A question about climate change/global warming.

http://www.energy.gov/news/1500.htm

The principal findings of the Chicago study demonstrate that future nuclear power plants in the United States can be competitive with either natural gas or coal. Whereas the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for coal is $33 to $41 per MWh and $35 to $45 per MWh for gas-fired production, new nuclear plants would have costs of $31 to $46 per MWh once early plant costs are absorbed.

That doesn't mean what you think it does. They're using the same calculation as for the coal and gas plants, and as the OECD/IEA report did for renewables, amortizing the so-called 'overnight construction costs' over the the expected life of the plant. With a low enough finance cost (OECD used 5% per annum), up front costs can seem pretty reasonable.

The only reason it works, of course, is that uranium is dirt cheap with repect to the energy that can be extracted compared to coal and gas. All the costs are up-front, with fuel amounting to around 6-10% of the levelized cost. For coal and natural gas, fuel amounts to 70+% of the cost.

On the other hand, there's a good chance uranium prices have been depressed for the past 10+ years as 45% of U.S. demand has been met by decommissioned Soviet weapons (and 5% from U.S. weapons). That cosy agreement ends in 2013, so uranium prices could go substantially higher to bring marginal supply in.

I understand the LCOE methodology very well, and I don't see how you can get to those figures for Nuclear. I've combed through that IEA report and can't find too much as fault although I find that pricing non-fuel O&M in power rather than energy to be somewhat odd. Figures I have seen put non-fuel O&M at around $14/MWh. OK so these are figures for 1996 from a 1999 study but I can't see that having fallen much.

$1500/kW over 40 years at 5% Discount rate 85% capacity factor is around $12/MWh. Fuel from the above study is $6/MWh. That's already $32/MWh in 1999 dollars. This doesn't factor in waste handling and storage or decommissioning.

really interesting account of why copenhagen failed by someone who was in the room as the deal was (un)done:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

that's not really interesting, sorry

Saying that Copenhagen was even an effort to succeed at something is a lot more interesting, but only in the diagnosis of mental illness.

oh well, you're clearly the expert. but i thought it was interesting a) to read an inside account of how global summits play out, particularly seeing how china uses its growing power, and b) that china blocked western countries from making their own 80 per cent target in emissions reduction, even though it wouldn't affect developing nations.

I apologize.

You have to admit, though, this whole "Copenhagen" hoo-ha is a bit of a paper tiger in the larger debate.

hey joe, i thought that was pretty interesting, thanks for posting it, not really sure whats up kenans butt

I read that too, it was a bit depressing. What the heck happens next?

not really sure whats up kenans butt

I admit my tone was ill-advised, politically. I should have paid more attention to my status in the eyes of ILX, and not negotiated with max for said political status.

That article is not about the climate, the control of emissions, or anything like it.

After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Oh go fucking drain your pussy, it's hugely swollen.

did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or what

Yes I did.

Look... Copenhagen is a joke, no matter what country you're in. For that matter, Kyoto was a joke. We're not talking about treaties and agreements, we're talking about developing countries utilizing the tech they have vs. falling behind. Meanwhile, it's also about the US investing in the tech we have, making it standard, and phasing out dirty energy. This isn't about making agreements. It never was, and it never is.

i dont see what that has to do with being mean about joes article

I apologized earlier, because you're right.

cool sounds like were all covered here

Who wants cookies? :)

now that sounds like an agreement to me

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2007/10/va_treaty.jpg

ha! Bit tentative, that.

I meant you no personal offense, joe, and I apologize again. I just tend to get heated up about what I feel is people (not you) missing the point entirely.

By staging publicity stunts like Copenhagen, for instance.

jeez louise

It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a "nauseating email" which must have come from a "disgusting eco-fascist organisation", though he didn't know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined "Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies". Much worse, he published the man's name and home address.

Delingpole's bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man's telephone number and email address, a photo of his house ("Note all the recycling going on in his front garden"), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of "stalking" and "bullying".

Here is the "nauseating email", btw:

"Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?

Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?

Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards, *** ***".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5nNbPWYHOA

"We also need to have an appreciation for King Coal."

- Tim Pawlenty, describing his "energy plan" on Meet the Press about 20 seconds ago.

http://i50.tinypic.com/10py6vs.jpg

On a serious work-related note, I'm trying to compile a listing of climate skeptic blogs. I've tried using Technorati and Google Blogs and they're both a bit rubbish at providing results.

