Obstacles in the Way

[amberwolf]

I would not trust any paper or “scientist” that states CO2 being dissolved will “acidify” the ocean !
That is a blatent scare tactic and a scientific lie which should cause hesitation as to the objective of the paper.
Oceans are alkaline and will never becom acidic.

Though definition and typical usage is indeed to make something acid, I think that in actual usage by people (because not everyone uses words exactly as they should be), acidifying doesn't necessarily mean making something acidic, period--it can mean just making it more acidic than it is now, hence less alkaline, for instance, in your example of the oceans.

[Hillhater]

Though definition and typical usage is indeed to make something acid, I think that in actual usage by people (because not everyone uses words exactly as they should be), acidifying doesn't necessarily mean making something acidic, period--it can mean just making it more acidic than it is now, hence less alkaline, for instance, in your example of the oceans.

Sure,.. i understand the meaning if the words, but it is the “intent” of why it is frequently used in the CO2/oceans situation.
It is , as i said, a scare tactic,..deliberately intended to imply a crisis in the making, when the reality is nothing of the sort !
Genuine unbiased scientific reporting is very careful how it uses technical descriptions. This is obviously not genuine or unbiased !
They would have been more correct to say the Alkalinity is slightly reduced,….or even, at a stretch of thr facts, to suggest the ocean Ph was moving closer to a NEUTRAL condition…..
…but that doesnt sound as dramatic, does it ?

[Jrbe]

Let's not turn this discussion into a dumpster fire. This isn't about global warming / climate change.

I'd love to get back on topic and hear about some spent nuclear fuel storage / reuse that makes sense..that also doesn't burden future generations with our likely short sighted choices.

[Jrbe]

https://www.capecod.com/newscenter/repo ... on-intake/

Not a great nuclear is safe read for the workers.

Also the discharge of radioactive water.

[neptronix]

Let's not turn this discussion into a dumpster fire. This isn't about global warming / climate change.

I'd love to get back on topic and hear about some spent nuclear fuel storage / reuse that makes sense..that also doesn't burden future generations with our likely short sighted choices.

[JackFlorey]

Is it ?

Yes.

Levelized costs per megawatt-hour:

Solar 28-41
Wind 26-50
Coal 65-152
Natural gas 45-174
Nuclear 131-204

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/laz ... on-140.pdf

Want storage too?

Solar plus storage 55-91

https://www.nrel.gov/news/video/lcoss-text.html

[JackFlorey]

I would not trust any paper or “scientist” that states CO2 being dissolved will “acidify” the ocean !

Your blood pH is normally 7.4. If it gets to 7.1 regularly, your doctor would tell you you have acidemia, and recommend immediate treatment to avoid serious injury and death. Even though your blood was technically still alkaline.

I suspect you would trust him.

[JackFlorey]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

It makes a lot of sense to maintain the operation of our existing nuclear power plants, since they are already irradiated and they provide about 20% of our power. That means they can run at 100% power most of the time, which is the best (i.e. most economical) way to use a nuclear power plant. If you have hundreds of billions lying around and 20 years in which to do it, you could increase that to about 30%. Beyond that is counterproductive, because then those reactors have to start load following, and that's not simple/economic to do.

There are a few cases where more than 30% makes sense.

1) If we go to HTGR's then they can produce hydrogen 24/7 via thermal dissociation, and can run at 100% full time, making hydrogen or electricity as needed per electric demand.

2) If we do build out large amounts of storage, then even conventional reactors can run at 100%, thus achieving maximum economy. However, if you are going to have that storage anyway, it makes a lot more sense to fill it with $35/MWhr solar power, rather than $150/MWhr nuclear power.

[neptronix]

For the record, co2 is used in drink making to reduce PH and therefore increase acidity. So it absolutely does the same thing in excess in the ocean.

co2 is not the only emission of fossil fuels that's harmful, there's dozens of others that were identified many decades ago and have current demonstrable harms.

