Slashdot Mirror
Startling New Research Finds Large Buildup of Heat in the Oceans, Suggesting a Faster Rate of Global Warming [Update] (washingtonpost.com)
The world's oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.
From a report: Over the past quarter-century, the Earth's oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth's atmosphere -- more than 8 times the world's energy consumption, year after year.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
And the second angel poured his bowl out into the sea, and it became red like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.
science deniers in ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ........
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
Seriously, this is insane. We are losing the battle with AGW not because of far right extremists, but BOTH far left/right extremists.
Far righties, even in Eastern Europe, along with Trump combine with far left like CHina, and those claiming that China can continue to grow their coal emissions faster than what the west is cutting, are the ones to blame.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China is growing theirs by 250-300% over the next couple of years. This is a no-win situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why crash on the GOP? Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it. And their fear is not founded on science or logic. Just fear. There really is NO difference between the far left and right. Both hate science and logic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm not sure what planet you're smoking on to believe that politicians are acting upon climate change, but those "old models" were far more optimistic for the future and politics didn't bat an eye. It's pretty reasonable to expect that we don't know shit about how all of these factors affect one another, and I'm not the least bit surprised that we are still grossly understating the consequences ahead. Good on you for not blaming Obama for this somehow.
Come for the tech discussion, stay for the climate change berating.
Ad hominem in the first one already? No, that's not how it's played. First you have to make up some argument. Whether it's for or against climate change doesn't really matter, nobody's gonna read it anyway. Then you'll have someone react to it, then two or three more before someone derails it and goes of on a completely irrelevant tangent, and THEN you can come in with the ad hominems.
Stick to the script, please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They don't parrot anything. They tell their parrots what to squawk, and that's in general whatever lines their pockets best. And since not dumping your waste but actually having to clean it up cuts into your profits, it's BAD.
Now tell your sheep to repeat that and you're golden.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not me. I have no kids and the maybe 30ish years I have left on this planet it's gonna last.
I used to think that I should probably leave the planet in a better state than what I got it in, but, ya know, as you grow older, less idealistic and more jaded, you notice that even those that have a reason to do so, because they have kids and will maybe one day have to explain to them why they fucked up the world, don't, so why should I?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
We're not opposed to nuclear power. In fact, you will find more nuclear power plants in Democratic states than in red states.
We're just opposed to letting the same jackoffs who befouled the world with their fossil fuel effluvia be the ones to run those nuclear power plants. Because they cannot be trusted.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's the spirit! Who needs boring stuff like a planet to live on?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you have kids?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We will all be better off when you're floating face down in the Gulf of Mexico.
I was just doing that last Summer on my yearly scuba diving excursion. Completely enveloped in the ocean's warmth, I was in a state of bliss. Thank you for your kind encouragement as I look forward to next year's trip.
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit back, relax and watch the show.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And you think that AGW is not a problem?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I do, but plenty of people are still denying it.
Elvis has left the building.
Looks like we're pretty much fucked.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
The story just does not add up, except to basically scream to us we should be worried. Why should we trust someone with such an obvious fear based agenda?
Fear is not Science, and your attempt to help spread it is anti-Science as well. Shame on you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not taking a for or against stance but to quote the article "It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already"... That gives me no confidence that they had any sort of valid historic numbers to compare against.
Actually, there really is NOT a lot of ppl denying it. Yes, we have trolls here denying it, but in the Academia world, as well as in most of the political world, finally, in the real population, it is accepted that it is occurring and that we MUST do something about it.
So, you will NEVER get 100% of any large population that will agree on something.
I have no doubt that If we were invaded by aliens today, a number of religious fanatics would scream that it is god/allah/buddha/etc come back to take us to heaven. And they would say that while watching the rest of their family be eaten.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yet another article on how doomed we all are. How about some solutions? Here's one we should embrace, nuclear power. If nuclear power isn't in a national energy policy, along with wind and hydro, then I believe the policy makers don't believe what they are shoveling or have an unrealistic belief on the threats nuclear power pose. Much like how people choose to drive instead of fly because they saw a news report on a plane crash.
I've heard this term before, "global lukewarming". Perhaps this is how I should describe myself, a "global lukewarmer". This is the idea that global warming is happening, it's man made, but it will be mild enough that we have plenty of time to resolve the problem. If I'm right then we need nuclear power. If I'm wrong then we need nuclear power right now. There is no long term energy policy that does not include nuclear power any more. Hoping and wishing for wind, water, and solar power to save us is not an energy policy. That's just waiting at the port for a ship that might not come.
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more. I'm guessing it's a bit of both.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You are correct that blue states have more nuke power. BUT, the problem is, that the dems are the ones constantly blocking us now.
As to letting jackoffs off the hook, im making sure that BOTH the far right/left are blamed correctly since 1 of them denies that it is happening, while the other blocks the main solution for it. This is just insane.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
From no less than the MasterBeraters at the WaPo.
These "Scientists" are finding "proof" of global warming like Democrats "find" ballots after they've come up short of the win.
When you're on a sinking ship, it's not very productive to go around pestering the people who are bailing out the water because they can't tell you if it's going to sink in a couple hours or a couple days if nothing is done. In this analogy there aren't any other boats or life rafts and there's no land in sight, so you should probably be grabbing a bucket and getting to work. But at the very least you could get out of the way and quit drilling holes in the hull.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China...
Coal consumption in China has declined during the 2010s with its percentage in the energy mix falling from 80% in 2010 to 60% in 2017. Looks like they are on the right path. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree that nukes need to be a big part of the solution.
