Category Archives: Nuclear Energy

Data Centers and Artificial Intelligence-Stop Energy Transition Part 3

Posted on October 3, 2024 | Leave a comment

ENERGY

The United States of America is built on energy. Primarily produced by fossil fuels.  The transportation area, cars, trucks, airplane, ships, etc. are propelled by gasoline, jet fuel, diesel oil, bunker fuel, propane, etc., all fossil fuels.  Transportation is 90% reliant on fossil fuels. About 60% of the Electricity is produced by fossil fuels.  Quoting Denny Ervin:   “Economies and standards of living hinge on having an adequate, economic, and reliable energy source—attributes that are non-negotiable for an optimal energy infrastructure. Our current trajectory risks creating inadequate, unaffordable, and unreliable energy supplies, which would devastate the U.S. economy and standard of living”.

Mr. Ervin has hit the nail on the head

Electricity Generation

The US generated 4.18Trillion Kilowatt hours in 2023.  A trillion Kilowatt-hour are called Petawatt hour.  That means that it is 4.18 followed by 15 zeros.  Because billing is usually done in kilo watts hours-,  it would be 4.18 Tera kilowatt-hours or as it is expressed in the  graph, 4.18 trillion kilowatt hours.   These vast numbers are here to stay.    Primer: Kilo is a thousand; Mega is a million; Giga is a billion; Tera is trillion and Peta is a quadrillion.

The primary source was thermals (natural gas, coal  and petroleum) at 60%, Nuclear added 18.6 %.   The renewables came in at 21.4 %.   Within that renewables list is Wind and solar and they are the rising sources.  They came sourced at 14.1%   They are non-dispatchable, meaning that their generation is a  wild card function of the weather.

Artificial Intelligence Creates Demand For Electricity

Power generation in 2023 was slightly lower than the 2022 generation.  Why? Due to higher price of electricity and use of power saving devices like LED bulbs.  But the demand is forecasted to increase soon and require a lot of additional generating sources, and transmission lines to carry the increase.   This increase is attributed to data center growth.  There are an estimated 2700 data centers in the US.  Data centers are the backbone of the digital world.  They host the internet from not only the US but a big share of the World’s internet.  It is in data centers where the Clouds store data for businesses and websites are housed. A large new power demand is forecasted for the Artificial Intelligence (AI).   DataCenterDynamics says that data center power consumption in the US is set to reach 35GW by the end of the decade, almost double its 2022 level.

Goldman Sachs posted on 13 May 2024, “AI is showing ‘very positive’ signs of eventually boosting GDP and productivity”.   That feeling seems to be universal.  The posting says: “Some of the academic literature and economic studies that have looked at the increase in productivity that we’ve seen following AI adoption, in a few specific cases, supports our view that large productivity gains are possible. The average increase in productivity is about 25%. Case studies of companies that have adopted AI imply similarly large efficiency gains. And so, you know, there’s a lot of reasons to be optimistic. It will just take a little bit more time to see these productivity gains realized.”

That is an incredible gain.  The nation must do what it takes to accomplish that goal. 

Techopedia predicts that the US gain the most:

Techopedia offers why the US will dominate.

“The US leads the way, reflecting its size, private and public investment in research and development, and the talent nurtured by its higher education system”.

Techopedia offers why the US will dominate.

There are impediments to AI success.

The major impediment is the Energy Transition from thermal sources to renewable sources. 

There are 3 major actors in this transition.  First is the Administration putting up big subsidies to make solar cells and wind turbines installations to assure Crony Capitalist will make money.   Second is the EPA that writes regulations that force the demise of reliable thermal sources, particularly coal based.  And lastly are the States that write laws, that are ill thought-out, declarations of what sources are allowed, what percentage and the time line.  See here and here. This triple bogey is not escaping notice.  The grid operators have been telling everyone that their systems are headed for collapse.   FERC has been telling the same story.  But the Governmental bodies believe themselves to know more about the grids than the grid operators. The companies that are planning to spend vast sums of money to bring AI online seem to be aware of this huge pothole in the road to delivery.  They need electricity that is reliable, and they need it now.  That can only come from thermal sources. The WSJ front page on October 1, 2024 posted “AI fever abates in stocks’ latest quarter.” The stock market sees that AI is not unfolding as was forecast.  You can bet that China is going to provide the power to their AI plans.

