218 thoughts on “Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)

  1. @BilB

    TCASE 7: TCASE 7: Scaling up Andasol 1 to baseload is a good start …

    Precise construction costs are hard to come by, but it seems to have been about €300 million ($AUD 500 million). This works out to be $25 billion per GWe of average power, but this is clearly a first-of-a-kind cost that can be expected to fall with replicated builds. The levelised cost of energy (including the energy storage) is estimated to be 45 c/kWh (in Australian cents) — which is about the size of the Spanish feed-in tariff which is set to run for 25 years. Including its charge for electricity to customers, the maximum cost has been capped at 58 c/kWh

    Average power and capacity credit are not of course the same thing. It is hard to beleive that it will gurantee to dispatch its average power on demand. Take this into account, and it makes the order of magnitude calculation.

    Here too is another detailed analysis:

    Solar realities and transmission costs – addendum by an enginner who has worked in power systems frrom many years.

    Again, the comparison for solar is not good. Some variations put it at substantially more than an order of magnitude above nuclear.

  2. @Jarrah

    It’s amusing Jarrah …

    I can recall being at an anti-nuclear rally in the late 1970s at UNSW in which some feminists were carrying a placard endorsed “you can’t hug children with nuclear arms”.

    Even today, I still regard that as the most clever thing I’ve ever seen written on a placard.

  3. Another thing:

    Belgium is reportedly moving to ban wearing face-obscuring clothing in public — they are think expressly of the burqah of course.

    Reportedly, Belgium has about 30 people who wear the burqah in public and the government is falling apart on other matters. You do have to wonder about this dogwhistling stuff.

  4. @Fran Barlow

    Hey, they could be up to anything under there. I all in favour of a ban. I am sure that Pauline Hanson would support me on that. Similarly, I would ban bikies from wearing patches but for different reasons.

  5. There is no need for face-obscuring clothing in public nowadays. Not with face transplants.

  6. No Fran,

    Deal with the information at hand. The president of the United States as advised by the best of the nuclear industry has given you one set of information and Dr Franz Trieb publishing on behalf of the German Government has given you another set of figures. Both sets of information are up to date and relate to economies of equal standing.

    Diving off into space, your usual tactic, by quoting the highly biased and mathematically inaccurate Prof Mackay along with a bunch of “guessers” is an absolutely incompetent manner of evaluation. you are just not genuine at all.

    So, as your manner of debate is obviously of the “entertainment” form, I will in future treat what you have to say on all subjects in that way.

  7. @BilB
    BilB… “mind altering revelations” of the type both Fran and now Jarrah have apparently had as to the vision of a clean future with nuclear use, without any dangerous consequences per Fran… is no justification for it.
    Personal experiences of the type..

    “I was once like you are now…but I changed my mind…I just came to my senses one to accept nukes. On what facts or figures were “minds changed?”. On what evidence was the position altered?
    Quite unknown. But it just occurred and somehow it means the poster has an open mind..
    open to what?

    Id like to be free to make my own mind up on the facts, not be persuaded by others subjective personal transformations and misprepresentations and as you note Bilb, facts are certainly in short supply here…and when sources for grandiose conclusions are requested as Ernestine attempts reasonably to do, they are blithely dismissed or ignored….and subject changed. Fran has her fans as well…and I think they come from the “reality is what you choose to make it school.”

  8. Fran has become married to BraveNewClimate blog, along with Terje, and as that content never changes neither will their views. They are living in the past. You saw that above there. The latest published information on CSP and Nuclear, didn’t like…quick check back with BNC…no BNC says nuclear is cheapest. I presented the latest information on leaking nuclear reactors and first hand information on radiation releases from TMI-2, didn’t like it….quick check back with BNC….no BNC says that nuclear is 100% safe. It’s party political of the Howard and Bush variety. Leave your brain at the door before entering.

    What happened to Elise? Her evaluations are always realworld based.

  9. And here Alice and BilB demonstrate why for them, opposition to nuclear continues to be an article of faith. Do they challenge the data or the modelling at BNC?

