Another thread for lengthy debates, off-topic exchanges, long posts on regular hobby-horses etc.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Another thread for lengthy debates, off-topic exchanges, long posts on regular hobby-horses etc.
John Quiggin 
@John Morgan
Such a claim is ridiculous because that is not the objective of wind energy at all. The objective of wind generation is to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of anything to do with security of supply. If a proponent of wind energy claims that it increases security of supply then he is only succeeding in damaging his credibility and the credibility of wind energy because he is making a false claim.
@embee
Asks me “Are you implying we can do without nuclear medicine?”
er no embee. That implication came purely from your own overstretched imagination.
Chris O’Neil,
I agree that the main argument used by the proponents of wind energy is, as you say:
“The objective of wind generation is to reduce CO2 emissions”. However, they also use many other arguments such as: security of supply, jobs creation, green energy, smaller environmental footprint, distributed energy and others.
But let’s focus on the the main argument: “The objective of wind generation is to reduce CO2 emissions”
Does, wind power really reduce CO2 emissions? If so by how much and at what cost?
The wind power advocates, including the Australian and state government’s claim that wind power avoids emissions from fossil fuel power stations on a 1 for 1 basis. But this is false. Such statements are misleading the investors, the public, the media, the politicians. When the emissions from the fossil fuel generators required to firm wind power are included the emissions avoided are negligible to none. And the cost of firmed wind power, which is what society demands, is very high.
@John Morgan
You have not been paying attention. It appears the isotopes in waste are critical.
If you go to that Barry fellow’s website here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/
And click on the link “Plutonium toxicity” you will see, in a Chapter 13, that toxicity per pound of inhaled Pu239 is argued to be equivalent to 26-27 deaths in the long run.
But at the conclusion, when the other isotopes are added in, the paper says:
So we get a total of 8 million deaths from present nuke capacity using breeders.
This needs some explanation, so the first questioin is? what are these isotopes in the waste that risk millions of deaths?
The BraveNewClimate website shows us there is a risks of many millions of deaths if a pound (ie 454 gms) of waste is inhaled (presumably in a city).
So what happens if the nuclear industry expands? It seems that there is a huge benefit if the present nuclear industry contracts (ie millions of less death-risk).
Can we run the risk of this number of deaths, if renewables are possible?
@Chris Warren
Chris
asks “Can we run the risk of this number of deaths, if renewables are possible?”
There will be a resounding lack of interest in that idea from Fran / John / Peter and Quakka.
All I hear from these people is “risk? What risk. There is no risk with nuclear. Its clean and safe.”
Didnt you realise nuclear energy is clean and safe Chris? I didnt but now Ive been reprogrammed by the verbose pro nuclears in here who have spent way too long on bravenewclimate….so that they can almost quote verbose verbatim.
Its like being at a 1980s/90s Insight training session. If you stay too long you can see “it” too.
Alice
Given the the majority of Australians are scared simply by the mention of the word “radioactive”, it’s probable you are one of them. but really, calling something radioactive is meaningless if you aren’t also given some indication of levels of radiation you could be exposed to. The fact that the waste you speak of, wherever it may have come from, is considered residual waste, suggests it must have been pretty low level stuff. For the most part, anything labeled residual waste is considered fit for landfill. Still, as I said @ 28, we do need to ensure the safe disposal or recycling of our wastes, if that has not been done here, then of course, it must be removed and stored appropriately.
ERRATA re #4 above:
The odd, floating “26” in the quote above, ie:
When these factors are taken into account, 26 the deaths per pound inhaled become 4.2 million for wastes from present reactors, 2.7 million for breeder reactor fuel, and 0.8 million for weapons plutonium.
has no meaning, as it was only a footnote reference in the original text.
According to the Barry fellow who posted this stuff, the original author was Prof Bernard Cohen, and according to Barry – the BraveNewClimate man – it was “…hard to go past recommending the huge body of work on this subject compiled by Prof Bernard Cohen”.
Interesting.
Chris, read the calculation more closely, you’ve misunderstood it or your deliberately misrepresenting it. The 4.2 million deaths etc. is on the assumption that all the worlds reactor waste is uniformly distributed in single lethal dose aliquots to the lungs of a correspond individual. Its a purely theoretical calculation of the magnitude of plutonium toxicity.
