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,
If you’re right that nuclear power is cheaper than coal fired power, then applying a cost for CO2 emissions won’t change anything.
So why the objection to that?
SEC Charges Seven in Global Warming Pump-and-Dump Scheme
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-46.htm
PeterM
A “cost for CO2 emissions” is a (direct or indirect) tax, that must be borne by all the inhabitants of the developed world.
As I pointer out earlier, this would amount to around $4,000 per year for every man, woman and child in the USA, Australia, Canada, and around half of this for every inhabitant of the EU, Japan, Russia, the “Asian Tigers” and even South Africa.
This tax will not change our planet’s climate one iota, but is simply a burden on the inhabitants of the “industrially developed” nations.
So the question is not:
It is:
And it appears that you are unable to answer this question.
Max
Urban sites show warming since 1880 – rural sites do not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded
Here is an interesting you-tube put together by a father and son in USA, based on an analysis of GISS temperature records. You won’t see this in any IPCC reports, however.
Max
Max,
The point of a carbon tax or , cap and trade, is not to actually collect revenue but to create a disincentive towards CO2 emissions.
Its the same principle as tax on cigarettes. You could argue that this is an evil government scheme to raise revenue from nicotine addicts. If so why do governments ban TV tobacco advertising , ban Sports sponsorship, insist that cigarette packages carry health warnings etc?
Everyone who supports the scientific case for action on AGW would be absolutely delighted if the tax revenue from CO2 emissions was small. If you are right about nuclear power being cheaper than fossil fuel power then that is exactly what will happen.
So just as non smokers don’t make a fuss about tobacco taxes, there is no reason for users of nuclear power to complain about CO2 taxes either.
PeterM
Cigarette taxes are paid by those who are foolish enough to smoke.
Carbon taxes (direct or indirect) are mandated on an entire population, like it or not.
Big difference.
And the costs (to a US resident) will be $4,000 per person per year, and a bit more than half that for EU residents.
A US household has 2.6 people on average.
So the cost per household is over $10,000.
The state plus federal taxes on cigarettes in the USA total around $2.40 per pack.
To get to $4,000 per year you’d have to smoke 4.5 packs a day!
Forget about this silly analogy, Peter.
Max
Max,
Similarly, carbon dioxide taxes are paid by those who are antisocial enough to emit too much carbon dioxide!
You seem to be incapable of suggesting how CO2 levels could possibly be capped. If it was just a question of letting the market discover that nuclear power was actually cheaper than coal, CO2 levels would have flattened out by now. As it is, they’ve exponentially increased and haven’t showed the slightest sign of slowing down. You had it right first time when you said we were heading for 600ppmv and beyond under a business-as-usual scenario.
You can’t seem to bring yourself to believe that the scientific argument can be correct, even as a possible hypothesis. Mind you, I don’t know why I should expect you to be able to consider all possibilities on a “what if’ basis. I must keep forgetting that you’re a denier, not a rational sceptic!
PeterM
Your diatribe (3657) does not change the facts
Let me ask you: Do you accept the “what if” supposition that the “dangerous AGW” postulation could have been exposed as false? Or are you simply a “denier” of the facts around you, which support this supposition?
The so-called “science” supporting “dangerous AGW” has been shown to be faulty, the promoters of the sales pitch (IPCC) have been shown to be politically motivated and corrupt and (worst of all for the DAGW aficionados) nature has turned against the alarmists by unexplainedly stopping warming for a full decade despite record increase in CO2 levels. (A “travesty”.)
As a result, several things have happened: public acceptance of IPCC has essentially disappeared, political support is waning, the media are beginning to drop IPCC as the holy grail and many scientists have come out openly against the IPCC disaster predictions at the same time as Copenhagen and Cancun have turned out to be monumental political failures.
Listen to the serious scientists, like Dr. Judith Curry. These are not “deniers”, Peter. In fact they have supported the AGW hypothesis. They are simply frustrated by the turn of events and beginning to question the validity of the rigid IPCC dogma, which you support so religiously, and the questionable process followed by IPCC and the climate “insiders”.