    No way. They just expect people to accept that because Professor Brook and Peter Lang conclude that the numbers speak against renewables, and in favour of nuclear power, they must be wrong and anyone who cites them must be tainted.

    As Lang demonstrates, on any of the criteria one might evaluate these matters, renewables are at least an order of magnitude inferior to nuclear power for industrial scale power AND have a worse environmental footprint as well.

    @BilB

  10. @BilB
    Elise?? You mean Ernestine? Anyway Terje is ducking and weaving (gotta hand it to him) on another thread saying “I dont think we need another thread devoted to nuclear”…
    Hear hear….Terje must be in sole survival mode and is distancing himself (from Fran?) who has advanced too far, expended too much verbal ammunition with little back up and is now surrounded. They will regroup later Bilb. Theyre almost neighbours. I expect they will be sharing tea and scones soon enough at LP local.

  11. @Fran Barlow
    yet another instance of projection bias from Fran
    “And here Alice and BilB demonstrate why for them, opposition to nuclear continues to be an article of faith.”

    Clever Fran, but dishonest again.
    Bilb, I and Ernestine and Freelander and others prefer real facts and real science Fran, preferably from you seeing as you pass yourself off as a nuke expert. We have been waiting so long for your sources. No wonder you dont want to cite. You prefer Bravenewclimate packaged propaganda it would seem. Real academics in your opinion are likely ” lefties or bureaucrats” (both odious to you). You spread propaganda and dodge the real facts on nukes and climate science with your own somewhat dodgy and mostly oily pretend experts. But hey, the world is what you imagine right?

  12. Lest I be accused later on of not keeping up with the latest research, I note that excess deaths due to Chernobyl have now been estimated at 985,000 between 1986 and 2004 (and now likely to approximate 1,000,000). That’s much worse than previous estimates, by the WHO and IAEA, which the authors of the new book accuse of ignoring (or being ignorant of) hundreds of studies into radiation sicknesses in Russia and eastern Europe.

    So, I accept that Chernobyl was a tremendous disaster (which I always did) that likely killed at least hundreds of thousands of people.

    OK. Now, will those people who constantly bring up Chernobyl as a cautionary tale like to accept that the disaster occurred for specific technological reasons, and that other nuclear power stations don’t repeat those technological reasons, and therefore Chernobyl is, at best, a bogeyman for children?

  13. Fran Barlow wrote a novel while I was sound asleep, writing conclusions from her theory about Alice and Ernestine’s motivations, as if they were facts, and spinning along merrily a story of her enthusiasm for nuclear power (except Freelander’s considerations). Its quite impressive how easy it is, this novel writing, if one is unconstrained by rhyme or reason, not to mention empirical evidence or elementary accurate and unbiased data transcription. It’s also funny. In response to a query I had about the reasonableness of Fran’s fact about the future (no typo) regarding Germany’s ghg emissions, Fran provides a link to a Spiegel article from 2008 which contains the evidence of her having selectively quoted such that it fits into her novel. And this shortly after Fran had posted a Mia Culpa for totally misrepresenting the past on the same subject and another admission of misrepresentation in response to Chris Warren’s query.

    Alice was up earlier, making a good attempt to defend me against Fran’s imaginary facts the previously good reputation of JQ’s blog. In case it is not clear, I refute all of Fran’s assertions and allegations about me and about her conspiracy theory regarding Alice and me.

    Not apparently requiring any sleep, Fran continues with her verbal ping-pong, involving other commenters. Neither humour nor argument nor evidence seem to work to restore the usually high standard of JQ’s blog. I noticed, JQ announced that he was absent during the week.

    BilB, you have a point when you write in response to Fran Barlow: “Informed debate aims to progress societies interests. Legal debate, what you seem to be into, attempts to win at all costs with no regard for truth or facts, just whatever “evidence” can be made to look like. What we are seeing here is a perpetual legal closing argument. Groundhog day, over and over and over.”

    In real life courts the truth does come out at times. But Fran may not know that as yet. Or should I say Fran’s novel on enthusiasm for nuclear power hasn’t developed that far as yet?

    JQ is a very busy person. Usually self-management works on his blog. It would be a pitty if it were to become necessary to write to him asking him to intervene.