The Daily Caller posts: “‘Inevitable And Foreseeable’: Grid Operators Beg Court To Nix EPA Rules To Save Electricity System From Collapse”:

“The Biden-Harris administration says that its stringent power plant rules won’t harm long-term power reliability, but four grid operators stated the exact opposite in a legal brief filed Friday.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its aggressive emissions rules for America’s power plants in April, saying at the time that the regulations would “improve public health without disrupting the delivery of reliable electricity.” However, four major regional grid operators argued the exact opposite in an amicus brief filed in support of red states’ legal challenge against the rule, stating explicitly that the rules will jeopardize Americans’ ability to reliably secure sufficient amounts of power if they are enforced as is”

Specifically, the EPA’s rules will mandate existing coal plants to harness 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to stay open past 2039, and they will also require new natural gas-fired plants to do the same in order to stay open past 2039, according to the agency. The EPA is essentially requiring power plants to meet those emissions cuts using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, which the four grid operators contend is too expensive and unproven to be mandated on such a tight timeline.”  

The EPA is setting up rules that require the operators to use unproven systems (CCS). Coal plants in operation now provide low cost energy. They provide dispatchable electricity.  They have a distinct advantage in that they usually have several months of coal stored at their site.  Gas units normally do not have a storage that could be used if there is an interruption in the supply line. Nuclear sourced electricity has many months, perhaps as long as a year on plant fuel

The Energy Bad Boys posted:” PJM, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT Join the Legal Fight Against EPA’s Carbon Rules”. 

“The four— PJM, the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)— stretch from New Jersey to parts of New Mexico and serve more than 156 million Americans in their respective service territories.

“The rules on carbon dioxide emissions are not the only regulations threatening the viability of the existing thermal fleet.  Under the Biden-Harris administration, the EPA has written or updated regulations like the Ozone Transport Rule, the Coal Combustion and Residual Rule, and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, all of which are designed to place enough straws on the backs of reliable coal-fired power plants to compel their owners to shut them down”.

 

AI builders Must Have Reliable Energy Sources

Here are some appeals for reliability:

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of Black Rock Investment Management Corporation said no to renewables. Fink spoke at the World Economic Forman that AI will be big and profitable.  He wants the suppliers for his operations to use only dispatchable energy sources because they are reliable sources of power 24/7. 

Dominion CEO Robert Blue said: “We’re going to continue to be a big builder of renewables. We’re building a big offshore wind farm. We’re building a lot of solar. We’re adding a lot of storage. … But we also recognize that we’re going to need some more natural gas in order to keep the lights on.”  In addition to developing more natural gas plants to balance power grids from expansions of intermittent renewables, rising demands are also delaying some retirement of coal plants.

Dominion wants to build a 1,000-megawatt natural gas plant in Chesterfield County, where a coal plant closed last year, stating that the addition is critically important for reliability.  Significant costs for these increased power demands — including transmission infrastructures — will be passed on to household and business consumers.

“Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon, three of the largest AI data center users, have previously criticized a proposal by utility company Georgia Power to expand natural gas use at the expense of hurting their renewable energy programs. The problem is that those centers require huge amounts of reliable electricity to operate, and no nearly adequate hydrocarbon replacement exists. As former Microsoft vice president Brian Janous observes, whereas “No data center wants to be tied to the need for new fossil resources, that’s the problem… You can’t throw this much [data-center] capacity at the system and not have some degree of fossil resources to support it.”

Amazon states that their data centers are powered by renewable energy.  This seems improbable as the industry knows that renewable energy is not dispatchable. They are using a ploy that is provided to make companies feel good about themselves while using fossil fuels.  Its called RECs.  The RECs provide certified proof that you’re using renewable energy from the grid without installing solar panels or other renewable energy systems at your home or business

 Amazon invests in renewable energy projects that generate electricity, which is then fed into the grid. They then purchase or are allocated an equivalent amount of energy from the grid for their use. This is often done through renewable energy certificates (RECs), which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, largely through the perversely titled “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), is providing massive and unsustainable economic incentives to move the electric generation market towards virtually exclusive reliance upon renewable energies (wind and solar in particular) plus batteries.  However, such forms of electric energy pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy “purity” requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.

