This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Max, Reur 3624;
I have to admire your immense patience with that serial-pest from Queensland. As you may have noticed, I started to mostly ignore him long ago when I concluded that it was incomprehensible that he actually believed the perhaps 99% of stuff that he spouts. (= rubbish). And of course, whenever things he claims are PROVED to be wrong, he either goes silent on it, changes subject, or mind-bogglingly perpetuates it, regardless of the clear truth. Thus, I have felt for a long time that he is deliberately provocative by being in disagreement with everything that us rationalists put forward. Consequently, in blogo-parlance the fisherman’s term of “troll” is arguably translatable to him. At an earlier stage, I was wondering if he might be playing “devil’s advocate“, in order to establish arguments for writing a book, but I no longer think that to be a sustainable alternative explanation for his bizarre prolonged behaviour. On the other hand, it might entirely simply be explained by “religion”!
Some religious fundamentalists simply cannot be convinced by proven facts, no matter how overwhelming those facts are. For instance, I once pointed out to an extreme christadelphian idiot, (one of many in that clan), the deeply folded formation of sedimentary rocks revealed in a road cutting, that was spectacularly scrubbed clean by rain in all its colours and textures. Erh, have you ever tried to bend stone I asked? No matter how slowly you do it, there will be brittle fracture…. unless of course you heat it to a very high temperature, and it is evident that this must have been the case for those distorted sedimentary layers millions of years ago when back then they were buried deep below where it is provenly hot. Then they must have been uplifted and folded whilst still heat-pliable, to later display via erosion etc, what we see today. And, The Grand Canyon? And many other examples?
Nope, he insisted, absolutely un-budging, the Bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old.
I think you are wasting your valuable time in having intercourse with that Queenslander.
Why does he not spread his great wisdom over at RC or Joe’s place, or maybe the “Church” of Scientology?
Well, one thing anyway, if what he claims is true, that he has not been a school teacher, then that at least, is a relief.
Max,
Just a couple of weeks ago you said:
“Non-fossil fuel based energy sources will be developed and exploited, for sure, as the world’s economies gradually wean themselves off of ever more costly fossil fuels. This will possibly help the CAGR of atmospheric CO2 slow down to half its current rate or around 0.2% per year, so it takes us a bit longer to reach 500, 600 or 700 ppmv than would otherwise be the case. But that is where we are headed.”
Which, if the world economy is left to take its predicted course, I wouldn’t disagree with. That’s pretty close to a business-as-usual scenario.
Now you are saying that we aren’t headed there at all. There will just be a “perfectly natural transition away from fossil fuels” which will somehow keep CO2 levels to be much lower!
It sounds to me that you are just fudging the numbers as you go along to suit whatever shifting argument you are making at the time!
Brute,
You ask whether I feel that ‘plant food’ is harmful? Plants need many foods. Nitrates for instance, and these certainly can be harmful when used in explosives , or when discharges from sewage treatment plants pollute rives.
But I take it that you mean CO2. Yes, plants need CO2. Th carbon in a tree is made from carbon that used to exist in the atmosphere. Trees don’t so much grow out of the ground as grow from the air, particularly the CO2 they absorb.
So, some CO2 in the air is certainly a good thing, and without it plants would die and the Earth would be very cold. If we were in the situation that somehow humanity was causing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to fall, we would rightly be very concerned about that.
However, if the amount of CO2 is seen to be rising, then we should take notice of that too. We should aim to keep the CO2 level in the atmosphere to be just right. Not too little and not too much. A bit like Goldilocks really.
If it helps you, you might want to think about it as keeping the atmosphere the way God made it.
PeterM
You write (without checking any of the estimates I made on this):
As a matter of fact, the bases for the estimates I made are all listed.
If you are so smart, make the calculation yourself, and then show me where my estimate is wrong.
I have to admit that I was frankly also surprised at the result, because of all the IPCC hoopla out there, which shows much higher CO2 levels by 2100, but IPCC has always had a bit of a problem with making realistic projections for the future.