  14. “Do they challenge the data or the modelling at BNC?”

    Yes I did Fran. You just don’t remember. Mackay’s numbers are all over the place. He was right, I admit on further study, to use 1000 watts per square meter as a starting fugure but that is where reality ended.

    I am dealing with “right now’s” reality. The solar photovoltaic silicon we are working with is quoted from the manufacturer at under 50 cents per watt. The supporting system will cost another 50 cents to $1 per watt to get that to rooftops and connected into the building’s wiring. Any 5th grader could do the maths to see how that turns into a total energy solution, and they can do that because they want to do that. Our young see the simplicity and purity of a solar solution for their future. And I respect that. I am applying all of my design and technical knowledge to making that advanced appreciation real.

    I came down the mountain to the factory today with the engine off to see what an all electric vehicle will be like, just delightful.

  15. Thanks for that, Jarrah. In today’s nuclear terms the probability of another accident is very small. But when the proposal is to ramp out nuclear production to replace all energy production to very country, that small probability becomes very large again. Todays machinery is so far superior in design it is difficult to see any relation to the original concepts. That connection is there though in the material used, because they do not change. As design concepts expand away from their origins changes in solution bring new vulnerabilities. So to say that Gen IV nuclear reactors are invulnerable because they are more recent and more advanced from previous designs is fallacious because their very differences introduce new opportunities for failure. In other words a fully resolved old problem is safer than a thoroughly worked new one.

    My argument is that nuclear is an illogical solution for Australia. It makes as much sense as taking an icemaking machine to Antarctica. I also have problems with encouraging nuclear facilities for economies where corruption is rife. If you can build and safely operate a nuclear power station in Somalia then it might be safe for Australia, but it would still be illogical.

  16. @BilB

    Yes I did Fran. You just don’t remember. Mackay’s numbers are all over the place.

    BNC is not Mackay’s blog …

    Any 5th grader could do the maths to see how that turns into a total energy solution, and they can do that because they want to do that.

    Regrettably, only fifth graders can accept your figures.

  17. @Michael

    Sorry about the delay in replying to your thankfully down-to-earth questions.

    I didn’t research heat pumps any further. So I can’t help there. On the question of life-expectancy of the system, I can say the supplier, a reputable Australian company, gives 10 years guarantee. Storm damage, if any, would also be covered by my house insurance.

    Payback period refers to the number of periods (usually years) it takes to recoup the money outlayed, ignoring interest foregone. The calculated number depends on future prices. I did do such a calculation, more of less out of habit, and knowing that the coeffcient depends of current electricity prices. This was about 1 year ago. Since then the remaining payback period has shortened because of electricity price increases.

  18. Well, I’ll accept that

    “Regrettably, only fifth graders can accept your figures”

    We have all seen how the “adults” stacked up against the fifth graders. Few got very far, and most grabbed the money and ran. Which is a sad indictment of what our self centred society has become. Very much the problem

  19. @Jarrah
    Jarrah you are obviously from the same “lets invent our own rosy world re nuclear” as Fran.

    First you say, somewhat disingenuously, that you admit (your words)

    “excess deaths due to Chernobyl have now been estimated at 985,000 between 1986 and 2004 (and now likely to approximate 1,000,000). That’s much worse than previous estimates, by the WHO and IAEA, which the authors of the new book accuse of ignoring (or being ignorant of) hundreds of studies into radiation sicknesses in Russia and eastern Europe.”

    Then, quite mysteriously and with no facts and no evidence you command us all to accept the following (your very own words)

    “So, I accept that Chernobyl was a tremendous disaster (which I always did) that likely killed at least hundreds of thousands of people. OK. Now, will those people who constantly bring up Chernobyl as a cautionary tale like to accept that the disaster occurred for specific technological reasons, and that other nuclear power stations don’t repeat those technological reasons, and therefore Chernobyl is, at best, a bogeyman for children?”

    No we wouldnt like to accept that other power stations dont or wont repeat those mistakes, and nor would we like to accept that those mistakes occurred for specific technological reasons….are you suggesting the technology failed onm its own and there was no human error factor? Last I heard, technology doesnt yet think, talk or walk or design itself and is the product of human input.

