but CO2’s still gotta be guilty of something, right?
****
Let’s assume (as STT does, for the sake of argument) that the global warming/climate change Chicken Littles are right: the sky really is falling and it’s all CO2’s fault.
So what the HELL are we doing pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into subsidies for wind power? By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a ‘system’ – it’s ‘chaos’, pure and simple. Here’s the output of Australia’s wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (a notional capacity of 3,669MW spread over NSW, VIC, TAS & SA) during June.
STT has always thought that if man-made CO2 emissions really were destroying the planet, then sensible governments would have moved to build nuclear power plants from the moment the Chicken Littles started wailing about the heavens collapsing.
The French generate over 75% of their sparks using nukes – and have used nuclear power – without any serious incident – for over 50 years: the first plant kicked off in 1962.
Nuclear power is the only stand-alone thermal power source that is base-load and which does not emit CO2 emissions when generating power.
The climate Chicken Littles are privately licking their wounds after a ‘disappointing’ trip to the big Climate Jamboree in Paris – sure there were teary scenes of triumph, as a last minute ‘deal’ was done, but when the mascara dries they’ll soon work out that all of it was purely voluntary: none of the caps on CO2 emissions are legally binding on anyone. And there is no mechanism for international oversight, a bit like the ‘honour’ system at a camp ground where – instead of campers popping a tenner in the envelope provided – a fair number of tents end up being pitched for free.
However, among the hysterics that lobbed into Paris more than just a few of their number have reached the bleedingly obvious conclusion: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.
The seemingly undying love affair with ‘wonderful’ wind is over.
Instead of pinning their hopes of (somehow?) cooling the planet with million strong fleets of bat-chomping, bird slicing, blade-chucking, pyrotechnic, sonic-torture devices, the head-honchos from Climate Central have called on everyone to start nuzzling up to nuclear power.
These hitherto giant fan huggers have determined to bring about a nuclear powered future, sooner rather than later.
Not only have they cottoned on to the fact that it’s the only generation system that can be deployed, just about anywhere, to deliver affordable, base-load, CO2 free power, they’re also alive to the tried and tested safety and security of nuclear power generation. And, as far as direct fatalities are concerned, they’re on very solid ground.
The wind industry has been flapping about for not much more than 20 years (producing a trickle of unreliable power, even today) and has killed more than 160 people; nuclear power has been a serious contender for over 50 years and (in a single accident at a military facility, Chernobyl) killed 56, most of whom were fire or rescue workers (see our post here).
This group of alarmists-cum-nuke fans take the ‘CO2 is killing the planet’ line in bitter earnest, which has caused their long-running romance with wind power to dissolve, in a sudden and bitter divorce. But, no sooner had those nefarious-nuptials been annulled, than the declarants were off to the altar again, this time, with atomic results.
****
COP21: World must embrace nuclear power to save planet from climate change, claim leading scientists
The Independent
Steve Connor
4 December 2015
Experts warn renewable energy sources offer too little, too late, while anti-nuclear stance increases burning of fossil fuels
The world has no little or no chance of escaping dangerous climate change if political leaders and environmental groups fail to embrace nuclear power as a source of low-carbon energy, leading scientists have told the climate conference in Paris.
Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power offer too little, too late, and the anti-nuclear stance of some countries and almost all environmentalists will only drive many nations towards burning more coal, oil and gas, they warned.
“There is a sense of urgency. We need to reduce carbon emissions now and cannot wait for something to appear in the near future. Nuclear power can be done safely, and with a relatively small environmental footprint,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC.
“We need to think about building a new nuclear power station somewhere in the world at the rate of about one a week if we are to meet future energy demands without burning more fossil fuel…it’s not an option to wait until we have renewables,” he said.
Professor Caldeira made the appeal alongside James Hansen, former head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won’t use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy. Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change,” Dr Hansen said.
Dr Caldeira said that the biggest risk of expanding nuclear power around the world is the proliferation of nuclear material that could be used for military purposes, but that this can be addressed with appropriate regulation and safeguards.
The Independent
STOP THESE THINGS 
Large scale energy storage systems utilising flow cell technology will become an integral part whether the electricity is generated by mainstream fossil fuel generators or renewable types. Australia and the rest of the world have already started with various commerical technologies. Scale up to GW and MW capacity flow cell technology solutions will not be the silver bullet but will find their niche depending on the commerical and economic reality.