First of all, they grossly overestimate the rise of CO2 over the next century.
Where this has risen by around 0.4% CAGR since 1958 (and also since 2005), IPCC estimates this to rise between 0.48% to 570 ppmv (Scenario B1) and (believe it or not!) 1.52% to 1590 ppmv (A1F1), with the two highest estimates actually exceeding all the carbon contained in the total fossil fuel reserves of our planet (how could these guys be so utterly stupid, Peter?). And these are the bases for the absurd temperature projections to 2100. Oops!
It is quite obvious that a major acceleration in the CAGR of atmospheric CO2 does not make sense to anyone with half a brain for the following reasons: world population grew at a CAGR of 1.7% from 1960 to 2010, during which time CO2 increased at a CAGR of around 0.4%. Over the next 90 years the UN estimates that world population will grow from today’s 7 billion to around 9 billion by 2100; this equals a CAGR of 0.28% or one-sixth the rate from 1960 to 2010. Yet IPCC “projects” that CO2 will rise at a rate that is up to almost four times the 1960-2010 rate. Duh! This is obviously not a serious estimate, but simply an attempt to put together some scary numbers to incite fear in the gullible public (like yourself?).
Then we have the 2xCO2 impact. Myhre et al. tell us this is just below 1°C, yet IPCC add in all sorts of imaginary model-derived “feedbacks” to come up with an average value 3 times this high! Ouch!
So they are exaggerating by a few orders of magnitude on both the CO2 increase and the resulting temperature increase.
As a result, it is easy to demonstrate that a normal development away from ever scarcer and costlier fossil fuels will result in a CO2 level by 2100 peaking at around 450 ppmv.
And this is no problem – and certainly no “climate crisis” (as IPCC would have us believe). Instead, it is an imaginary hobgoblin (as described by Mencken).
If you are truly interested in seeing the calculation in detail, I’ll be glad to show it to you.
If, on the other hand, you are simply more interested in posting silly statements and irrelevant waffles (as you have done so far), so be it.
Max
PeterM
I noticed with amazement (and amusement) your statement to Brute (3628):
This is a silly statement, Peter, as you should know as a physicist.
When “God made” Earth there was very little atmosphere at all. Over the next few billions of years, outgassing of CO2 from the Earth’s interior created an atmosphere largely composed of CO2, with essentially no oxygen.
Then, over the next few billions of years, blue-green algae and other anaerobes developed, which slowly converted CO2 to oxygen through photosynthesis, until our planet finally had an atmosphere that could support animal life. At the same time, the CO2 content was reduced to only a small fraction of the total atmosphere.
Over Earth’s history CO2 has been 20 times as high as today at times (with no apparent correlation with temperature).
Over the past half a million years CO2 has fluctuated between 200 and 300 ppmv (temperature is believed to have risen and fallen a few hundred years before the rise and fall in CO2 level, raising serious questions concerning current causation hypotheses).
The so-called “pre-industrial” CO2 level is believed to have been somewhere just under 300 ppmv.
Since 1958 we have Mauna Loa measurements, which have shown a gradual increase from 315 to 390 ppmv.
The CO2 we are generating today from fossil fuels was originally in the atmosphere (when “God” created it), and we are now returning it there, where “God” put it.
Max
Max,
Yes I must admit I nearly did delete the argument about as God created it. Its not one I would subscribe to myself but, nevertheless, it does seem to make sense to some people.
On the question of CO2 growth:
This graph shows that you were right in your original assessment that the Earth is heading for 500, 600, 700 ppmv.
I think if your assumption that fossil fuels will be replaced by nuclear if the market is left to its own devices is probably not correct. There are already commercial processes in place to convert oil shale, oil sands, and coal into petroleum products which are environmentally dirty. These will, if there is no market intervention, increase in volume as the price of oil rises and supplies dwindle.
Pete,
Have you morphed into an evangelist?
