Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Obviously the explosions were not harmless, and our focus should be on the radioactive contamination and the loss of land for those that had to move, but, if we take a purely economical look at the issue, then that cost is staggeringly harmful.

The latest government estimates for the cleanup and compensation are (or were) around 20tn Yen, about $200bn, but Japanese think tanks suggest this could more than triple to around Yen70tn or over $600bn.

That's a lot of money, but then go one step further and think what that expenditure denies/prevents (the opportunity cost of spending the money on this cleanup)?

That money isn't generating leccy, no, it's consuming leccy and vast amounts of other energy and materials as part of the clean up. Whereas averaging out the cost of cheap on-shore wind and PV with more expensive off-shore wind, $200bn would buy close to 200GW of RE generation.

Next, and just for fun, let's spend the $600bn on RE, and get 200GW of off-shore wind (50%cf), 200GW of on-shore wind (30%cf), and 200GW of PV (12%cf).

That would generate approx 1,600TWh of leccy pa, greater than Japan's current annual consumption of ~950TWh.

So, just for fun, there's the economic cost of this 'harmless' event, an opportunity cost of producing nearly two Japan's worth of clean leccy generation, with the money pee'd up against the wall, to clean up nuclear, not generate nuclear leccy, but consume leccy whilst cleaning up nuclear.

Clearly "harmless". :think:

This is mostly propaganda and the cost is mostly self induced (ie inflated lies)

What did the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima cost? One would imagine magnitudes more considering almost 100,000 people and large parts of the city were completely destroyed rather than the bogyman fear of ooooo the magnitudes diluted radiation and stopped by air from a reactor hundreds or thousands of miles away will get you

And BTW even if that cost were true, which I dont buy for one second, it would be the same as running the 50GW of nuclear that were taken offline for 30 years and the damage done on spending $600 billion more on coal and gas energy instead? Coal and gas mining is safe and environmentally friendly right?

The choice was to turn the reactors off and run more coal and gas through existing coal and gas fired stations it was not turn the reactors off and instantly magic the next morning the equivalent in wind farms

GreatApe

Germany averaged ~150TWh/yr of nuclear through the 2000s, and soon that will be 0TWh
If they had not shut down the nukes then by 2023 they could have reduced coal usage towards zero. Instead Germany will continue to be a massive coal user for many many years to come

There is also the ramp up in electricity demand come 2030-2050 when transport and heating is electrified. The germans should have phased out their nukes not in the 2010s but in the 2050s Germany alone is going to use 6,000 TWh more coal and gas than it otherwise would have thanks to the early needless retirement of its fleet of nukes

6,000 tWh = equal to about 2.5 billion tons of coal

Japan roughly double that so those two combined will be 7.5 billion tons of coal (or nat gas equivalent) over the next 40 years thanks to the nuclear hysteria and propaganda

pile-o-stone

Is this another thread that will be renamed ("...in the news in the last 2 weeks" because it's taken off topic?

EricMears

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Is this another thread that will be renamed ("...in the news in the last 2 weeks" because it's taken off topic?

It's already labelled thus; alas, some contributors seem unable to grasp the concept.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

It's already labelled thus; alas, some contributors seem unable to grasp the concept.

Apologies if I'm one of them, and no offence taken either way, as it's hard to talk about modern day expenditure and investment in RE for CO2 reduction, without considering nuclear.

And then to consider nuclear, which is very current - pretty much daily news in that the UK is running around in circles trying to decide what to do - without considering all costs (and dangers/concerns) is also tricky. History has given us clues, but they are of course outside of the 2 week window.

Personally, whilst I don't consider nuclear green nor ethical, as it can be avoided, I do think it's important to discussions due to it being low carbon and predictable.

Again, personally, I'm very happy, and relieved, that it now seems to be more expensive than RE and storage, as that allows me to discount it, without concerns about hypocrisy.

So long as I'm right (and that's not necessarily true) then nuclear is more expensive, slower to deploy, and carries additional risks which are, to be fair, very unlikely, but if something does go wrong then the cost is simply staggering.

All the best.

Martyn1981

Potentially enormous news. No, seriously, this is BIG BIG BIG!!

In the US state of Wyoming a whole raft of new FF drilling and mining has been temporarily halted by a legal decision that climate change / global warming has not been accounted for in the licencing process.

US judge halts hundreds of drilling projects in groundbreaking climate change ruling

In the first significant check on the Trump administration’s “energy-first” agenda, a US judge has temporarily halted hundreds of drilling projects for failing to take climate change into account.