Supply wise, Saudi Arabia is currently shaking in their boots over the idea that they won't have the supply in 10-15 years to run their country anymore. Peak oil isn't just a hippie conspiracy theory anymore, we're looking at it in a few decades.

The fossil fuel story doesn't end well, and as usual, human ingenuity will be the band-aid we apply to continue to scale humanity further.

[Hillhater]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

REALITY is the IEA data of actual operating system costs..
…not Lazards theoretical estimates ( with no storage) , or even those with a mere 4 HOURS of daily storage !
4 hours does not ensure a reliable 24/7 utility supply.

It makes a lot of sense to maintain the operation of our existing nuclear power plants, since they are already irradiated and they provide about 20% of our power. That means they can run at 100% power most of the time, which is the best (i.e. most economical) way to use a nuclear power plant. If you have hundreds of billions lying around and 20 years in which to do it, you could increase that to about 30%. Beyond that is counterproductive, because then those reactors have to start load following, and that's not simple/economic to do.
There are a few cases where more than 30% makes sense.

But there are “a few cases”…such as France, which has 70+% Nuclear supply ..and one of the lowest cost power in Europe….(22c/.kWh))
….compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/
That is REALITY Jack.

If we do build out large amounts of storage, then even conventional reactors can run at 100%, thus achieving maximum economy. However, if you are going to have that storage anyway, it makes a lot more sense to fill it with $35/MWhr solar power, rather than $150/MWhr nuclear power.

With mostly Nuclear you do not need “large amounts” of storage (ref France), but with wind, solar etc, you will need VERY LARGE amounts of storage for 24/7 security
You should estimate the cost of storage to ensure 24/7 supply with “net zero” policy enacted .( its much more than 4 hours !)

[Hillhater]

co2 is not the only emission of fossil fuels that's harmful, there's dozens of others that were identified many decades ago and have current demonstrable harms.

Sure , but do not ignore the emmissions directly associated with production of RE infrastructure and equipment.
And emissions are not just from fossil fuels..
There are emmissions from living breathing , landfill waste, agriculture, industrial chemical processes, brewing, etc.

Supply wise, Saudi Arabia is currently shaking in their boots over the idea that they won't have the supply in 10-15 years to run their country anymore. Peak oil isn't just a hippie conspiracy theory anymore, we're looking at it in a few decades.

So “peak oil” in a few decades ? (Again !) then supply will continue for a few more decades after… maybe 100 yrs ?
PS, the Saudi concern is that they wont have oil to SELL…
…they will ahve to buy it like the rest of the world
But, Oil has a very small contribution to electricity generation. So not really a factor in this discussion.

[Jrbe]

The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

Reality says otherwise.

I'm seeing the iea link not as a report, but more a cost analysis with sliding scales for adjusting for different cost inputs. If you slide the discount rate to 1 (why not 0?..) nuclear falls to more expensive than hydro, wind, & solar. This is probably meant to show different cost inputs to do analysis but can also be adjusted (or fudged) to make different options look better or worse.

[JackFlorey]

That is REALITY Jack.

OK sounds like you don't understand load following. No worries; lots of people don't.

[JackFlorey]

I'm seeing the iea link not as a report, but more a cost analysis with sliding scales for adjusting for different cost inputs.

It is both, of course. The reason there is a range of prices is that there are a lot of different coal plants, each with its own efficiency, cost of fuel, cost of operation etc.

This is probably meant to show different cost inputs to do analysis but can also be adjusted (or fudged) to make different options look better or worse.

Right. They even include a case for zero fuel costs, which makes coal, natural gas and nuclear cheaper. It is, of course, not based on reality. The bars in the analysis ARE based on reality - on operating costs of various forms of power.