Well let's take that bull by the horns. In 100 years we will push back from the oceans. Meanwhile technology will be unrecognizable and none of this will be any matter either way.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If you rely on civilization in any way for your quality of life, there are no such places. People don't just stay put when the oceans rise and take away their coastal homes. When food is scarce from drought they don't just shrug their shoulders and say "Whelp, guess I'll go die now!" Those things will drive migration, economic instability, and conflict on a global scale.
it is accepted that it is occurring and that we MUST do something about it.
Really ? According to this recent interview, Trump doesn't think it's urgent at all. He wants to wait until it swings back again. In that case, we don't need nukes.
President Donald Trump is backing off his claim that climate change is a hoax but says he doesn’t know if it’s manmade and suggests that the climate will “change back again.”
In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said he doesn’t want to put the U.S. at a disadvantage in responding to climate change.
“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.”
Now my counter argument. I happen to live in the Alps. They were always famous vacation resorts, and here, skiing and bobsleigh were invented. We have thus hundreds of printed pictures of well known regions like St. Moritz or Bad Ischgl dating back 250 years and photographs dating back 150 years and more, and we have the touristic and sport infrastructure built during the decades.
Thus we can tell from the pictures, from the buildings and the natural features like moraines, how far snow and ice have been in the 1700ies, the 1800ies, the 1900ies and today. And they all tell a consistent picture: Temperatures in the Alps have risen about 2.5 degrees Celsius since the 1700ies, and the end of the glaciers have retreated 750 height meters. Oetzi, the Similaun Man, an ice mummy more than 5000 years old, was only found recently, because the glacier on the Timmelsjoch, which covered the corpse, has tawed to a point where the mummy came back to the surface.
At least for the Alps, the climate development is definitely consistent with what the computer models tell us. Actually, it's more the reverse. The computer models are gauged with what we see in temperature sensitive regions like the mountaintops, where the extension of the glaciers is directly dependent on the recent average temperatures.
(And of course, daily temperature measurements started in the Early modern period, and thus, we have continuous climate protocols dating back until the first half of the 18th century. And of course, some of those early temperature stations were too close to buildings or inside towns, giving too high readouts for the local temperature. Later the stations were moved to more appropriate places, giving slightly lower readouts. And sometimes, the towns have grown around climate stations, making it necessary to move the stations.)
You people love to talk Civil War, but you forget that one side has all the guns and the other can't decide which restroom to use.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
how does responding to a plural statement with a plural response indicate cowardice?
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have a feeling you and I agree on many salient issues, but this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to Trump in office. You could change a few words in your rant and, frankly, it wouldn't sound any different than what spews forth from the mouths of white supremacists. There's no better way to drive conservatives to the polls en masse then by wrapping your political opinions in such vitriol. People like you did more to swing the votes away from your own cause than you'll ever be willing to admit.
I suspect that if one were to audit the data and the process involved in coming to their conclusions, it would be found wanting at the very least.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Seriously, this is insane. We are losing the battle with AGW not because of far right extremists, but BOTH far left/right extremists. Far righties, even in Eastern Europe, along with Trump combine with far left like CHina, and those claiming that China can continue to grow their coal emissions faster than what the west is cutting, are the ones to blame.
Just because a small group of idiots claim that it is not real, it not that big of an issue. America continues down the right path (so far).
The one path we need desperately is to restart out nuke industry. Trump is doing as little for it as O/W did (clinton was a disaster to nuke energy).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean like temperature measurements like at airports that have experienced large growth the past few decades? In high school, I helped maintain the weather station at my local airport. There was one runway, a tiny terminal, and no other buildings for over half a mile from the airport at that time. Now, there's three runways, two much larger terminals, and growth all around the airport on all sides. It's not shocking to see that there's been an almost half a degree rise in measured temperatures.
I wouldn't call it rejecting empirical data. It's more just cherry-picking data.
Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it.
The all powerful hippies are still crushing corporate America under their dirty Birkenstocks! Will hundred billion dollar energy companies never catch a break? Oh the humanity!
This is a fantasy that never dies, since it floats around without the least bit of evidence to support it (notice that Windbourne offers none).
The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment for capitalists, and without a lot of orders the industry has shriveled and become unreliable for those who do place orders. If you consult this handy industry webpage you will see that no fewer than eleven construction and operating licences for units have been approved since 2007, but of these seven have been withdrawn/cancelled, only two are still under constructions (the two Vogtle units) but which are way over budget (and in imminent danger of cancellation), and two more have yet to break ground. The DOE shares the costs of these license applications, and the U.S. government provides loan guarantees, as well as free insurance, yet no plants are being completed.
It isn't lawsuits, or protests, or public opinion, or "government regulations", bringing these projects down, it is hard-nose corporate bean counters pulling the plugs.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
No, and fuck you. This has been how Trumpist jackoffs have been spinning anything they don't like: "This is how Trump got elected". It's all horseshit and you should not believe it.
Trump got in office by lighting up the lizard brains of racists, nazis and the most fucked up 20% of our society who respond to authoritarians and bullies. He got in office through voter suppression. He got in office because 304 members of the electoral college voted for him, even though most voters did not.
Also, by maximizing the oxycontin vote, as has been proven by peer reviewed studies:
https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
You are welcome on my lawn.
We're fucked no matter what the Repulicans or anybody else does. Human breathing creates 0.9kg per day. The population of the earth is 7.7 billion, so just the lot of us stupid hairless monkeys running around breathing the air contributes 2.53 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This is the equivalent of about 1/4 of all of China's emissions (and they are the top emitter by far).
And this is before you think about having those 7.7 billion stupid humans eat stuff, heat their homes, fart, make more stupid humans, etc.