Summary

The US electricity generation is forecast to have a large new demand to power data centers.

Major grid operators are going to court to cancel EPA rules.  They said this must be done or their girds will collapse. 

Data center owners/operators recognize that their systems must have dispatchable,  reliable electricity.  Renewables are not dispatchable.

Next part will examine the non dispatchable  wind and solar .

cbdakota.

Leave a comment

Posted in Electrical grid, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, government subsidies, Grid, Nuclear Energy, Personal Automobiles, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower

Tagged , , , ,

Wind and Solar Can Not Save Europe, Now or Ever

Posted on December 4, 2022 | Leave a comment

Wind and solar in Europe 2 December 2022

European countries have installed wind and solar systems to various degrees. The energy crisis that these countries are encountering is primarily due to a shortage of natural gas. If the Alarmists get their way, no one will be allowed to use natural gas.  How are we to manage without natural gas.  Certainly, the EU nations have thought this through as several EU nations have passed laws that will outlaw natural gas.   Or have they?

In Europe, and perhaps globally, Germany is leading the way to banish fossil fuels. The idea is to install wind and solar electricity generating facilities.  Germany has installed wind and solar facilities that have name plate capacity of 127.4 GWs. That much capacity exceeds their electrical demand by almost double.  So why do they care if the Russians have cut off natural gas?  Name plate capacity for wind and solar over states the actual performance by about 3-fold.  It’s worse than that really but they will be something for latter discussion. There is an app “The ELECTRICITY MAPs” that allows you to look at daily demand for electricity and what systems are creating the electricity.  Not just renewables, but nuclear, natural gas and coal production systems. 

I chose to look at the maps for a number of countries in the EU, on December 2, 2022, at 12 pm.  I assembled a chart that demonstrates the problem by focusing on the rated capacity of wind and solar and their actual performance.  The chart has the nation, the demand for electricity at that hour, the name plate capacity (NPC) combined for wind and solar generators and the actual production (column 4) by those generators.  The last column (5) is the percentage of the electricity demand being supplied by wind and solar.  Great Britain looks odd, but at the time this reading was made could have been windless and overcast.    Because the Alarmist tell us that wind and solar are the least expensive forms of power generation, you would think every country would be maxing out those units. Oh yes, they forgot to tell you that because they are dependent on the weather, they only function, on average, about a 1/3 of the time.

Column1Column2Column3Column4Column5
   EuropeDecember 2, 2022
 12pm
 ElectricityWind and SolarElectricity
        Demand         NPC   Production 
Nation           GW         GW            GW             %
Germany77.3127.417.824
Great Britain30.738.500
France69.432.73.85.5
Italy43.932.61.84.2
Netherlands17.222.25.230
 Belgium14.911.22.416
Poland25.7111.23.9
Denmark6.228.52.845
Slovakia6.16.100
Austria11.660.44
Romania7.884.40.56
Switzerland143.100
Czech Republic12.92.40.040.3
Hungary6.42.10.20.3
Bulgaria7.121.80.169
Spain****28.748.5724

Down at the bottom of the chart is Spain. I forgot Spain on 2 December. So, I looked it up, today the 4th of December. Spain also has put in more wind and solar capacity than the demand requirements. The app said 7 GW were being produced at 10am. 

The chart numbers, in many cases, are rounded off.

Wind and solar are not the answer.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Electricity from Coal, fossil fuels, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, solar cells

Decarbonation Channel— visualization of Wind, Solar and Nuclear Energy

Posted on November 28, 2022 | Leave a comment

“Visual Capitalist” is an interesting site.  It provides charts and some dialog on a broad range of topics. A partial list of the categories are Markets, Technology, Money, Health Care, Energy, etc. Often you get a new chart every weekday on some topic or other.   It is easy to subscribe to the site.

Even though it has a man-made global warming bias, its a useful site.  I am providing a link to this site and it will come up with visualizations of Wind, Solar and Nuclear energy.  These topics are covered often, and usually of interest. The site predicts that by the year 2026 wind and solar will produce more electricity than natural gas, coal and nuclear combined. This 8 June 2022 prediction will not be realized.