Let me ask you, do tonnes of refractory ceramic, in your experience, often spontaneously aerosolize into trillionth pound particles which each finds its way to a unique individual who inhales it? No? Perhaps that is why no-one has ever died by this mechanism.
But you knew that, didn’t you? You did have to make a conscious choice to misconstrue this calculation to produce a nonsense, but frightening, result, didn’t you? Alice bought it, but then you’re in the category of “people she likes”, so of course she did. Jack with no integrity, and Jill with no capacity for critical thinking.
Cohen goes on to say,
Indeed it is.
Chris Warren,
You admit in your comment 26 p.6:
Are you taking that back now?
You say the renewable industry is dealing with it’s waste, well, so is the nuclear industry. The development of Gen IV technology is, in part, a response to this. The IFR ( a Gen IV reactor) is designed to use nuclear waste as it’s fuel. If it’s nuclear waste you are concerned about perhaps you should be agitating for the wide spread adoption of the one technology able to recycle it.
Of course it is a theoretical calculation – what else could it be.
Yes – the conclusion is based on the assumptions, but it states that the deaths are:
deaths per pound (ie 465 gms).
Are you saying that if all the worlds high-level waste with all the total isotopes was distributed evenly across the world so that every person inhaled one pound of this waste – then only 4.2 million would die?
And if all the worlds weapons plutonium was distributed evenly across the world so that every person inhaled one pound of this waste then only 0.8 million people would die?
I think you will find if you re-read the text, that the author previously cites Mays just prior to the conclusion, viz:
“Mays estimates 4 x 10^5 liver and bone cancers per pound inhaled“,
So, using Mays as cited, if I get a pound (454 gms), and give everyone in the world a trillionth share (presumably of this pound) – it appears I will create 4 X 10^5 liver and bone cancers.
So how do you interpret the “per pound” denominator? If you spread it among 1 trillion people you still appear to get a risk of around 5 X 10^-6 per person. (ie if you had 1,000,000 events, you would get 5 positive outcomes).
This still gives 5,000,000 in a trillion. And this is not far off the figure of 4.2 the author states (for waste). So my “back-of-the-envelope” calculation follows the text quite well.
There are over 6 trillion people on earth. So the number climbs to 30 million deaths if everyone gets a 1 trillionth dose, for two years, as per assumption.
You may like to check your interpretation – where for example in Chapter 13, does your comment “single lethal dose” arise? Where is there your “aliquot” share. The dose is 1 trillionth of a pound (fixed).
But the core question still remains… what are these other isotopes?
Cheered me up, no end. Its nice to know we have something nice to look forward to, Chris.
Let alone all the other toxic garbage dumped into the environment over the last century, that we also still don’t know enough about.
@Peter Lang
It’s easy to make assertions like yours but a lot harder to make a genuine argument. If the energy from wind power doesn’t save some generation somewhere else, where, pray tell, does it end up? (You may be able to tell I’m an engineer from me using an energy, or power, conservation argument.)
Chris O’Neil,
I didn’t say “the energy from wind power doesn’t save some generation somewhere else”. I said wind generation doesn’t save much if any CO2 emissions. That is causes the foissil fule generators to be less efficient. Since you are an engineer, you will be able to understand this article:
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/comment-page-1/#comment-13729
Or go further, get the calculator, understand it, play with it and criticise it. If you do that, I’d be interested in discussing your criticisms on the appropriate BNC thread.
Here is an earlier paper that addresses the same subject (not it is earlier).
“Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gasses avoided by Wind Generation”
Click to access peter-lang-wind-power.pdf
Chris – another costing that you wont find on bravenewclimate concerning the safety of nuclear byproducts is called “the costs of government denial over time”. How do they cost that? They dont and they have no intention of doing so.