Suggested articles on energy storage
http://www.energystoragenews.org/category/16/flow-battery/
“Let’s assume (as STT does, for the sake of argument) that the global warming/climate change Chicken Littles are right: the sky really is falling and it’s all CO2’s fault.”
going on that, STT, this was a real good watch last week.
Senator Ted Cruz
And due to his stance on nuclear power, James Hansen has now been tagged by Naomi Oreskes as a Climate Change Denier!!!!!!!!
Can that crowd ever present anything even remotely credible?
This really isn’t news. James Hansen has always proclaimed that nuclear power is the only way to reduce CO2 level. But the greens will never be convinced – just try getting them to accept the death figures from Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents.
Not that I support Hansen’s outright deception in engineering the whole CO2 greenhouse warming scare.
Analitik, you and this site are correct to dump on wind power, but it is amazing to see how ignorant you are about climate change and global warming. The evidence is overwhelming, but it requires some analytical thought and the ability to integrate information from a variety of sources. First, it has been known since the late 1800’s that CO2 retains heat energy in the atmosphere. It is also documented beyond doubt that increased CO2 levels equate to increased planetary temperature. Many deniers or doubters fail to understand that the rapid rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution is unprecedented. The rapidity of change is why our situation is completely different from historic climate change which always has taken place over many thousands of years to millions of years. We have caused comparable change in less than 200 years. Previously plant and animal species had time to adapt. Now one clear signal of climate change is the attempt of species to adapt by moving to higher altitudes or northward. But now the changes in climate, evidenced by earlier onset of spring each year, are progressing too fast for plant or animal adaption to keep pace. Another often ignored part of the process is the immense amount of additional heat energy that has been absorbed by the oceans. Without that taking place, Earth’s surface temperature would be rising much faster. Then we have the obvious acceleration in melting of Greenland ice, the disappearance of Arctic Sea Ice, and now the end to the anomalous growth of sea ice in the Antarctic – an anomaly caused by large term changes in the Pacific that are only now being fully understood. If anyone interested will take the time to seriously study all these areas and more, then the dangers of climate change, including sea level rise and ocean acidification will become clear. But whether or not you understand the danger of warming, the facts about nuclear energy are important and need clarifying.
This is an interesting and important site, but to be optimally effective, I suggest that you expand and correct a few points:
First, from your article on “How much CO2 Gets Emitted To Build A Wind Turbine”:
“The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic – involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product – that only one country does it – China. (See our posts here and here).”
Calling Thorium a radioactive waste product is very far from the truth. In the first place, Thorium is hardly radioactive at all. It is not fissile, but is fertile, meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction, but under sufficient neutron bombardment in a reactor, can be converted into a fissile fuel.
Therefore, Thorium is not a waste product, but is fuel for a very safe type of reactor, and should be treated as a valuable co-product, not waste. The MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) was built and tested for 20,000 hours at Oak Ridge in the 1960’s (see MSRE – Molten Salt Reactor Experiment).
The MSR/LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is a totally fail-safe reactor that cannot melt down (the fuel is already a molten salt), needs no giant containment structure since it has no water in the reactor, and is about half as expensive to construct as a “conventional” PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). The MSR/LFTR can also use present stockpiles of Nuclear Waste as fuel, solving the storage problem and giving us power for hundreds of years. Your additional articles referenced in the above quote are eloquent about irresponsible mining pollution, but add nothing accurate about Thorium.
Second, from the article:
“And I haven’t even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?”
It is not a good idea to give the Wind/Solar industries a pass on any significant source of pollution. The CO2 footprint and the cost of transmission lines are very significant, and should be estimated and included in your conclusions – in all of your articles.
You will find some very detailed and important support for your position in the following critique of the plan proposed by Professor Richardson of Stanford – to power the entire US with nothing but Wind/Solar plus other “renewables”:
“Analysis and critique of the 100% WWS Plan
advanced by The Solutions Project”
http://www.timothymaloney.net/www.timothymaloney.net/Critique_of_100_WWS_Plan.html
OR: http://tinyurl.com/gov9mtg
Timothy Maloney’s site also has very important information on MSR/LFTR, and articles discussing several important related issues.