You can link with the site by clicking here.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, Coal, Domestic Energy, Electricity, fossil fuels, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, solar cells

$3.8 Trillion spent on renewables has not made a precipitable change in fossil fuels use

Posted on October 27, 2022 | 2 comments

From CNBC Squawk Box Tweet:.

“Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): “Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.” … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.”

It is hard to get your head around the fact that $3.8 trillion has been spent with so little results.  A lot of that money has been going to Crony Capitalists through subsidies and tax forgiveness.

That they have not made any progress replacing fossil fuels is understandable and that it is unlikely that wind and solar ever will.  Their lack of dispatchability will forever prevent wind and solar from being the main source of power.  Long term, nuclear power will have to be the main source of power with wind and solar playing second fiddle.

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in Alternative Energy, fossil fuels, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized

Part 2: The Fragile Electric Grid

Posted on August 19, 2021 | Leave a comment

See the source image

This is part two of Robert Bryce’s testimony to the House Select Committee on The Climate Crisis.

Our electric grid is fragile.  Robert Bryce writes that the Department of Energy’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergence Response illustrates the declining reliability of our grid.  Bryce says:

“In 2002, there were 23 “major disturbances and unusual occurrences” on the domestic electric grid. Those outages were caused by things like ice storms, fires, vandalism, and severe weather. By 2016, the number of disturbances and unusual occurrences had increased six-fold to 141. In 2020, the number of events jumped to 383 – an increase of 270% in just four years.  Even more alarming: through the first two months of 2021, there have been 122 of these outages.”

Bryce says:

“Electrifying everything is the opposite of anti-fragile.  Attempting to halt the use of liquid motor fuels and replace them with electricity will make our transportation system more vulnerable to disruptions caused by extreme weather, saboteurs, equipment failure, accidents, or human error. Electrifying our transportation system will reduce societal resilience because it will put all our energy eggs in one basket. Electrifying transportation will reduce fuel diversity and concentrate our energy risks on a single grid, the electric grid, which will make it an even-more-appealing target for terrorists or bad actors.

Furthermore, and perhaps most important, attempting to electrify transportation makes little sense given the ongoing fragilization of our electric grid. The closures of our nuclear plants is reducing the reliability and resilience of the electric grid and making it more reliant on gasfired power plants and weather-dependent renewables.”

While skeptics have known for years that the alarmist’s forecasts of doom are not likely to be realized, the alarmists oddly want to shut down all nuke plants. Nuke plants that do not emit their enemy carbon dioxide (CO2).  Bryce notes Congress inaction regarding this issue when he says:

“Instead, Congress is standing idly by as our nuclear plants – our most reliable, safest, and most power-dense form of electricity production – are being shuttered. Nuclear plants are, as writer Emmet Penney recently put it, our “industrial cathedrals.” If policymakers want to decarbonize our transportation system while enhancing the resilience of our society, the best option would be to have a grid that is heavily reliant on nuclear energy.”

Bryce discusses recent issues that demonstrate the gird’s declining reliability in his report.  They can be reviewed by clicking here.

See part two about supply chains and mineral needs.

Pages: 1 2

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, Chinese aggression, Electric Vehicles, Electrical grid, Electricity from Coal, Nuclear Energy, Personal Automobiles, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower

More Pork For Renewable Energy

Posted on January 7, 2021 | 2 comments

Hugh subsidies are lavished on wind and solar energy in a newly enacted Federal bill.  More pork for crony capitalism.  More high-priced electricity for the customers. 

The proponents of wind and solar energy say that subsides for fossil fuels and nuclear are bigger than those for these so-called renewable energy systems. Forbes posted “Why is solar energy getting 250 times more in Federal tax credits than nuclear “by Robert Bryce.  Bryce’s posting shows that this is not the case.

 “According to a December 21 estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the extension of the solar sector’s investment tax credit (ITC) will cost the American treasury another $7 billion between now and 2030. (The ITC may also be used for offshore wind projects.) The extension of the wind industry’s production tax credit (PTC) — which like the ITC was supposed to be phased out — will cost another $1.7 billion. Those billions will be added to the $27 billion in ITC  credits that were already designated for the solar sector and $34 billion in PTC that will be collected by Big Wind between now and 2029. (Those last two numbers are from the Treasury Department.) “

“Given the tens of billions of dollars that are being lavished on solar, wind, and other politically popular energy programs — tax credits for fuel cells, carbon capture and sequestration, and “two-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles” also got extensions in the budget bill — I decided to seek an answer to a simple question: which energy technology gets the most in federal tax incentives? “

“The answer, by two country miles, is solar energy.