And with this questioning comes a rational skepticism of the science supporting the premise that AGW, indeed, represents a serious threat to mankind, the premise to which you continue to cling so faithfully.
You write:
Actually, I can “believe that the scientific argument” for the GH hypothesis “can be correct as a possible hypothesis”. I am a bit rationally skeptical of the extrapolation of this hypothesis to the more alarming suggestion that this should represent a potential serious problem for mankind.
But can you bring yourself to believe that the scientific argument can be incorrect, even as a possible hypothesis?
I hardly believe that your past behavior has shown this to be the case, Peter.
So we are at loggerheads.
As a rational skeptic, I demand empirical data from you to support your (dangerous AGW) hypothesis. I will certainly consider accepting it as soon as I see (and validate) these data.
But you are unable to come up with these data.
And the facts around you are falsifying your hypothesis.
That’s where we stand today, Peter.
Max
PeterM
You wrote:
Sorry, Peter, you forget what stopped the building of new nuclear plants in almost all countries (except France).
It was not “a question of letting the market discover that nuclear power was actually cheaper than coal”, but the environmentalists, many of the same guys that are now trying to stop new coal-fired plants!
As they are doing today with AGW, they used fear mongering to convinced the public that nuclear power was unsafe, and that the next Chernobyl was just around the corner. “Seven Mile Island” was painted as a “near Chernobyl”. As a result, people got frightened and new nuclear plants were stopped.
So it was not economics, but fear mongering by environmentalists, that stopped nuclear power growth and CO2 levels from flattening out as a result.
Max
Max,
Strange as it may seem, nuclear power wasn’t developed originally to be a source of power. Its rise wasn’t driven by the normal economics of energy production. The main product was fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. The by-product was electricity. The cover story was that this was actually the other way around. When the Iranians come out with exactly the same line, they aren’t telling any different lies than have been told many times before! So it takes one to know one when cover stories about nuclear power are being told.
The apparent demise of nuclear power in the 80’s and 90’s wasn’t so much to do with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, as the end of the Cold war and the reduced need for fissile materials. If the Pentagon had wanted nuclear power to continue to grow, do you really think they would have let a few environmentalists stop them? Chernobyl and increased environmental concerns was highly convenient for them at the time.
Not surprisingly, those who could see through these untruths in the 60’s and 70’s, when AGW wasn’t seriously considered to be a problem, and were adamantly opposed to the development of nuclear weapons were opposed to nuclear power generally.
These attitudes do need to be revised in the light of changing circumstances.
PeterM
Your take on how nuclear power was developed is interesting, and certainly correct regarding the start of nuclear power. The rest of your thesis (of the Pentagon causing the anti-nuke hysteria) is a bit more speculative
As you probably remember from your history book, Nazi Germany had a bit of a head start on the Allies, both with the development of an atomic bomb and of rockets.
Fortunately for the world, the USA caught up and was the first to develop the bomb.
The two bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an estimated 180,000-200,000 Japanese, but are credited with shortening WWII in the Pacific by at least six months, avoiding the need for an invasion of the main Japanese islands and saving an estimated 500,000 American (and Allied) plus several million Japanese lives.
So you could say they were net lifesavers in a big way.
Three Mile Island and the ensuing hysteria (Jane Fonda, etc.) plus a bunch of lawyers and green activists helped kill the US nuclear program, while post-Chernobyl panic did the same in Europe (primarily Germany), actually helping to give a real political boost to the Green Party movements there.
It is really tough for these anti-nukes to have to switch horses in order to “save the planet” from today’s new imaginary hobgoblin of “coal death trains” (I’d say it’s the same misguided hysteria at work, being orchestrated by some of the same “green” individuals, even).
So many of them are deluding themselves with pipe dreams of solar and wind power (or returning to a “more idyllic” early-19th century lifestyle).
Many politicians have also fallen into the “renewables” trap, to hell with the real impact on the environment (TonyN has elaborated on the UK situation).
But I agree with you that, if the political elite really want to move away from fossil fuels (for whatever conjured up reasons supported by whatever scientific sounding projections), they will need to stop opposing the addition of new nuclear power capacity and allow the same thing to happen as has already occurred in France, where (believe it or not) the politicians have been a bit more realistic than their counterparts in the rest of Europe (or even the USA, for that matter) regarding nuclear power.
