Comments for BraveNewClimate

Comment on The effect of cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 by Climate change is real says 97% of scientists - Page 75 (politics)

Climate change is real says 97% of scientists - Page 75 (politics) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:23:34 +0000

[…] showing you how noting you can do will affect the temperature of the planet, keep denying denier http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/2…zero-co2-2050/ I guess you know more than eh author though he is only Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at […]

Comment on 100 Per Cent Renewables Study Needs a Makeover by Welcome to Renewable Electricity Nirvana | RocketNews

Welcome to Renewable Electricity Nirvana | RocketNews — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:17:36 +0000

[…] Nicholson on BraveNewClimate.com responded quickly saying it’s possible to meet the modelled electricity demand using nuclear power for less than […]

Comment on The Case for Near-term Commercial Demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor by Stellungnahme zur Erläuterung der Wirtschaftswoche in Sachen GreenTec Awards | Nuklearia

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:34:15 +0000

[…] Falls die Jury mit “verwandten Technologien” andere Flüssigsalzreaktorkonzepte meint – an theoretischen Studien wird in der Tat eifrig gearbeitet. Jetzt ist es an der Zeit, Prototypen praktisch zu erproben, einen Nachfolger des Molten Salt Reactor Experiments zu erschaffen, damit am Ende ein vermarktbares Produkt herausspringt. Falls dagegen schnelle Reaktoren mit festem Kern gemeint sind – da gibt es ein feines Design, das in Sachen Kommerzialisierung in den Startlöchern steht. […]

Comment on The effect of cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 by Climate science: A sensitive matter - Page 9 (politics)

Climate science: A sensitive matter - Page 9 (politics) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:56:26 +0000

[…] by 2050 to cut Co2 emissions to 0 would result in a temperature drop of .1C degrees by 2100 http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/11/2…zero-co2-2050/ Even if everyone had implemented Kyoto, temperatures would have dropped by the end of the […]

Comment on 100 Per Cent Renewables Study Needs a Makeover by Log, slash, truck and burn – welcome to renewable electricity nirvana | BraveNewClimate

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:30:51 +0000

[…] Nicholson on BraveNewClimate.com responded quickly saying it’s possible to meet the modelled electricity demand using nuclear power for less […]

Comment on Log, slash, truck and burn – welcome to renewable electricity nirvana by Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:30:15 +0000

All comments should be posted here:
http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bncblogposts&thread=407

Comment on TCASE 13: Assessment of suitability of technologies for carbon dioxide mitigation by Your burning energy questions answered | Love Energy

Your burning energy questions answered | Love Energy — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:26:41 +0000

[…] criteria’, life-cycle emissions and levelized costs of technology options, can be read here,and here. So, as to the specific question, it would make sense for governments to invest in […]

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by Philip

Philip — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:14:50 +0000

ITER is likely the most expensive fusion scheme, outdated, ill-conceived, and hard to get break-even. There are other more advanced fusion concepts that should be scrutinized before wasting billion euros on the ITER gargantuan project. http://tinyurl.com/neutron-free

Comment on The Case for Near-term Commercial Demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor by Erwiderung auf David Biello | Nuklearia

Erwiderung auf David Biello | Nuklearia — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:44:49 +0000

[…] und Technologie “von der Stange” herstellen. Es ist lediglich noch erforderlich, sich international auf ein optimales Design zu einigen, dieses zu lizensieren und zu kommerzialisier…. Wie lang dies dauern würde, ist diskutabel und eher eine politische als eine wissenschaftliche […]

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by Adam Baker

Adam Baker — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:48:59 +0000

I also had this problem, couldn’t see the slides after that happened. Otherwise very good talk. Cheers Adam

________________________________

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by Chris Benham

Chris Benham — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:03:32 +0000

I watched Barry’s talk, but the picture (one of his slides) stayed the same after the 12.13 mark. But putting the mouse cursor at the bottom after that point did reveal a very small changing picture. Did anyone else have this problem? Can it be fixed?