The only hope for the human race is that some disease comes along and wipes most of us out. There is nothing you or anybody else can do to save us and even our deaths create CO2 (bonus points if you go for cremation).
It's sad but it's true. If we want to save the earth we need to stop breeding like it's our right to procreate beyond control. But we have no fucking self-control at all so we won't. I for one am looking forward to seeing our Mad Max future. I want to be the guy with the flaming guitar.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
My reading is that one of the biggest heat sinks we have is filling faster than we thought, reducing future ability to absorb heat.
So where was it laid out exactly at what point the ability to reduce heat is diminished?
They apparently did not know it could absorb heat as fast as it is, so why would you think anyone has a handle on what the reduction of absorption would be at various temperatures, or if there is a limit?
The only thing known is that the ocean is acting to absorb a lot more heat than they thought before, so presumably it will for some time to come as well. All of that excess absorption is a bonus as humanity greatly accelerates the uptake of solar power and other clean forms of power (like nuclear), probably reducing to some degree the maximum temperature increase we'll see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I used to care. The older I got, the more I realized that people WILL believe what they want to believe. They won't be convinced. They will come up with amazing, overcomplicated stories for how their version of reality is actually reality. They will believe that zaniness without proof over a simpler explanation with proof. Because we will believe in the conclusions we want to be true and then work backwards to cherry pick evidence, discount any non-supporting evidence, and engage in personal attacks on anyone who argues differently. I got tired of it. It's too draining. Too few want to honestly exchange ideas. We just want to sit in our tribes.
I can't read the article, pay wall, but this quote seems to indicate what you are saying:.
2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness.
So they rejected the not only the previous findings, but all other methods of measurements. All of this makes it seem it is really hard to get reliable temperature measurements. I mean we really only learned how in 2007.
Moron, this means the previous calculation was too conservative, and warming is happening faster than was previously proven/assumed. You're being 100% backwards-grade retarded.
Classic Dunning-Kruger.
This place is a mess. The science is settled. Until it's proven wrong, then it was merely assumption before. This time. THIS TIME we know for sure and it's even worse! Give us more money. Vote for our politicians! Change your lifestlye, because we sure as hell haven't.
No, you don't have to do that.
There. Argument started, emacs user.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
OK, but in that case what about economic anxiety? Could they have voted for Trump because they were economically anxious which is totally not the same thing as racist so shut up stop saying that?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Check your premises.
I guess this means that we're completely fucked now. The worst case Methane release mass extinction event is more likely than ever.
...when they say their findings were flawed.
This $hit is ridiculous.
It's normal for findings to be flawed. In fact, there's always flaws.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Before we can even bring nuclear to the table as a potential solution, we must first agree there's a problem.
To agree on a solution does not mean all must agree on the problem. Nuclear power is a solution to a lot of problems.
You want to get rid of all that dangerous plutonium we've piled up from the Cold War? Megatons to Megawatts isn't just a good idea to get rid of old Soviet weapons, it's a good idea to get rid of our own.
You want to see the USA be more energy independent? As a nation we import a lot of natural gas for electricity and heating, if we had more nuclear power then we wouldn't have to import so much. Hawaii and Puerto Rico still burn a lot of oil for electricity, get them some nuclear power and it will reduce our dependence on imported petroleum as well.
You want cleaner air? Sure would be nice to have more nuclear power so we aren't burning so much coal. (And oil.)
Are water prices too high for your tastes? If we had some nuclear power on the coasts then we could desalinate water cheaply, day and night.
Does the threat of war in the Middle East look like a threat to the nation's ability to fuel our military to you? Maybe Congress should get the US Navy and Coast Guard those nuclear powered ships they've been asking for. Nuclear power isn't just for carriers and submarines. We had nuclear powered cruisers and destroyers before, perhaps it's time to build them again. Icebreakers and amphibious assault ships would be excellent platforms for nuclear power as well. Oh, and the US Navy has been working on a seawater-to-jetfuel program for some time now, maybe Congress could put some money towards that. If it works well for the Navy then maybe we could see if it can work commercially as an alternative to petroleum on the open market.
There, I just gave five good reasons to deploy nuclear power in the USA. Add global warming to the list and it's a half dozen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I guess you can believe what you want and most people do, very few actually dig through the numbers themselves.
Of course you can believe what you want, but personally I'd like anthropogenic warming to be wrong. Unfortunately, it's the best-supported position at present.
I have seen more scientists of late who early on said climate change was real are now very skeptical if not completely convinced its not a issue.
Oh, really? Who?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Try again:
"Green house gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, from months to millennia, and affect the climate on very different timescales."
"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years." https://www.theguardian.com/en...
If you read the article moron you would know they got more data about the temperature of the oceans. Iidiot.
This basically tells you all you need to know about climate "science". The "scientific consensus" did not notice until now that one of the main things influencing climate, the oceans, absorbs _60%_ more energy. So in essence all the previous climate models will need to be thrown out because they can't possibly be anywhere near correct at predicting the future. The world's politicians, however, are already ready and willing to commit trillions of dollars of somebody else's money on the predictions made by the old models.
The models indicated that there was hidden heat energy somewhere, which is why they went looking for it. If anything it vindicates the overall nature of the models in terms of the atmospheric element, but that there needs to be more work, perhaps, in GCMs for the ocean-atmosphere bounday, but that was already recognised.
Probably true, in the sense of heat transfer, if ocean currents remain much as now, but that's not a given. Issues of a warmer ocean and a CO2 sink are troubling, though.