    You did not elucidate on the “specifics” of the technological reasons Jarrah. You failed to link human error to it. You did not specify why anyone should accept this reasoning (you just think we should and that isnt good enough)….which makes it a post similar to Frans. “I think ….therefore you all should subscibe and beleive.”

    Utterly subjective and illogical.

    You also cite the 985,000 deaths (my goodness), but you also neglect the huge loss of habitable land and its foregone future productivity.

    No, we dont accept such unlinked, unevidenced argument because if we did we would be as mad as some others already here.

  20. @Ernestine Gross
    It would be a pity Fran but it is getting to that point. It would be nice to see some censure relating to “troll like arguments” that have no purpose except to deceive. There has been so many lies and misprepresentations that it does get to the point of complete unacceptability.

    That, here, is my major complaint. Im sure the Prof likes to keep the discussion open and free and representative of all sides of a reasonable and logical argument but when others are clearly using his blog as a political platform to disseminate misprepresentations and deceit and untruths without facts or evidence in some sort aggressive tribal manner…at what point should they be sanctioned? The public do read this blog and deserve better than this patently false nonsense.

  21. @Alice

    The problem here Alice is that you are asking PrQ to adjudicate “truth” and that opens a can of worms that doubtles PrQ would like to leave closed. I very much doubt PrQ aspires to be the “Pope” of this domain.

    Your suggestion both that my arguments are deceptive and calculated to deceive is without foundation. You propose censorship because you are irritated that your belief is offended by observable reality.

  22. @Jarrah

    Plainly I have no way of knowing whether this estimate is sound or not. It is obvious tyhat the modelling must have been radically different to get a figure ten times as high as Greenpeace proposed and nearly double the last high estimate I saw just months ago.

    But lest us accept for the moment that this high figure is sound. What does this mean?

    As you say — it was a disaster then and if this is right it was with hindsight a catastrophe. Yet does this change what we knew?

    A moribund state with an unaccountable bureacracy running a reactor designed in a way that the US didn’t accept operated outside design parameters and without a concrete containment shell caught fire and contaminated a large area, with, apparently, devastating consequences.

    Let’s not let that happen again. If anyone proposes anything like this again, count me as opposed.

    In the meantime though, during the same time, how many lives have been ended prematurely by coal harvest and combustion per GwH of coal, of gas, or of hydro? How does this compare with the rate per GwH of nuclear power?

    The comparison would not be pretty.

  23. @Fran Barlow
    au contraire Fran…your arguments are without any factual basis..is the basis on which I object to them. It is not because you challenge my beliefs – so far you havent – because there is nothing substantial in any of your points.

    Rather, I find your aguments irritating because you insist others accept your proclamations on nuclear use with no facts at all or blatantly false points. You do not quote your sources. When other people ask you for them you blithely wave them away and change the topic.

    You project your own shortcomings (sloganeering, creative writing, trolling, space invading) on to any who do not accept your views unquestioningly – this is self projection.

    You misuse economic expressions. I could suggest Fran, in all honesty, on the matter of discussing nuclear use…you are a little short of a politically inclined nuisance who is merely engaging in verbal ping pong and misleading arguments. I hope you get a nice piece of cake for all this effort from your puppet masters somewhere. You certainly need to read deeper than merely “bravenewclimate”.

  24. @Jarrah

    1. Why? Because this is how payback period is defined.

    2. Your article which allegedly contains the casualty data on Chernobyl is pay-walled; at least I could not access it. However I have read some papers on the topic described in the abstract quite a while ago which describe some of the horrific conditions 20 years after the event from the perspective of people who live in the region rather than in a leafy suburb 15000km away.

  25. @Alice

    I hope you get a nice piece of cake for all this effort from your puppet masters somewhere.

    This is the nub of the matter. You simply cannot accept that anyone could put the case for nuclear power without being a plaything of mysterious and remote authority.