Drilling had been stalled on more than 300,000 acres of public land in Wyoming after it was ruled the Trump administration violated environmental laws by failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions. The federal judge has ordered the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages US public lands and issues leases to the energy industry, to redo its analysis.

The decision stems from an environmental lawsuit. WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center sued the BLM in 2016 for failing to calculate and limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from future oil and gas projects.

I've no idea where this will go, and what impact it will have, but if you open up the door to AGW legal arguments, then that door is going to see a serious amount of traffic (let's hope they use EV's).

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Apologies if I'm one of them

You're not.

(and I know how difficult it is not to engage, hence why I'm no longer on twitter or facebook - my choice I hasten to add!!)

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

You're not.

(and I know how difficult it is not to engage, hence why I'm no longer on twitter or facebook - my choice I hasten to add!!)

Thanks, but I do take yours and Eric's comments on board regardless, as waffling comes easy to me (no, please, you're too polite, it does!) and in attempting to contextualize a lot of news, it seems important (to me) to compare to nuclear, as despite my criticisms, it is the other solution if RE doesn't work, or should be included as part of the solution unless RE and RE + storage are better (cheaper, more popular, safer etc).

Very hard to package everything together without stepping outside the lines.


Moving on, and a nothing comment really, but have to say things are really looking up (if you ignore our relentless race to a no return CO2 ppm cliff-edge). There is a lot of great RE news, and transport starting to shift, plus pressure from all quarters, especially the young on politicians all round the world. Very pleased to see the US's litigious society starting to work against FF's (it worked well against tobacco), and the UK's move on non-FF space heating for 2025+ new builds. Some significant moves which might, just drive us forwards to a better future, or at least a less bad one.

Martyn1981

As Ben Elton would say - "Oh, little bit of politics".

Two similar stories looking at the spending and influence of FF companies.

The first looks at the spending of oil firms aimed at slowing down a transition away from FF's.

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

The second is specifically on Exxon who are the poster child of AGW denial. In case anyone isn't aware, they have now been forced to release (and still releasing) internal reports they compiled last century concluding that AGW was real, and that CO2 was the major cause. But of course since then had maintained a campaign denying this.

Personally I see nothing wrong with us consuming FF's in ignorance. They've driven the industrial revolution and scientific advances. And whilst I might use phrases like 'the death of coal', perhaps 'well deserved retirement' is a better phrase.

What's important is what we (and companies like this) do once we became aware of the harm.

Now Exxon may have its lobbying priveliges pulled by the EU.

ExxonMobil faces EU parliament ban after no show at climate hearing

ExxonMobil faces losing its lobby privileges at the European parliament after the company failed to show up for the first hearing into climate change denial.

ExxonMobil would become only the second multinational – after Monsanto – to lose access to MEPs, parliamentary meetings and digital resources if it loses a high-level vote expected by the end of April.

The oil giant publicly supports the Paris agreement but has drawn the ire of scientists, academics and environmentalists, who accuse it of peddling climate misinformation.

The ban request is being submitted by the Green MEP Molly Scott Cato. She said: “This is the company that denied the science, despite knowing the damage their oil exploitation was causing; which funded campaigns to block action on climate and now refuses to face up to its environmental crimes by attending today’s hearing. We cannot allow the lobbyists from such corporations free access to the corridors of the European parliament. We must remove their badges immediately.”

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As Ben Elton would say - "Oh, little bit of politics".

Two similar stories looking at the spending and influence of FF companies.

The first looks at the spending of oil firms aimed at slowing down a transition away from FF's.

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report




The second is specifically on Exxon who are the poster child of AGW denial. In case anyone isn't aware, they have now been forced to release (and still releasing) internal reports they compiled last century concluding that AGW was real, and that CO2 was the major cause. But of course since then had maintained a campaign denying this.

Personally I see nothing wrong with us consuming FF's in ignorance. They've driven the industrial revolution and scientific advances. And whilst I might use phrases like 'the death of coal', perhaps 'well deserved retirement' is a better phrase.

What's important is what we (and companies like this) do once we became aware of the harm.

Now Exxon may have its lobbying priveliges pulled by the EU.

ExxonMobil faces EU parliament ban after no show at climate hearing

There is a mindset that although climate change exists 'I will be dead before it has a material impact on developed countries and so I will not sacrifice any of my current income or wealth to address the issue' that I can not even begin to understand.

The only possible explanation might be if you believe the problem is intractable and the disaster certain?