Germany has made the first tiny step in this direction, by extending the moratorium date. (There was some green opposition to this, but it could not hold.)
Switzerland has just authorized the first new nuclear plant, after having outsmarted green opposition to new nuclear capacity in the past by disguising it as “revamping existing plants” (which does not require a site permit).
The UK politicians appear to still be dithering, but maybe TonyN knows more about that.
I’d say, look for a renaissance of nuclear power throughout the developed world over the next decades with a lot of new technological breakthroughs in this area, as well.
So that’s the “good news” (for those concerned about carbon emissions).
Now the “not so good” news.
Even if the industrialized and developing nations switch to nuclear, there will still be the need for new fossil-fuel fired plants, particularly in order to help the poorest (non-nuclear) nations of this world develop an economically viable energy infrastructure to pull their populations out of abject poverty and eliminate the millions of deaths attributed to indoor fuel burning and unclean drinking water.
There are at least 2 billion people involved here today. And let’s say this part of the world is growing at twice the projected global 0.28% per year CAGR. That makes 3.3 billion people by 2100 or an average over the next 90 years of around 2.7 billion.
Let’s say each person generates an average of 0.3mt CO2 per year today (the level in Ghana). Once they have low-cost fossil fuel based energy available, let’s say they each generate 1.3mt CO2 per year (same as the average in India today). So this would mean a new CO2 emission of:
2.7 * (1.3 – 0.3) = 2.7 GtCO2/year (today’s global total is a bit over 30 GtCO2/year, so this would represent 9% of today’s world total)
But, hey, is this really “bad news”? And, if so, how bad?.
This added CO2 would increase the atmospheric level by an estimated 27 ppmv by 2100, and this would cause a theoretical increase of “global” temperature of 0.2C (using IPCC’s exaggerated 2xCO2 assumption).
I’d call that “no news”, except for the 4 million who are dying today from indoor fuel burning and unclean drinking water – for them it’s “good news”.
What do you think, Peter?
Max
What do I think? I think that nuclear power, as used for electricity generation, is just slightly more expensive than coal fired power.
If that wasn’t the case, why would the UK government has chosen to build a new power station at Kingsnorth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsnorth_Power_Station
Sure, you can probably find some figures to suggest that the UK government have made the wrong choice. However, I’m sure they have their own figures to back up that choice.
Can you suggest some mechanism for preventing these ‘wrong choices’ in future? Can you justify your ‘assumption’ that nuclear power will increasingly be used to replace fossil fuels over the course of the next century?
PeterM
The net cost of nuclear is actually a wash or slightly lower than the net cost of coal, if all the flue gas cleanup measures are included, as I showed you with the various references. So cost is not an issue.
But do you seriously think for a minute that the UK government is making a decision based on economics?
Duh!
If this were so, the past government would never have wasted all that money chasing expensive and ineffective windmills.
No. I believe the decision was more political than economic (after all they are politicians, not business people, right?).
So the anticipated political fall-out of adding coal fired power (from the dwindling number of believers in the AGW scare) is less onerous than that of adding new nuclear power (from a larger number of anti-nuke greenies) or of doing nothing (from an enraged population after the lights go out).
Actually, as you have also remarked, it is an ironic dilemma that the eco-activists have painted themselves into an anti-nuke and anti-CO2 corner with no viable alternates to propose.
But then, these guys are not business people, either.
Max
PeterM
To your second question concerning the UK government’s choice of building a coal-fired rather than a nuclear power plant:
First step in the “mechanism”: stop blocking nuclear plants. Get a backbone and simply ignore the anti-nuke lobby (they do not represent the general populace). Let the population know that the government is perfectly satisfied that there are no risks involved if fail-safe technologies (as exist today) are installed. Instead of wasting government money to sell the AGW scare through TV ads (which are not working), use this money to educate the population on the safety of nuclear power technology. Think positive – not only negative.
Second step: Stop chasing windmills. Cancel all new wind farm projects unless these can be shown to be competitive with nuclear power on a delivered kWh basis without any taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Third step: Develop a realistic energy policy, which will ensure that the UK has the energy infrastructure it needs to be competitive on world markets and to keep the lights from going out at home.