According to the Member for Castle Hill denying the problems at Hunters Hill goes back decades (in fact it goes back to 1916 but successive governments have been aware of it for decades and have done very little because they have been too busy saying “problem in Hunters Hill? What problem? There is no problem”.
http://www.michaelrichardson.com.au/news_and_events/radioactive_waste_dump_in_hunters_hill/five_people_dead_of_radiation_related_cancers_at_hunters_hill.html
I ask the question – the focus is now on lots 9 and 11 only. Last year, the government was forced to pay Peter and Michelle Vassiliou $3.4 million for their radioactive home at 11 Nelson Parade, after fighting the purchase for more than six months and maintaining that the land had only low levels of contamination.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/government-buys-back-radioactive-home-20090304-8okz.html
Funny that they only want to “remediate” the land now that they have been “forced to acquire it.” What about testing the residents as suggested decades ago? What about the other hot spots aside from lots 9 and 11? Why wasnt the waste stored at Lucas Heights as suggested decades ago?. My guess is the government paid 3.4 mill to the Vassilious only recently and will pay 3.5mill to the landfill operator and hopes to make a profit when they sell the “remediated waterfront land” but only at lots 9 and 11 – they are still ignoring other problem hot spots.
There is little to give faith in human or government compliance and safety management of nuclear waste in this story and the pro nuclear advocates need a complete reality check especially concerning the huge gaping holes in their costings.
Chris O’Neil,
My last post was a mess (sorry). Here is an improved version:
I didn’t say “the energy from wind power doesn’t save some generation somewhere else”. I said wind generation doesn’t save much if any CO2 emissions. That is because the intermittency of wind generation causes the fossil fuel generators to be less efficient. They have to start and stop, synchronise to the grid, run part loaded, idle (spinning reserve) and power up and power down. Since you are an engineer, you will be able to understand this article (whereas many blogging here would not):
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/comment-page-1/#comment-13729
If you are interested, I’d recommend you get the calculator sent to you (it is in Excel), exercise it and criticise it. If you do that, I and I expect other BNC contributors (some of whom are highly knowledgeable and contribute form around the world) would be interested in discussing your criticisms with you on the appropriate BNC thread.
Here is an earlier paper that addresses the same subject (note: it is earlier).
“Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gasses avoided by Wind Generation”
Click to access peter-lang-wind-power.pdf
@paul walter
Yes, as the BraveNewClimate website says [via its link]:
So the evidence is there for all to see. I don’t think even Fran can spin this data any other way.
However my calculation (a higher number) really was for cases of cancer – not immediate deaths as such.
As BraveNewClimate says:
And if you get a trillionth of a pound in you for two years, you get 10 millirad.
Its not hard to workout the cancers if a pound is shared between a trillion people.
So BraveNewClimate leads to, high profits for companies in the short-run, but a death camp for all in the long run.
@Chris Warren
Exactly Chris – and in here we have the angels of death spinning us the story that nuclear use is “safe.”
One could be forgiven for thinking that pro nuclear advocacy comes with a doppleganger population reduction strategy.
Chris O’neil,
Woops again! The first link in my above post should have been to this:
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/#more-10349
I’d sugest reading this first and then, if you want to dig deeper read Part V (the first link in my above post).
Not only that – I would place a bet that the real entrepreneurs behind the push for nuclear use would be quite happy for their production lines to keep rolling alongside the BHPs and RIOs and other extractors in the short, medium and long term.
@Alice
Chris – I wouldnt bother going through Peter Lang’s “masterresource” stuff. Of far more interest is the who’s who of their directors – free energy market pushers, ex / current oil and gas men, Cato funded researchers, an Oprah Winfrey appearing book writing critic of Al Gore, the odd climate scientist thrown in for some street cred…
say no more.
Chris Warren,
This is such a silly argument you are running that no one with an ounce of sense would fall for it. It is like saying that there is enough water in the oceans to drown everyone in the world. Of course that is true but it wont happen. There is also enough toxic chemicals produced by power stations and other industries (in producing solar panels) to kill the whole world IF they could be distributed!!. There is also enough sperm cells in one male ejaculation to get all the women in the world pregnant. Has it happened? Perhaps it could in your fantasy world.
Why don’t you put your points in perspective and consider your arguments on balance?
I’d suggest you and others would do well to think more critically about the anti-nuclear propoganda you accept so readily and willingly. Some healthy scepticism is needed (by all sides in any debate of course). This really is important issue if you are genuinely concerned about cutting GHG emissions, as opposed to simply trying to promoite an ideology.
There are millions of mountains in the world, and they all weigh billions of tonnes or more. If the material in just one of these deadly objects were to be divided up and suspended in evenly divided masses a few meters above all the people in the world, and then allowed to fall on us, that would be the end for the whole human race!