    The rest of your assertions about me derive from this view. You aren’t willing to even acknowledge the work comparing renewables and nuclear at BNC or at the Mackay site, even to reject it, because plainly you can’t. For you, nuclear is unthinkable and that suffices. The flipside is that renewables must be adequate — because if they weren’t, that would be too painful to accept.

    You fit far better than I the description of a “politically inclined nuisance”. Confronted by someone who offends your values, you offer nothing more than high dudgeon, moralising and rhetorical abuse. In my case you add slander.

    Now this is a blogsite. One should not be too precious. Were I really bothered at being slandered by those troubled by the arguments I put, I wouldn’t put them. I feel sorry that you are as upset as you apparently are and seem to regard me as someone who ought to be silenced.

    If you were inclined to introspection, you could profit by asking yourself why that is. I rather suspect you are well past asking why things are as they are about yourself or the world in general. You have your boilerplate and that is it.

    You have my pity.

  26. Fran Barlow :@Alice
    The problem here Alice is that you are asking PrQ to adjudicate “truth” and that opens a can of worms that doubtles PrQ would like to leave closed. I very much doubt PrQ aspires to be the “Pope” of this domain.
    Your suggestion both that my arguments are deceptive and calculated to deceive is without foundation. You propose censorship because you are irritated that your belief is offended by observable reality.

    What nonsense. No Pope is required to pick you up on posting false and misleading information as is evidenced by Chris Warren, BilB and myself and others. No Pope is required to pick a pattern in the sign of the ‘errors’ in favour of your ‘beliefs’ emerging. No Pope is required to pick that you are not doing what you now say you do. You fail to clearly write that you only proffer your essentially personal beliefs. Instead you write your emotional belief stuff as if they were facts.

    Nobody would be irritated if you were to write the truth as you put it now, namely you only write what you believe. If you were to act truthfully, as revealed now by you, one may get a few pages of “I, Fran Barlow, love nuclear power”. Go for it. Blast it all over the net and on your walls at home if you like. Wear it in print on your T-shirt. Get a car sticker printed, whatever you like. There is no issue of it being true or not. Who cares what you belief. You can say about yourself whatever you want, but you can’t publish your imaginary facts about other people. You can write a fiction in which you are the only character to tell yourself what you believe. Go for it, you write well; you have talent.

    If, as you now claim, your arguments are not intended to deceive, then I say you are so sloppy and incompetent in elementary record keeping skills that you need to hire an assistant to do your research and a supervisor to check your writing.

    As it stands, your method is wasteful of real resources because you put the onus on other people to wade through your emotional belief stuff to remove major misinformation. You create a negative externality which should be internalised.

    You love taxes, I understand. In line with your belief you should ask the ATO to tax you for every misinformtion you post, preferably as a percentage of your total wealth.

  27. @Fran Barlow
    Alice: “I hope you get a nice piece of cake for all this effort from your puppet masters somewhere.”

    Fran: “This is the nub of the matter. You simply cannot accept that anyone could put the case for nuclear power without being a plaything of mysterious and remote authority. ”

    No it is not, Fran. It is merely your personal belief, your interpretation. My interpretation is that you have Alice’ pity.

  28. @Fran Barlow

    Thank you Fran, but Id rather keep my boilerplate…
    I never quite realised how dangerous ideas (and the people behind them can be) but you soon find out in the Prof’s blog.

  29. @Fran Barlow
    ” For you (Alice), nuclear is unthinkable and that suffices.” (Term in bracket added for clarity.

    Assuming it were true, which I don’t know whether it is, there is no issue arising.

  30. @Fran Barlow

    “The flipside is that renewables must be adequate — because if they weren’t, that would be too painful to accept.”

    You don’t know that, Fran. You are talking to yourself.

  31. @Ernestine Gross

    For you (Alice), nuclear is unthinkable and that suffices

    You cite this with qualified approval: Assuming it were true, which I don’t know whether it is, there is no issue arising. {Emphasis added by me [FB]}

    You don’t agree that being unthinking in one’s ideas creates any issue. You assert by implication that an evidence-free set of ideas is OK. You are happy with a boilerplate approach to policy. I congratulate you on your candour here.

