monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Well, that is two things you know.

With all of their use of fraudulent data, I see no reason to pay any attention to global warming scientists.

If they want to reduce carbon emissions, they can build nuclear reactors. If they don't, the resulting carbon emissions are their problem not mine.

Scrapping of nuclear plant should see UK renewables filling the void
Readers respond to news that Hitachi has pulled out of the proposed Wylfa nuclear power plant in Anglesey

Letters

Fri 18 Jan 2019 11.13 EST Last modified on Tue 22 Jan 2019 06.13 EST

The pulling out of Hitachi from the proposed Wylfa nuclear power plant is a good thing for energy policy – not a serious blow as said in the article (Hitachi scraps £16bn nuclear power station in Wales, 18 January). Nuclear power is now one of the most expensive form of electricity there is. But beyond the economics, it no longer fits with the digitalising world that we live in. The global energy system is undergoing change similar to that in telecoms and computers over the last few decades. The energy system is becoming smarter and more flexible and it is on the path to being operated in a completely different way than hitherto because of that.

Nuclear – with its huge, inflexible output – is the equivalent of a giant boulder in the middle of a motorway. We, the energy customers of Britain, would have ended up paying way over the odds for Wylfa, which would have also undermined the UK’s move to a smart and flexible system – which really is the future. We are already going to do that for Hinkley Point C.

Going down the nuclear route has been a wasted decade for UK energy policy. Exiting from the EU and the loss of flexibility we may end up with because of difficulties to do with interconnectors and market arrangements is a far greater threat to security than some phantom nuclear power plant from a previous age.
Catherine Mitchell
Professor of energy policy, University of Exeter

• Everyone knows that nuclear power creates lethal waste which hundreds of future generations will have to manage, and, despite the risk being very low, can lead to accidents (or terrorist attacks) with enormous impacts. But Hitachi’s abandonment of the new Wylfa nuclear power station is more evidence, as if any were needed, that nuclear power is also fundamentally uneconomic.

Renewable energy is already cheaper than all fossil fuels and new nuclear. And yet, £16bn spent on grid-level energy storage in the UK would enable a further plummet in the price of renewable energy – a huge boost to the UK economy, to energy independence and security, and to a cleaner future. Why do successive governments of both main parties continue to support these massive white elephants?
Stephen Psallidas
Newcastle upon Tyne

• The withdrawal of Hitachi from the Anglesey nuclear power station project is another blow to the government’s energy policy. Obviously, the fact that solar and wind power are intermittent posits a need for a constant source to back it up. What is difficult to understand is why we can’t use tidal lagoons as the backup. The amounts of energy provided by tidal flows around Britain are almost incalculable, and the simple expedient of closing the gates and leaving millions of tons of water poised to flow through turbines whenever needed is a clear alternative to nuclear. Why aren’t we adopting it?
Jeremy Cushing
Exeter

• What a good opportunity for the government to give the go-ahead to the environmentally friendly Swansea Bay tidal lagoon power plant.
Hilda Reynolds
Bristol

• Energy supply is endlessly debated; less is said about demand. Building new homes to Passive House standards and retro-fitting existing buildings (all buildings) would reduce demand hugely. It would also offer local employment and skills training across all regions. Green Keynesian economics in action. Bring it on.
Lorrie Marchington
Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire

You made me laugh out loud.

Europeans are serfs. They will accept rolling blackouts if their lords tell them to do so.

Nuclear plants can be built so that only one of those two statements are true.

Not sure which is preferable, elimination of long-lived waste or elimination of accidents. But we can eliminate one or the other depending on our design choices.

I guess that answers my question....

We should be using thorium to generate electricity, petroleum for aviation fuel and to make products (carbon fiber etc.), natural gas to power land vehicles, and coal as a backup and as an export product. There is an opening in the world for somebody to become the Andrew Carnegie of carbon fiber, we should not be building with concrete or steel any more.

None of that is valid in the case of thorium. Thorium is plentiful, totally safe, and hundreds of times more efficient than uranium for producing energy. It does not require any knowledge which we don't already have. Nobody wanted to hear about thorium in the 50s or 60s because you can't make bombs out of it, and everybody wantd to make bombs in those days.

The Economic Viability of Nuclear Power Is Only Going Down
POLICY ANALYSIS
By Grant Smith, Senior Energy Policy Advisor

TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2019
Last year the Trump administration’s Energy Department announced the launch of a media campaign to counter what an official called “misinformation” about nuclear power. We haven’t noticed an upsurge in pro-nuclear news – because there is none to report.

On the first day of 2019, the energy industry trade journal Power asked whether new technology can save nuclear power by making new reactors economically feasible – not only to replace coal and natural gas but also to compete with the rapidly dropping cost of renewable energy. The verdict from Peter Bradford, a former member of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

. . . [N]ew nuclear is so far outside the competitive range. . . . Not only can nuclear power not stop global warming, it is probably not even an essential part of the solution to global warming.