For a fascinating history of nuclear power, read “Thorium: The Green Energy Source for the Future” by Richard Martin.
Be careful of your should and shall, must and mustn’ts…oh the difference a word maketh…what a set-up eh? Australia could surely sink an inch or two under all the weight of ‘unlimited’ implantation of wind turbines. And I don’t disregard that sea and lagoon levels should rise with vast numbers of ‘off-shore’ turbines displacement of saltwater.
Should keep a look out islets and atolls because what is seen of a wind or wave turbine generator is only the tip of what lies beneath the ocean surface and the profit raising, money stealing, bean counting infrastructure required onshore.
So, if we must have more turbines we mustn’t expect lowered green house gasses, mustn’t expect a healthier population and we mustn’t expect wind ‘farms’ to become hotspots for tourism or biodiversity.
Industrial wind farms are net consumers of electricity when measured over one year. They are appliances, same as washing machines
I still have an uncomfortable feeling about nuclear but could become more comfortable if it can be produced more safely and dangers of it being used in an aggressive manner is firmly and securely dealt with – and I doubt I am the only one.
However I do know I am against the proliferation of Industrial Turbines which have proven to be a source of acute danger to humans, flora and fauna no matter where they are used.
They are also a massively over rated form of energy production – by those with an interest in the industry and those misguided sops bowing to their dictates.
Across the whole of the mainland Eastern Grid at approximately 7.15am SA time there was not one skerrick of wind energy being produced, and Tasmania only producing 87MW.
Yet our recently installed PM (one who has a history of supporting the industry) has given the go-ahead for OUR money to once again be spent on this industry. An industry which does not meet the description of being a new technology or even an innovative one.
You have to ask who is looking after OUR needs the industry or our PM – this wastage of our financial resources will not save the earth, create jobs or provide us with the energy a progressive, first world nation needs.
The Paris talks were just that a massive talkfest.
Just how much CO2 did they save by ALL those people attending meetings and their entourage who travelled by air and land to get to Paris and back, to travel around Europe, and beyond as ‘delegates’ and co travelled to Paris and back. Just how many of those attending the various levels of meetings were actually needed there.
Could most of this have been done via modern Conferencing technology and how much would that have saved the dreaded CO2 from fossil fuels emitted before, during and after the ‘talks’.
Maybe its time we got some answers from our PM and the other State Premiers who tripped off to Paris and elsewhere, to these questions as well as answers as to how much it cost the Federal and State coffers to ensure they had a jolly time.
Ah, “the circle of life” as Elton John sang about and was also the theme to the musical The Lion King.
Only hours after the wind industry and the clean energy council have been whipped up into a frenzy with the Paris climate talks, boasting about winds benefits in a combination of delusional ranting’s and for others “show me the money” comes this little pearler from their poster child South Australia.
South Australian treasurer and energy minister has stated he is calling a crisis meeting of energy users and suppliers to deal with sharp rises and falls in wholesale electricity prices which threaten the expansion of PT Pirie’s lead smelter. He goes on to say the volatility in prices caused mostly by a reliance on wind energy is creating havoc for industry. On morning radio he wants to meet with industry to see what can be done about high power prices which should not be happening as we have a “wonderful” renewable energy source.
The symmetry could not be further exemplified with former state premier and the chief instigator of SA’s push into wind returning from Rome for a funeral of another former state premier. I think they may as well hold a special service for the state of SA and of course our ashes could be scattered into the wind.
Amazing how the SA treasurer fails to see the policies of the Government he serves in, have been the cause of rising energy prices in SA.
“What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
Way back in 1960, I used to have a friend, whose parents had a farm,a few miles out of town (Jamieson, Victoria). The farm was too far away from the”Electricity” lines, so they relied on a single cylinder Lister diesel engine for their power.They also had “Windmills” to pump water from their dam to the milking shed, house and water the stock. Quite often on week-ends when the wind wasn’t blowing, we would have to move the Lister diesel down to the dam to pump the water to the house and the stock. These wind mills weren’t fit for any-thing else because they were “Unreliable” then and nothing has changed since 1960. And the “Greens” call these”Bird Chompers “renewables? New Technology? You have to be kidding.
Thanks!
Reblogged this on citizenpoweralliance.