PeterM
Your CO2 graph pretty much agrees with IPCC’s Scenario B1 (lowest growth rate scenario, slightly higher than the actual growth rate observed since 1958 or over the past 5 years). This is what I used as the basis for the calculation to estimate the impact of a gradual natural phase-out of fossil fuels over the 21st century.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5296/5459625010_8fbf8bf9b6_b.jpg
IPCC also has a Scenario A1F1, which shows CO2 growing to around 1500 ppmv by 2100. This scenario is absurd, of course, since it exceeds all the carbon contained in Earth’s total fossil fuel reserves! Oops!
Another IPCC absurdity: The UN projects population growth to slow down, eventually leveling off somewhere around 9 billion by 2100. This means the average growth rate will be only a fraction of that observed over 1960-2010, yet IPCC assumes that the CO2 growth will be slightly higher (B1) to four times as high (A1F1). Duh!
Your graph also extends the projection to year 2200. This is also absurd, Peter. No one knows what will happen to fossil fuel consumption over the next 40 years, let alone the next 200 years. This reminds me of the projection made in the 1860s that Manchester would be covered in two meters of horse manure by 1920, due to the rapidly increasing number of horse carriages. Only your projection is even more absurd, since it is projecting 200 years into the future, rather than only 60. (But it is manure, of the bovine rather than equine variety.)
My advice to you: Discard any projections that go beyond 2100 and take any that go beyond 2050 with a large grain of salt.
So, in summary, we see that your chart projects the 2100 CO2 level to be around 550 ppmv without a phase-out of fossil fuel combustion and I have estimated that a natural phasing out of fossil fuels would level this off at around 450 ppmv, with a small net reduction in the theoretical amount of warming to be expected of somewhere between 0.3 and 1.0°C, assuming all other things (natural forcing, etc.) have a negligible impact (a rather dicey assumption, as I’m sure you’ll agree)..
Seems to all make sense to me.
And I’m still waiting for you to show that the natural “fossil fuel phase-out” projection I made is not realistic.
Max
Brute,
You may have heard of John Cook also from Queensland who runs http://www.skepticalscience.com
and who views the AGW problem, at least partially, from a Christian perspective.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/a-physics-mavens-take-on-skeptical-science/
If it works for him …..
PeterM
You wrote (3631)
There are two issues here, Peter:
First is electrical power generation. This is currently being fueled primarily by coal and to a much smaller extent locally by natural gas.
My assumption is that the natural gas portion will be phased out as gas prices rise (gas is too valuable to use for power generation).
The coal portion will be replaced primarily with nuclear generation plus a very small amount of local solar or wind power. My assumption is that the coal phase-out will occur over the 21st century.
My second assumption is a political one: I am assuming that the political resistance to installing new nuclear power plants will end.
Then there are the fossil fuels used for motor fuels for transportation.
My underlying assumption is that petroleum and natural gas prices will rise naturally, as more difficult and costly deposits (Arctic, offshore, etc) and more difficult and costly processes (tar sands, shale) are exploited in an economically attractive and environmentally safe manner.
My assumption here is that electrical automobiles will become technically and economically able to compete with gasoline/diesel driven automobiles and that there are no economic or sustainability limitations (rare earths, etc.) standing in the way of replacing all motor vehicles with electrical ones by year 2100.
Coal-based motor fuel is limited today (SASOL, etc.). I am assuming that more economical electrical cars will replace this, as well.
I do not personally believe that there will be a major shift to hydrogen as a motor fuel, due to both cost and safety reasons, but who knows?
Liquid fuels from algea are getting a major research effort by several petroleum companies. This could be a “carbon-neutral” source of motor fuels for the future, as could sugar-cane based ethanol in places where sugar cane can be grown (I’d forget about corn-based ethanol, though, as this government sponsored program has been a disaster in more ways than one).
Air transportation will probably remain liquid-fuel based, unless something very new is developed to move away from this.