    It does make my point though. You and Alice, assuming that you are indeed separate identities, despite the evident similarity in the manner you your views and the proximity with which you post in support of each other, are simply single-minded opponents of nuclear power technology. It wouldn’t matter what evidence there was about comparative feasibility. You’d reject it as unthinkable and call it “spin”. Ironically, you “both” project on to me your own singleminded attitude.

    This is quite possibly a coincidence, but one may wonder.

  32. @Ernestine Gross
    It would appear Fran is now inferring that you and I are one identity. There are more that have questioned Fran…like Bilb and Freelander. As this is another interesting story, can I expect we shall all soon be multiple personalities of the same individual.

    It is the case Ernestine that Fran’s belief sets are based solely on extended conversations she has with herself and derogatory inferences she extrapolates to others along the way, with stats and theories that are either a)incorrect b) dubious c) arent cited with any research d)include personally drawn inferences about others.
    Its the methodology Fran- We were simply waiting for some facts and evidence for your unwavering pro nuclear position Fran. The stats you have posted appear to have the links missing. You dont provide them. Is that because they come from one convenient website source which only disseminates politically biased and therefore dubious science? We can read that website ourselves, make up our own minds (which shouldnt take very long) and dont need a transcriber on a mission to draw us towards their favoured but flawed view.

  33. And as we speak yet another massive evironmental disaster is now playing out through “failures in technology” in a global oil poduction company, which cannot be and should not ever be separated from human failure within the organisation or failure of government regulation and planning for such “black swan” (excuse the pun) environmental disasters.

  34. The company involved probably didn’t ‘fail’. Probably just another case of good business, what they saved being greater than expected to pay in event of this happening. Exxon got away without paying for most of the damage they did, if BP is actually made to pay it will only be because they are not an american company.

  35. @Alice

    It is the case Ernestine that Fran’s belief sets are based solely on extended conversations she has with herself …

    Irony abounds if posts by “Ernestine” and “Alice” share an author.

    @iain

    If they can make it work at commercial scale AND solve or bypass the problems associated with storing and transporting H2 AND get the cost of operation of high temperature fuel cells (MCFCs seemed about the best last time I looked) competitive then this is very appealing. But as another thread suggests, a journey of a thousand miles …

    Thanks for this one. Some years ago I was interested in using electrolysis of subpotable water from wind energy both to produce H2 for energy and to transport water. After all, I reasoned, given how energy intensive transporting water is, if you could simply pump the H2 to some place that needed power and water, generate the power and dump the water byproduct (9 times the volume of the H2) into a reservoir, then you’d be well ahead on the deal. The “slipperiness” of H2 molecules and the cost of the fuel cells made this idea impracticable, much to my regret.

  36. This just in:

    THE Gulf of Mexico oil spill may be growing five times faster than previously estimated and is in danger of accelerating out of control, it was claimed yesterday.

    Experts said satellite data indicated the oil was gushing from BP’s sunken Deepwater Horizon rig at 25,000 barrels a day. Previous estimates had put the leak at 5,000 barrels a day.

    Oh dear … if so, we pass Exxon Valdez in 11 days … if we go 55 days we are up there with the Kuwait spills of 1991

  37. @Fran Barlow

    We are very lucky the spill wasn’t nuclear. Instead of being another Kuwait – it would be another Chernobyl.

    If they cannot operate relatively simple oil rigs with 100% safety, then we must not let them operate nuclear plants.

    No matter how small the risk is, multiplied by an increasing number of plants and over time, catastrophe will always emerge.

  38. Good link there Iain. One thing I particularly like about that article is that like so many technology fronts for Renewables there a woman centre stage. Renewables, because they cross many boundaries involve more people in a very direct manner. Energy is no longer the precinct of a club of men commanding massive machinery creating unimaginable consolidated wealth, it is multi modular, distributed, highly varied and potentially insular. This represents energy in a variety of forms, whichever suits ones own particular circumstance. The next five to ten years will see a wave of new high efficiency energy options infiltrate our community infrastructure providing unprecedented flexibility in the way we use energy, and with previously unimagined efficiencies. And the most exciting part of this is that both men and women share in the distibuted incomes that will flow from these income streams that would previously have been channelled towards the top of massive corporations.

