Finally, the really good news is that every single one of the required technologies already exist and are being used in various parts of the world. For example, Senegal has "switched virtually its entire population from traditional stoves to modern ones, so it can be done," climate scientist Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, lead author of the study, wrote in an e-mail. It is simply a matter of global adoption or, as the United Nations Environment Programme put it in a similar analysis last year, "much wider and more rapid implementation is required to achieve the full benefits."
In addition to saving lives, stopping soot may also preserve endangered ecosystems, such as the mountain glaciers of the Himalayas and Karakoram or Arctic sea ice. In fact, the computer modeling suggests cutting black carbon could forestall as much as two thirds of the warming in the Arctic—the fastest warming region of the globe—over the next 30 years. Even more significantly (from the human perspective), eliminating the atmospheric smut known as the "Asian brown cloud" could help maintain the monsoon patterns that bring water to India while reducing drought risk in places like the Sahel.
This doesn't mean that humanity would not have to deal with CO2 emissions—and would not be storing up future trouble by continuing to emit at our present pace—but it would buy time and, perhaps even more importantly, significantly reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change. Adding in cuts in yet more non-CO2 greenhouse gases—like the hydrofluorocarbons currently being phased out under the terms of the Montreal Protocol to eliminate the ozone hole—will also help. "These are things to do in addition to but not instead of reducing CO2 emissions," Shindell emphasized.
So why isn't this happening already? First and foremost, it is—in some parts of the world, at least. But short-term cost considerations, institutional structures and even societal priorities can stand in the way. For example, limited budgets might keep a municipality from installing methane capture at the local landfill in the U.S. Or an oil company might refrain from investing in similar methane capture at its wells because it can make more money investing in opening a new field instead. "In poor places, it really can be a lack of the upfront costs," Shindell added. There's also the not insignificant challenge of implementing such solutions globally—otherwise known as the problem of scale—as well as overcoming the reasons of engaging in traditional practices, such as burning the residue in agricultural fields to increase fertility, in the first place.
But there's a more fundamental reason for the inertia, according to the researchers, who note that "the benefits would not necessarily accrue to those incurring costs." That also explains our inaction on climate change generally. Or as Shindell noted "It's not trivial to get this done—even if it's beneficial for society as a whole."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentIt's great that Scientific American would tackle the critical priority of climate change by publishing such an article. However, some items on its 14-point plan have been tried before without success; others involve technology that doesn't yet exist; while other aren't very pragmatic because of the amount of financing needed. Conversely, environmental specialists employed by the World Bank Group have developed a 1-point plan that's been launched on the website http://www.chompingclimatechange.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoot is supposed to be a cooling rather than a warming agent, according to AGW theory. Hansen's model is demonstrably wrong. We've not had anywhere near the 0.2c increase in global mean temperature over the last decade and war mists are reduced to clutching at straws as to why, each article contradicting previous articles as to what is the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't I tell you to go learn some actual science? If you did, you would know that whether something heats or cools depends upon its position in the atmosphere. Since you have so much trouble comprehending scientific concepts, I'll make it easy for you:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStuff high up in the atmosphere tends to block more sunlight than it absorbs.
Stuff lower in the atmosphere tends to absorb more than it blocks.
Black stuff on white ice absorbs a lot.
CO2 traps heat
Humans have caused CO2 to increase by 40% in the past 150 years. This is the fastest increase in the geologic record! That geologic record (as well as tree rings, glacial samples, pollen samples, etc.) ALL point to the Earth's climate sensitivity to be between 2 and 4.5C with a most likely value of 3C.
Even the lowest probable estimates of climate sensitivity mean that we need to start cutting CO2 emissions immediately.
In other news, water is wet and the Sun is bright. Hope this clears up your confusion.
Thanks for the science. Are the climate models capable of predicting the height and distribution of soot then. If not, can we take it that as soot has a variable effect on the climate dependent on this, that the climate models are B.S.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInformation about climate sensitivity can be found here:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Essentially, sault and other warmists have a problem in that the earth has not warmed by anywhere near as much as Hansen predicted, when he published his global warming myth paper in 1988.
The warmist's explanation for this is that Hansen got the climate sensitivity (i.e. the response in temperature due to increases in CO2) massively wrong, but that as it's still warming, you just need to correct the climate sensitivity factor, and hey-ho, the hypothesis is still on track for another few years. Only problem, is that the peer-reviewed 97% concensus are unable to agree amongst themselves what the correct climate sensitivity is, hence the last IPCC Klan gathering (7 yearly convention of the warmist druids) has said that it's somewhere between 2 and 4.5C. You could, of course, just save yourself time and just toss a coin.
Climate models try to incorporate human behavior, but it CAN'T predict it! And you're leaping to a predetermied conclusion to say climate models are "B.S." because they can't read people's minds...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, I doubt you want to actually discuss climate science though, given the loaded words and hateful rhetoric you're using.