Is this simple as, planet warms up, crops cannot grow, animal stock starve, people starve, and people die. If enough people die, this reduces the amount of pollutants and eventually the temperature cools down. It might be a rocky few centuries for humanity, but I expect a few will survive in pockets on basic food like rodents and bugs.
Basically, yes. A lot of hippies think that we're destroying "Mother Earth" with Climate Change. No, the planet doesn't care, and it will recover from it just fine. Humans are the ones that are going to be completely fucked. We don't need to fix the problem to save the planet, we need to fix the problem to save our own asses.
They have quantified the contribution from the undersea volcanons, and it's a pretty small part of the overall energy required to account for the melting It was underestimated, but we're talking about a 2% rather than a 1% contribution, or figures similar to that. In any case, undersea eruptions have an effect in terms of stopping sea ice blocking calving of glaciers, but won't increase the rate at which the glaciers melt otherwise, as they are inland as it's a land mass.
Climate change was the original term from the 1950s when the area first started to attract funding, and has been the main term in the literature throughout.
Quote: "The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment..."
Humans have shown that they cannot manage nuclear power in a safe manner. One example: Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds (March 29, 2018)
Scientists have known for several years that the oceans had a pretty vast capacity to absorb heat, and it's been the explanation for why atmospheric and land temperatures have risen as quickly as early models would have suggested. So no, no surprise. This study simply does a better job of quantifying what that thermal capacity is. Of course, while that may be saving our skins so far as atmospheric and land temperatures go (for now), heating oceans has its own set of serious consequences. Thermodynamics is not our friend, and make increasing the radiation absorption capacity of the atmosphere greater will inevitably add more energy (mainly thermal) to all other climate systems on the planet. You cannot escape it. The laws of the universe don't care about human beings or cheap energy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not Halloween parties. This is my day to shed my usual genteel and civil manner with others and let my Id take over.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
Burning wood is a carbon neutral activity as long as you plant new trees to replace the ones you burn because that is a closed cycle. Pumping up billions of tons of sequestered carbon and releasing them into the atmosphere is not a closed cycle and if you are de-sequestering carbon at a scale that is on par with the carbon release that caused the great permian extinction you have a really serious problem. As for: "Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products." there is only one answer to that which is: "Well DUUUUUUHHHH!". Claiming that somebody is not allowed to comment on the folly of excessive carbon fuel use because they use them for lack of an alternative is like saying that you aren't entitled to criticise the navigational skills of your captain because you happen to be a passenger on a ship that is heading straight for an iceberg. Fortunately it is beginning to look as if the problem of petroleum product use will largely solve it self by the simple mechanism of petroleum products becoming an obsolete technology that is being economically outcompeted by renewable alternatives. One is only left to hope it is not too late. Now please go back to sorting your collection of MAGA hats and let the grownups work on sovling this problem in peace.
Statistical liar!
% of total is a stupid metric. China went from 3,200 TWh to to 3900 TWh from coal in that period.
Chinese self reported numbers so take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you had two working brain cells, you'd have replaced yourself with a really stupid bot by now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right" - yeah, that's not gonna help your case much, Mr. Scientist. (And before you start downmodding me for being OMG TEH DENIERZ!!!1, I'm not a denier. However, that statement makes me veeeerrrrry suspicious of the findings.)
Nope. The industrial revolution started way before 1900.
Please try again.
I would think the increased ocean temps mean an increase in hurricane strengths
The actual absolute amount of temperature increase of the water is negligible, so it won't really affect hurricane/cyclone strengths.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the science is settled, I guess it's time to stop all funding into it, right?
This is called "urban heat island effect" and Watt's Up With That research has conclusively proven that it's being corrected for correctly and it's not affecting the measurements.
Actually, the full name of my costume is, "Sexy Angry Leftist Mob Coming to Drink Your Milkshake" because it shows off my ample bosom.
You are welcome on my lawn.
CO2 emissions over time aren't a secret. Check your facts.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Strange how the most prominent areas of warming in the recent instrumental record are in the Arctic and Siberia.
Yes, the point is using higher quality measurements with wider coverage and less systematic bias.
They also used atmospheric CO2 and O2 measurements at a high precision and by physical chemistry means could estimate the heat because of the known change of solubility with temperature. The estimates from the methods matched. This is entirely different and physically integrates over the planet.
It's hard to get temperature measurements of an ocean because it's very large and deep and there are no human installations there, unlike on the surface, or in the atmosphere which is quite substantially probed by balloons and satellites. So if this is a criticism of atmospheric and surface temperature records, it doesn't work.
Measuring temperature at a point isn't the problem, it's getting the instruments there to sample something as big as the Earth.
There are almost a thousand balloons released every 12 hours over the planet gathering data and this has been happening for decades.
No it isn't.
Fully capitalist private utilities turned them off because they didn't want to pay for the maintenance, and their parent companies make money from natural gas pipelines and generation.
Germany's a different story perhaps, and completely wrong.
Climate scientists aren't uniformly against nuclear power either, and mostly support it as an interim necessity to make through the next 100 years.
You didn't see what else they did. They used high precision measurements of CO2 and O2 from the atmosphere. (Burning carbon moves the O2 around but the net amount of oxygen stays fixed). With this and knowledge of the properties of water and solubility vs temperature you can get information about the heat content deltas from a physically distinct measurement.
It's very impressive.
And yes, there are samples of the atmosphere going back many years stored in sealed tanks. I've seen them personally. This means you can measure all of them using the same calibrated instrument.
He also promised jobs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If someone falls of a roof that is not called a solar death.
I think confirmed deaths from Fukushimas is about 1. Plus maybe a dozen more statistical deaths. The tsunami killed thousands.
