Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 18, 2018 1:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Cleveland, OH
I'm finding this series of articles about Global Climate Models to be fascinating: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sc ... g-science/

Here is a teaser:

"There is an intellectual standoff in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well-established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.

How can well-accepted physics produce the wrong answer? We mapped out the architecture of their climate models and discovered that while the physics appears to be correct, the climate scientists applied it wrongly. Most of the projected warming comes from two specific mistakes.

Given all the empirical evidence against the carbon dioxide theory, there had to be problems in the basic sensitivity calculation. Now we’ve found them."


If this analysis does prove to be true, arguments for nuclear power are in danger of being dismissed if they are hitched to global warming concerns. However, nuclear power is still critical for eliminating all the pollutants from coal and natural gas. And eventually CO2 would become a problem if we continue to dump it into the atmosphere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Well the theory that a negligible additional emission of a minor greenhouse gas will create a climate hell is a very poor story.

But in opposite to former green world disasters as the Club of Rome with ending raw materials and the ozone hole they managed to establish a strong business model the CDM certificates. Companies like WWF, Greenpeace earn very good money on this story.

Many saturated poeple in the old industrial nations love green religious stories as nuclear that is going to kill millions, gene optimized food that create monsters and whatever.

All in all they managed to establish a strong media and political pressure on scientists, business and the poeple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Well the theory that a negligible additional emission of a minor greenhouse gas will create a climate hell is a very poor story.

But in opposite to former green world disasters as the Club of Rome with ending raw materials and the ozone hole they managed to establish a strong business model the CDM certificates. Companies like WWF, Greenpeace earn very good money on this story.

Many saturated poeple in the old industrial nations love green religious stories as nuclear that is going to kill millions, gene optimized food that create monsters and whatever.

All in all they managed to establish a strong media and political pressure on scientists, business and the poeple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
So 98% of PhDs in climatology and other related sciences are in cahoots to lie to the population ?
How about two almost out of season strong hurricanes in North America ? Cat 4 hurricane in October ????

Like Elon Musk asked, is it wise to perform the experiment of dumping over a trillion tons of CO2 on the atmosphere and oceans too see what will happen ?

I'll put it another way... If climate change is a hoax, nuclear energy is doomed. That's your last hope.
Solar panels continue to drop in price, and likely will drop by half twice in the next 10-15 years.
The energy storage part of the equation is coming.
And the unannounced motto of the democrats (and their more successful European allies) is that energy must be expensive, to employ lots and lots of people. Cheap energy = too few jobs.

Notice I'm not saying this because I like it or because I hate it. I try hard to be an objective rational thinker before having feelings about it. I really hope DMSRs will save the nuclear day, and be far cheaper than solar. But at the same time, what I do know is retail electricity here in Brazil is too expensive, and if solar drops in price by 50% it will be irresistible to go solar grid tie at first here (it already kind of is), and it wont be long until its cheaper to live solar off grid with battery storage than buy retail electricity off the grid, with our massive taxes on electricity (42% of our electricity bill is taxes directly listed on the bill or taxes directly paid by the distributor/long distance transmission/generators). At 20 degrees South, winters here are extremely mild, solar produces 60% as much in the winter vs summer (and we consume more energy in the summer due to AC, and no heating in the winter).

At the same time. Its quite clean many scientists in biology/climatology areas have soft hearts and are the anti corporate/anti establishment types. However they are starting to defend large scale adoption of nuclear. Why would they say yes to nuclear if their game plan was to fool us into abandoning fossil fuels when they hate nuclear for all of the reasons they claim ?

It is important to realize a simple fact. Learned it 15 years ago when I got my private pilot's license. The atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapour doubles for every 10C of heating. So even a 2C mean heating will result in humongous extra H2O vapour in the air. And H2O is also a GhG gas. CO2 isn't the end game. H2O vapour is. Hence the tipping point of 2C warming.

The reason I tend to side with climate change science is we never see a coherent climate change denier climatologist ever show up to debate the other side. It's always a type that gets completely debunked in a 10 minute youtube video. They don't care about convincing other scientists. They're quite content with just polluting the general population's mind. Its like arguing for intelligent design by claiming the earth is 7000 years old, with so many dating methods proving its billions of years old.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Last edited by macpacheco on Oct 09, 2015 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Cleveland, OH
My take on the series is that there was an applied math error in the model(s) and some other assumptions are incorrect that are built into the model(s). I'm not quite sure, but I think the various models all stem from one original model that had these issues in them. Some may want to go with conspiracy theories, others will believe that errors/mistakes were made but intent was good. As Napoleon said: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

If Dr. Evans is correct, it will be interesting to see the reactions of the other climate modelers. I think we all can predict the responses from NRDC, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, UCS, etc. And it will be interesting to see if Evan's corrected climate model does better with predictions than the current models.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Jim L. wrote:
My take on the series is that there was an applied math error in the model(s) and some other assumptions are incorrect that are built into the model(s). I'm not quite sure, but I think the various models all stem from one original model that had these issues in them. Some may want to go with conspiracy theories, others will believe that errors/mistakes were made but intent was good. As Napoleon said: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

If Dr. Evans is correct, it will be interesting to see the reactions of the other climate modelers. I think we all can predict the responses from NRDC, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, UCS, etc. And it will be interesting to see if Evan's corrected climate model does better with predictions than the current models.


