Perhaps by the time nuclear power is on line the foundational lie about carbon dioxide will be dead and buried. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the breath of life, the foundation of life on earth and during the Little ice age there was barely enough in the air to maintain life on earth.
Even now it is not far above survival level and plants will be pleased to have four times as much.
It developed at much higher levels, not just flourished.
The “global warming potential” of co2 (and methane) is pretty much all used up, it’s small contribution to the greenhouse effect is saturated and increases from this point are all to the benefit of the earth as plant food.
Eventually it will come to an end as the cooling cycle accelerates and glaciation returns.
So you’ve measured the PH of our oceans and they haven’t changed .
You’ve looked at all the places coral has been but is gone now ,but you say it’s still there ? Icebergs, glaciers ,permafrost they aren’t gone or going away ?
The jet stream is still acting the same way ? Ocean Currants are still going the same way?
Salty of the water isn’t changing
You’re making up how earths chemistry works or someone made it up for you .
In short you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about .
The oceans are infinitesimally less base, there is no conceivable circumstance under which they will become acidic.
Any particular patch of ocean fluctuates as much as a point every 24 hours, and everything is fine.
The corals are extremely healthy, the Great Barrier Reef is at maximum extents and all those corals evolved at much higher temps (and co2) than today.
Cyclical warming and cooling rules.
Arctic ice goes up and down, currently going up.
Glaciers come and go, many are growing, many are shrinking and have been for over 200years, you can look it up, melting began long before your AGW and no it isn’t accelerating.
The ones that do melt expose remains of forests, villages and mines that existed there relatively recently.
Permafrost line was 100s of km farther north during the mmedieval warm period, further still during the Roman, plenty of fossilized trees that prove it.
The treeline in the mountains was much higher up as well.
No one even knew the jet stream existed until ww2 and all data regarding it is extremely inconclusive.
I did not know you could grow currants in the ocean. Meanwhile ocean currents like the Gulf Stream and others slow then speed up and no one has a clue because the ocean holds 1000x heat compared to the atmosphere and operates on a 1000 year times scale meaning what is happening today is due to what occurred in 1000ad.
I bet you think a fractional increase of co2 and a marginal temperature increase in the atmosphere can affect the ocean in a day or a decade?
I don’t have a chemistry degree but I know people who do. The entire basis of AGW is chemistry and physics of absorption in the atmosphere and there is a guy that “wrote the book on that” as they say, William Happer. I advise you look him up.
Anything else?
Rapid heating maybe?
Nope. The IPCC working group 1 that collates the data says there is nothing detectable happening outside of natural variability, so far.
That means the is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY because it cannot be detected.
When 2040 arrives they will still be burning Gas and coal and will not have any nuclear. It’s all babble, just as is the entire net zero scam. When the lights go out for an extended period of time because of all the “wind/solar” destabilizing the grid, and rates become so high even the green Musketeers feel the pain there will be upheaval and this BS will start to course correct. Until that tipping point, it’ll continue to be all jibber jabber green scheme claims.
agreed, until the pain is felt by those who are proseltyizing net zero, they will continue down this road. but when they can no longer afford to heat their homes in a colorado winter, things will change
Thank you EBBs. You've given this old codger another opportunity to quote my late hero, David Mackay, physicist of Cambridge University, author of physics-, evidence- and arithmetic-based "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (free to download from https://www.withouthotair.com/) My favourite quote of his is: "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear, I'm just pro-arithmetic". It tallies with Sen Roberts' comment.
Embrace nuclear energy and bring forward a deadline which makes it unlikely: politics anyone?
The best form of energy education and debate is a good long sub zero freeze with snow and gale force winds or a long hot spell without relief say a good 5-7 day stretch of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The balancing authorities run out of rabbits to pull from their hats and the cold and dark and or hot and dark take over. The morgues pile up. Only when confronted with the specter of lots of grannie’s assuming room temperature do politicians pay any sort of attention. Even then the subject matter of energy and electric power need to be explained to them with a sheet of clean copy paper and the three (3) primary colors in extra large crayon. Nukes for Colorado?? Not in this old codger’s life time. It’s more important to save the whales. Oh snap there are no whales in the Rocky Mountain High rivers and lakes…oh well maybe an endangered Salamander will suffice.
Being an engineer working in industry I appreciate this stack as most precious.