  39. iain :

    Some good news on clean energy.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100430154902.htm

    There appear to be several possibilities for clean energy. But the real problem is political.

    To close the world’s fossil and nuclear fuel polluters, requires massive redirection of social resources.

    In Australia it would require billions of dollars which we currently have earmarked for joint strike fighters, submarines, and broadband roll-out etc.

    So dealing with climate change is still way down the list not because of any rational consideration of climate change, but because of political forces.

    If the polar ice cap melt scenario is as depicted by the ABC Catalyst program, then we do not need fighters, submarines nor broad-band networks.

    The only reason nations have not adopted sustainable population and growth strategies, is that they make more profit if the population expands exponentially and if inputs into production are cheap because the costs looked like they fell on far off generations.

    Unfortunately, it now appears they fall on our own children.

    As Catalyst said:

    Dr James Hansen
    Antarctica was losing mass at about 75 cubic kilometres per year, well that’s now doubled to about 150 cubic kilometres a year. So that’s beginning to worry glaciologists.

    Source: |Catalyst Script|

    How much latent heat of fusion is in 150 cubic kilometres of ice melt per year? What happens to the ecosystem when there is no more ice to melt?

    Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

  40. @Chris Warren

    We are very lucky the spill wasn’t nuclear. Instead of being another Kuwait – it would be another Chernobyl.

    sigh

    This is what happens when one gets obsessive.

    This could only have happened with oil. Uranium oxide does not gush from sea floors. It is not highly toxic as an ore. Nobody would be drilling the sea bed for it. The analogy is simply absurd.

    If the world’s motor vehicles were running on nuclear sourced electricity, neither this mess, nor Kuwait, nor Exxon Valdez might have occurred.

  41. @Fran Barlow

    You say “Irony abounds if posts by “Ernestine” and “Alice” share an author’

    I am flattered you think Ernestine and I am the same person Fran Barlow (I am flattered because Ernestine’s mathematical and theoretical economics understanding is far superior to mine and also far superior to yours Fran).

    But once again your assertion is entirely false and designed to malign others. Ernestine is right. It does create a negative externality and I do pity you Fran.

  42. @Fran Barlow
    As an example of a negative externality I note the following
    comment
    “This is what happens when one gets obsessive.”

    negative inference directed at Chris.

    Then you post this comment

    “This could only have happened with oil. Uranium oxide does not gush from sea floors. It is not highly toxic as an ore. Nobody would be drilling the sea bed for it. The analogy is simply absurd.If the world’s motor vehicles were running on nuclear sourced electricity, neither this mess, nor Kuwait, nor Exxon Valdez might have occurred.”

    What a lot of nonsense. Its your analogy that is incorrect and this line of commentary is getting very tiresome – is JQ still busy? It cant go on, surely?

    Chris was not a) comparing the source (sea bed or earth) of oil v nuclear
    b) its patently false to suggest nuclear is not “as toxic” as oil
    c) its patently false to suggest an environmental accident (whether nuclear or oil spill) of this magnitude would not occur if we all drove cars running on electricity generated by nuclear.

    DNFTT.

  43. Yes, # 45 was unworthy of the poster. Uranium was not developed for the same reason as deep sea oil drilling, because the material sought is dangerous and because big business can’t be trusted running things involving toxic materials.

  44. @paul walter

    There are orders of magnitude of difference in the energy intensity of oil and uranium oxide and their composition and where it is sourced, which is why there is a fundamental difference in the risk of spillage.

    Chris was simply mapping his “I hate nuclear power” meme onto the current disaster, even though there was no basis for doing so.

    So the comment was entirely fair. That the anti-nuclear posters here embrace this nonsense simply shows how desperate they are. Imagine playing down the spill so as to get one more fatuous shot at nuclear power.

    @”Alice”

    Dream on “Alice”. “Ernestine” has shown nothing here that suggests a PhD in mathematical economics. The tone of his/her/your posts recommends against the view that these were composed by an academic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s