Do you accept the data that we're seeing record average temperatures and a clear long term trend up in average yearly global temps ? Then all you can ignore the CO2 model, just look at the H2O vapour effects. And the fact that billions of tons of methane are being released from permafrost.

The thickest, widest river in my state is gone. Totally dry... Part of the problem is irresponsible deforestation, need to preserve as the little creeks. That's where I think the greenies have a point, until we scare the shoot* out of greedy farmers and somehow get the water sources restored, we're doomed. Too many unscientific people in this world.

Please take a look at this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener ... nge-means/

And study confirmation bias if you haven't already. It's really hard for us to break up with our own prejudices (aka pre conceived notions of how the world works coming from unscientific views of things).

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3671
Location: Alabama
macpacheco wrote:
I'll put it another way... If climate change is a hoax, nuclear energy is doomed. That's your last hope.


That's just bunk. Solar, wind, and fossil fuels cannot do what nuclear energy can do. Even if the CO2-free aspect was completely removed there would still be overwhelming arguments to go fully nuclear.

macpacheco wrote:
Solar panels continue to drop in price, and likely will drop by half twice in the next 10-15 years. The energy storage part of the equation is coming.


No they won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Panels could be free and solar would still be too expensive to use. Anyway, who would produce super cheap solar panels? Certainly no one looking to make a product. Adding energy storage will benefit fossil and nuclear faster than it would benefit wind and solar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Well with UHVDC going the way it is going you could probably gain several hours of delay simply by running east or west.
Then storage becomes less important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 09, 2015 11:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
macpacheco wrote:
I'll put it another way... If climate change is a hoax, nuclear energy is doomed. That's your last hope.


That's just bunk. Solar, wind, and fossil fuels cannot do what nuclear energy can do. Even if the CO2-free aspect was completely removed there would still be overwhelming arguments to go fully nuclear.

macpacheco wrote:
Solar panels continue to drop in price, and likely will drop by half twice in the next 10-15 years. The energy storage part of the equation is coming.


No they won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Panels could be free and solar would still be too expensive to use. Anyway, who would produce super cheap solar panels? Certainly no one looking to make a product. Adding energy storage will benefit fossil and nuclear faster than it would benefit wind and solar.


Kirk, solar subsidies are going away soon. Solar City begs to differ with you. They have plans to make tens of GWp worth of solar panels/year, even without any government subsidies, with American factories. Do you think they would commit financial suicide on a public traded company ?
Ok, 10GWp worth of solar panels is maybe 2 AP1000's worth of actual electricity. But only China is actually activating more than one big reactor / year.
The day you make your first billion I'll trust your word over Elon Musk's companies.
The comparison between solar and nuclear isn't a fair one. Solar must beat end user electricity prices, while nuclear must beat coal/NG baseload generation.
But that's the way it works. With storage people will be allowed to go off grid inside the city.
Also, solar will never produce 100% of energy up north. The electricity market between 30N and 30S is humongous. But summertime solar output in Boston/Chicago/Seattle is very good, and that correlates with seasonal demands. Even as north as Oslo solar PV will make some sense as a partial solution.

The challenge I hope nuclear overcomes is regulatory overhead and almost compulsory lawsuits.
The issue of pure U233 on the core of a LFTR considered highly enriched Uranium should be BS, but you know the NRC will try very hard to sustain it.

My argument about climate change and nuclear is considering the real world with all of its insanity. Not an academical idealized world one.

I hope you succeed and that nuclear succeeds, honestly, but I'm not ideologically married to nuclear, I can see the whole forest.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 10, 2015 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
10GWp is more likely to be about 1 AP1000, not 2.
And I have heard stories about how solar subsidies rae dissapearing soon many times and they never do.

We were supposed to have grid parity by now, and yet the solar industry is screaming about a death warrant in the form of a slashed FiT in teh UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 10, 2015 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
E Ireland wrote:
10GWp is more likely to be about 1 AP1000, not 2.
And I have heard stories about how solar subsidies rae dissapearing soon many times and they never do.

We were supposed to have grid parity by now, and yet the solar industry is screaming about a death warrant in the form of a slashed FiT in teh UK.