Regardless, the wiki article YOU POSTED says that climate sensitivity is UNLIKELY to be below 2C. This means that there's a 95 - 99% probability that it's HIGHER than 2C. You see what I did there? I put in a RANGE of values because there's uncertainty involved. Climate science isn't perfect and we don't know everything, but we DO know enough to start cutting our CO2 emissions BIG TIME.
I've already shared with you, and you've posted sources YOURSELF that said Hansen's 1988 paper was rock solid. His higher climate sensitivity is due to incorporating the slow feedbacks that take a century or more to get going. Since you cherry-pickers are hyperventalating about a temporary slowing of temperature increases (caused in part by a solar lull and La Nina dominance over he past 5 years), you'll probably just ignore this fact and wrongly assume Dr. Hansen was mistaken.
If you look at the temperature record, YOUR EXACT SAME CLAIM could have been made 5 separate times during the 20th Century and you STILL would have been wrong. Global warming would have marched on regardless of your hateful words and denial of reality.
I certainly haven't posted any links which show that Hansen's 1988 predictions are rock solid. I've supplied links to warmists websites on which there are graphs which clearly show that Hansen's prediction for 2010 (1C), actual (0.63C) was way out, with accompanying flannel that if only he'd got his climate sensitivy factor right, the actual temperature would be in the correct range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, using the revisionist climate sensitivity factor, most years prior to 2006 would have been wrong, since Hansen's original climate sensitivity factor was within a reasonable range of actuality up until 2005, since when it's got further and further from the truth.
As to whether my claim that the world isn't warming would have appeared true 5 times in the 20th century, only to subsequently appear false. That's irrelevant. Climate science has failed to produce a model that fits for the past and correctly predicts the future. Up until now, climate scientists have produced models that roughly approximate to past events, although rarely do they go too far back in time. No model has successfully managed to predict the future. To produce a model that approximates to past events is easy enough provided you have enough variables, apply varying weighting factors and statistical functions. If the completed model fails to predict the future, it's clear that the model was incorrect. It seems that warmists will continue to keep up this myth until the global mean temperature dips below the last of the baseline averages, so we have to put up with this pseudo-science for a while yet.
"sault", your wasting your time; you can't fix stupid. They are like monkeys and parrots. They just mimic each other and throw crap in your face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour repeated attacks are tiresome. You are not intellectually superior to the rest of us so stop trying to make it look as though you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's the chief druid's prediction for the Nikkei in 2020, say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^N225&t=my
Hey, if you'd actually try and make a scientific case for your side, you MIGHT have something to complain about...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can not speak for Sault but I respond to the uneducable because I know that most people who read through a thread never ever comment.
You sure can't fix stupid!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I bet the people that that used the land bridge to enter north america from the last ice age were ticked about global warming when the glaciers receded and the bridge was submerged.
2. There is talk about tree rings, but trees and plants love CO2, so massive deforestion has no effect on CO2 levels!?
3. If a super volanoe goes up in the northern hemisphere we'll have a few years of cooler temps due the ash pumped into the atmosphere. Mt Pinatubo went up in the early 90's and we had cold summers and winters for a couple of years after. Everyone thought we were heading for another ice age at that time.
4. Also, maybe we should study the deep currents in the pacific that help to cause the La nina and El nina phenomena. These two events are what cause most of the weather extremes yearly.
"..Since clean energy sources like Solar PV are reaching grid parity NOW and wind power has been the cheapest new source of electricity for years.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust straight out lies.
Solar starts at 70 cents today when transmission and filthy deadly polluting and ghg spewing gas backup is included. Add a buck a kwh for green storage to replace the gas. Wind is twenty cents less.
Here is the real cost of a real solar install just completed by expert engineers at Duke Energy.
Google "biofuelswÂatch.com/sÂolar-farm-Âstarts-opeÂration"
$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate.
Here is a real wind project PGE's latest wind farm build $15B/Gw (20 cents Kwh at PGE's discount rate)
Google "pge-to-purchase-operate-246-mw-manzana-Âwind-project"
One the other hand here is a real 3 cents a kwh cost of a real nuke reactor.
AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installations over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.
Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/default"
With his mindless way in the future renewable energy solutions Sault is one of the worse forms of warming denier not believing the science which tells us we only have a few years to do something about AGW.
Here's greenie superstar George Monbiot showing Sault for what he is.
"..This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet's living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved. .."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution
Only nuke power at 3 cents a kwh can eliminate GHG's fast enough to save our asses.
Tbear Says: I bet the people that that used the land bridge to enter north america from the last ice age were ticked about global warming when the glaciers receded and the bridge was submerged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: The unstated premise here is that climate has changed before without human input and thus it is impossible for humans to affect climate now. This of course is perfectly illogical. Most adults recognize that the same phenomena can have different causes. In other words. Grow up.