The greatest cause of all of our problems is government; costs and the costs of over-regulation when we no longer need any of it with our knowledge. Period.
You want to know why we off-shored? Regulation. You want to know why there is a trade imbalance with the CCP? Over-spending and regulation and printing money.
Nixon saw the French warships off our coast wanting their gold and panicked.
Here in Texas gas is plentiful, but new gas generation capacity additions are limited by availability of turbines. Texas set up the Texas Energy Fund of $5B to help lower finance costs. 17 companies applied, but Turbine availability has led to cancellations. Along with challenges to make the finances match those of renewables.
NextEra CEO John Ketchum said on an earnings call in January that new gas-fired generation to meet load growth “won’t be available at scale until 2030,” while “renewables are here today.”
What happened in Colorado (I live here) is that a significant number of liberals came out in favor of nuclear. That got the legislation the needed Democratic votes to pass the legislation. And it got Governor Polis to accept it. (He is so lukewarm on it there was no signing ceremony for the bill.)
One big problem we face in Colorado is most of the pro-nuclear is for SMRs which are 7 - 20 years in the future. Safely distant to be ignored at present. There are a few of us pushing strongly for building nuclear today, either the AP-1000 or APR-1400.
The Empowerment Alliance common sense energy agenda who preaches Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security Act point blank calls out the hypocrisy of government red tape and unnecessary regulations that is keeping nuclear for energy and modern refineries and new pipelines that are critical to Americans prosperity & America’s economy… it is sacrilege for Nuclear not to be base load power generation in USA who leads the world in technology and CO2 reduction & environmental consciousness
Allowing nuclear is a step in the right direction, but replacing Colorado’s coal-burning power plants with CCGT plants is far more cost-effective than trying to do so via solar, wind or nuclear.
IMHO, you missed the obvious. In the wind-solar/natural gas approach, the gas system must be simple cycle gas turbine (SCGT), for fast response time, with 40% efficiency and must be sized for 100% of the load for nighttime or cloudy/windless days. Depending on location, it typically must run 80% of the time over the year, and 90-95% in winter. Which begs the question - why not skip the win-solar and go with just a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) system. The cost is lower, and with a 60+% efficiency, the emissions are about the same, if not lower; and, oh yeah, you don't have to set aside 1000's of acres for wind/solar farms.
We agree with this, and would prefer some coal in the mix. Our priorities for the electric grid are always 1. Affordable and 2. Reliable electricity, and a thermal grid is the best way to achieve these. However, this post is discussing nuclear in the context of Colorado's push for net or near zero emissions, and the likelihood any plants are built. We could write a similar post on natural gas in the state, because while natural gas is among the cheapest resources and doesnt have the same economic hurdles, it still has substantial political hurdles in CO.
Thanks, I understand. As a retired Nuclear Engineer, I fully support nuclear, especially SMRs because, in addition to improved technologies, they offer the promise of a fast turnaround from order to operation, thus minimizing the cost of money factor, which is the real killer of the large nuclear plants.
However, you did, appropriately, introduce gas into the picture, but only as "backup" to S-W. I just think that discussion could go further. The real goal is getting the right long term solution (nuclear) established, while getting the wrong one (solar-wind-batteries) relegated to history. Gas is the necessary bridge to get from here to there.
Perhaps by the time nuclear power is on line the foundational lie about carbon dioxide will be dead and buried. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the breath of life, the foundation of life on earth and during the Little ice age there was barely enough in the air to maintain life on earth.
Even now it is not far above survival level and plants will be pleased to have four times as much.
Apparently science isn’t a good subject for you . Not are pictures showing what happens when carbon dioxide gets to the levels it’s at now .
Lack of knowledge of the “ climate report card “ is everywhere on theses sights because you don’t want to hear a narrative you don’t like .
But facts are facts ,you can hide from them all you want but they are what’s real .
Life has flourished in the past with CO2 levels much higher than now.
It developed at much higher levels, not just flourished.
The “global warming potential” of co2 (and methane) is pretty much all used up, it’s small contribution to the greenhouse effect is saturated and increases from this point are all to the benefit of the earth as plant food.
Eventually it will come to an end as the cooling cycle accelerates and glaciation returns.
All good for now
So you’ve measured the PH of our oceans and they haven’t changed .