So I see no reason at all, Peter, to doubt that a gradual shift away from fossil fuels will occur naturally over the coming century.
It all makes perfect sense.
And it will not require carbon caps, quotas or taxes to happen. These autocratic, top-down approaches achieve nothing but an overall slowdown (or breakdown) of the economy.
It will require that governments stop listening to the eco-loons out there and stop blocking new nuclear plant construction.
You have been unable to explain to me why such a natural transition away from fossil fuels will not occur, while I have pointed out many good reasons why it is quite reasonable to assume that it will.
Max
PeterM
Your countryman, John Cook, stated in the interview you cited:
Looks like the most recent election in the USA has done just the opposite.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-1418
Max
ALL,
Further to my yawn-producing 3625 & 3626;
1) Max;
I’d like to grovel particularly to you if I have offended you with a malapropism in my 3636. I assumed that when you suggested that your Queensland friend was a troll, that you were referring to a recent IT adaptation of that word from the fishing community. However, I concede that what is I think the earliest usage of the noun ‘troll’ refers to a mysterious subterranean creature, (originating in Scandinavia ?), that recoils from exposure to daylight. Further, that recoiling from daylight in modern parlance can mean recoiling from the truth. Thus, if I’ve misrepresented your use of the word, then please accept my humble apology.
2) Brute;
I also made some references to a few fundamentalist religious beliefs, (akin to those of Peter Martin), that are overwhelmingly contradicted by scientific observations. I enjoy your comments here, and hope that I did not offend you.
Max,
You are assuming too much in saying:
“My assumption is that the natural gas portion will be phased out as gas prices rise (gas is too valuable to use for power generation). The coal portion will be replaced primarily with nuclear generation plus a very small amount of local solar or wind power. My assumption is that the coal phase-out will occur over the 21st century. My second assumption is a political one: I am assuming that the political resistance to installing new nuclear power plants will end.”
Yes these are desirable courses of action but they aren’t necessarily going to happen just because we want them to happen.
There is a lot of coal left to be dug out, and if there is going to be “peak coal” it isn’t going to be any time soon. If it is all burned too quickly then there are going to be problems. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be used – just not all at once that’s all.
If CO2 emissions are free then coal will probably be cheaper than nuclear for the foreseeable future. And you need to have some mechanism in your model to explain why what you assume will happen, will actually happen.
PeterM
We do not know for sure what will happen in the future.
But what we do know is that all fossil fuel reserves are limited (even coal).
Oil reserves are largely located in politically unstable regions.
The largest natural gas deposits are also located in these regions.
Fuel for nuclear fission does not have this problem. And there is no foreseeable shortage.
So it is quite logical to assume that nuclear power will grow to become the predominant source for electrical power (as it already has in France). France has not concluded that coal is less expensive than nuclear, so why should anyone else?
And there will always be a small “niche” market for local solar or wind power, where this makes overall economic sense.
Petroleum products (gasoline/diesel) for motor fuel will become more expensive. They will most likely eventually be replaced with “biofuels” combined with electrical batteries charged with nuclear power.
The assumptions here are that the current political aversion to new nuclear power generation will end as governments begin to see that we are running out of options.
Motor fuel will also gradually shift from gasoline/diesel to non- fossil fuel sources (biofuels or electrical) as these become economically viable.
I am less pessimistic than you, Peter, in the ability of the economy to naturally take care of these shifts without any strong push from governments or politicians (i.e. direct or indirect taxation). These things will occur naturally, as they have in the past.
It is, therefore, quite reasonable to assume that there will be a gradual shift away from increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels to other sources.
And this will mean that atmospheric CO2 levels will reach a maximum level (somewhere between 450 and 500 ppmv) and then start a gradual decline as CO2 decay exceeds new CO2 entering the system.
Nobody knows for sure, of course, but that is what is most likely to happen.
What is not very likely to happen is a direct continuation of what happened in the past (as assumed by IPCC).