And that is the point. Nobody talks about the tsunami. The reactor is considered to have been far more dangerous than the ocean, even though the facts are quite different.
This makes nuclear untenable. Safety issues are over blown. Nobody is going to shut down the solar industry because someone falls off a roof. But think about what happens to nuclear investment if even one person dies.
Likewise the nuclear waste. It is a major issue precisely because it contains those two words, "nuclear" and "waste". Perceptions are reality.
So let's hope the price of solar falls before the globe cooks.
Humans have only got a couple of generations left at most anyway.
OK, but in that case what about economic anxiety? Could they have voted for Trump because they were economically anxious which is totally not the same thing as racist so shut up stop saying that?
You can't support Trump without supporting racism, because he openly espouses racist ideas. So no, they voted for Trump because they were racist.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, that 'economic anxiety' is a plausible hypothesis.
This hypothesis is not strongly supported by data.
In study after study the results are consistent: by far the dominant predictor of particularly Trump voting (vs Romney or others) say is racism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/polq.12737
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/explaining-the-trump-vote-the-effect-of-racist-resentment-and-antiimmigrant-sentiments/537A8ABA46783791BFF4E2E36B90C0BE
and more.....
You described American politics spot on. However, as I have said elsewhere, the far lefts fight against nukes, while in Canada, you folks do just fine with them.
Combined with your hydro, add some wind, and you folks are in great shape.
Now, we just need to push EVs faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nuclear power's higher costs may indeed make it uncompetitive with power from fossil fuel (and some of those higher cost are due to endless litigation by opposing environmentalists, at least in the U.S.). But if we have very little time to sharply cut CO2 emissions, ten years according to the IPCC, then we need to at least keep running the nuclear power plants we already have, even if the cost is higher. There is no way we can develop and bring on line enough renewable power to eliminate fossil fuel use in that time frame, and as long as we depend on some fossil fuel, shutting any nuclear plant results in a lot more CO2 emissions. Why aren't environmentalists demanding a moratorium on closing nuclear plants?
This is an elementary mistake.
Humans and other animals breathing CO2 is not contributing to global warming, because that carbon came from plants and animals. That was all in the biosphere and oscillated from land and ocean to air through global ecology.
The problem is the burning of fossil fuels, which were fossilized and buried underground for far longer than dozens of ice age cycles.
More humans are problems because they use fossil fuels, not because of their breathing.
Nuclear energy hasn't replaced fossil fuels because it is massively more expensive than fossil fuels, especially in the USA where wild mismanagement and corruption in large construction projects is so prevalent. This is well quantified, to the point that it was covered in detail in a course on water management that I took a couple of years ago. The studies were on the building of dams. It turns out that small really is beautiful.
Besides, no new construction of nuclear power plants has happened since the 70s. One of the last two NPPs to go into production took 9 years after construction was complete. The other took 23 years from ground-breaking to commercial production. To investors, that is a huge risk. When compared to combined cycle natural gas fired electrical generation and, more recently, wind and solar generation, nuclear just isn't a good option.
Clearly, this isn't a partisan issue as both parties have had power many times since the 70s.
The models are not about the properties of the ocean! The heat capacity of water was never under question, it was the *input* that was under question. This means that the input of heat for the past historical CO2 was higher than it might have appeared from naive measurements---and better matches with climate models that have a high (bad) climate sensitivity.
Not following you. The biosphere you speak of has, at any given time, a finite capacity for transforming CO2 and Oxygen to each other. If I put you in a plastic bag with a houseplant you could both, in theory, survive, but because your ability to convert Oxygen to CO2 is greater than the ability of the houseplant to convert your CO2 to Oxygen, you would eventually pass out.
You can't discount any source of CO2 in this biosphere because of where you think it came from. The problem is that CO2 generators are eclipsing CO2 sinks and human breathing is part of the generator.
Fossil fuels are part of the problem because they use to be CO2 sinks. Until we dragged them out of the ground and burnt them to turn them into CO2 generators.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
The only kind of the exchange of ideas most people are interested in is the exchange of another one's ideas with their own.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I want this as my epitaph.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think there are places where you can have honest, open dialogues with most people: person to person. Not at a rally, not at a big gathering or even a big party. Maybe not even at a bar. Just two people honestly trying to figure each other out. It's a hell of a lot harder to demonize someone in that sort of a setting; you have to really ACTIVELY work at it, while if we don't have that personal contact, it's very easy. Forget the Internet. The Internet sucks for exchanges of ideas and debates. How optimistic and wrong about it I used to be!
Making food more scarce/expensive will do that. Making transportation more expensive will do that. Making manufacturing more expensive will do that.
These cyclic population adaptions only appear up to a certain growth rate. Above that, these systems become chaotic. In chaotic or very strong cyclic systems, the population of a species can hit the number zero, from which there is no recovery. This has been observed for many species in the wild.
No.
The point was about data record, wasn't it? Then this is a reasonable example of a good one (historically).
Ezekiel 23:20
The world will go on. We won't.
I'm ok with that. Evolution will come up with a new species at the top of the food chain and the process will repeat.
We're too fucking stupid to survive. My recommendation to the next species: don't try to protect the stupid fucking members of your species. Let them die. Don't put safety caps on anything. Don't safety label anything. Don't tell people not to eat Tide Pods. Fuck em. This is how natural selection is supposed to work.
Not making the point you think you are. CO2 levels started to move in about 1900. You point out that temperatures in the Alps have been going up for 200 years prior.
Bzzzt, wrong interpretation.
