Milankovitch Cycles dishonestly used as argument against man made climate change

[bilby]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

Nukes are not 'trumped by solar and wind' with regard to CO₂. All three have very low, but non-zero emissions.

Also, if you price CO₂ (or indeed, anything) as 'the only consideration worth bothering about', then you have missed the point of 'pricing', which is to give a point of comparison between different issues. Prices are always relative, so treating them as absolute is moronic. If you price CO₂ at $X per tonne, then you get a range of optimum choices for the lowest all-inclusive cost of power. For very low values of X, coal is best; for very high values if X, renewables are probably best (but that depends on the details of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with installation - including making and installing storage facilities); and there is a wide band of values of X in which nuclear is the optimum choice - at least until and unless cheap storage becomes available.

So, yes, the value of X allows you to choose your winner, but there are a wide range of values of X for which nukes are the best choice.

 

[barbos]

The orbit partly caused the CO2 to increase from 180 to 280 ppm. So that and decreased albedo from glaciers disappearing combined with orbital effects explain glaciations vs interglacials.

Trying to get contributing ratios of each.

Yes, CO2 fluctuate as a result of climate change resulted from changes in the orbit.
I don't think you can talk about contributions here.

 

[bigfield]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

Solar and wind power cannot provide provide a base-load power supply - not without further improvements to energy storage technology. Once solar, wind, and other renewables can actually perform the role that fossils and nukes are currently performing, then they will be the clear best option.

 

[Togo]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

Nukes are not 'trumped by solar and wind' with regard to CO₂.

Above a certain price put on C02, yes they are. As you paragraph below shows:

Also, if you price CO₂ (or indeed, anything) as 'the only consideration worth bothering about', then you have missed the point of 'pricing', which is to give a point of comparison between different issues. Prices are always relative, so treating them as absolute is moronic. If you price CO₂ at $X per tonne, then you get a range of optimum choices for the lowest all-inclusive cost of power. For very low values of X, coal is best; for very high values if X, renewables are probably best (but that depends on the details of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with installation - including making and installing storage facilities); and there is a wide band of values of X in which nuclear is the optimum choice - at least until and unless cheap storage becomes available.

So, yes, the value of X allows you to choose your winner, but there are a wide range of values of X for which nukes are the best choice.

And above that band, renewables beat nuclear. By setting the price where it is convenient for the argument, you can choose your winner. Hence my objection.

Solar and wind power cannot provide provide a base-load power supply - not without further improvements to energy storage technology. Once solar, wind, and other renewables can actually perform the role that fossils and nukes are currently performing, then they will be the clear best option.

They can, they're just not very good at it. Even in the continent-wide still cloudy day scenario beloved of nuclear advocates, solar and wind produce power, albeit at greatly reduced capacity. Similarly nuclear is less efficient for a fluctuating supply, which is, unfortunately, far more of the total power cosumed than the base-load, at least for a national grid set up.

Worse still, getting rid of some of the largest fossil power plants may be counter-productive. A really big modern coal station, like Drax in the UK, is a target for protests because of it's size. It's also one of the cleanest and most fuel-and-pollution-efficient coal power plants in Europe, and has a projected lifespan of some 40 years. Demolishing it to make way for a different kind of plant, could potentially produce as much C02 as it would save.

Of course, if you really want to save C02, forget power stations entirely and focus on making jumpers and sweaters fashionable at home and at work. Lowering household and office heating by an average of 2 degrees throughout the western world would absolutely huge. It's just a lot less sexy than a row of glittering solar panels or a modern new nuclear reactor.

 

[bilby]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

Nukes are not 'trumped by solar and wind' with regard to CO₂.

Above a certain price put on C02, yes they are. As you paragraph below shows:

Also, if you price CO₂ (or indeed, anything) as 'the only consideration worth bothering about', then you have missed the point of 'pricing', which is to give a point of comparison between different issues. Prices are always relative, so treating them as absolute is moronic. If you price CO₂ at $X per tonne, then you get a range of optimum choices for the lowest all-inclusive cost of power. For very low values of X, coal is best; for very high values if X, renewables are probably best (but that depends on the details of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with installation - including making and installing storage facilities); and there is a wide band of values of X in which nuclear is the optimum choice - at least until and unless cheap storage becomes available.