You have not brought any specific reasons to convince me otherwise, Peter.
Max
Max a couple of things if I may be sold bold to point them out. You are being far too pessimistic about hydrocarbon fuels and how long we will be using them. The so called unconventional gas and oil is coming on strong, and as has happened every year of my life the world’s reserves of oil and gas have gone up yet again. Some of the biggest reserves of unconventional oil are in the west and as an example the US is already self-sufficient in gas. The only thing stopping them from exporting gas is the fact that all the gas terminals are geared to import gas and need modifying.
Burning of coal is a waste and provided we can convert to nuclear coal to oil and gas to oil plants will become common. This gives years and years of additional reserves. And the Abiogenic Theory of Petroleum Formation will not go away. So Max far from there being a steady move away from liquid hydrocarbon fuel we will see it around for a long time yet.
It may take some time but several facts of life about electric cars are refusing to enter the heads of policy makers mainly that whilst most of our electricity comes from coal or gas electric cars are a gross waste and a very inefficient use of those hydrocarbon fuels. So for mobile transport the diesel engine will continue to dominate long after we have departed this world.
Biofuels, at least from agricultural land or palm oil grown in rainforests should be banned. They are detracting from food production and encouraging the destruction of further habitat for wild life.
If we managed to go nuclear by 2100, primarily with the molten salt thorium reactor then I can foresee the electric car gaining some traction as we would be bound to have improved batteries by then and fuel cost will be negligible in a thorium reactor compared to a hydrocarbon fuel. The cost is in infrastructure and running costs. This is important as BTU for BTU an electric car charged from our current infrastructure using current batteries will over the course of its life use 3 to 4 times the hydrocarbon fuel than if it were directly using diesel fuel. All of today’s comparisons use simplistic figures that ignore the thermal efficiency of the generating plant, the transmission losses, the charging losses, the fact that no road tax is currently charged, and loss of battery efficiency and the cost of replacing the batteries. These are very real issue Max and with not inconsiderable cost and technical challenge. Our green friends and many others who should know better continue to underestimate these hidden costs and challenges. By the way there is about 5000 thousand years of thorium ore stock pile in friendly places already.
Peter Geany
Thanks for your very interesting post (I agree with everything you wrote).
Your observation on oil and gas reserves in light of the huge “unconventional” sources such as shales is spot on. I do not believe we are anywhere near a “peak oil” crunch (this “scare” comes up anew every 10 years or so, with the “crunch” date simply moved by 10 years each time).
I also agree with you that burning coal to produce electricity is a waste. It is much more valuable as a source of liquid hydrocarbons for non-combustion use.
Nuclear fission is the answer, especially if, as you wrote, fast breeder reactors with thorium can essentially solve the spent fuel problem (and there is an unlimited supply of thorium). We still have the political problem with new nuclear plant construction, caused by green activist groups, but I am assuming that this can be overcome (as it has in France).
New hydroelectric power generation is limited. Solar and wind will probably continue to be local small-scale solutions, but will never constitute a significant portion of the electrical power produced and consumed.
Natural gas will continue to be used as a clean, convenient energy source for domestic heating, but using it to generate electrical power is a waste.
Burning petroleum derivatives (or natural gas) as motor fuel is also a waste, provided there is a low-cost alternate.
As far as renewable liquid biofuels are concerned, I agree with you that palm oil or corn ethanol are bad solutions for the reasons you stated, but (higher yield) sugar cane ethanol is working in Brazil, and the research by oil companies on algae as a renewable source apparently looks promising. So this is one alternate to petroleum products if these become competitive.
Another possibility is hybrid or all electric cars, assuming that better battery technology can be developed. Will this alternate, based on low-cost nuclear power, ever compete economically with the internal combustion or diesel engine? Or, better said, at what cost of crude oil would it become competitive? (You say that today it is 3 times less efficient than diesel on a BTU for BTU basis, so crude oil would have to be quite expensive, nuclear power quite cheap and batteries would have to be a lot more efficient for electric cars to really compete.)