Temperatures in the Alps have risen about 2.5 degrees Celsius since the 1700ies
The temp has risen by 2.5 degrees C between when they started recording it in the 1700s and now. There was no delineation as to how much of that occurred before the industrial revolution and how much after - that was your own datapoint. Heck, it could have dropped by 10C until 1999 and then bounced up by 12.5C, and his statement would still be correct.
DO now have a choice on buying electric vs fossil fuel. But most here will not choose electric.
It's much worse than that. Buying electric won't help - that power still has to be generated somewhere, and building those vehicles in the first place is very far from carbon-neutral. The real answer is to walk, or ride a bike (or skateboard, or whatever). And don't buy a new bike, use a second-hand one from somewhere. And if you live so far from your workplace that you can't, then move.
Ok, you did the "don't read what the parent posts", but you're still two postings too early for the derailing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yup, that's how it's done. Pointless argument, ridiculous counter argument, derailing, ad hominem... classic progress maintained.
I'm proud of you, guys.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
would you debate with what applied pressure it was safe to poke the gorilla
Yes because if the gorilla is our only source of food I would say you are not poking nearly hard enough, given that you have a brief advantage.
You would be starved or dead while I would take decisive action and we'd all still be alive. Because I took the whole context into account while you ignore everything else going on, and only see the gorilla in the cave.
Pretty sure Plato could get a new book out of that were he alive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This troll ac doesn't understand the Post is just reporting what Science is finding.
Get up!
The real truth is that nuclear power is in unattractive investment for capitalists, and without a lot of orders the industry has shriveled and become unreliable for those who do place orders.
Hmmm.
Lets see. unsubsidized Nuclear power cost $33 / MWh, on average. And when I consult your handy industry webpage, we see that wind gets a $23 MWh subsidy from the feds (and in some states, even more), which brings their $40-50 MWh down to $17-27 / MWh. It is hard for a clean nuke plant to compete with that.
However, if we were to NOT pick winners, but instead say that anything that is clean energy (in terms of emissions) gets a subsidy, then Nukes would get the same 23/MWh, making them be $10 / MWh. I suspect that at that time, Nuke would win over everything, except for geo-thermal and hydro.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
LOL
I wish that ppl would quit repeating such BS.
First off, 40% of the electricity in America is CLEAN. i.e. it comes from Nukes, wind, hydro, bio, solar, geo-thermal, and does not add to the CO2/CH4 issues.
Secondly, 30+% comes from Nat Gas, which is VERY clean. That leaves us with less than 30% from coal, and by the end of this year, it should be around 27%.
With that, it means that EVs running around AMerica will be very clean. Now, as to the manufacturing of it, Tesla is now using Solar to power making their cells, batteries, and motors. It is doing it day/night. So, how clean is it? Far far cleaner than any ICE out there. We need ppl to move to EVs, and for gov/businesses to move to not only EVs, but also to move electricity over to clean energy (nukes, wind, hydro, biol, solar, geo-thermal, etc).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Good points about the deceiving ppl. BUT, again, that is not just the GOP. Look at China.
In fact, look at most govs. For example, France was claiming that trees were being put in for them over in eastern europe. Yet, it was known by them that it was not happening.
So, deception continues by most govs, and we all need to deal with that.
That is why I want to see us put an increasing tax on consumed goods/services based on where the worst part/service comes from. That would solve many issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean like these?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, it basically doesn't matter. There is no way we are going to do what is necessary to get back to 350ppm in the atmosphere, which is the safe level to avoid a runaway climate scenario. So the warming is coming, and New York will be under water.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yup, it got warmer since the Little Ice Age. Glad you noticed.
Why crash on the GOP? Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it. And their fear is not founded on science or logic. Just fear. There really is NO difference between the far left and right. Both hate science and logic.
The left are not blocking nuclear power (not that some of the don't try to). The Obama administration approved the building of four nuclear plants two of which got cancelled because of cost overruns and two of which are still being built at nearly 4 times their original cost. The problem is the financial industry won't touch them without massive government loan guarantees. Fix the problem of building them on time and on budget (with maybe 25% wiggle room) and you might see some more action. But they still have to compete on the cost of the electricity they produce with natural gas, solar and wind which is difficult.
It's much worse than that. Buying electric won't help - that power still has to be generated somewhere, and building those vehicles in the first place is very far from carbon-neutral. The real answer is to walk, or ride a bike (or skateboard, or whatever). And don't buy a new bike, use a second-hand one from somewhere. And if you live so far from your workplace that you can't, then move.
In the USA we have an infrastructure largely built around the automobile. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Keep working for the change you believe in but don't expect it to change at the rate you think it should. It just ain't going to happen.
In the meantime electric vehicles do help. Even if they draw their charge from a coal plant. The coal plant is something like 30% more efficient than an ICE automobile. And the grid is gradually getting more carbon free. I expect the rate of adding non-carbon power sources to the grid to increase in the future as they get cheaper and the effects of AGW become more and more obvious.
Prove that global warming is real.
Given all the scientific evidence available I think the onus is on you to prove it isn't.
Anthropogenic global warming is one of the causes of climate change. In fact it appears to be the main driver of climate change at the current time.
And is now warmer than the medieval warm period.
BEST took the urban stations out in its studies. The warming trend is stronger without them.
I believe the GP is talking about more recent measurements, over the last 40 years, including satelites. They show a much faster warming rate in the polar regions than the equator.
if wind power and solar power are so great then why do they produce so little of our energy?
Largely because it takes time to ramp up production of those things. The current power grid wasn't built in a day either.
It will take at least several hundred years for thawed out permafrost to become suitable for agriculture.
Actually, he wasn't far off (the correct figure is 37.1%). https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
the far lefts fight against nukes.
