Australian Climate Council advertises trendy toy

I don’t mind the idea of this eco-capsule, and if I were a single professional with a reason to travel, maybe this would be my thing. But surely this isn’t the sort of ‘answer’ to climate change that the ACC should be pushing? Surely they’re not serious that this is going to change the world? I mean, at over $81,000 (with delivery to Australia), this is really only single person living. I can’t imagine sharing this with a partner, and climbing over them to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night.  Unless you both had a semi-military mindset.

If an expensive and small eco-friendly caravan is your thing, then it could be an option. But it just seems the ACC doesn’t have anything else to talk about, and can’t bring themselves to recognise the inevitability of  pumping out the 115 reactors a year that Dr James Hansen recommends.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Seabin catches plastics at the river or harbour

Now this is interesting

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

James Hansen a ‘denier’

Wow. This is a new low from the renewables fans. It cuts deep, because normally I respect Naomi Oreskes. But that’s gone now. She is not an expert in the subject she’s discussing, and quotes a very dubious study into 100% renewables that obviously supports some anti-nuclear meme she’s inherited, and suggests James Hansen is a denier to boot.

I have not had time to research the more peer-reviewed responses to Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewable plan. But here’s a comment from Frank Jablonski, a reader at Brave New Climate. Once again we see the common renewable themes that somehow magically switching to renewables reduces electricity consumption, despite needing to manufacture or recharge all our alternatives to oil. I am left saddened by the political divide around renewables.

The Left says “Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and 100% renewables is the only answer so we all have to tighten our belts, change our behaviour, and generally Powerdown and feel guilty.”

The Right says “There is no climate change, and nuclear power is the answer.” They trust to market forces, and cannot see a role for public ownership of nuclear power for safe, reliable, accountable and affordable ‘energy embassies’ as described by Tom Bless in Chapter 10 of Prescription for the Planet.

Where I am open to whatever works to solve climate change, including convenient, reliable, baseload nuclear power that can be deployed fast enough that any energy efficiency gains we make along the way will just boost our economy. Anyway, over to Frank.

The website touting Mark Jacobson’s plan (linked by Naomi Oreskes while decrying James Hansen as a “denier”) has now responded to me with a link to the background analytical information. Good for them.

Here it is:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html

As I indicated before, with tongue-in-cheek, and, unfortunately, to Mr. Greisch’s chagrin, the “WWS” Terrawatts (seemingly capacity – I don’t know what happened to Terrawatt hours) needed are reduced, worldwide, by 32%, with the claim being that this is because of the switch to “WWS.” (see: the ppt file referenced on the linked page, slide 12).

For the US, the projected reduction is 37%.

And, as indicated before, this capacity reduction, to intermittent sources, appears to take place while simultaneously switching uses to electricity, and to hydrogen, which they get from the electricity when there is oversupply:

“[Loads for the “lower 48″ of the United States] are first estimated for 2050 assuming each end-use energy sector (residential, transportation, commercial, industrial) is converted to electricity and some electrolytic hydrogen after accounting for modest improvements in end-use energy efficiency (22).”

(see: p. 1)

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/CONUSGridIntegration.pdf

The referenced note “(22)” refers to: “Ackerman TP, Toon OB (1981) Absorption of visible radiation in atmosphere containing mixtures of absorbing and nonabsorbing particles. Appl Opt 20(20): 3661-3667.” (id, p. 33)

Also, of note:

“all 2050 loads are supplied only with WWS technologies”

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/CONUSGridIntegration.pdf(id.: p. 3)

The projected cost, accounting for externalities, is asserted to be negative:

” . . . whereas the 2050 business costs of WWS and conventional electricity are similar, the social (overall) cost of WWS is 40% that
of conventional electricity (id.: p.6)

I am not going to write anything more because I am striving like the dickens to avoid sarcasm. However, please have a look, if you like.

This is the articulated analysis that people like Naomi Oreskes reference as they label people “deniers” for advocating nuclear energy as a carbon free option.

Posted in Activism, Denial, Nuclear, nuclear power, Renewable energy, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rail carries 10 times more than bus

Rail is needed in all of the world’s cities as it can enable travel time savings and space efficiencies no longer achievable by car and bus. Rail can carry 20 times as many people compared to a single lane of freeway and five to 10 times that of a bus way.
Posted in Transport | 1 Comment

Geological peak oil still a thing

*Geological* peak oil is still a thing. Just finished watching an Al Jazeera thing explaining that big OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia were over-producing to put American unconventional oil producers out of business, as they are only viable at the much higher prices of a few years back. They said most OPEC nations were only profitable at around $60 a barrel, the same price that grabbed headline attention and the attention of the NSW Cross- Benchers my Sydney Peak Oil team briefed a decade ago. $60 is where we *should* be so that the average producers like Venezuela can make money.
What all this screams to an old peak oiler like myself is that we’re still at geological peak oil, despite crashing oil prices. This is an OPEC lead economic war against unconventional oils that are only profitable well *above* the sweet-crude breakeven of $60 a barrel. But here’s the thing. Peak oil isn’t the most pressing issue, as in a real crisis we could kick start Coal-To-Liquids. There’s the real danger. CTL and unconventionals dump far more carbon into the atmosphere. Peak oil will bump around through the economy in bizarre counter-intuitive ways like today’s *low* oil price, but climate change is the real monster lurking in the background.
We could beat climate change AND peak oil by switching to nukes + boron cars. Exxon will just have to switch to becoming Exxon Sanitation Inc, the guys that recycle our rubbish through a plasma-burner, to stay in business. Nukes, boron, & plasma burners all described in “Prescription for the Planet” below. (Free PDF)
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

Posted in Economics, Peak Oil, Pollution | 4 Comments

Captain James Kirk commands futuristic destroyer!


This next story is too good!

1. Captain James Kirk commands this brand new futuristic destroyer. I’m just saying! What are they not telling us? Anyone dug up a frozen genetically enhanced super-warriors named KHAN(!) lately?

star-trek-into-darkness.4137

2. EM gun! $25k per round instead of $1.5 MILLION for a cruise missile. Just think about the *money* Putin’s wasting firing cruise missiles at IS targets that are probably already vacated. If this destroyer pulled up alongside Syria, it could fire 177km inland at 60 targets for the same cost as 1 cruise missile!

1449643629220

 

Posted in Sci-Fi, War | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Naomi Klein makes me angry, again!

First of all, she’s anti-nuclear. Enough said.

But today is about the oceans. Geo-engineering, or sequestering CO2 by tipping iron dust into the ocean, is bad as well, according to Klein. She doesn’t spell out why it is bad: the trial run she’s criticising actually increased ocean plankton blooms to the point where the salmon yield that year quadruped! No, no scientific rationale is offered.

Just fear. Fear of something different, of us tinkering. Sure, everything we do must be monitored by the best scientists and be open for peer-review. But if the initial result is that CO2 was sequestered AND the ocean responded enthusiastically, what’s wrong with that?

Posted in Food, Geo-engineering, Ocean, Uncategorized | Leave a comment