You’ve looked at all the places coral has been but is gone now ,but you say it’s still there ? Icebergs, glaciers ,permafrost they aren’t gone or going away ?
The jet stream is still acting the same way ? Ocean Currants are still going the same way?
Salty of the water isn’t changing
You’re making up how earths chemistry works or someone made it up for you .
In short you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about .
The oceans are infinitesimally less base, there is no conceivable circumstance under which they will become acidic.
Any particular patch of ocean fluctuates as much as a point every 24 hours, and everything is fine.
The corals are extremely healthy, the Great Barrier Reef is at maximum extents and all those corals evolved at much higher temps (and co2) than today.
Cyclical warming and cooling rules.
Arctic ice goes up and down, currently going up.
Glaciers come and go, many are growing, many are shrinking and have been for over 200years, you can look it up, melting began long before your AGW and no it isn’t accelerating.
The ones that do melt expose remains of forests, villages and mines that existed there relatively recently.
Permafrost line was 100s of km farther north during the mmedieval warm period, further still during the Roman, plenty of fossilized trees that prove it.
The treeline in the mountains was much higher up as well.
No one even knew the jet stream existed until ww2 and all data regarding it is extremely inconclusive.
I did not know you could grow currants in the ocean. Meanwhile ocean currents like the Gulf Stream and others slow then speed up and no one has a clue because the ocean holds 1000x heat compared to the atmosphere and operates on a 1000 year times scale meaning what is happening today is due to what occurred in 1000ad.
I bet you think a fractional increase of co2 and a marginal temperature increase in the atmosphere can affect the ocean in a day or a decade?
I don’t have a chemistry degree but I know people who do. The entire basis of AGW is chemistry and physics of absorption in the atmosphere and there is a guy that “wrote the book on that” as they say, William Happer. I advise you look him up.
Anything else?
Rapid heating maybe?
Nope. The IPCC working group 1 that collates the data says there is nothing detectable happening outside of natural variability, so far.
That means the is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY because it cannot be detected.
You should try to relax, you’ll live longer.
Well said, Pat. Thaddeus is clueless, probably because he only reads sources that indoctrinate him in the Climate Cult.
You simply aren’t telling the truth !!!
When you lie to people ,who know better , expect to be called out for doing so .
I haven’t a clue where you get your misinformation from .
But just about every point you try to make has been disproven not just once or twice ,but many many times .
Climate science is easy to find and read about on objective vetted peer reviewed sites . Obviously you have not looked at any of them .
Sights is spelled “sites”
And it’s you who appears not to understand science.
You can study that
One step at a time. W+S+B will become increasingly unpopular and net zero by 2040 is a fever dream. The pitchforks will come for RMI eventually.
Yes please
When 2040 arrives they will still be burning Gas and coal and will not have any nuclear. It’s all babble, just as is the entire net zero scam. When the lights go out for an extended period of time because of all the “wind/solar” destabilizing the grid, and rates become so high even the green Musketeers feel the pain there will be upheaval and this BS will start to course correct. Until that tipping point, it’ll continue to be all jibber jabber green scheme claims.
agreed, until the pain is felt by those who are proseltyizing net zero, they will continue down this road. but when they can no longer afford to heat their homes in a colorado winter, things will change
Thank you EBBs. You've given this old codger another opportunity to quote my late hero, David Mackay, physicist of Cambridge University, author of physics-, evidence- and arithmetic-based "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (free to download from https://www.withouthotair.com/) My favourite quote of his is: "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear, I'm just pro-arithmetic". It tallies with Sen Roberts' comment.
Embrace nuclear energy and bring forward a deadline which makes it unlikely: politics anyone?
The best form of energy education and debate is a good long sub zero freeze with snow and gale force winds or a long hot spell without relief say a good 5-7 day stretch of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The balancing authorities run out of rabbits to pull from their hats and the cold and dark and or hot and dark take over. The morgues pile up. Only when confronted with the specter of lots of grannie’s assuming room temperature do politicians pay any sort of attention. Even then the subject matter of energy and electric power need to be explained to them with a sheet of clean copy paper and the three (3) primary colors in extra large crayon. Nukes for Colorado?? Not in this old codger’s life time. It’s more important to save the whales. Oh snap there are no whales in the Rocky Mountain High rivers and lakes…oh well maybe an endangered Salamander will suffice.