Both of the people in the far left in the USA? I doubt it has much effect.
News for nerds actually. Doesn't have to be just tech. You must be new here. Technically us tech folk should be the people working to save the planet.
All these technical folks here would rather argue than actually get off their asses and do something about it.
Quit it with nuclear already, please. It is not cost effective. It only exists because it was a neat 60ies techno-romantic pipe-dream and we've dumped obscene amounts of tax-payers money into it.
The reactors don't last nearly as long as people thought they, they're constantly faulty, cost bizar amounts of money and need to run for decades without a hitch to barely cover their own costs. One company with big hopes on travelling wave and new microstructure just went bankrupt a few months ago, scraping their entire idea because it apparently doesn't work in a feasible way either. Germany is exciting fission as we speak and even the French are starting to have second thoughts and they used to jerk off to pictures of the Catenom reactor complex.
Nuclear Fission does one thing well: put massive amounts of distribution power into the hands of a few and burdening the rest with risks, costs and a huge waste problem. And that's about it.
Nuclear fission isn't cost-effective and the fastest we're out, the better. So please quit the nuclear hype. It's out and over. Big time.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I went as a Quinoa munching hippy/cuck Antifa supersoldier. It scared pretty much everyone here in redneck Florida...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't a big chunk of nuclear energy simply shifting when and where energy is used? Lots of energy input on mining and refining, followed by later release of energy when the nuclear fuel is used.
fencepost
just a little off
undoing an accidental flamebait moderation by posting.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
First off, new ICE cars will probably stop selling in about 2 more years. Certainly the luxury versions will because rich ppl will not want to put down 80K and in 2 years, have it be worth 10K. They are not stupid.
Secondly, once Tesla, possibly ravain, is out with a pick-up truck, it will rather quickly kill the new gas/diesel trucks sales. Anybody that is buying them for the 'cool' look, will likely pick up the cheaper vehicle. Anybody buying them for a working vehicle will pick up the EV because they will out do any gas/diesel vehicles in terms of torque.
Finally, while the absolutely NEW coal plants coming out of Japan and China are some 50% efficient, those are STILL dirty as hell, and remain high CO2 emitters. There is no possible way to get coal to being low co2 emitters / kwh. And in American, all but a FEW of the coal units, are pretty inefficient. Most were built before 2000, and at that time, we ran some 35% and under efficiency on these. The simple fact is, that nat gas is much much cleaner than GAS/ICE, which is actually cleaner than coal. If our grid was 100% based on the coal plants from China, it would still emit more pollution AND CO2 than the ICE vehicles. The reasons is that gas has a narrow range of hydro-carbon chains, so it is easy to get the O2 mixture right. In fact, a big reason why nat gas is SO clean is that 95-99% of the burning is done with CH4, which has 2 more H2/C, but also the fact that it is so high concentration of 1 element; CH4. Gasoline is something like C4-C13. Coal runs the gamot from C5-C50+ and are x-linked with double and sometimes triple bonds. You can not get that decently mixed.
There is 1 way to get 'cleaner' energy out of coal, and that is by first converting to methane, and then burning it. Problem is, that you get all the CO2, and have you have energy lost in the system. China stole the tech from an American company, but rather than bury the extra CO2, or even use it in chemical compounds, they are dumping it into the air. IOW, they will dump more CO2 to the air.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
oh, btw, do yourself a favor. That poster is Crimson Tsunami/Caffeinated Bacon (2 log-ons, 1 person) who is a constant liar/troll who is very likely working for Chinese gov. Best to not answer him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Largely because it takes time to ramp up production of those things. The current power grid wasn't built in a day either.
Wind and solar power predate nuclear power. By several thousand years.
Solar thermal systems have been experimented on for a very long time and even photoelectric systems have been experimented with for nearly 200 years. Wind power has been used to drive machines and propel ships since before written history, and used to drive electric generation since there were electric generators. The promise of "free" energy from wind and sun has caused people to invest plenty of time and resources all through this time, so development never stopped. Ever since the energy shortages of the 1970s the US federal government has been dumping piles of money on people looking to bring this promise of energy from wind and sun to replace the energy we've been importing to power our economy.
Don't tell me that wind and solar power hasn't had enough time to replace nuclear power. Wind and solar power had thousands of years of development. Ever since we've developed nuclear power any technological advance in computing power, and development in infrastructure, benefited wind and solar power development as much as nuclear power.
If wind and solar will save us from global warming then how much longer must we wait? What happens if the promise of cheap and plentiful energy from wind and solar does not come? What criteria do we use to declare wind and solar insufficient to solve our energy problem? We can't wait forever because while we wait for wind and solar power to displace coal and oil we will continue to burn this stuff and release CO2 into the air.
This is looking like a religion, a worship of the wind and sun, more than any kind of scientific endeavor. We can continue to develop wind and solar power but in the mean time we need to make progress on reducing our CO2. That means nuclear power. We can build a nuclear power plant in less than 5 years, despite the claims otherwise. Let's let them get built. If wind and solar power gets to a point it can replace nuclear power then the people that made a bet on nuclear power lost. If wind and solar power don't advance as quickly as we had hoped then we are now 5 years ahead on replacing coal.
We've seen the federal government kick nuclear power to the floor while giving wind and solar power every possible advantage, yet nuclear power still dominates. This is religious fanaticism, not science. We need to let nuclear power develop because we can't wait for wind and solar to save us any more.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
China claims it peaked in 2014.
I'll just call you wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Which fucking graph has a fucking hockey stick shape?
https://www.sportsdirect.com/h...
Fucking Americans.
