to divorce themselves from the self implosion of the west.
While northern Africa has a lot of sun, it also has a lot of sand. How much power do you get out of solar panel when it is covered by sand or dust?
Dislike of nuclear power tells me that this is nothing about the environment – and everything about fundamentally changing the way society works. The fact that the citizens of the UK just sit back and say thank you for saving the planet – and giving us daily 3 hour blackouts also tells me the average person is just a useful idiot.
A significant part of the Netherlands is at, and below, sea level.
A Dutch woman once explained the difficulties of dredging to me. She said “All you need is an asshole on a boat.”
Just heard on the news that the UK government are to introduce a cap on how much renewable energy providers can charge, as they are presently profiteering by charging at the same rate as reliable thermal generation would cost. Energy companies are already panicking saying that such measures will put off potential investors. I say it’s a huge step in the right direction, next logical step (I hope!) will be drop all green taxes on coal, gas and oil, cancel “carbon offsetting”, and pay the renewable generators only for what they provide, and penalise them whenever they fall short.
Right. Government needs to get out of the energy business, all governments. But of course, with these socialists all over its difficult or near impossible.
Get government out of the business, stop all subsidies for all energy related products, services and projects across all energy industries. Let green energy go up against fossil fuel energy in a free unsubsidized environment and see what happens. We know what would happen, it would be the instant start of the death of grid scale green energy.
I think that the only way solar makes some sense is individual roof top installations.
I know a guy in the neighborhood who has had solar installed for 10 years. He did it mostly because he got a large subsidy. He said that it is still working well and he has seen no difference in output over that time. I asked him how long until he recoups his investment; another 8 years. (That doesn’t count the savings on his bill I suppose although I don’t know) He’s 79 and healthy. So at 87 he’ll have the array paid off.
Roof top solar only makes sense because of the heavy subsidies.
First the installation costs are highly subsidized, then, by law, they get to sell the energy they produce to the power companies at a price that is many times higher then what that power is worth.
The poor pay for the virtue signallers
Nuclear powered submarines are designed to cope with “sea level rise.” /sarc
Sea level rise is not a game changing event that cannot be factored into the design of the initial layout of a nuclear plant. My contention is that all nuclear plants should be designed to cope with the contingency of a flooding event that may last for an extended period of time.
For instance – watertight doors should be fitted to all exterior accesses to spaces that contain vulnerable equipment and these doors should be located several floors above ground level.
Emergency diesel generator back-up could possibly be similarly protected or physically located on high ground in the vicinity of the power plant. Essential cables could be run underground back to the nuclear plant. Provision to occasionally top up the generator fuel tanks (if found to be necessary) could be by fixed underground pipelines that should not be affected by flooding.
Obviously these safety precautions would entail additional costs and minor day to day operating inconvenience with regard to the doorways.
It should be noted that dredgers are routinely designed so that the only way to pass from pump room to hold space is to climb the stairs to deck level and then descend again into the next space. The flooding risk on dredgers is considerable because large diameter pipes are transporting spoil that contains sharp rocks that may fracture and compromise the watertight integrity of the vessel. This minor inconvenience is tolerated in the interests of safety!
KAT: you mean, use good engineering design!
I thought the WMO was a meteorological organisation?!?
As with virtually all the scientific organizations, they have become political pawns in establishing one-world totalitarian governance. Only political science is practiced.
Yes – and its “leaders” do not speak for its membership, once again.
The leadership drank the Kool-Aid and decided they like it!
The WMO experts are the first to whine when someone outside of meteorology comments about the weather and climate but feel that they have the background and experience to pontificate about energy resources. Hypocrites!
I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch ‘Spam wonderful Spam’ when I read a piece of propaganda as pathetic as this from the WMO.
If you want to know the level of ignorance that is acceptable at the BBC when they choose their university educated weather team then enjoy this reality of how deep that ignorance is.
All can say is WOW.
Thanks for the post.
One of the proposals for renewable energy supply to Europe and UK is for huge solar plants in Egypt , to supply southern Europe, and in North Africa to supply UK . Both via thousands of miles of electrical “pipe” line. Now in the light of recent events can anyone see a serious flaw in those suggestions?
Well first, that will provide NO electricity at night, and little when they are covered in dust.
Then there’s Islamofascsists potentially getting control over their electricity generation and other potential ‘saboteurs’ with navies that could cut the ‘feeders.’
What could possibly go wrong?!
The stupid, it burns.
There’s also the issue of power being lost in transmission, on those rare occasions when the solar farms are actually producing power.
The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa
Why has there been no significant change in sea levels in the different coastal places I know for over 70 years?
In the section “Why do we need climate services?” it says ” ….. the information flow from ….. climate data ….. needs to be properlyy incorporated into the decision support systems.”
If they do that their whole argument disintigrates.