Clearly we need a threat reduction strategy to eliminate the risk of mountain-facilitated human extinction. We must immediatly implement a program of mountain reduction, flattening the topography of the planet to preserve out future. Sure, many people will likely die in this vast re-landscaping effort, but that will be a small price to pay for the safety thus won.
Anyone who criticises my post on the montane threat which hangs over all our futures is clearly a shill in the pay of Big Ski-boarding!
@Chris O’Neill
Chris O’Neil,
Yes. You are correct. But you are referring to all CO2 emissions whereas I was referring to the emissons from electricity. France’s emissions from electricity are about 1/10th Australia’s.
The significance of this is that Electricity is about the easiest place to make large emissions custs. And, importantly, if we keep electricity cheap, then clean electriciyt will displace fossil fuels used for heat (gas) and for transport (oil).
Furthermore, if we allow clean electricity to be cheap (as it should and could be), the developing world will move directly to clean electricity rather than going through the stage of generating electricity from fossil fuels.
So it is very important that we focus on lowering the cost of clean electricity rather than raise the cost of dirty electricity. Because if we raise the cost of dirty electricity in the developed countries it will slow the rate of reducing the costs of clean electricity. The developing world can hardly afford electricity at all, so clearly any electricity generation they do implement will be the least cost option.
Any way we look at it, it is in our interest to implement clean electricity at the least psossible cost.
So here go the nucoholics …. blowing off steam with no data …. and deliberately ignoring the data provided by the BraveNewClimate death site.
But it is childsplay.
As there is 5 X 10^-7 risk of cancer per millirad of exposure [BraveNewClimate link]
As 1 trillionth of Pu239 inhaled causes 10 millirad over 2 years
The the lowest of life, the most incompetant nucoholic, will be able to work out the cancer rate per pound if spread amongst 1 trillion people.
If you cannot work this out – then you have no right to even be discussing this issue.
IN real life, in any sort of Pu239 leakage, the actual received dose can be higher than 1 trillonth of a pound as this is minute less than a third of a nanogram.
Also while the BraveNewClimate website gives us data only for the Pu239 that stays for 2 years, some pu239 will stay for 6 months only, 1 year only, 18 months only, and some will stay longer than 2 years.
So the gross cancer risk is GREATER than 5 X 10^17.
So keep up all your distractions viz:
Because people need to be aware of this tactic.
Accusations such as:
Are just spew from blowhards.
If there is no balance in the hard, rigorous, data provided by BraveNewClimate at:
http://tinyurl.com/mrad-cancers [See bottom of ch13]
Then where is the problem?
AS for balance – try looking at the fate of the poor souls who received a very low dose of A-bomb radiation in Japan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698250/
John Morgan replied to Chris Warren:
“But you knew that, didn’t you? You did have to make a conscious choice to misconstrue this calculation to produce a nonsense, but frightening, result, didn’t you? Alice bought it, but then you’re in the category of “people she likes”, so of course she did. Jack with no integrity, and Jill with no capacity for critical thinking.”
This comment really get to the core of the problem: the lack of integrity of the anti-nuclear acivists. It is acceptable to lie and deceive. Anything is OK to anti nuclear activists if it furthers their cause – their blind hatred of anything to do with nuclear.
Many of the comments on this thread illustrate the blind, irrational hatred of nculear. Some even try to persuade others not to read presumable to prevent any facts being inadvertently exposed tom the anti-nuclear activists.
I am not startled by this sort of behaviour. It has been going on for 40 odd years. But it is revealing that it is propogated on an academic’s web site.
@Chris Warren
Comment of the day goes to Chris – with this one
put your points in perspective
consider your arguments on balance?
think more critically
healthy scepticism
promoite an ideology.
yawn
….yawn
…………yawn
Are just spew from blowhards.
ROFL – why dont they take their own advice and show some healthy scepticism and some balance instead of cleaving to fanatic unquestioning pro nuclear devotionism. At least ill give them this – they do recycle their garbage costings – on and on.
@Peter Lang
More nucoholic blowhard spew
The original misconstruction (if any) was using the figure for cancer cases , for a death rate.
This has now been corrected.