Tbear Says: There is talk about tree rings, but trees and plants love CO2, so massive deforestion has no effect on CO2 levels!?
Trent Says: Oh, I see you are one of those people who are utterly clueless about how we can tell that humanities contribution to CO2 levels. The phrase of the day is: Suess Effect. Hint: Go take a look at the isotope ratios of C12/c13. Run along now.
Tbear Says: Mt Pinatubo went up in the early 90's and we had cold summers and winters for a couple of years after. Everyone thought we were heading for another ice age at that time.
Trent Says: Who is "everyone"? Care to cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that made a prediction of a imminent ice age back in 1991? Thought not.
And please go learn the difference between weather and climate. Your use of the two as interchangeable synonyms only cements my suspicions that you have not a clue about what you are talking about.
jdey123's argument is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. There is uncertainty in the predictions (argued at great length).
2. Therefore we should not act to control global warming(implicit but never argued explicitly).
In fact, if we take a moment to think about (2), it becomes obvious that it doesn't follow.
What if a doctor told you that you should take a certain treatment, which costs 1% of your income, or you will die in two to five years? Would you refuse to take the treatment until the doctor came up with a more precise prediction of when you will die? By that time, it could be too late for the treatment to be effective.
That is exactly where we are with global warming. Though the models are not perfectly precise, scientists generally agree that we should keep CO2 levels below 450 ppm to avoid the worst effects of global warming. It will cost about 1% of the world's GDP to accomplish this, if we begin to act decisively in less than a decade.
Because the current models are not perfectly precise, do you want to wait until it is too late to act, and we are faced with the inevitability of the midwest turning into a permanent dustbowl and of widespread famine throughout the world?
If we don't know whether the dustbowl will come in four decades or six decades, is that a reason not to act now to avoid that dustbowl?
Trent says know the difference between climate and weather
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalk to any climatologist that does not have a political agenda and they will say we have been on a warming trend for the last 11,000 years.
Maybe Trent should read more about what causes climate change.
You want to reduce CO2, plant more plants Duh
Tbear Says: Talk to any climatologist that does not have a political agenda and they will say we have been on a warming trend for the last 11,000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Wrong on two counts:
A. You still have demonstrated no acknowledgment or concern that climate and weather are two different things.
B. I like how you insist that the Earth has been warming continually for 11,000 years and just totally go into denial of such known climatological phenomena as the Little Ice Age. I do not think if you tried you could achieve a better example of a ignoramus speaking on a subject they know nothing of.
Tbear Says: Maybe Trent should read more about what causes climate change.
Trent Says: You mean like Milankovitch Cycles and the carbon cycles? Then again maybe you are think of what use to be known as the faint sun paradox? Are you at all aware that human induced warming was predicted over a century ago by a guy using just pen and paper? Can you even name him and some of the phenomena he said would be unique to a CO2 induced warming?
Tbear Says: You want to reduce CO2, plant more plants.
Trent Says: And of course ignore the tens of billions of tons dead plant matter that has been sequestered in the ground for tens of millions of years and is now being released over the space of few centuries. Yeah that is the ticket. /s
So, Tbear, when are you going to support your assertion of imminent ice age being predicted back in 1991 by the scientific community? I am waiting.
The models never claimed to predict climate responses on sub-decadal scales. That kind of parrot-squawking was refuted half a dozen years ago. Where were you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, trying to join together modelling with a prediction of where the soot will be is where the BS starts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment about Hansen 'way out' is consistent with your insulting references to people who understand the AGW paradigm. You don't. Your case for attacking Hansen is lacking in factual details. Five minutes of effort could have precluded your post - at the actual rate of GHG growth, Hansen's climate sensitivity would have produced a value of 3.4dC temp rise for a doubling of eGHG - well within the range to 2-5dC produced by IPCC compendiums of the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
Seth quotes bogus reactor prices from China since they cut safety corners, have horrible working conditions and manipulate the heck out of their currency. I'm not gullible enough to trust anything this dangerous with the "Made in China" label. How come when ACEL has to build a reactor in a REAL market economy, they can't do it for under $12B a pop?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/15/204378/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
How come even previous CANDU reactors, you're so-called "gold standard" went 3.5x over budget by $10B (probably more like $20B in today's money)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Seriouly, these reactors are an expensive distraction from ACTUALLY reducing carbon emissions. We've already tried this approach and it FAILED. If you don't think it failed, then you are DENYING reality!