His bleak outlook is shared by the authors of a recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors – an engineer, an economist and a national security analyst – reviewed the prospects for so-called advanced designs for large nuclear reactors, and for much smaller modular reactors that could avoid the billions in construction costs and overruns that have plagued the nuclear energy industry since the beginning.

They concluded that no new designs can possibly reach the market before the middle of the century. They cite the breeder reactor that, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, received $100 billion in public development funds worldwide over six decades and still did not get off the ground.

The authors say there may be an opening for small modular reactors but that it will be very difficult to find a market for these reactors without – as is always the case with nuclear power – a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars. “For that to happen,” they argue, “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies would be needed to support their development and deployment over the next several decades, since present competitive energy markets will not induce their development and adoption.”

Despite the past failure and poor future outlook, support for more nuclear funding persists. In a recent study, the Energy Department pointed to the $50 billion in federal incentives provided to renewables like solar and wind power between 2005 and 2015, implying that such policies can have a similar impact on modular nuclear reactors. But unlike nuclear power, the costs of wind and solar have dropped dramatically, to the point where the cost of new, unsubsidized utility-scale wind and solar power investment can now compete with that of existing coal and nuclear power plants.

The bigger question is whether nuclear power is needed at all.

Nuclear advocates’ claims that nuclear power is required to fight climate change falls short. California met its climate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 four years early by turning off its nuclear plants and setting policies that prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and energy storage investments over natural gas plant additions.

An argument advanced in the Energy Department report is that, to ensure that power can be delivered 24/7, large coal and nuclear power plants designed to run day and night – also known as baseload plants – need to be replaced by small nuclear units that run day and night. However, mounting, real-world evidence refutes this assertion.

Recent studies from New York and California show that it is cheaper to invest in renewables, energy efficiency and energy storage in order to replace aging nuclear plants than it is to keep the existing plants running. Savings range from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars – achieved without any impact on electric system reliability.

Nuclear power belongs in a museum. We shouldn’t continue to squander public dollars on a technology that will never make economic sense. We should divert resources into improving and deploying wind, solar, energy efficiency and energy storage technology that we know will keep the lights on, effectively reduce carbon emissions and cost what we can afford to pay.

These dozen states could move to 100% renewable electricity
BY IRINA IVANOVA

UPDATED ON: JANUARY 31, 2019 / 3:21 PM / MONEYWATCH

Last year, California set the most ambitious energy goal in the nation: reaching 100 percent renewable energy in just over 25 years. This year, as many as 13 other states are rearing to join it.

While the federal government seeks to roll back climate-change regulation, state politicians -- many, though not all, Democrats with newfound majorities -- are signaling they won't wait for the feds to reverse course again.

"Despite the fact that this isn't going to happen on the federal level, there are places around the country, in a lot of the most populated states, where people want this," said Mark Morgenstein, a spokesman for Environment America.

Environment America has launched a campaign calling out nine states to become 100 percent renewable by 2050. Several other states are already on their way toward reaching that goal. Together, they represent 42 percent of the U.S. population and more than a quarter of its economic output.

The push for state legislation comes as renewable energy is growing overall, spurred by consumer demand and favorable economics. By 2050, if no new laws are passed, 31 percent of U.S. electricity will come from renewable sources, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Here are the states that are set to go even further.

The climate leaders: Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey
Massachusetts, by many measures the bluest state in the U.S., started work last year on the country's first commercial-scale offshore wind farm and plans to double its wind generation in the next two years. Lawmakers in both houses of the legislature have introduced bills to make the state's power 100 percent renewable by 2045.

New Jersey has taken a series of aggressive climate steps since the 2017 election of Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. The state adopted a goal last year of 50 percent renewable electricity and is in the process of creating an Energy Master Plan, which environmentalists hope will push renewables further.

Washington came close to becoming the first state to tax carbon last year. A bill introduced this year aims to eliminate coal within six years, require 80 percent clean utilities five years after that and make all electricity carbon-free.

Washington has a leg up as the nation's top producer of hydroelectric power, which accounts for two-thirds of all electricity generated in the state. Last year's wildfires across the Northwest also mean the state is deeply familiar with the effects of climate change.

Former coal producers: Pennsylvania and Illinois
Pennsylvania is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country (after Texas, California and Florida). The state's economy, until a few decades ago, relied largely on coal. In recent years, it has become a lead generator of natural gas, a coal replacement that still creates carbon emissions, but on a smaller scale.

That's why its recent about-face on clean energy is notable. Last year, a Republican legislator led a bill to put the state on a path to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. Another Republican is set to introduce it sometime this month, according to PennEnvironment, a state environmental group. The group is hopeful this will be the year it passes.

"We're not California. We're not Hawaii," said David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment. "When you have a purple state that Trump won, where the general assembly is dominated by conservative Republicans, it's significant and shows that other states with a history of fossil fuel production can lead the way."