At the same time, continue all programs, which are intended to increase energy efficiency and reduce waste.
I’d say that ought to do it (at least for a start).
Agreed?
Max
PeterM
A final (more drastic) step to get the UK government to stop blocking new nuclear power plants (that might have some of the UK bloggers here up in arms):
Bring in some Frenchmen.
Temporarily assign Sarkozy the PM job for all matters concerning energy and the environment, with David Cameron, acting as his “Vice-PM” and personal assistant. (Send Cameron to a crash course to improve his French language skills, since Sarkozy is not so hot in English.)
Fire Energy and Environment Secretary, Chris Huhne, replacing him with EdF chairman and CEO, Henri Proglio, who will ensure that EdF gets all contracts to install future nuclear plants and a 30% stake in all new power plants in the UK going forward.
To get the environment angle covered as well, back Proglio up with the French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing, Mme. Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (she’s a charming enough French lady, who even speaks fair English with just a bit of a pleasant French lilt).
Keep these changes in place for at least five years.
Max
Yes of course energy policy should be realistic and we know that wind turbines aren’t going to cut it. The anti-nuke lobby are the mirror image of you lot. You are both ignoring the scientific evidence for political reasons.
The situation is quite dangerous. On the political right there is just way too much denialism on the question of AGW. On the political left, there is a tendency to wishfully think that the problem can be solved with the so-called renewables..
Incidentally, James Hansen isn’t as popular as you think he might be in some circles because of his advocacy of nuclear power. I’m quite sure he’s right both on that and the climate, although I realise he’s strayed outside his area of expertise on the nuclear issue.
Yes, it would be good if both sides of politics could be ignored and us sensible pro-science types be given a free rein to do what was necessary. The problem is that we need the support of the right on nuclear power, and the we also need to convince the left that there isn’t any other viable option.
Maybe that’s too tall an order and we’ll all end up stuffed!
PeterM
Let me comment on your last post:
Agreed on both counts.
Not agreed. The second statement is pure, unsubstantiated BS.
Not agreed. You have been unable to provide any empirical scientific data to support this premise, despite many requests from several bloggers here (including me) to do so. Sorry.
I cannot speak for “the political right”, but as far as I am concerned, there is no denial of AGW, per se – simply a rational skepticism of your premise that this has been the principal cause of past warming and that it constitutes a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment – until you can provide empirical scientific data to support this premise.
I do not know if this is a problem of “the political left”, nor do I know that there is “a problem” (see above), but I do agree that renewables will not be able to get us away from fossil fuels.
No comment on the first part. On the second part, I’m sure he is quite wrong on the impact of CO2 on our climate (as his dismally failed forecasts back in 1988 have shown). I am also sure he is quite wrong on his “hidden in the pipeline” postulation (as the cooling of the upper ocean since 2003 despite record CO2 increase has shown).
I agree. And I would define Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Loehle, Akasofu et al. (as well as Curry) as “sensible pro-science types”. Would you?
I don’t know about “left” or “right”, but I have no problem with nuclear power. It will undoubtedly play a more important role in the future, as the eco-lobbyists have to face the difficult dilemma of their own making between CO2 and nuclear.
Peter, I hardly believe so. We will gradually wean ourselves from fossil fuels as the primary energy source for electrical power and transportation, as their resources become rarer and costlier to exploit and as improved nuclear and battery technologies become commercially available.
At the same time, we will continue to rely on low-cost fossil fuel power generation to help the underdeveloped nations build up economically, environmentally (and politically) viable energy infrastructures to lift their populations out of abject poverty.
I estimate that this approach will result in atmospheric CO2 leveling off at somewhere around 450 ppmv in the late 21st century.
Based on the evidence at hand, I estimate that this CO2 level would cause a theoretical increase in the global atmospheric temperature anomaly construct of no more than around 0.5C over today by year 2100.
I have also concluded that this slightly higher temperature plus higher CO2 level will have a net beneficial effect on crop growths and yields without any detrimental effects to human society or the environment.