Who am I missing?

Climate Audit - http://www.climateaudit.org Watts Up With That? - http://wattsupwiththat.com

Climate Skeptic - http://www.climate-skeptic.com

The Air Vent - http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

Anybody?

Bishop Hill - http://bishophill.squarespace.com

The Blackboard: Where Climate Talk Gets Hot! - http://rankexploits.com/musings

Errors in IPCC climate science - http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog

The Clamour Of The Times – http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html

JoNova - http://joannenova.com.au

Dudes who wrote 'superfreakonomics' are pretty sceptical about humans being the cause given the time span and quality of data.

Good suggestion, but they have to be bloggers who focus solely on climate change.

Like this lot above or these guys - http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

The most widely read "climate skeptic" blog is probably http://wattsupwiththat.com

Uuuugggh

Any good tools for finding which blogs are the most linked / trafficked? This is stuff I used to know but frankly I'm a bit out of touch with it all now.

This guy:

http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/

there's a list of skeptical blogs here: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Philip Stott:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html

Oh you had that one already.

Cheers guys

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/

by a schoolkid or something

http://i45.tinypic.com/a42b1g.jpg

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-debate-works.html

sigh

http://i47.tinypic.com/qzhbnr.jpg
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BOYKOFF-AAAS-22-February-2010-slides.pdf

The Guardian is liveblogging the run-up to the release of the Independent Climate Change Email Review.

It's, like, well exciting innit.

I'm not sure why this report is getting much attention since Phil Jones (of CRU) was exonerated in March, and the rest of the CRU scientists were exonerated way back in April, but for what it's worth, here's another exoneration.

Link to the report

On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.

On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias.

The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.

On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 [the Fourth Assessment] to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld.

In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions [in AR4], we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence.

Of course, the infuriating part of being falsely accused is that few people ever hear about the exoneration. MAN ACCUSED OF BRUTAL RAPE/DOUBLE MURDER. (weeks later, on bottom of section H19: man is not guilty, sorry)

Your monthly "this is the hottest year on record so far but it's getting close to zero attention, again" update:

NASA's data shows that this is the hottest global January-June on record.

http://i26.tinypic.com/24zxb0y.gif

more

Not going to link it but the most recent post on Joannenova.com.au about the EU and N1ck Gr1ff!n is fucking disgusting.

Haha, she took it down. Anthony Watts also posted about it this morning and deleted it after about 15 minutes. Still on the SPPI blog, though.

'Watts up with that?’ is ranked as the number one most read “science” blog in the world according to Wikio – and it has become the hub for the climate denial community online. Its lead blogger, Anthony Watts, is often quoted in mainstream media outlets such as The Times and his blog was winner of “best science blog” at the Weblog awards.

So you might be surprised (or not – if you already doubted the credibility of his sources) to learn that Anthony Watts’ latest source of information is none other than the Br1t1sh N4tion4l Party – yes, those known to the rest of us as the Br1t!sh N4z1 Party.

Anthony Watts blogged today at 15.30 GMT about how “climate scepticism could become a criminal offence in UK” – and his source? BNP leader, N1ck Gr1ff!n. Unsurprisingly, by 16.11, the page had disappeared. No doubt, after one of his friends in the UK pointed out it doesn’t look great when you post N4z1 propaganda on your blog and twitter feed.

This is pretty big news.

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton

The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.

Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.

If the findings are confirmed by further studies it will represent the single biggest change to the global biosphere in modern times, even bigger than the destruction of the tropical rainforests and coral reefs, the scientists said yesterday.

more here

for those interested in such things, this study would be a good thing to reference the next time you're talking to someone who doesn't give a shit about climate change and it's obvious that they think the effects of it won't take hold until decades from now. climate change is happening. IS happening.

Don't know if I've mentioned it on ILX before, but the 3 hour audio documentary Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer for the CBC is one of the best discussions of consequences we'll see in our own lifetime, and it places the focus on things which might concern your right leaning family members: droughts at 20-40 degrees latitude and a flood of climate refugees to the North. The Pentagon and UK MoD are already wargaming scenarios like "Fortress Britain".