US unveils climate report in runup to Senate bill

19 Apr 2010 18:36:36 GMT

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The United States released a new draft report on climate change on Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb heat-trapping greenhouse emissions.

The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They're now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.

The effects of climate change are already evident, the draft said: warming air and oceans, vanishing mountain glaciers, thawing permafrost, signs of instability in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19159977.htm

Nuclear does nothing though.

Nuclear is the largest source of emission free energy today. Nobody (at least nobody seriously) is projecting that nuclear is going to quadruple over next decade.

Nuclear capacity will grow very slowly mainly because over next 30 years essentiallly every single one of our existing reactors will be shutdown. Thus net capacity growth will be very low (and will even decline on some years). So many reactors need to be replaced that NET CO2 reduction (which is what chart shows) will be minimal however if nuclear "went away" as some people suggest it would create a large emission free hole.

Emission free energy (kWh) from wind/solar in 2030 is roughly what nuclear is today. Nuclear growing slight plus wind adding 800 billion kWh over nexr 20 years is a substantial reduction in CO2.

However if the anti-nukkers had there way and nuclear annual generation went from aprox 800 billion kWh today slowly declining to 0 in 2030 wind wouldn't be reducing CO2 emissions. We would simply be substituting emission free nuclear with emission free wind.

Now if your goal is to end nuclear power that would be a "win" however all that wind capacity being installed would simply offset all that nuclear capacity being lost. Net Net you will see 100 million tons of CO2 mitigated by wind and 100 million tons of CO2 added by nuclear going offline.

However the projection for this report and DOE is modest capacity growth by nuclear power. Slowly new reactors will replace reactors going offline so we don't create a massive "CO2 hole".

Nuclear power plants are wearing out. - True.

Nuclear power produces few CO2e emissions presently but as ore quality declines the quantity of associated CO2e emissions is expected to rise dramatically - approaching parity with combined cycle natural gas.

Renewable energy sources have very low associated CO2e emissions that will not increase.

Renewable energy sources produce no radioactive waste.

Renewable energy sources are distributed and provide a more dependable, efficient grid.

Renewable energy sources are the largest energy source on the planet, bar none.

As nuclear plants retire due to safety considerations the choice is to replace them with nuclear or renewables.

Since renewables are cheaper, safer, and faster to deploy, the choice to replace nuclear with nuclear is a poorly reasoned one. It is no different than the choice now between nuclear and renewables.

Nuclear is a trivial global source of energy, providing only 2.4% of the total energy consumed.

The reality is even the wind industry most optimistic projections is 10% of generation by 2020, and 20% of generation by 2030. The US govt projects are even more pessimistic. GWEC puts most aggressive capacity roll-out at 520 GW in North America in 2030. The more likely scenario is 336 GW in North America. Given the capacity factor differences 3.5 GW of wind is roughly equal to 1 GW nuclear energy.

http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/scenarios-and-targets/chapter-6-the-global-wind-energy-outlook-scenarios/

So wind simply "fills the nuclear hole".
Wind + 336 GW peak (comparable to 94GW nuclear). Nuclear - 104 GW. Net-net no change in emission free power.


Since we live in a capitalistic society and production facilities involve risk there will always be a finite amount of production capacity. Production capacity will grow based on proven demand. No company wants to be left holding the bag is supply exceeds demand and have to idle a brand new multi billion dollar facility. Realists like DOE, GWEC, and EREC accept that.

You are a purist and while it can be fun to be a cheerleader they have no place in real world.

Every govt in the world is taking a second look at nuclear because 20% nuclear + 20% wind + 10% solar is far more effective than 0% nuclear and 25% wind + 15% solar.

Even using the likely unrealistically optimistic projections on wind industry if nuclear capacity declines to 0, wind will simply fill the nuclear hole. Net amount of emission free energy will not rise and fossil fuels will grow.

If you goal is to end nuclear for the sake of ending nuclear that is a win. For realists it isn't.

Do you EVER even try to adhere to the truth?

Do you tell these whoppers because you just like pulling the wool over people's eyes or because you can't help yourself? You know damned well that those "most optimistic" goals are based on what policies will be adopted by government. They have absolutely nothing to do with what is technically possible nor economically desirable. For example, Al Gore's group studying the issue laid out a plan to entirely replace fossil fuels with renewables within ten years. Diverting funds to nuclear power does nothing but slow down the transition, enrich Bechtel and Halliburton while producing a thousands more tons of high level waste we need to find a way to deal with.

If we WANT to build more wind, it is far, far simpler and cheaper to make it happen than it is to build more nuclear.

That is why it is the optimistic goal. The realistic goal is half that.

Even if wind were cheaper (which it isn't despite having a 2 cent subsidy = 25% free money) there is a limit to how fast it can be built.

We won't grow 5000% in a decade. Nobody is projecting that. Nobody at least nobody credible is even claiming it is POSSIBLE.

Every serious study (including the low carbon 2050 Europe Study and State Dept Climate Change study) has nuclear as a component of low carbon future.

A realist would accept that and try to make nuclear as economical and safe as possible.

However you won't you will keep railing against nuclear posting studies by nobodies who have no influence, no power, no ability to shape future. You will keep posting the same out dated polls. Keep trying the same scare stories that some of us have heard for 30 fucking years.

30 years and you can't even come up with NEW LIES to tell!

Whatever. You are a cheerleader your kind of thinking never solved anything.

RAH!!! RAH!!! WIND & SOLAR!!!

And under their plan the mitigation factor of nuclear is nothing for many years, then it jumps to a palthy 14 on their scale (I have yet to give it a thorough read through).

The current approach is acceptable to many here, it is not to me, because it does not reduce emissions enough in a timely enough manner to avoid catastrophic climate change.

edit: added "significantly" since people can't read my mind