The death rate comes from mortality data for lung cancer. I have not worked this out. Maybe BraveNewClimate could do this for us?
If they want to wave their credentials around.
The objective of pro-nuclear advocacy is not to convert the critics. They are strong in their faith, unreachable by any means of rational discourse.
The objective is to reach the audience. There is quite a bit of evidence that in this most important battle we are winning. The more frenzied and fanatical the anti-nuke replies, the better for the cause of nuclear power. Over the last few years, for the first time in decades, the public is being exposed to more than one side of the story. Our progress may seem imperceptible on a day-to-day basis, but it is there. In the span of a few years the lies of decades are being exposed and their influence on public policy destroyed. We are not quite at our goal yet, but we are getting there, slowly but surely.
Peter Lang,
Some good observations there, Peter. I’ve just beeing doing some more work on the commercial model particularly the marketing for GenIIPV, and it just brilliant. The answer to what you have said above is “you cannot get cheaper than free”, and that is what this is. So now I am working on the political aspects of the product, and as the marketing indicates that some of Australia’s largest corporations (including the Australian government) have much to gain from GenIIPV, the investment portfolio.
The most beautiful thing about this is that the success of GenIIPV is based on the benefits that it provides to individuals and its uptake will be driven entirely by its market appeal. I can understand your skepticism as what I am talking about is beyond your knowledge and experiences, as this is all leading edge technology. Hopefully some time next year it will be public and we can discuss the future impact from an equal knowledge platform. Suffice it to say that I am really excited for how this will solve the energy problem, substantially eliminate the peak oil threat, and very significantly improve peoples standard of living.
In case you missed the link have a look at Polyplus Battery Company. If this company pulls off its product range, then the whole future of EV’s improves to match petrol powered vehicles for every day use, the one tonne pickup included. The other technology to follow is NASA Omega. The future will still be tough, but I am excited for it.
@Finrod
Finrod – oh we know about these “well resourced well funded campaigns” that inch ever slowly toward the self interest of the wealthy few over the well being of the majority.
Good luck with your conscience for being in here trying to push nuclear use on a majority who dont want it. Its a bit like Anna Blighs QR sell off isnt it? Its a bit like the “inch by inch” creep towards the dismantling of social welfare in the united states and here in Australia.
Whats more the charlatans, oil men, denialists, quack science writers, paid lackeys, free marketer, skeptics, Kochs, Catos, false website creators (include the worst of all industrial polluters in there).
What can I say but you make spew.
@Finrod
says “The objective of pro-nuclear advocacy is not to convert the critics. They are strong in their faith, unreachable by any means of rational discourse.”
See? They are mad.
@Finrod
So people who dont want rampant use of nuclear shoved down their throats by already wealthy industrialists and others who see a buck in it, aided by the petty and crazy free market ideologues who want these people to have an unfettered say in production and get carte blanche to what they want and when they want and to dump their rubbish with no regulation and pay little tax.
And you suggest the people who oppose nuclear use are “strong in their faith”.
Your type and your ideas are a misshappen cancer of the greed and self interest of the modern industrial age gone horribly wrong.
Something caused by an absence of T cells (T for truth).
Are you accusing me of being paid to engage in pro-nuclear advocacy?
So, including Prof Q’s earlier nukes thread and this one, the latest outbreak of the nukes v renewables debate has now reached 451 comments. Hands up anyone who’s changed their mind as a result of this discussion. No-one? Didn’t think so.
@Tim Macknay
It’s not the protagonists who count concerning the changing of minds. It’s the audience.
@Tim Macknay
It’s important that the issues get a regular airing Tim, even if the folks involved in the debate stay with their views.
@Finrod
asks me “are you accusing me of being paid to engage in pro-nuclear advocacy?”.
You said it. I didnt. Once again a pro nuclear supporter twists the facts.
BTW – have any your pro nuclears read this?
“There is enormous potential in alternative energy,” says Mr Rogers, a former business partner of hedge fund icon George Soros. “Some day, I will come to Mumbai and I am going to see windmills or solar panels on all roof tops.” Global production of crystalline silicon cells, essential for solar power generation, has surged six times between 2004 and 2008. With more governments pursuing better environment, the demand for such sources are set to surge, improving prospects for companies in the sector. The windmill sector also has favourable tax treatment.