And there is always hydrogen as a motor fuel (although I doubt that this will ever become a major solution, due to the problems with safety, etc.).
Lots of questions, but I believe that there will be a natural move away from fossil fuels over the next 100 years.
And I believe that the fossil fuel reserves we have and can develop over time will last many hundreds if not thousands of years as a result.
This also tells me that the level of atmospheric CO2 will rise for the next several decades and then start to slowly decrease as the natural CO2 decay exceeds the amount of human emissions (all this follows the rather simplistic IPCC assumption that human emissions and natural decay are the only net contributors affecting the atmospheric CO2 content, and that the natural “half-life” of CO2 in our climate system is somewhere around 125 years).
On this basis we would have a theoretically calculated CO2 concentration leveled off at around 450 ppmv by year 2100, whereas with IPCC’s “B1 scenario” it would be around 580 ppmv (other IPCC scenarios resulting in projections of higher CO2 levels can be discarded as unrealistic, as they assume greatly increased CAGR of CO2 as compared to the past, despite a much slower CAGR of population).
And I certainly do not believe that governments need to get involved in subsidizing “green energy” projects (just look at the US corn to ethanol disaster and the UK disaster with costly, inefficient wind farms), or imposing draconian (direct or indirect) carbon taxes on their citizens for this natural shift to occur.
These are just my thoughts on this, but it looks like we agree on most of the points.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Now let’s hear PeterM’s thoughts…
Max
Peter Geany and Max,
Yes, burning coal, can be described as wasteful, and dirty. Regardless of the CO2 implications, it should be saved and used more slowly for more productive purposes.
However, it’s cheap. About 20% cheaper than nuclear when used for electricity generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
So, left to the workings of the free market, coal is always going to be used in preference to any alternative.
So, what would you suggest we do to stop this happening?
PeterM
To your question on coal, I do not believe your assumption is correct that coal is 20% less expensive that nuclear for power generation, when all factors are considered (in particular the costs of completely cleaning up flue gases, making coal mines environmentally acceptable, etc.).
In fact, I believe that just the opposite is true. Why would France have installed nuclear plants for 80% of its power generation if this were more expensive?
Because it isn’t, that’s why.
And nuclear will get even more competitive once thorium based fast breeder reactors are commercially available; these are now being tested in several locations. And, as Peter Geany has pointed out, there is no global shortage of thorium.
But let’s switch topics.
Let’s talk CO2 lifetime in our climate system.
Segalstad has shown several estimates of the short-term lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere; these are between 5 and 15 years, but they do not take into account the amount of CO2 absorbed and de-gassed continuously by the oceans.
So we need to look at the long-term residence time of CO2 in the climate system.
IPCC has estimated that the long-term residence time of CO2 in our climate system is between 50 and 200 years:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/016.htm
Peter Dietze has estimated this to be 55 years (half life of 38 years).
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Let’s make the simplistic assumption (as IPCC does) that the only net causes for changes in atmospheric CO2 are a) the increase from human emissions and b) the reduction from natural CO2 “decay” in the system.
We see that the net total of human emissions is around 35 Gt CO2 per year.
The atmosphere has a total mass of 5,140,000 Gt.
So human emissions should cause an annual increase of:
35 * 1,000,000 / 5.140,000 = 6.8 ppm(mass) or 6.8 * 29 / 44 = 4.5 ppmv
Yet we have only observed an increase of around 2.2 ppmv per year.
Let’s assume (again simplistically) that the “missing” CO2 is actually the amount of CO2 “decay” from the system.
The missing 2.3 ppmv is around -2.3 / 390 = -0.58% of the current CO2 concentration.
Using the half-life formula, we see that a half-life of 120 years would result in annual CO2 reduction of -0.58% of the concentration during that year.
n = 1 / 120; CO2 lost to decay = 1 – (1/2^n) = 0.0058 = 0.58%
A 120-year half-life gives a rough confirmation of the IPCC estimate that the lifetime of CO2 in the climate system is between 50 and 200 years.
