Dr. Judith Curry presented an important lecture to a New Jersey conference on climate change. The whole thing is worth reading but here’s a good part of it.
Some countries and states can reach netzero by 2050 relatively easily if they have a large amount of hydropower or an existing base of nuclear power. However, it will be very difficult for most other regions, particularly in the face of growing population and desired economic growth.
the fundamental problem is the level of urgency . I’ve shown that the perception of a crisis and the level of alarm that is often portrayed in the media and by politicians is overblown . Targets that are too stringent lead to decisions that aren’t beneficial in the longer term.
Once the stringent targets are removed, you have space to imagine what the infrastructure for our 21st century electricity system could look like, with new technologies for electricity generation and a 21st century transmission infrastructure that is more resilient to extreme weather events.
Compare this vision against the current plan for urgently implementing 20th century wind and solar technologies, patching them into the existing transmission grid, eliminating backup power sources of natural gas and nuclear, and then hoping for the best. This is where urgently working towards NETZERO by overinvesting in wind and solar is leading us.
Nations and states are coming to grips with their over dependence on wind and solar, notably California, the UK and Europe. In 2021 so far, offshore wind in the North Sea has provided 7% of the UK electricity, compared to 25% in 2020. Concerns about not meeting electricity needs next winter are resulting in a near term reliance on coal in Europe and Asia.
You can avoid this situation by hanging on to your existing nuclear and natural gas generating capacity. Nuclear and natural gas are key enablers for reducing carbon emissions today in the near term. Natural gas is essential for keeping energy prices in check while we invest in the technology and infrastructure necessary to attain net zero in the future.
For the general population, perhaps. But I wonder if those evacuated from Fukushima or Chernobyl feel the same way, and whether you could blame them if they do not.
The reactor design at Chernobyll is totally different from that of modern nuclear power reactors so it is irrelevant to estimate danger to you.
The casualties at Fukushima were almost all due to the over reaction by the authorities ordering massive evacuations:
The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to (i) physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and (ii) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
…, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident.
That’s not a counterpoint to what I wrote. Even if it was an over reaction (and I’m neither accepting nor denying that point cause I’m not gonna read that huge report from a not-disinterested party), it could happen again, anywhere.
So what is your solution? Ban nuclear power plants because authorities might overreact? My solution is to build more nuclear power plants but change the protocol so there is no overreaction.
Edit:
it could happen again, anywhere.
I concede that is true but it is not limited to nuclear power plants. The past year and a half show the tremendous damage that was done by power-hungry politicians using the excuse of the Wuhan virus. The same politicians are salivating to use the same “declaring an emergency” model to ram through more control using issues such as the bogus “climate change emergency”.
You don’t see people walking around in open fields during thunderstorms because walking around in the rain is not nearly as enjoyable or useful or efficient as walking around when it’s not raining. It has nothing to do with lightning.
When people are doing things where rain doesn’t have an effect, they still do them even though their risk of lightning strike increases. For instance, people don’t stop driving on open roads during thunderstorms.
Next you’re going to say that people don’t walk around in fields at night because of the risk of lightning.
Like I said a few times, I’m not against nuclear power. I just don’t want it too close or upwind from me. Build them far away (>100mi?) and downwind from population centers.
The rest of society does not have to base their decisions on your irrational fears. If you do not like to live near nuclear power plants, move away if one is built near you.
See the lecture by Judith Curry that I referenced in a previous post. There are a lot of unknowns in the amount of warming due to increased carbon dioxide and in ways to affect it. Dr. Curry discusses the state of the science and suggests some reasonable approaches to reducing carbon dioxide emissions without destroying our society. They do not involve the government declaring an emergency and assuming dictatorial powers.
As meed18 suggests, Bjorn Lomborg also describes reasonable ways to approach climate change.
What happened to all the calls for empathy for our fellow people? It’s too dangerous to be in your backyard, but you’re fine with putting it in someone else’s backyard? That’s the exact same attitude that has been repeatedly denounced these past 18 months as being selfish and dangerous. Why is it ok for you to kill my grandma by putting that nuclear plant in her backyard?
Most of the so-called “anti-science climate-deniers” all along have been arguing that there isnt any need for panic, and that we arent the primary cause of it. You all just default to criticizing them for “denying it’s happening” because you dont have a defense if you consider the actual arguments calling for using a little common sense.
Because your grandma is as smart / good at calculating probability as you, so she doesn’t mind it?
I don’t want it in mine, but everyone else is free to want it in theirs.
By “actual arguments for using a little common sense” I’m certain you are referring to the fact that 99.9% of all scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic.
Not true. most scientists agree that human activities have some effect on global temperature but the size of the effect is hotly debated. See the lecture by Judith Curry I referenced above.
If we innovate to the point where the price of efficient green energy drops below fossil fuels, everyone will switch
We don’t know how long it will take to find the breakthroughs that will power the rest of the century, but this is the path that will solve climate change.
And what we do know is that leaders at Cop26, just like those at the previous 25 climate summits, and the next up, Cop27, won’t solve climate change with more empty promises and implausibly extravagant policies.
The Supremes will rule on the left leaning DC circuit ruling that gave the EPA unlimited power to regulate carbon dioxide emission.
The justices sent shock waves through the legal world when they agreed Friday to consider a consolidated challenge from Republican-led states and coal companies stemming from a federal court ruling that struck down a Trump-era regulation gutting EPA’s climate rule for power plants