” Jim Rogers sees money in wind , solar power”
The Economic times – Bombay, India.
So – it seems the fund managers arent all “nukes and nothing” people. Thank goodness for that. You people really need to get off “bravenewclimate”, read more and get out more. There is so much happening out there in alternative fules that isnt dirty and dangerous, Im worried you will be left clean behind.
fuels – sorry – “alternative fuels instead of nuclear mules” – have we got a website willing to take this slogan anywhere?
We need a stiff carbon tax with simple and clear energy market regulation filling the cracks through which cheap, dirty workarounds might slip. Then let the carefree market sort ’em out.
Compared realistically to coal and oil nuclear is not a dirty workaround. If it weren’t for irrational fears hung over from the Cold War era we might be getting somewhere by now on it and more importantly on conservation and renewables, all decades too late though.
Just to show how Solar panel production is going.
http://www.gizmag.com/us-solar-production-to-hit-10gw-by-2015/16655/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=7156c6d239-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
That will be a mere annual production rate of 10 gigawatts and rising by 2015.
BilB,
a few months ago I travelled through some parts of southern Germany. It is amazing how many roofs have solar pv in small and medium size towns. One town (about 20 000 people) has the aim of being energy self-sufficient within less than a decade. Beside many houses having solar pv, there is a solar farm on land that was not used for agricultural purposes and they are building a waste biomass plant. (In the meantime the long-standing nuclear contamination of land, classified as residential, in Hunters Hill is still an unresolved problem.)
In seems to me the phrase ‘zero C02 emissions’ is utter nonsense because even if cow meat and onions were to be banned from all menues, there would still be C02 emissions and, moreover, the whole purpose of preserving animals from extinction would be silly.
There is another phrase which seems extraordinarily silly, namely ‘cheap energy’. In Economics, the term ‘cheap’ can be interpreted only as a ratio, namely price of something relative to a person’s monetary wealth and even this is not watertight because people differ in how they value something in relation to something else. But the term ‘cheap talk’ is well defined in game theory. So, my reading of those posts where there is talk about ‘cheap energy’ is that it is ‘cheap talk’.
Anyway, thank you for your posts; they do contain information.
@Ernestine Gross
your comments raise an important point about information/reporting/media Ernestine – within Australia one can reasonably have the impression that nothing is happening re changes to power generating on a mass scale, or wrt to the politics, public perception and science of power generation. But if one looks instead internationally and avoids the local Australian media then the picture is completely different – large scale changes are occurring throughout much of the world.
Google: “Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience”
For some reason the web site will not accept the web address for this report.
@gregh
I agree Bilb. Good posts. I also suggest the term “cheap energy” is misleading – many alternative non nuclear energy sources are already being invested in by Oil and Coal firms. Are they are up to scale yet? No – not yet. If and when they are up to scale they will likely become cheaper of course – so its all relative. What I dont find relative is the denial by the pro nuclear lobby that any other alternatives will work. The world is potentially fully of alternatives. Business knows it, fund managers recognise it, countries are already starting to do it. The change is happening despite the pro nukers and we should resist their inch by inch attempts to convince ” the target audience” which is all we are to some in here that nuclear “is the only answer”.
Rubbish. Its a dangerous and dirty and destructive and entirely unimaginative short term answer.
above post meant for bilb
@BilB
How immensely depressing. Not the PV panels but that this can be held up as any significant measure to address the climate problem. 10GWe of PV at 15% capacity factor is just slightly more than a single EPR nuclear power plant. In the early ’80s, NPPs were being built at something like one every 17 days.
Even at 10 times that rate of solar build, the effect on climate would be marginal at best.
@quokka
I don’t know how many times you have been told.
PV by themselves will not solve “the climate problem”. It iks the total range of renewables particularly after more development occurs (and which is occurring).
But the real solution is in population controls.
No matter what we may think about the population issue, the reality is that world population growth is very unlikely to stabilize in under 50 years – most optimistically. You can’t wish it away, ’cause thats the way it is.
If your proposed solutions for energy cannot deal with this, then it is for practical purposes game over and we will almost certainly enter a period of dangerous climate change.
You have implicitly admitted defeat – not in some petty sense of blog arguments – but in sense of having any real ambition to avoid dangerous climate change.