Nah it will just be “adjusted” to say what they want it to say.
The War On Energy (WOE) goes on…
Triple down on unreliables to stabilize the grid?!?
–
Was there anything, anything in that WMO paper based on reality? I should probably take a double dose of Soma and read it again.
From the article: “Climate change puts energy security at risk”
No, it is climate change stupidity that puts energy security at risk.
Climate POLICIES put energy security and economies at risk.
Wow! Nuclear power stations destroy water. Now that is news!
😎
Most of cooling water is returned to the the source. What is released as steam will fall as rain.
Those dark clouds you see in photos implying “pollution” is just water vapor shot at sunset or sunrise. It will return as dew or rain.
(I’ve heard the steam clouds described as “a ton of water”. I don’t know the timespan of one ton of steam released but one ton of water is only about 240 gallons of water.)
From the article: ““Time is not on our side, and our climate is changing before our eyes. We need a complete transformation of the global energy system,” says Prof. Taalas.”
The leader of the WHO is delusional. The Climate is changing before his very eyes, he says. Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it. At least in his mind.
There’s no evidence backing up your delusions, Prof. Taalas. You are assuming things not in evidence. You are making leadership decisions based on delusions of human-caused climate change.
The Ruling Class is heavily invested in the Human-caused Climate Change Delusion. It gives them purpose, and status, and power and money and control. All based on something they couldn’t prove if their lives depended on proving it.
Mother Nature is in charge of the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise, and it has NEVER been proven otherwise, yet our so-called leaders proceed as if it were. They do so for delusional and/or selfish reasons.
We are being led off the cliff by climate change connivers and their useful idiots. Maybe we will see where they are leading us to this coming winter.
Make that WMO.
They sucked the fun (HA) out of life that was WHAMO
Precious cooling water is returned to the lake or river or ocean that it came from. Vulnerability to sea level rise is eliminated by not building reactors near the sea.
Problems solved. I’ll send you the bill 🙂 Still working on the problem of putting fools in charge.
Worst case, sea levels will only rise a few inches to a foot during the expected life of the power plant. No need to fear sea level rise in the first place.
Pure bureacraticese from people who have no skin in the game nor knowledge of what is required to accomplish the fanciful goals. Someone needs to charge them with also creating a global Gantt chart or similar project management program detailing how this will be done! It needs to be done country by country showing resource allocations, production schedules, and cost projections.
These people are not God presenting tablets with rules to Moses! Although I am sure they have the attitudes that they are prescience, omniscient, and very knowledgeable of what is needed.
Has anybody actually looked at the paper?
More renewable energy, solar & wind power, is needed to prevent all sorts of climate change doom and gloom. IPCC RCP8.5 models used.
PDF 52 pages.
– – – – – – – – –
2022 STATE OF CLIMATE SERVICES
The past seven years have been the warmest on record. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world.
There is now consensus that without immediate and strong reductions in greenhouse gas GHG) emissions, limiting global warming to 2 °C is beyond reach. As it accounts for almost three quarters of global GHG emissions, major transitions are required in the energy sector.
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11330
Cam
Come back and post here after you grow up, get a job, start paying taxes, get married and have a child.
That COULD give you the ability to be able to distinguish reality from propaganda.
Please notice that I pointed out the study uses IPCC RCP8.5 models. So, I know it is not based on reality. Everyone should realize this.
Small nit to pick, but “which means running the cold end of the reactor as cold as possible.” is incorrect.
Real world efficiency happens when the condensate is kept at just a few degrees subcooled. You don’t want it flashing to steam and preventing you from pumping it, but the cooler it gets the more you have to heat it.
Here’s an idea griff will embrace: a HV transmission line from the Kalahari to the UK.
But only if it is a DC transmission line.
Embrace renewables to export your jobs….
German companies look at offshore production as energy prices rocket (yahoo.com)
Apparently the WMO is unaware that the embracement of renewables is the main cause of today’s grid destabilization.
Derek,
“Apparently the WMO is unaware that the embracement of renewables is the main cause of today’s grid destabilization.”
A bug?
Or a feature? At least in that part of the world not run by the CCP . . . .
Auto.
A geoengineered solution to solar power’s Achilles heel:
Spend a few trillion to orbit mirrors that will reflect sunlight to the entire globes 24/7. No need for backups!
(Hmmm … clouds get in my way… Reverse the polarity on the pinwheels so they blow the clouds away! Problem solved!!)
Everything that the Climateers do to improve the energy situation results in more and worsening damage to society.
As well as the costs of upkeep, water for cleaning being mentioned by many, there is little to no consideration that both solar and wind generation have short life-times and need to be replaced within 25 years or so.
The $trillions needed now will be ever-increasing and ongoing expenses for the future generations they are attempting to save
That is why they call it sustainable. It will sustain their “industries” forever. Here “industries” = rent seeking.