And I challenge you, Peter, to refute me on this (with specifics, rather than generalities or “arguments from authority”) if you can.
Max
PeterM
Back to the slow long-term replacement of of coal with nuclear plus a bit of local renewables (for all new power plants in the developed world plus as older plants are phased out) and slowdown of use of oil and gas (increased use of hybrid or all electrical motor transport, cut back use for power generation, replacing with nuclear).
Bases for calculation:
– Global population increases at 0.28% per year CAGR, reaching 9 billion by 2100 (UN “middle” estimate)
– Overall energy demand continues to increase at 0.4% per year CAGR until 2100
– Construction of new coal-fired power plants stopped in 2015
– All new electrical power from nuclear (plus a small amount locally from renewables, where economically viable)
– Starting in 2030, older coal-fired plants get phased out at around 3% per year
– Nuclear power (plus a small amount of new renewables including hydroelectric) will replace all phased out fossil fuel generation
– By 2070 coal fired power generation levels off (new plants in developing countries = shutdowns in developed world)
– Oil for transport grows at 0.4% per year until 2030
– Starting 2030, half of all new automobiles are hybrid or battery operated (power from nuclear)
– Starting 2050, two-thirds of all new automobiles are hybrid or battery operated (power from nuclear)
– Starting 2070, three-fourths of all new automobiles are hybrid or battery operated (power from nuclear)
– By 2100 all automobiles, trucks, etc. are hybrid or battery operated (power from nuclear)
– Natural gas consumption grows by 0.4% per year until 2030
– Starting 2030, natural gas consumption grows at 0.2% per year
– Starting 2050, natural gas consumption flattens out
– By 2100 only 7% of world’s electrical power will be from coal (today = 41%)
– By 2100 only 11% of world’s electrical power will be from oil and gas (today = 26%)
– By 2100 60% of the world’s electrical power will be from nuclear (today = 15%)
– By 2100 12% of the world’s electrical power will be from hydroelectric) (today = 16%)
– By 2100 10% of the world’s electrical power will be from other renewables (today = 2%)
– By 2100 coal consumption will be at 35% of 2010 consumption
– By 2100 oil consumption will be at 80% of 2010 consumption
– By 2100 natural gas consumption will be at 130% of 2010 consumption
– As a result, human CO2 emissions will be around 60% of today’s level
– “Half life” of CO2 in system = 120 years, i.e. “decay rate” ~ 0.58%/year
– As a result atmospheric CO2 concentration is estimated to increase from 390 ppmv today to around 460 ppmv by 2070 and remain at that level
All of this happens in a naturally developing market, with the main input from “governments” that they no longer impede the construction of new nuclear power plants and reduce restrictions on the exploration and development of new oil and gas resources (including shales). It is expected that crude oil prices will increase naturally to over $120/bbl, as more difficult and costly area of production are developed. As a result oil will become a premium feedstock for petrochemicals and fertilizers, while gas will continue to be used as a feedstock for fertilizers plus a clean source for domestic and industrial heating.
Coal can be used to produce liquid fuels and petrochemical feedstocks.
Following such a plan, the world’s oil and gas reserves would be expected to last for several hundred years.
As a side benefit, atmospheric CO2 would level off at around 460 ppmv long term.
What do you think of this, Peter?
Doesn’t it sound a lot better than all those doomsday scenarios we used to hear?
Max
Guys,
Check this out………comments?
http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/
Max,
You assume “Nuclear power (plus a small amount of new renewables including hydroelectric) will replace all phased out fossil fuel generation”
Which would be good. By why should it happen? Suppose its just a tiny bit more expensive (say 1%) than fossil fuel. Actually in countries like Australia, South Africa and North America which still have abundant coal supplies, and there are no transport costs involved, and the economic case for nuclear is weak, to say the least, if CO2 emissions are allowed for free.
So why do you insist that they should be for free? And furthermore, why make an assumption, when there is no basis for it, other than just wishful thinking?
PeterM
You ask “why” there should be a shift from conventional coal-fired power generation to nuclear.
It’s not a matter of “wishful thinking”. The figures I cited earlier show that, with all the air pollution control measures currently required, coal generation is marginally more expensive overall than nuclear including capital interest costs.