Being an engineer working in industry I appreciate this stack as most precious.
The greatest cause of all of our problems is government; costs and the costs of over-regulation when we no longer need any of it with our knowledge. Period.
You want to know why we off-shored? Regulation. You want to know why there is a trade imbalance with the CCP? Over-spending and regulation and printing money.
Nixon saw the French warships off our coast wanting their gold and panicked.
Here we are.
Ah Colorado. The St Vrain nuclear plant
In Colorado was plagued by problems and never achieved commercial production. It was converted to natural gas…something Colorado has in abundance.
Here in Texas gas is plentiful, but new gas generation capacity additions are limited by availability of turbines. Texas set up the Texas Energy Fund of $5B to help lower finance costs. 17 companies applied, but Turbine availability has led to cancellations. Along with challenges to make the finances match those of renewables.
NextEra CEO John Ketchum said on an earnings call in January that new gas-fired generation to meet load growth “won’t be available at scale until 2030,” while “renewables are here today.”
What happened in Colorado (I live here) is that a significant number of liberals came out in favor of nuclear. That got the legislation the needed Democratic votes to pass the legislation. And it got Governor Polis to accept it. (He is so lukewarm on it there was no signing ceremony for the bill.)
One big problem we face in Colorado is most of the pro-nuclear is for SMRs which are 7 - 20 years in the future. Safely distant to be ignored at present. There are a few of us pushing strongly for building nuclear today, either the AP-1000 or APR-1400.
I'm also hopeful the legislature will not take up Governor Polis' proposed energy legislation this year but instead will create an Interim Committee - https://liberalandlovingit.substack.com/p/an-urgent-call-for-a-thoughtful-and
The Empowerment Alliance common sense energy agenda who preaches Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security Act point blank calls out the hypocrisy of government red tape and unnecessary regulations that is keeping nuclear for energy and modern refineries and new pipelines that are critical to Americans prosperity & America’s economy… it is sacrilege for Nuclear not to be base load power generation in USA who leads the world in technology and CO2 reduction & environmental consciousness
https://empoweringamerica.org/common-sense-energy-agenda/
"Thank you, Captain Obvious!" or rather in the this case, "thank you, Gov. Obvious!" - and for CEO Butler, a truth-teller.
Allowing nuclear is a step in the right direction, but replacing Colorado’s coal-burning power plants with CCGT plants is far more cost-effective than trying to do so via solar, wind or nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Colorado#Coal-fired
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
IMHO, you missed the obvious. In the wind-solar/natural gas approach, the gas system must be simple cycle gas turbine (SCGT), for fast response time, with 40% efficiency and must be sized for 100% of the load for nighttime or cloudy/windless days. Depending on location, it typically must run 80% of the time over the year, and 90-95% in winter. Which begs the question - why not skip the win-solar and go with just a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) system. The cost is lower, and with a 60+% efficiency, the emissions are about the same, if not lower; and, oh yeah, you don't have to set aside 1000's of acres for wind/solar farms.
We agree with this, and would prefer some coal in the mix. Our priorities for the electric grid are always 1. Affordable and 2. Reliable electricity, and a thermal grid is the best way to achieve these. However, this post is discussing nuclear in the context of Colorado's push for net or near zero emissions, and the likelihood any plants are built. We could write a similar post on natural gas in the state, because while natural gas is among the cheapest resources and doesnt have the same economic hurdles, it still has substantial political hurdles in CO.
Thanks, I understand. As a retired Nuclear Engineer, I fully support nuclear, especially SMRs because, in addition to improved technologies, they offer the promise of a fast turnaround from order to operation, thus minimizing the cost of money factor, which is the real killer of the large nuclear plants.
However, you did, appropriately, introduce gas into the picture, but only as "backup" to S-W. I just think that discussion could go further. The real goal is getting the right long term solution (nuclear) established, while getting the wrong one (solar-wind-batteries) relegated to history. Gas is the necessary bridge to get from here to there.
I await a non-bs answer as to what is occurring in Spain and Portugal today.
Here we all thought Germany, the U.K. OR California would be the crash test dummy of ruinable generation.
I didn’t not have “Iberian Peninsula” on my energy catastrophe bingo card.
Late to the game on this one but notice Polis signed this one without his usual crowd of supporters and the media.
Well written!!