Illinois' statehouse is far bluer than Pennsylvania's, but the state is just as dependent on coal. The country's sixth most populated state, it still gets nearly two-thirds of its energy from fossil fuels.

But the new Democratic governor, J.B. Pritzker, has signaled a change in direction. Last week he signed on to the U.S. Climate Alliance, a pact that commits the 18 states in it to the goals of the Paris climate agreement, which the U.S. exited in 2017. Pritzker also campaigned on a goal of 100 percent clean energy.

Solid blue states: Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, New York
All four of these states have newly elected Democratic "trifectas," in which the party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion -- and they're pushing for an energy overhaul.

In Colorado, Gov. Jared Polis has set the most ambitious target of any state -- going to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040, a full five years earlier than California and Hawaii. A recent study found that consumers would save $250 million if the state achieves that goal. Colorado's largest utilty, Xcel Energy, last month promised to go carbon-free by 2050, a move it a said was "motivated by customers who are asking for it."

"Consumers look to their utilities to be good citizens, and that includes protection of the climate," said Andrew Heath, senior director of the utilities practice at J.D. Power. When utilities announce they're shifting to renewable energy -- whether it's a response to law or on their own initiative -- it's met favorably, he added.

Maine is already the top wind-power producer in New England, and new Gov. Janet Mills offers the strongest contrast with her Republican predecessor. Former Gov. Paul LePage routinely drew criticism for his anti-environment moves, including quashing bipartisan pro-solar legislation and putting a moratorium on new wind turbine development.

On her inauguration, Mills set a goal to have 80 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable energy sources. Another Maine legislator is already leading the push for a "Green New Deal" in Maine, which would make the state's energy entirely renewable by 2030.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has called for 100 percent clean energy by 2040, a plan that would require boosting the state's solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear resources. The state legislature, which is Democrat-controlled for the first time in 10 years, must approve his plan by April 1.

And New Mexico is eyeing a goal of 80 percent renewable electricity by 2040, which Environment America calls "a first step" to being 100 percent renewable.

Great Lakes states: Michigan and Minnesota
Both these states have Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, and they have a higher-than-average reliance on coal (getting 36 percent and 41 percent of all electricity from it, respectively). Minnesota environmental groups, in addition to pushing for 100-percent renewability by 2030, are seeking a moratorium on new pipelines in the state. Those in Michigan have set 2050 as the target date.

Both states have a higher-than-average reliance on nuclear power (as do others on this list, like Pennsylvania and Illinois), which is excluded from the planned legislation -- and that could be a problem when it comes to emissions.

Nuclear power has divided environmentalists because, while it emits no carbon, it isn't renewable and has the potential to cause massive devastation. Many clean-energy groups favor phasing out nuclear, but doing so makes it harder to reduce emissions.

"What we're starting to see is [renewable-energy requirements] are increasing market pressure on nuclear power plants, and the emissions increase from the loss of those plants offsets the gain in renewable energy," said Whitney Herndon, a senior analyst at Rhodium.

She added: "In order to get the emissions benefit, you really want an increase in renewables, plus keeping the existing nuclear power there."

Good luck with that.

We've been off grid for power needs for three years four months.

All the usual appliances including air conditioning.

You might be freezing there, but it's a heatwave down under.

Just don't be surprised when we burn coal to make up the shortfalls when renewables fail to generate enough power to meet demand.

No kidding. American's aren't serfs like the people over in the UK. If our leaders tell us that we have to live with rolling blackouts, we'll elect new leaders who will generate the remainder of our power needs with coal or nuclear or fracking.

Just don't be surprised when the American people succeed in their effort to lead in both renewable energy production and consumption.

That won't surprise me.

But leftist dreams of forcing Americans to make do with less power are fantasy. Our full power needs will be met.

And if renewables can't meet the demand, it's going to be coal or nuclear or fracking that makes up the shortfall.

If you prefer coal, that's fine.

This is the problem, they know nothing about it so they continue with a load of old bollocks. The truth is that extreme weather conditions like all the hurricanes, droughts and once in a generation cold snaps are all a result of global warming.

If anyone doubts how clueless Gunga is check out this moronic video he posted on the evolution thread.

https://able2know.org/topic/229102-564#post-6783318

Also check out the way Farmerman totally shreds all the crap and shows the pseudoscience for what it is.

It's a pattern, Gunga posts a load of cretinous bullshit, Farmerman proves him wrong, Gunga goes away with his tail between his legs only to come back about two months later to repeat the same drivel just to be proven wrong yet again.

If a dog was that stupid you'd put it down.

No. I'd have rather seen our government respond to the difficulties caused by the free trade pact by instituting a comprehensive industrial policy and coordinating with businesses and education systems to develop new training programs for new skills for a new economy. No reason to maintain an aging polluting industrial base especially with automation reducing the numbers of needed workers steadily. But no, we looked the other way and pretended it wasn't happening and engaged in reckless military intervention instead.

Expert: Bill Gates Is “Completely Wrong” About Global Poverty


futurism