So it appears that the IPCC estimate is closer than that of Dietze.
What do you think?
Max
Max,
Unlike you, I’m not making any assumptions. I’m giving you references. If you have figures to show that nuclear is cheaper than coal please provide them. I agree that coal would be dearer if the cost of cleaning the flue gases, inc CO2, were included. But you’re dead against that, aren’t you?
France doesn’t have any coal in quantities that can be mined economically in competition with easily accessible coal deposits in countries like South Africa and Australia. So it would rather spend a bit extra on its energy. Most of the associated cost is capital rather than the raw fuel, with nuclear, so that extra is spent in France rather than on imported fossil fuels.
PeterM
The long-term cost of power generation from coal including cleaning up all the pollutants in the flue gas is higher than that of nuclear, as the French have concluded.
I am not at all opposed to cleaning up the flue gas from coal-fired power plants as you have erroneously surmised. On the contrary. I have lived in China and have seen (and breathed) the horrible air pollution that results from all these pollutants.
http://www.healthandenergy.com/coal.htm
Here’s what another study has to say about pollutants from coal burning:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
In addition to 3.7 million tons of harmless CO2, a typical 500 MW coal-fired power plant generates the following real pollutants per year:
That’s the stuff that all needs to be cleaned up to prevent air pollution from coal-fired power plants. And this costs a lot of money (so the Chinese, for example, don’t do it). But the French would have to clean up all this stuff if they used coal. So, for the French, nuclear power is cheaper than “clean” coal-fired power.
And that was my point.
Max
PeterM
You asked for references (3644) on nuclear versus coal-fired power generation costs.
Here is one study that tells us the cost of nuclear power generation is the same as that for coal-fired generation
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
This study shows that, across the globe, nuclear generation is slightly less expensive:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
This study shows that in the USA the costs for nuclear and coal are the same, with natural gas, oil, wind and solar several times this high (only hydroelectric is lower):
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
None of the above comparisons include the cost of hare-brained dream-schemes like “carbon sequestration” in the coal-fired cost.
Max
PeterM
Here is a table comparing the cost of nuclear power with other sources in various countries.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5013/5464380354_0fa2faa012_b.jpg
As you can see, nuclear is quite competitive with coal.
Max
PeterM
Now that we’ve laid the question of nuclear versus coal-fired power costs to rest, can we talk about CO2 residence time in our climate system (3643)?
It seems to me that this is an important factor in the projections of future CO2 levels. What do you think?
Max
Max,
You seem remarkably eager to change the subject! I suspect that you know you are on shaky ground!
I’m not saying that nuclear power is much more expensive that coal power, but it is slightly more expensive. The figures you have given already include an element of the emissions cost of CO2 but at present in the US and many other countries that is rated at zero cost.
We all know that when looking for a tankful of petrol we’ll call in at filling station B even if the price is just a few cents less than filling station A and its the same with coal vs nuclear. If CO2 emissions are allowed for for free then coal has the edge. However, start to put a price on them and nuclear does look the better option. If I’m wrong in saying that then the world will go nuclear anyway and putting a price on CO2 emissions won’t make any difference, so its a no lose situation for anyone.
There is no question of shutting down the worlds economy to fix the CO2 emissions problem.
PeterM
No shaky ground at all. But maybe you are on thin ice.
The coal fired costs in the table include a $0.025/kWh “carbon cost” (equates to $30/ton CO2).
If this is removed, coal is equal to nuclear and not “20% cheaper than nuclear when used for electricity generation”, as you wrote (3642).
Face it Peter, nuclear is a bit less expensive if a $0.025/kWh CO2 charge is added to the coal-fired generation cost, and the two are a wash without the carbon charge.
And that is what I have been saying all along.
But we have truly beaten this dog to death. So let’s move on.
Max