[Jrbe]

Hillhater, consider not trying to win every conversation. Try to understand the other persons position and why they're there.
Negating things with false equivalencies isn't honest, fair, or constructive. It's trying to shut down info because something disqualifies that information in your opinion. There's a big difference between opinion and peer reviewed info. You don't trust 99% scientists so who is left for info about scientific topics? If you're looking for the 1% you also have to look at peer review of their work. I'm all for questioning things but when it devolves into pedantics it's exhausting.
The goalposts are constantly moving with these win tactics and there's just talk in circles. Try to see things not as binary (black and white) but as shades of grey. You have some valid points on occasion but when it's delivered with a sledgehammer it's not well received.
A "fact" is a best understanding of something to be true. It's not set in stone. Our understanding can change and that adjusts what the "fact" is. I try to think in theories and not in fact / belief because they're quite rigid and don't usually evolve well.

For example,

compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

Germany is suffering from natural gas shortage from the Russia / Ukraine fiasco. The energy cost just doubled for my location because of the same thing. Blaming all of Germany's energy cost on renewables isn't fair or accurate. Their energy costs were expensive before Ukraine. Their co2 targets, taxes, etc. also push up end costs. Lots of things contribute to cost, not just renewables being part of their supply. So the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

How does this add to the conversation?

That is REALITY Jack.

Less sledgehammer and more understanding will help you further conversation when you have a valid point.

[Hillhater]

Hillhater, consider not trying to win every conversation.
For example,

compared to Germany which has 60% Renewables (wind) and THE HIGHEST COST power in Europe.(53c/kWh)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/

Germany is suffering from natural gas shortage from the Russia / Ukraine fiasco. The energy cost just doubled for my location because of the same thing. Blaming all of Germany's energy cost on renewables isn't fair or accurate. Their energy costs were expensive before Ukraine. Their co2 targets, taxes, etc. also push up end costs. Lots of things contribute to cost, not just renewables being part of their supply. So the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

How does this as to the conversation?

That is REALITY Jack.

Its not about “winning a conversation” ..its about trying to correct false answers and missguided views , using real information.
You have come to this forum late in the debate re CO2, AGM, Fossil vs Renewables, etc, and you may not be aware just how far imbedded some of these views (on both sides ) are. I have found that polite conversation doesnt cut through to the more hardened AGW /CO2 alarmists.
There is not such a difference between opinion, and peer reviewed as you may want to believe. Todays peer review process is widely critisized to the point thhat it is often just a group of collegues supporting each others views.
It is not that i dont trust 99% of scientists…. Only that 99% who attempt to confirm or support the AGW /CO2 theory.
There are many others who vigourously refute that position,.. (30,000 of them are supporting a Law Suit against the UNIPCC !)
..but they are marginalised and denied any significant media coverage to minimise their support.
There is much “ black and white” in this debate, but it like religeous differences, with each side committed to their belief no matter what evidence is presented…like the historic CO2 /Temp data that clearly shows CO2 is not the driver of temperature !
Germany has had steadily increasing electricity costs since it started on its extensive RE programm, ( totally unrelated to the Ukraine, except that cheap Russian gas was previously helping to hide the FULL costs of their rush to RE !)… and it is not hard to understand that linkage..huge investment in new generation infrastructure whilst retaining the majority of the established system …why? Because they do not have storage capacity to support their level of intermittent RE.
That pattern can be seen repeated in nearly all major grid systems that have progressed their RE plans..EG: CA, UK, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, etc etc… it is not coincidence, it is due to the additional costs involved in creating a dependable RE grid.

the false equivalency is high % of renewables = high costs. It's not that simple.

… sorry to disillution you, but i think you will discover that with regards to wind and solar, it is “that simple” !
And the “REALITY” add emphasis to the data following jacks comment of. “reality says otherwise” .

[Jrbe]

You have come to this forum late in the debate re CO2, AGM, Fossil vs Renewables, etc, and you may not be aware just how far imbedded some of these views (on both sides ) are.

This thread wasn't a debate about global warming / climate change, or at least it wasn't until this post,

And dont loose track of what initiated all this move to renewables… the belief in the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on the global climate…an unscientific belief that will eventually be proven to be the fraud that it is.

My hope for this thread is that you will stop dragging this post in that direction and that others will stop taking the bait. I find this original topic interesting, but not the off topic direction it keeps getting pushed.

[neptronix]

We give hillhater way too much attention