The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

As long as coal is being burned to generate power subsidizing solar is a waste of money.
Once the base load is covered with nuclear and other power sources that work at night then add more solar power generation to cover peak load.
Or cover the peak load with solar then replace the base load with nuclear.
The United States could build 25 or so AP1000 reactors and put a nice dent in coals market share of electricity production.

So 'coal',out of their own pocket pays to sequester all current carbon dioxide emissions,plus remove all the carbon dioxide they've already put into the atmosphere.And their wholesale price per kWh is now $4,000.
Who's subsidizing who?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

One question?
Who pay for the research and devolopment of solar technology, photovoltaics and thermal ?
Privade companies onlY ? Or also China government?

Maybe if more governments around the world could join into a huge financing/incentive to science research for solar energy, it could bring more results than subsides.

Just a idea...

The citizen/consumer pays for everything.Either through taxes,if it's government-funded research,or eventually through the price mechanism if it's a consumer product or service.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I imagined all nuclear reactor power plants used steam.

Wasn't Fukushima's reactor one of the kind that use passive nuclear safety ?

Correct me if I'm wrong,but I believe that Fukushima was not a passive system,and their plan-B was the stand-alone generators to run the water pumps for reactor cooling.
They had engineered for the tsunami okay,but never imagined that the coastline would drop,flooding the generator infrastructure.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's how you know it's all a steaming crock of organic fertilizer.
Building some nuclear power plants and taking some coal ones off line will do far more to save the world then all this garbage they tell us we should be doing.

'He who has sinned not,cast the first stone.'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I'm not being against all kinds of nuclear power, but just spoting Fukushima sh...t design and asking about the new tecnologies characteristics.
Fukushima was a dumb project, since it was in a area of tsunami danger, even than remote ifor the scala it happened at the time, and they hadn't any auxliar power to start the pumps and avoid the melt of core in case of problems in the main power system.
It was stupid, let's admit...

If a society so organized and smart like Japan can do a stupidity while building a nuclear power plant... I presume all countries can find some way to scrow-up somehow.
But if you say that AP100 it's completelly fools proof... But one thing still remains : The possibility of fools build or instal it, maybe like a hurry or not very well tested, like in Chernobyl (also a old reactor and not good) or even in maintenance.

I imagine someone tryiong it in my country (a disgrace) where inspectors are corrupt and all services are a crap.

The 'Rim of Fire' is the issue.Japan is and will remain seismically active.No one had ever seen a coastline drop half a meter before.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Would that it were so simple.

I'm currently in the middle of [Episode 364 Scott Adams: RPOS, The Steel Barrier and Climate Persuasion]. He argues (starting at 10:20) that the objective truth is unknowable and you can only look at the persuasion on both sides. And both sides are equally persuasive.

So you get a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal, and it's turtles all the way down.

I think that the scientists go for empirical evidence based upon observation,make a hypothesis,see if they can destroy the hypothesis,then if they can't,represent the thing numerically,and see if the output resembles reality within some standard deviation.
Climatologists admit that they'll never have a perfect model,but they also believe that you don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
(and have you heard about fossil-fuel stock prices now that they're obligated to pay for all past and present climate research,to prove the safety of their products? Plus,remove all their carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I didn't care much for JFK, I preferred LBJ.

Yeah,only 58,000 dead US servicemen.A real genius!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So the first graph is a combination of both public and private debt, and it includes mortgage debt? Seems about right. Public debt in the US is just above GDP (we collectively owe just over a whole year of productivity), and then personal debt is huge too.

Japan must be banking on being future rich to cover their liabilities. I saw a lot of medical students living "future rich" lives while in school. Burning through $100k per year in borrowed money didn't prevent vacation travel abroad.

Last night,they mentioned that US credit card debt alone,was near $4-trillion.
And average US savings was below $1,500.

[aerohead]

I found a citation regarding the coal-fired power plants in China/India.
As of 1992,as signatories to the Rio Treaty,both China and India were EXEMPT from restrictions regarding coal-fired power plants,under Annex II Classification of the Treaty.
As 'now-poor' countries,China and India would be allowed to increase emissions,for short-term economic development,until they reached per-capita fossil-fuel consumption parity with the developed world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year,India cancelled all contracts for new coal-fired power plant construction,and have turned to solar energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is planning 300-million domestic rooftop solar hot water and photovoltaic installs,which will allow them to retire 54-coal-fired power plants.

[aerohead]

In 1992,The U.K.Meteorological Office's Hadley Center's computer model,which included stratospheric sulphate aerosol forcing in a General Circulation Model,achieved for the first time,replication in broad terms,observed temperature changes over the past 130-years.
The high-resolution program took 90-days run-time on a supercomputer.
Previous modelling had predicted a warmer Earth.
The sulphate aerosols explained the discrepancy,due to their albedo effect in the upper atmosphere,which mitigated solar forcing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preliminary results were shared with attendees at the Berlin climate conference that year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The findings had important policy 'implications'.(fossil-fuels lobbyists' sphincters were probably tighter than a rivet on the Golden Gate Bridge)