How come EVERY SINGLE CANDU reactor has had severe financial difficulties?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_power_stations_using_CANDU_reactors
Every article either doesn't mention cost entirley, or the cost escalation factor is around 3x - 4x the initial estimates to finish the reactors. By the way, there is ZERO mention of eevul "Big Oil" conspiracies in these articles. It's not necessary when adaquate safety systems are incorporated into the plants' designs and when governments get tired of shouldering the massive cost overruns associaed with CANDU (or can-don't if you ask me!) reactors.
Oh dear, I've upset a Druid. Oh well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHence my previous comment, that we have to put up with the warmist myth that we're all going to die unless we cut all CO2 emissions, until such point that the global mean temperature has dipped below the lowest baseline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarmist's "science" is now reduced to saying if we're right, you die, if we're wrong life continues as normal, do you feel lucky? So End of the World scenarios are now part of science, apparantly. Obviously true science is about making a hypothesis, modelling the hypothesis, and observing whether the model works or not. Climate "science" is about ignoring whenever the model doesn't work.
Climate scientists getting in dress for the IPCC 4th conference, 2007
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Druids,_in_the_early_morning_glow_of_the_sun.jpg
The only reason why us "warmists", or whatever loaded term you want to use, have to frame the argument that way is because people like you can't be bothered to look at the glaring evidence, plain as day, that human emissions are jacking up the climate. We've tried everything from physics, to past climate data and everything in between and you STILL deny reality. You post sources that you think debunk Dr. Hansen's 1988 predictions WHEN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE YOU LINK TO AFFIRMS HIS PREDICTIONS. I show you other articles affirming the veracity of climate models / predictions and you either ignore them or you somehow insert your own conclusions into papers that say the exact opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you operate this way in your own life? When your doctor says to limit calorie intake, do you immediately start loading up at the buffet counter? When your auto mechanic says your break discs are warped,do you insist that your radiator needs to be fixed?
The argument asking you which course of action is riskier (denial or mitigation) is an acknowledgement that all the evidence that SHOULD convince a rational person that CO2 emissions need to drop is obviously not working on you.
sault, look stop smoking weed and look at the graph (figure 1) created by your own warmist website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
Hansen is clearly 37% out in his prediction for 2011's temperature, and has not predicted the global mean temperature correctly for any year. 2011, he's likely to be 50% out. You've spent too long in your cave in a Nevadan desert. Get outside, you'll find it's as cold as it always was.
Sault Says: ou post sources that you think debunk Dr. Hansen's 1988 predictions WHEN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE YOU LINK TO AFFIRMS HIS PREDICTIONS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Does that just say it all? The incompetence of these ideologues is just stunning. It is like when Lord Monckton TILTS a graph to show sea level is not rising. Unbelievable.
It is tiresome having to over and over correct the same mindless spew from SCIAM's most prolific and by far most stupid commenter. Every point he made I have corrected numerous times but nothing penetrates his thick head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quote the cost of Canadian built reactors built to extemely high Canadian standards by Canadian engineers. Those same reactors were in high wage high standard Korea and Europe for the same cost and build time.
Note the companion article which shows a low tech Chinese wind project built to Sault's tiny fevered brains idea of low Chinese standards at $11B/Gw about the same as what Greenies are claiming in Europe.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-to-construct-largest
Sault's $12B he circularly quotes from zero knowledge anitnuclear activist Joe Romm -is stupid nonsense that I have corrected numerous times never it seems to penetrate Saults thick head. The %12B was for the entire cost of building and operating the reactor for 60 years. Works out to 2 cents a kwh. The reactors themselves were first of a kinds at $2.7B each.
Sault never even reads his own links likely because he's shown he can't read. The Darlington builds - the same reactors built for $2B/Gw in China in 2004 - were built for $2.7B/Gw for first of a kinds in the 1980's. All cost overruns in that initial build were because of politically motivated goverment financing and timetable delays.
All 7 Candu's built after that were on time on budget at $2B/Gw
"Seriouly, these reactors are an expensive distraction from ACTUALLY reducing carbon emissions. We've already tried this approach and it FAILED. If you don't think it failed, then you are DENYING reality!"
Seriously this nutball needs to loosen his tin hat before he can see the light of day much less reality.That has has to be one the stupidest statements ever made by a commentor on Sciam.
Nuke power is the only zero GHG zero pollution power source in the world, and has saved tens of millions of lives all at cost of less than 4 cents a kwh. Without nuke power we would have already lost the world from runaway GHG pollutions and billions could already be dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith his mindless renewable way in the future renewable energy solutions Sault is one of the worse forms of warming denier not believing the science which tells us we only have a few years to do something able AGW.
If he could get help, a friend could read for him what the world's foremost climate scientist and greenie superstar James Hansen has to say about his Big Oil financed green koolaid campaign It must be really hard for wind/solar proponents who seem to accept James Hansen as the World renowned environmental scientist he is, while ignoring his contention that nuclear power is our only in time economically possible solution.