So, yes, the value of X allows you to choose your winner, but there are a wide range of values of X for which nukes are the best choice.

And above that band, renewables beat nuclear. By setting the price where it is convenient for the argument, you can choose your winner. Hence my objection.

Solar and wind power cannot provide provide a base-load power supply - not without further improvements to energy storage technology. Once solar, wind, and other renewables can actually perform the role that fossils and nukes are currently performing, then they will be the clear best option.

They can, they're just not very good at it. Even in the continent-wide still cloudy day scenario beloved of nuclear advocates, solar and wind produce power, albeit at greatly reduced capacity. Similarly nuclear is less efficient for a fluctuating supply, which is, unfortunately, far more of the total power cosumed than the base-load, at least for a national grid set up.

Worse still, getting rid of some of the largest fossil power plants may be counter-productive. A really big modern coal station, like Drax in the UK, is a target for protests because of it's size. It's also one of the cleanest and most fuel-and-pollution-efficient coal power plants in Europe, and has a projected lifespan of some 40 years. Demolishing it to make way for a different kind of plant, could potentially produce as much C02 as it would save.

Of course, if you really want to save C02, forget power stations entirely and focus on making jumpers and sweaters fashionable at home and at work. Lowering household and office heating by an average of 2 degrees throughout the western world would absolutely huge. It's just a lot less sexy than a row of glittering solar panels or a modern new nuclear reactor.

I dunno - where I live, the big domestic consumption is for cooling - refrigeration and air-conditioning. Solar is ideal for those applications on summer days, but on a hot February night, sleeping without a/c, or at least a fan to push the humidity around, would be very unpleasant.

There is a reason why, before electricity, they had to put people in chains to make them stay here.

Only a crazy person would wear a jumper in these parts for 10 months of the year, and even in mid-winter, heating is rarely needed. I own one thin jumper; I last wore it in August 2013.

 

[bigfield]

Solar and wind power cannot provide provide a base-load power supply - not without further improvements to energy storage technology. Once solar, wind, and other renewables can actually perform the role that fossils and nukes are currently performing, then they will be the clear best option.

They can, they're just not very good at it. Even in the continent-wide still cloudy day scenario beloved of nuclear advocates, solar and wind produce power, albeit at greatly reduced capacity. Similarly nuclear is less efficient for a fluctuating supply, which is, unfortunately, far more of the total power cosumed than the base-load, at least for a national grid set up.

Being 'not very good' at providing base-load supply is exactly why the technology, particularly the complementary storage technologies, need more time to mature.

Worse still, getting rid of some of the largest fossil power plants may be counter-productive. A really big modern coal station, like Drax in the UK, is a target for protests because of it's size. It's also one of the cleanest and most fuel-and-pollution-efficient coal power plants in Europe, and has a projected lifespan of some 40 years. Demolishing it to make way for a different kind of plant, could potentially produce as much C02 as it would save.

I'm afraid I have no idea if that is accurate or not.

Of course, if you really want to save C02, forget power stations entirely and focus on making jumpers and sweaters fashionable at home and at work. Lowering household and office heating by an average of 2 degrees throughout the western world would absolutely huge. It's just a lot less sexy than a row of glittering solar panels or a modern new nuclear reactor.

How exactly do you propose the government take action on thermostat usage?

 

[Togo]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

Nukes are not 'trumped by solar and wind' with regard to CO₂.

Above a certain price put on C02, yes they are. As you paragraph below shows:

Also, if you price CO₂ (or indeed, anything) as 'the only consideration worth bothering about', then you have missed the point of 'pricing', which is to give a point of comparison between different issues. Prices are always relative, so treating them as absolute is moronic. If you price CO₂ at $X per tonne, then you get a range of optimum choices for the lowest all-inclusive cost of power. For very low values of X, coal is best; for very high values if X, renewables are probably best (but that depends on the details of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with installation - including making and installing storage facilities); and there is a wide band of values of X in which nuclear is the optimum choice - at least until and unless cheap storage becomes available.