Even “clean” coal generation still has some very harmful residual air pollutants, which would be very costly to remove completely (SO2, NOx, Hg, etc.) . (Believe it or not) coal generation also has a higher level of radiation pollution than nuclear.
Capital investment is higher for nuclear than coal.
On the other hand, coal fuel cost is much higher than nuclear fuel. This is true even in Australia and USA.
New, fast-breeder technology, using thorium, will make nuclear even more attractive, as it will essentially eliminate the waste cost (currently between 15 and 20% of total cost). This technology is being tested today.
The future is clearly nuclear, not coal, even forgetting about the hypothetical CO2 problem. The example here is France, which now generates 80% of its power from nuclear (without any “carbon tax”).
The main impediment today is government hesitation to grant nuclear permits, due to past anti-nuke hysteria campaigns by activist groups.
Coal-fired power plants will still be needed in many non-nuclear developing nations (for nuclear proliferation reasons), but I predict that coal will diminish in importance overall, from its current 41% of all power generation to below 10% by 2100, with nuclear (plus some renewables and possible new technologies) taking over this capacity.
Try to convince me otherwise, Peter.
Max
Max,
The last Australian Liberal government commissioned a report into nuclear power and it did find that it would be competitive but only if carbon credits were included in balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia
The article does state that the Australian Liberals went into the 2007 election on a pro-nuclear package, but if that is technically true, it was half hearted at best. It just wasn’t an issue. The Switkowski report was heavily criticised on all sides for painting too rosy a picture of nuclear power and, there is no way that Switkowski himself could be described as impartial on the question.
The coal lobby in Australia is very powerful; there is an unholy de-facto alliance between them, the Greens, and the Australian Labour Party, most of the Australian Liberal and National parties to prevent any nuclear power industry developing in Australia even though there is one finding that a majority of the Australian population would be in favour of building nuclear power stations. The need for it has never properly been explained by any political grouping, and if it were, I’m confident there would be enough public support.
So, the chance of anything happening here any time soon is just about zilch, and a fairly high price on CO2 emissions is the only possible factor which can change that.
Sorry, Peter.
I am not going to discuss the competitiveness of nuclear versus coal power generation with you any further. I have shown you the references, which confirm that in the OECD nations, nuclear generation is considerably less expensive than coal if a carbon tax is included.
If the carbon tax is excluded, nuclear is still marginally less expensive on average, although the difference is quite small.
4.6 US cents per kWh = Nuclear
7.4 US cents per kWh = Coal with 2.5 US cents per kWh for “carbon tax” (at $30 per mt CO2)
4.9 US cents per kWh = Coal with no “carbon tax”
These cost all include a calculated return on capital investment, which is higher for nuclear than for coal.
The pure operating costs, however, are much lower for nuclear, since fuel cost is only a fraction of the cost for coal.
The comparison was made with current flue gas cleanup restrictions and technology. It is reasonable to assume that these will become even more stringent than today, thereby increasing the cost of coal generation further.
A major part of the nuclear cost (15-20%) is spent fuel disposal charges. These will be essentially eliminated when new thorium based fast feeder technology is commercially available, thereby making nuclear even more competitive with coal.
That’s good enough for me as a long term comparison, because I can see that nuclear will continue to get even less expensive as new and improved technologies are developed while coal is pretty much at the end of its development cycle and may even become more expensive, as emission standards on SO2, NOx, Hg, etc. are further tightened.
So forget the Wiki study (maybe Wiki is simply trying to justify a carbon tax?)
Max
Brute
Your article on solid oxide fuel cells is just another piece of the puzzle (this time for the gradual reduction or even essential replacement of petroleum-based fuel for cars and natural gas or light fuel oil heating for homes in the future).
Peter still thinks we need a “carbon tax” to eventually get away from fossil fuels, but this will happen naturally as new developments and the market economics justify it.
Max
Max,
In your 3671 you say “Try to convince me otherwise, Peter.”
In your 3673, and after my 3672, its now “I am not going to discuss the competitiveness of nuclear versus coal power generation with you any further.”
And you wonder why I call you a denier rather than a sceptic!