Here's greenie superstar James Hansen thrashing Sault's stupid solar and wind projects - drinking the Green Koolaid.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/#more-4888
Like all Warming Deniers Sault rejects peer reviewed science like Hansen's published in reputable journal for junk science from activists without any qualifications.
Here's greenie superstar George Monbiot showing Sault for what he is.
"..This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet's living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved. .."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution
Anti-Nuclear warming deniers like Sault are ghouls who don't give a rat's backside about the 3 million people worldwide killed annually by coal pollution having no timely solution to its elimination. They oppose the nuclear solution without cogent argument knowing full well every year they can delay kills three million more.
TrentYou are saying that the northern hemisphere was warmer 11,000 years ago?! When did i say there was an ice age coming? The FACT is we are in an interglacial warming period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree about increased CO2 and agree that humanity is helping to increase CO2. Unfortunately how do we fix this? I would love to see everyone driving hydrogen powered vehicles. Also would love to see the amazon rainforest re-established.This would help remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
I would like to peacably disagree that we have the capability to really do something about global warming. This is not something one nation can do by themselves or maybe even many. There are too many variables that go on around the world that are contributors. What is your solution to global warming?
Tbear Says:You are saying that the northern hemisphere was warmer 11,000 years ago?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*Looks back at previous post and sees nothing of the sort*
Trent Says: I have to wonder if in your little world constructing statements never said is a legitimate form of discourse? It is not in the reality I inhabit.
Now I asked you how you reconcile such climate events as the Little Ice Age with the assertion that we have been warming since the beginning of the Holocene. Why will you not answer my questions?
Tbear Says: When did i say there was an ice age coming?
Trent Says: Let me take a look at what you and I said:
Tbear Comment #13 "Mt Pinatubo went up in the early 90's and we had cold summers and winters for a couple of years after. Everyone thought we were heading for another ice age at that time."
Trent Comment#15 "Who is "everyone"? Care to cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that made a prediction of a imminent ice age back in 1991? Thought not."
Trent Comment #18 "So, Tbear, when are you going to support your assertion of imminent ice age being predicted back in 1991 by the scientific community? I am waiting."
Trent Says: Still in the habit of pulling completely bogus arguments out of the air are you? When are you going to answer the question?
Tbear Says: Unfortunately how do we fix this.
Trent Says: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spmsspm-c.html
Happy reading.
By the way, we have emitted so much CO2 into the atmosphere that if we stopped all CO2 we see temperature rise by a 1/2 degree more of centigrade. The key here is to stop digging.
"Trent Says: The unstated premise here is that climate has changed before without human input and thus it is impossible for humans to affect climate now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou made that statement, I did not. I did not put words in your mouth as you have done to me."I agree about increased CO2 and agree that humanity is helping to increase CO2." is a another statement i made. I guess this is bogus in you reality world.
As for the 1991 mt pinatubo it was more media generated and many in the general public believed it to some extent. I'm sorry I mispoke and said everyone. I for one did not believe it would cause an ice age.
The site you sent me to is a study. A study is not fact. It does propose reforestation and changing fuels to cleaner technologies which I am definately for. You still have not provided a solution that encompasses all people on this planet. Again, this is not a one country issue.
As much as you want to say how ignorant i am (bogus arguments)and that I live in a little unreal world unlike you who are so knowledgeable and worldly,I am peacably disagreeing?
Tbear Says: You made that statement, I did not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: That is why I said "unstated premise". Please try to pay attention. I can not figure out why you would mention the existence of Beringa being submerged otherwise. Then again, I can not always follow all the little twisty paths of "reasoning" that your ilk offer up. So please enlighten me. If you were not pointing out that climate has changed before then you were saying it for what reason?
Tbear Says: "I agree about increased CO2 and agree that humanity is helping to increase CO2." is a another statement i made.
Trent Says: Yes, it is. The again that was a later statement. Here is what you said earlier:
Tbear Comment #13: There is talk about tree rings, but trees and plants love CO2, so massive deforestion has no effect on CO2 levels!?
Trent Says: Now I admit you could be going off on some wild tangent and asked a honest question but given the tone and tenor of that entire comment I think it is pretty excusable to come to the conclusion that you thought that deforestation was more a factor than industrial emissions.
Tbear Says: "I agree about increased CO2 and agree that humanity is helping to increase CO2." is a another statement i made. I guess this is bogus in you reality world.
Trent Says: Of course not. It is just that you wrote that statement... Let me see, uhmm, errr, *rummages through the thread* Yes! Here it is: post #32. Which means that you are responding to statements I was addressing in post #13. So unless you are like T.H White's Merlin who travels backward in time; you have your chronology screwed up. Pay attention, please.
Tbear Says: As for the 1991 mt pinatubo it was more media generated and many in the general public believed it to some extent. I'm sorry I mispoke and said everyone. I for one did not believe it would cause an ice age.