In 2018, the American solar industry got roughly 250 times as much in federal tax incentives as the nuclear sector, when compared by the amount of energy produced. Coming in a close second is the wind sector, which got about 160 times as much as nuclear. “

EJ = Exajoule   An exajoule is a measure of energy.  Exa is 10 to the 18th power. An exajoule is equal to 277.8 terawatt-hours

“In 2018, as shown in the graphic, America’s nuclear sector received about $13.1 million in tax incentives per EJ while the solar sector soaked up $3.3 billion per EJ – or 253 times the amount given to nuclear. The wind sector got $2 billion per EJ, or about 158 times as much as nuclear.

Congress is allocating yet more money for solar and wind even though America’s nuclear sector is producing about twice as much carbon-free electricity every year as wind and solar, combined. Despite its importance to America’s climate goals, the nuclear sector is foundering. Numerous reactors have closed over the past few years and more will be shuttered in the months and years ahead. In New York, the Unit Three reactor at Indian Point will be shuttered in April. In Illinois, Exelon EXC -1% is planning to shutter two nuclear plants. In California, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is slated for closure in 2025.” 

I recommend that you read Bryce’s full posting by clicking this link.

I am agnostic about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in climate change.  Theoretically it is a player but the positive feedback that is claimed for it, looks to be exaggerated. Especially when nature’s negative feedbacks are ignored. Moreover, nuclear energy appeals to me in that it satisfies my desire to have something that can be reliably making electricity for a long, long time into the future.  It will extend the availability of fossil fuels to make valuable products, not just heat—perhaps the Earth will make natural gas and oil at an equilibrium with the fossil fuels withdrawal. Who knows?

One would think that the Greens would welcome nuclear energy based upon their crusade to eliminate man-made CO2 emissions.  But they don’t.  And they say that their programs are science based?

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in Electricity, Energy Development, fossil fuels, government subsidies, Greenhouse Gas Effect, Nuclear Energy

Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists

Posted on September 8, 2020 | 1 comment

The man-made global warming eco-alarmists are composed of a cabal of scientists and bureaucrats that use scare tactics to frighten the public into supporting them.  Their objective is to destroy capitalism and replace it with Marxism.  This is fact, not opinion. Their leadership have repeatedly said that their movement is not about environmentalism. To accomplish their objective, for years they have been making predictions designed to frighten the general populace.  The literature is filled with predictions of the apocalypse that have never happened.  One of their most recent one is that the world is doomed in something like 12 years if we do not empower them to do the things they say need to be done.  To these eco-alarmists, the cost of their plans is not an issue.

Why am I highlighting Shellenberger as he is not the only one that has challenged them? First, Shellenberger is a certified environmentalist. He was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment”. He has testified before Congress as an expert and he was invited to be an expert reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next Assessment Report.  A summary of his background can be found by clicking here.

Secondly, despite what you may have read, skeptics are not the recipients of large sums of money.  The eco-alarmists are recipients almost all the money spent on global warming.  Anyone that does not toe the line, endangers the alarmist’s incomes.  There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice their jobs by openly speaking out. Shellenberger insists that he believes in the man-made theory of global warming, but he cannot sit by and let the alarmist poison the scientific dialog. That is unacceptable.

I think that he represents many scientists that do not agree with the alarmists but are afraid to speak their mind.  Perhaps Shellenberger’s example will encourage others to follow his lead.   A Skeptic, on the other hand, might not be able to instill the needed courage.

I have purchased Shellenberger’s book. It is powerful.  I recommend it.  He has developed an outline of his book and the following are excerpts:

Continue reading →

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, crop yields, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, End of the Earth, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, radical environmentalists, Renewable Energy, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, warmer prediction fails

Can Global Warming Be Used To Bring Down Capitalism –Part 3 Failed Predictions of the Apocalypse

Posted on September 4, 2020 | 6 comments

The previous two posting show that the real purpose of the leaders is to take down Capitalism using man-made global warming as the cover.  They concluded that global warming probably would not likely be dramatic enough if they just reported their scientific findings.  So, let’s see what a spokesperson of this movement decided would have to be done:

“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.”