Depends on where you are. And inverter efficiency. Here PVWatts claim a 1KWp system delivers 1478kWh/year of net AC electricity, or 4kWh/day average. So 10GWp = 14780GWh/year or 40GWh/day average. 10% short of 2 AP1000. And that's assuming fairly inefficient inverters.
Solar in the UK is dumb... Let's not go there. Europe should be doing solar in Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy, Greece. UK has too much rain/clouds. Germany not the brightest idea either.
Like trying to do a huge solar push in Chicago and forgetting TX.
Brazil has zero solar subsidy and 100% total import taxes on solar equipment. Still we get return in 10 years easy. So our electricity is outrageously expensive, but we pay 100% import taxes and a weak currency.
Here we're way past grid parity. Solar is a great deal pretty much country wide. Every year grid scale solar projects bid cheaper, those do still get a price subsidy, but cheaper than dirty seasonal thermal plants. And the price is falling.
In Brazil's case, although I want at least 15% of our electricity from nuclear, we could actually do just hydro+wind+solar and forget nuclear, doubling our total electricity generation, including the 15GW worth of nameplate big hydro coming online in the next 5 years. Our wind perfectly compliments our hydro. They peak in two opposite halfs of the year, rainy and dry seasons.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 11, 2015 3:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
If you turn your eyes from a green religious view on solar to a more practically view there are a few obstacles to use it in a modern industrial world on this planet...

The electricity generation needs to be equal to the demand at any moment

The demand changes in seconds when working shifts change in large plants ex. 06:00, 14:00. The demand jumps-up when soccer games are finished (Germany). The demand varies thru day and night it varies sommer and winter. It is low on holidays in summer and high in cold winter working days.


1. It is the rotating masses of the turbo generators of modern coal and nuclear plants that stabilizes the grid < 3s. Solar PV cannot do it. It would require some billion € (Germany) to take-up this role by rotating masses.
2. It is the steam reserve of the modern coal and BWR power plants that stabilize the grid < 1min. PV cannot do it. It would require some billion € (Germany) for batteries to take up this role.
3. Solar fluctuates according to weather, day time and season. It is not in line with the electricity demand. The demand peak is in the most countries in the eary evening when there is no sun shining. The difference summer/winter is factor 5 in Germany (demand peak in winter!), and factor 2 in the Egyptian desert.

There is no solar power without heavy subsidies, regulations or sponsoring in large grids on this planet and it is more than unlikely that it will happen in the foreseeable future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 11, 2015 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
HolgerNarrog wrote:
If you turn your eyes from a green religious view on solar to a more practically view there are a few obstacles to use it in a modern industrial world on this planet...

The electricity generation needs to be equal to the demand at any moment

The demand changes in seconds when working shifts change in large plants ex. 06:00, 14:00. The demand jumps-up when soccer games are finished (Germany). The demand varies thru day and night it varies sommer and winter. It is low on holidays in summer and high in cold winter working days.


1. It is the rotating masses of the turbo generators of modern coal and nuclear plants that stabilizes the grid < 3s. Solar PV cannot do it. It would require some billion € (Germany) to take-up this role by rotating masses.
2. It is the steam reserve of the modern coal and BWR power plants that stabilize the grid < 1min. PV cannot do it. It would require some billion € (Germany) for batteries to take up this role.
3. Solar fluctuates according to weather, day time and season. It is not in line with the electricity demand. The demand peak is in the most countries in the eary evening when there is no sun shining. The difference summer/winter is factor 5 in Germany (demand peak in winter!), and factor 2 in the Egyptian desert.

There is no solar power without heavy subsidies, regulations or sponsoring in large grids on this planet and it is more than unlikely that it will happen in the foreseeable future.


Solar panels are dropping in price fast.
Its all give and take. Li Ion is already economical with wind and solar subsidies, and they are expected to half in price in less than a decade. By then flow batteries will be mainstream.
I understand your theoretical point.
In fact I'm known to have been kicked out of some pro solar boards for making exactly those points 3 years ago.
But back then we didn't have Tesla Energy.
Both flow batteries and iron air batteries will change that completely.

BTW, here in Brazil most of our electricity is hydro, with at least half of our generation travelling a thousand miles. We can do load following with hydro. So adding solar and wind here is much easier, no battery or pumped hydro required. We also have a lot of natural gas (although I'd rather have that go to transportation and process heat instead).

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 11, 2015 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Energy storage by batteries is always going to be hopelessly economic. $100/kWh is still far too expensive


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 11, 2015 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 23, 2010 6:51 pm
Posts: 123
From an environmental perspective, load following with hydro isn't all that great either. Rapidly fluctuating reservoir levels and river flows are highly unnatural and damaging to aquatic ecosystems.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group