Trent Says: Cool. Personal trivia here: I was at Mt. Pinatubo when the Navy and Marines evacuated Angels Air Force base.
Tbear Says: The site you sent me to is a study. A study is not fact.
Trent Says: You asked for possible solutions to a problem. If the problem has been even been attempted to be solved by various proposed solutions then of course you are not talking of facts. But thanks for the newsflash Captain Obvious.
"All cost overruns in that initial build were because of politically motivated goverment financing and timetable delays."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHERE'S THE PROOF? This is the CORE of your arguement against nuclear being prohibitively expensive, yet you throw it up on these boards without a hint of factual "adhesive" necessary for any of us to believe a word you said.
You don't need conspiracies or innuendo to explain the MASSIVE FAILURE experienced by the nuclear industry in the 70s and 80s. LWRs are an extremely difficult beast to tame. Designing and building them run for decades without incident costs A LOT of money. What you failed to mention is that nearly all of those CANDU reactors also required multi-billion dollar refurbishments after 10 or 20 years of operation to function adaquately.
In light of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, lots of design changes also had to be incorporated. This exploded costs even further. Gen III+ reactors might be simplified designs, but even the AP1000 can't be built for under $5B in a market economy.
Where's all that political interferance when the NRC fast-tracks combined building and operating permits for new reactors and the STILL have these breathtaking price tags? Where are the lawsuits or investigations that convinced you of this so-called political interferance? If you don't use hard evidence to evaluate things, don't be surprised when people don't believe you.
I'm glad you're around because beating back all this misinformation is tiring me out! There's more crazies out there denying Anthropogenic Global warming, but the most head-explodingly insane comments come from the folks trying to praise / disparage different energy sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hard to discuss things with people when they're not even living in the same reality as you...
Sault Says: It's hard to discuss things with people when they're not even living in the same reality as you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Tell me about it. Old Seth there was once told me about the coming hillbilly war on wind turbines in order to defend the cost of security for nuclear power plants. Really.
If you'd only get out of your cave, you might end up more optimistic about the planet's future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich one's you, by the way?
https://twitter.com/#!/skepticscience/followers
Carbon tax is probably the most effective measure to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you prefer private measures, turn carbon tax into compulsory environmental insurance to pay for the damage being done to the environment. Big insurance companies are already providing such services.
One thing is sure : Mesures must be taken urgently. Only fools deny the plight the planet is facing, proven by the extensive evidence provided by modern science.
So how do you stop global warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuy up all the polluters and stop producing whatever they are producing whatever they produce that pollute.
Buy up all the countries and reforest all the land that was burned off.
I want co2 emissionns to drop just as much as anyone, but how and at what cost?
The truth about NPP costs in the USA, Before the NRC, NPP's were coming in at an average of $1100 per KWe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per KWe, that's in 2007 dollars!! With Wind @ $12k per kw and Solar at $30-$80k per kw. And shadowing fossil fuels will still supply 70-90% of the system energy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to what Sault says, LWR's are not that difficult to build and are really quite simple-minded compared to modern industrial process. "What does it cost to build a nuclear plant? What could it cost?":
depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/
Bernie Cohen,"COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS — WHAT WENT WRONG?". An actual intelligent detailed analysis, not Sault's Joe Romm "i can put some pretty dots on a graph" special.
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Nuclear Power costs were forced up due to the efforts of Fossil Fuel vested interests:
atomicinsights.com/2012/01/cloistered-nuclear-scientists-needed-sun-tzus-advice-know-your-enemy.html
"...Organized opposition had begun, arguing environmentalism initially, and then joined by proliferation-related attacks. In the last year or two of the sixties the attacks had begun and with growing influence, by the mid-seventies the anti-nuclear groups had had their way. Their strategy focused on driving up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, so far up that the plants would be uneconomic, if possible. To do so, they attacked every issue that could be used to insert the legal system into interference with construction decisions, blocking construction progress by any means possible. In so doing they introduced very lengthy construction delays. Success in delaying nuclear construction while interest on the borrowed construction funding kept increasing and increasing eventually made their argument self-fulfilling. They had made their assertion a reality; nuclear construction was now expensive. Every possible facet of the legal system was used. Plant after plant with financing in place for billions of dollars, and interest charges running up, had construction held up month after month, year after year, by one legal challenge after another, as a rule related in some way to environmental permits. Nuclear opponents could congratulate themselves; they had destroyed an industry. Their strategy had been a brilliant success..."