Chris

________________________________

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by luis

luis — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:32:40 +0000

Hi Barry:
I will like to have one online copy of your Australian Academic Science speech.
Thanks.

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by Anon

Anon — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:25:37 +0000

Until they get at least engineering breakeven they are useless, we need something now, not when someone finally gets fusion to work and right now fission is all we've got (and this means LWRs, though IFRs and LFTRs are close enough to proven that we could be pretty confident they'd be ready within the decade if we wanted them, that can not be said for anything to do with fusion with the notable exception of Project PACER). Many of them also look to me like snakeoil (claims we can do Boron fusion certainly should set off alarm bells as should the idea that ICF is better done by hitting the fuel on one side instad of all around). Personally whilst I suspect fusion will be able to do the job of electricity production it not turn out to be any better than advanced nuclear (e.g. LFTR), rocketry is where fusion would really come into its own and would be worth developing the tech even if we knew it would be useless for making electricity.

Comment on Advanced fission and fusion technologies for sustainable nuclear energy by dennisbpeterson

dennisbpeterson — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:32:45 +0000

ITER is probably the most long-term fusion project, as far as commercial deployment goes. I surveyed some projects which much shorter timeframes here: http://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1202301

Still adding links and references.

(Last year I made similar entry that talked a lot about IFRs.)

Comment on How much warming in the pipeline? Part II – it’s as tricky as ABC by This Means Extinction - Survival Acres Blog

This Means Extinction - Survival Acres Blog — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 05:01:49 +0000

[…] are committed to 0.5 to 2.8°C additional warming (on top of what has already been experienced), due to the combined effects of climate system, […]

Comment on Solar power in Florida by Electric Power in Florida | Digging in the Clay

Electric Power in Florida | Digging in the Clay — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:53:42 +0000

[…] might end up challenging Connecticut’s $0.17 /kWh. Two years ago I published a review of solar power in Florida based on the opinions of people who operate major power […]

Comment on SNE 2060 – are uranium resources sufficient? by Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Tue, 28 May 2013 02:06:34 +0000

Note: Only old/archived posts are available for (moderated) comments. Any new BNC post has a discussion forum page, and is closed to comments on this site.

Comment on TCASE 4: Energy system build rates and material inputs by Is Japan’s nuclear-free pathway an environmentally friendly choice? | Sustainability & Global Change

Sat, 25 May 2013 07:08:43 +0000

[…] of photovoltaic cells uses a mix of toxic chemicals.Wind turbines and solar thermal plants use relatively large amounts of concrete and steel per unit of electricity.Hydro requires massive land transformation.Intermittent renewable energy sources typically rely on […]

Comment on SNE 2060 – are uranium resources sufficient? by Peter Lang

Peter Lang — Fri, 24 May 2013 06:18:14 +0000

It’s great to see BNC opened up for comment again.

With cheap nuclear power in the future we’ll be able to make liquid fuels for transport. The US Navy has estimate the cost of making 100,000 gallons per day of jet fuel from sea water on board it’s nuclear powered aircraft carriers. It may be viable, for strategic reasons, now.

John Morgan has estimated the cost to produce jet fuel from sea water on land http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/. I expect it would be cheaper if the hydrogen was produced by high temperature reactors like the Chinese one instead of by electrolysis: http://www.uxc.com/smr/uxc_SMRDetail.aspx?key=HTR-PM

I don’t foresee a shortage of energy in the future. I see no major problem we cannot address. We just need to get over the issues that are preventing us getting to nuclear electricity cheaper than from fossil fuels.

Comment on SNE 2060 – are uranium resources sufficient? by Jagdish

Jagdish — Fri, 24 May 2013 04:53:03 +0000

The IFR increases the energy output from same uranium by 2 orders of magnitude. The used fuel as waste will be correspondingly reduced over the time. Re-using the spent fuel/depleted uranium in solid or liquid fueled fast reactors will ensure sufficiency of uranium for centuries from existing mined uranium.