The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are examples of humans not being able to manage nuclear power plants in a safe fashion.
More examples of nuclear power plant problems: Problems with Nuclear Reactors.
Do your costs include all operational and decommissioning? A quick google search shows me this:
The levelized cost of nuclear power is relatively high compared to other energy sources: the minimum cost per megawatt hour to build a new nuclear plant is $97, compared to $49 for utility-scale solar, $48 for combined cycle gas, and $32 for wind.
Paradox of the missing clue: when you fix a glaring error, your Bayesian prior on the quality of your work as a whole goes down rather than up.
QED hasn't fixed a glaring error in fifty years. Victory, QED.
My underlying joke was this: if this strikes you as a paradox, look no further for the missing clue.
File under whoosh sarcasm.
alright then, let's spend the money fixing the problem
horror vacui
It will take at least several hundred years for thawed out permafrost to become suitable for agriculture.
It will take one season, growing some non-food crop to establish soil bacteria, and then one afternoon spreading petroleum-based fertilizer the following season.
You didn't think natural soil was relevant to modern agriculture, did you?
First off, new ICE cars will probably stop selling in about 2 more years.
No chance of that happening. The automakers wouldn't be able to ramp up the production of EVs that quick and the supply of batteries couldn't support that level of production yet. More like 5-10 years for that to happen.
Yes, we've been using some forms of solar and wind power for thousands of years. But as a practical replacement for grid electricity it's only in the last 10 years or so the cost has come down enough to work. And the cost of both of those is still dropping so there will be more demand in the future. The only problem yet to be fully solved is cost effective storage and that's getting better all the time too. I expect it to take a decade or two more to get there as the major source of grid electricity.
Yeah but 30 feet of mud and mire don't disappear overnight. At best you might be able to do something with it in a couple of decades.
Who's going to pay for the nuclear power plants? Of the 5 plants that were under construction during the Obama administration one was completed, two were cancelled because of cost and the two under construction's costs have ballooned from around $7 billion to around $26 billion and are expected to come online in 2021 or 2022. The one that was completed was a Tennessee Valley Authority project that was something like 80% or 90% done after being started in the 1980s (I think). All they had to do was finish it off.
So find a way to finance them at a cost that can be competitive with gas, solar and wind and they can be built. It's true that if we started building them regularly like starting a new one every couple years the costs would probably come down some as experience went up but I'm not convinced that will be enough to compete as costs continue to drop with solar and wind. The only part of the puzzle missing is cost effective grid storage of electricity and there is a lot of work being done on that with a lot of different possibilities.
Sure, you start with your money.
Who's going to pay for the nuclear power plants?
Who's going to pay for all this wind, solar, and storage? I've seen the math on this and one source is this:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
They computed, using the numbers from the wind, water, and sun advocates, that it would cost THIRTY TRILLION DOLLARS to complete.
How much would it cost for a 100% nuclear solution? $3 Trillion â" $6.7 Trillion
The "Roadmap to Nowhere" paper is not advocating for a 100% nuclear solution to our energy problems, that is not only impractical but far from ideal. They use the 100% nuclear solution as a thought experiment to show just how impractical the 100% wind, water, and sun solution would be. You think these people didn't see their own numbers and not realize it would not work? I believe they do know it would not work. They tried to hide the inevitable in the numbers and hoped people would not look close enough to see the failure it will inevitably become.
So, to answer your question, who's going to pay for the nuclear power plants? Ultimately you, myself, and everyone that uses electricity in the world. This will happen through paying the market rates to utilities, and they use that money to buy electricity from the people that invested in nuclear power in the hope to make a profit. If we don't deploy nuclear power, again using the numbers from the wind, water, and sun advocates, we can expect our electricity rates to be double, triple, or as high as ten times what we pay now.
The Obama administration was openly hostile to nuclear power, going back to when Obama was a state senator. The Democrat party is still openly hostile to nuclear power. They allowed these nuclear power projects to proceed in Republican dominated states to buy votes, because shutting them down would have put a lot of people out of work when things were not going well for them. I have to wonder if they didn't sabotage the projects after they lost in the elections in an effort to pin this on the Trump Administration.
I'm listening to talk radio right now and I hear the Democrats fighting hard for a nuclear deal with Iran. Why would they do this? Why does Iran want this technology? The stated purpose is to build a civil nuclear power program, but everyone knows that's only cover for a weapons program. Let's assume everything is on the level and Iran is honestly trying to build a civil nuclear power program. Why is it that Iran can have nuclear power but the USA cannot? If nuclear power is good for the Iranian goose then it should be good for the American Michigander. There isn't a lot of sun in Midwest winters, and there's not a lot of hydro around here either. We have wind but without hydro, nuclear, and/or natural gas to back that up it's worthless.
It's nuclear power or the lights go out. You can cherrypick a handful of troubled nuclear power projects but there's hundreds of successful projects that show nuclear power does work.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I can't speak for the Alps, but around here in the American Midwest I don't need photographs because the climate has noticeably changed within my own lifetime. And I'm only in my 30's, which makes it a bit concerning to say the least.
They are already stopping car sales. GM and ford are no longer going to sell ice cars (sedans), save pony/muscle cars. Luxury ice cars in America have also plummeted, and will likely continue downwards next year. GM will likely introduce their EV Camaro in about 2 years. At that point, nobody , in America, will want ice versions of cars. Note that ice SUV, XUV, and trucks will continue until around 2024. By then multiple companies will have EVs of all these. Game over at that point. Btw, as I said, cars will not be selling. Car makers will attempt to continue making them and pushing, but nobody will buy in those time frame.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I want to see billions of trees planted ASAP
Go well