The truth about Nuclear Costs:
depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/
depletedcranium.com/the-nrc-a-den-of-anti-nukes-theives-and-scoundrels/
depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
Thanks for adding NOTHING to ANY discussion I've had with you so far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, that Quad Cities plant was really well-built:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Quad Cities Unit 2 began to experience vibrations in a steam line. On March 29 the plant was manually shut down due to high vibrations causing leaks in the main turbine control system. Unit 2 was restarted on April 2, but vibration broke a main steam pipe drain line. The line was repaired and the restart resumed, but by June 7 the main steam lines were showing unexplained aberrations. The plant was again taken offline for repairs on July 11, and the problem was traced to a hole in the steam dryer."
Quoting the price for Quad Cities is disingenuous because YOU KNOW that the cost to build reactors exploded several years later in the mid-1970s. Your own source shows how mistaken you are:
"Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier."
Too bad it jumps off the rails with this zinger:
"It is often claimed that our government is heavily subsidizing commercial nuclear power, but this is not true"
Um, what the heck is the Price Anderson Act, then?
"The cost of waste disposal is paid by an 0.1 cent/kilowatt-hour tax on nuclear electricity, which is considerably more than it is now planned to spend."
Ummmm.....Since Yucca mountain would fill up after 20 years just with our CURRENT fleet, we'd need 5(!) of these installations to store the waste of a much larger nuclear fleet. So jack that up to $0.05 - $0.1 per kWh tacked on, or we could just leave all of it stacking up next to the plants as tempting terrorist targets...
"Government policy is to finance research and development of future nuclear technology, but operation of the industry with present technology is in no sense subsidized."
Yeah, that's because ratepayers and taxpayers already took the hit from all the failed reactor construction projects in the 70s and 80s. The now-thinned-out herd is very cheap to run now that they're all paid off. Just don't try building new ones because sticker shock will ensue!
And this person's value judgments on regulations are amusing. Considering all the incidents and close calls we've had at nuclear plants over the years, I'm glad the NRC made these plants incorporate strict safety standards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
"...Yeah, that Quad Cities plant was really well-built..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWoopedy-do, they had the usual startup problems, you obviously haven't worked one day in industry in your entire lifetime. What about your substitute state-of-the-art NG power plant which blew up last year killing 6 and maiming 24 others. You're OK with that. No need for any safety there. You and Joe Romm.
"...s the Price Anderson Act..."
I already blew your Price Anderson Act argument out of the water, and you just ignore everything I said as usual. Once again, Nuclear has higher liability coverage then ANY of your nightmare Mega-disaster Coal, Oil and NG interests. You have no problem with them though.
"...Since Yucca mountain would fill up after 20 years just with our CURRENT ..."
I guess you don't read the news. Obama has already decided that they don't need a special waste disposal facility. They will just continue using cheap dry cask storage. And the Nuclear waste ~ 1 million X less then your deadly Coal, NG & Oil waste will be burnt producing 100's of $trillions in clean, green energy.
"...ll the incidents and close calls we've had at nuclear plants over the years..."
NOT ONE PERSON KILLED. Compare with the MILLIONS killed by your substitute Coal, Oil and NG power sources. Sault could care less about the children dying every day due to the effects of Coal, Oil and NG pollutants. Never mind potentially catastophic runaway Global Warming. Sault just stands behind Big Oil/NG & Coal - just keep polluting with reckless abandon - no problem just keep dumping ALL of their wastes into the air, sea and land - Sault loves that.
Of course, like all Greenie Sleazoid's with Zero Integrity and Zero Honesty he hides behind his Pixie Power Wind & Solar Fantasy no matter that it has never amounted to ZIP anywhere.
Your ENTIRE argument is based on a fallacy. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. I'm not arguing for coal or natural gas plants at all. From the data I've seen, conventional nuclear power plants are so expensive and saddle us with so many burdens (waste, proliferation, safety, concentration of wealth / power) that they are a distraction from cleaning up our energy supply. I see the growth and potential of renewable energy and efficiency as key goals for the 21st Century. Whatever data you are looking at brings you to the exact oposite conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, past experience in the 70s and 80s shows us that building LWRs properly is an expensive proposition. The argument that it was political interferance is underwhelming and unnecesary. Having to incorporate necessary safety measures is all that is required to explain the explosion in reactor costs. The fact that no one has been killed (so far) by these incidents is a testament to the value of mandating that these reactors have all these safety systems. The breathtaking estimates to build reactors in this day and age is right on (or even above) the trendline of cost growth for the industry.
I must have missed your "analysis" of the Price Anderson Act, but to me, it looks like a $100B+ handout to the nuclear industry that unfairly distorts the market. Liability insurance for renewable energy is miniscule, but how come the nuclear industry is the SOLE beneficiary of this unfair subsidy? How come they need loan guarantees and production tax credits for building something using basically 60-year-old technology?