So, yes, the value of X allows you to choose your winner, but there are a wide range of values of X for which nukes are the best choice.

And above that band, renewables beat nuclear. By setting the price where it is convenient for the argument, you can choose your winner. Hence my objection.

Solar and wind power cannot provide provide a base-load power supply - not without further improvements to energy storage technology. Once solar, wind, and other renewables can actually perform the role that fossils and nukes are currently performing, then they will be the clear best option.

They can, they're just not very good at it. Even in the continent-wide still cloudy day scenario beloved of nuclear advocates, solar and wind produce power, albeit at greatly reduced capacity. Similarly nuclear is less efficient for a fluctuating supply, which is, unfortunately, far more of the total power cosumed than the base-load, at least for a national grid set up.

Worse still, getting rid of some of the largest fossil power plants may be counter-productive. A really big modern coal station, like Drax in the UK, is a target for protests because of it's size. It's also one of the cleanest and most fuel-and-pollution-efficient coal power plants in Europe, and has a projected lifespan of some 40 years. Demolishing it to make way for a different kind of plant, could potentially produce as much C02 as it would save.

Of course, if you really want to save C02, forget power stations entirely and focus on making jumpers and sweaters fashionable at home and at work. Lowering household and office heating by an average of 2 degrees throughout the western world would absolutely huge. It's just a lot less sexy than a row of glittering solar panels or a modern new nuclear reactor.

I dunno - where I live, the big domestic consumption is for cooling - refrigeration and air-conditioning. Solar is ideal for those applications on summer days, but on a hot February night, sleeping without a/c, or at least a fan to push the humidity around, would be very unpleasant.

There is a reason why, before electricity, they had to put people in chains to make them stay here.

Only a crazy person would wear a jumper in these parts for 10 months of the year, and even in mid-winter, heating is rarely needed. I own one thin jumper; I last wore it in August 2013.

Fair point, that was a bit parochial of me, but you can adapt the advice to the climate. I remember comparing rural South Carolina to Florida. In the South Carolina the houses had pitched, light-coloured roofs, extended eves, and porches to keep direct sun off the building. They encouraged trees to provide shade, and large windows with screens to catch the evening breeze. In Florida the modern development I was in had straight up and down buildings, a flat black tarmac roof, and black tarmac all the way around the building up to the front door so you could get from air-conditioned car, to air conditioned lviing room, without having to spend too long outside. Trees were hacked down (roots cause damage), and the windows didn't open without a screwdriver. It seemed like a peculiarly stupid way to design a building, particularly since it wasn't a particularly cheap building.

 

[barbos]

heating and A/C is very big and stupid waste of energy.
Most of Europe and US can get rid of heating completely and have very little A/C.
All is needed is better insulation which already exists but people are too cheap or mathematically challenged to realize that it's cheaper to have better insulation.

You can build slightly more expensive house which will requiring very little energy to live in, and then you will realize that you can live with half the energy you were using before and solar will be pretty viable even with expensive storage.

 

[repoman]

What also sucks about AC is that the liquids still have a high Global Warming Potential if they leak.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerant

I think what makes a good refrigerant axiomatically makes it also have high GWP. Anyone here know the physics of this?

 

[barbos]

What also sucks about AC is that the liquids still have a high Global Warming Potential if they leak.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerant

compared to CO2 emisions from coal plants running A/C it's nothing.
Gasoline is a green house gas too and it leaks orders of magnitude more than refrigerants.

I think what makes a good refrigerant axiomatically makes it also have high GWP. Anyone here know the physics of this?

refrigerant gas has to have boiling temperature a bit lower than desired temperature. So if you want +20C then gas must be lower than that - something like 0C.

Simple low molecular weight gases (N2, O2, CO2) have too low boiling temperature.
And higher molecular weigh gases have molecules with a lot of degrees of freedom which makes them opaque to a lot wavelengthes including infra-red.
You can use N2 as a refrigerant but it will be a giant waste of electricity.