Look, you can't argue with history...We tried nuclear power and it failed because making it safe for 60 - 80 years, given the horror of meltdowns we're now being reminded of AGAIN, is just too expensive. Iran would have ZERO excuses for playing around with Uranium Enrichment if we had abandoned nuclear power in the 1980s like we should have. Besides, nuclear power is so slow to get plants on-line, it won't be able to deliver the necessary CO2 reductions in time to prevent massive climate disruptions.
Why can't you write more like this "person":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://disqus.com/jdey123/
I mean, "they're" kind of racist, but the quality of "their" posts stands head and shoulders above "your" posts here on sciam. Maybe that't your paid-to-post account and "you're" just having fun here on these forums.
"...I'm not arguing for coal or natural gas plants at all..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are. Even your flagship country, whose leadership are in total agreement with you, are increasing NG energy consumption, replacing Nuclear with Coal, and their biggest "renewable" is filthy smoke belching, environmentally destructive biomass & waste burning. Latest 2009 data, for Germany:
www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
See the tiny little green line - that's your idea of a success story. Pathetic, not even close to a viable energy source. And that's the best that the richest country in Europe, one of the richest in the World, how badly are less wealthy countries going to do. So yes, YOU ARE a proponent of Oil, NG and Coal - your main energy supply.
"...shows us that building LWRs properly is an expensive proposition..."
Even you greenie's love to malign the First-of-A-Kind EPR in Finland, which has had a lot of startup problems and cost overruns, original cost was $4.6B, up to $8.0B now for 1600MWe with a 93% CF is $5.6k per kwel, for 24/7, summer/winter, night/day, cloudy/clear, windy/calm, north/south power. Best Wind is now $2.7k/kwpk at 30% CF or $9k per kwel, for intermittent mostly worthless power, that is an extraordinary blight on the landscape, with expensive, long distance, triple oversized, transmission lines ripped through virgin forest. So your opinion of what is expensive is an obvious case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? The graph you posted TOTALLY REFUTES EVERY POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE. I HAVE TO TYPE IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU BRAIN-DEAD DENIERS HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING THINGS APPARENTLY...HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO EVEN BREATHE ON A DAILY BASIS?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"with expensive, long distance, triple oversized, transmission lines ripped through virgin forest..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhhh, so they're back down to just triple-oversized, eh seth? And of course, those giant cooling towers can't be a blight on the landscape. Or how about those exploded reactor buildings at Fukushima? Those sure are purdy, doncha think? What about the fallout covering that part of Japan? I gues since you can't see it poisinging the food that grows in the soil or the ecosystem around you, it doesn't count, right?
"...The graph you posted TOTALLY REFUTES EVERY POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBull. How did you manage to come up with that conclusion? Another instance of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION I would say.
sault is bi-polar. Occasionally, there are glimmers that he might want to engage in a scientific debate, but then the CAPS LOCK gets switched on, and he starts spouting off about deniers and trolls etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny so-called solution that begins with "all you gotta do is....." and then rattles forth some easier-said-than-done "solution" ought to make you wonder about the wisdom of the speaker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd once you conclude they are none too wise...you ought to wonder if they might not also be none-too-bright.
Economic analyses by actual economists are doubtful jokes most of the time... much less economic analyses by would be climate-manipulators.
We might also take note of the unassailable fact that climatology is an infant discipline mostly characterized by what is primarily mere speculation with precious little testable hypotheses behind it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh it is surely a worthy subject of study... but those who would pretend climate is even barely understood are adrift.
We are only barely aware of what the climate has been on the past... have no certainty whatsoever of the causes and effects of the changes we have detected... and are the veriest of science fiction authors when it comes to ideas for manipulating it.
All you gotta do is print zillions of dollars and buy up the world. You can control population,industry,and nature if we throw enough money at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh wait, that is what congress try's to do all the time, and we know how this works. (wink)
Global warming is a symptom of a much larger problem. We are consuming ourselves out of "house and home". Global population has grown to the point that mankind is consuming resources at an alarming rate. When it is gone it is gone. Until we develop a more sustainable consumption model and learn to recycle ALL waste we will endanger our future. We can't keep pumping crap into the atmosphere without an adverse reaction.I get tired of the name calling and placing of political labels on people who rightfully point out the harm we are doing to the global environment. This is not a political issue it is a matter dealing with the survival of our species. Whether or not we are the primary or secondary cause of warming is not the issue. The fact that it is happening and we are contributing to it is the main issue. When I was growing up in the 50s in Connecticut, we would start skating on ponds usually before Thanksgiving and some years still be skating in March. That doesn't happen much anymore. While ancedotal, there are a multitude of examples that can be pointed out that illustrate that warming is happening. It does not require a long term study to illustrate that change is happening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least part of that battle strategy has failed, in part because the models about the Arctic were wrong. "Methane volcanoes" and massive methane release from cracks in the ice are "astonishing" experts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-climate-catastrophe-policy-triage-5.html