“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”

“Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996

Schneider knows that to be honest will not work.  He is obviously endorsing the scary scenarios.    And it worked.

Along the way, some of the scientists challenged Schneider’s plan.  For example, emeritus professor Daniel Botkin related this story:

“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”

” Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?’ one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Wall St Journal 17 Oct 2007

 Obviously, they disregarded Botkin’s opinion.   But those scientists have left a body of exaggerated predictions that demonstrate how poorly their technique has been. Yet, however poorly their predictions have been, the media has fulfilled Schneider fondest wish without thinking twice.  For example, they not only do not care how many bad predictions Al Gore has made, and often they find the most alarming part of his prediction and exaggerate it even more.  There is a problem with the reporters.  Do you remember what Ben Rhodes said about the reporters that covered his press releases promoting the then President Obama’s pact with Iran regarding Iran’s plan to make nuclear weapons?: Rhodes braggingly said that he could get them to write anything he wanted because:

 “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Ok, so what about these predictions?  You are going to have to work a little to see them.  The work will be to click on links to these predictions.  There are many lists of failed prediction available, but alas, if I included them all, this would not be a posting, it might be more like a tome.

Continue reading →

6 Comments

Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, fossil fuels, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Greenhouse Gas Effect, Hurricanes, Kyoto, Media Bias, Nuclear Energy, Paris Agreement, polar bears, radical environmentalists, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, Tornados, warmer prediction fails

Fake Science News: Review of Chernobly on HBO

Posted on June 20, 2019 | Leave a comment

Fake science news with respect to

“Chernobyl” on HBO.  This is why nuclear has to swim upstream.

CFACT.org  provided this review of the HBO’s presentation “Chernobly.”

Nuclear sensationalism

Friend,

HBO’s Chernobyl is great entertainment.  So is The Simpsons.  Sadly, the sensational way nuclear power is depicted in popular culture energizes the anti-science, anti-energy Left.

Nuclear energy is perhaps our best source of electricity. Nuclear also emits no CO2 (if that’s your thing).

Dr. Kelvin Kemm is an award-winning South African nuclear physicist.  Check out his detailed review of HBO’s Chernobyl at CFACT.org:

As a nuclear scientist I can tell you that the fundamental story of the sequence of events during the portrayal of the Chernobyl accident were correct. Issues around governance and procedure as portrayed were essentially correct.

But the blood and skin peeling scenes were not. Sadly the producers lied – intentionally, to gain box office income. They succeeded in the income goal. But they insulted we nuclear scientists and insulted the intelligence of those viewers who knew a bit more science than most. They also led many other viewers down a twisted path to further ignorance and confusion, which certainly should not be the objective of a history documentary…

Human bodies do not become radioactive in a situation like that. What can happen is that someone, like a fireman, leaves the scene with radioactive dust on his clothes and maybe in his hair. Any radiation protection officer present would then make him take off all his clothes and take a good shower, before going home.

Firemen were not radioactively contagious, as portrayed by HBO. A fireman could not have irradiated his pregnant wife at home as HBO claimed. Her baby could not have died of heart and liver disease as a result. That is pure HBO bunk. Something like playing a tune on the aircraft fuselage in the Andes, using human bones as drumsticks. Very good for viewer horror, but very far from the truth.

Nuclear energy has a fantastic safety record and the latest designs could not be more impressive.

Germany, however, bowing to its anti-nuke Green movement, decided to scrap its nuclear power plants and invest a fortune on wind and solar.  The result?  Germany nearly tripled its energy prices, while remaining dependent on coal plants to provide the reliable electricity intermittent “renewables” can’t provide.  Although they spent a fortune, German emissions have not declined.

France, on the other hand, went nuclear.

German households now pay around 30 Euro cents per kilowatt hour for electricity while the French pay only 17.

Americans pay around 12.83 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour (11.82 Euro cents).  State energy prices vary widely with pro-energy states paying around a dime, while states with Green regulatory regimes such as California and the New England states paying from 19 cents per kwh to over 23.

Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmark provide perfect illustrations of what not to do, unless driving people into energy poverty is your goal.

While entertainers have the right to exaggerate for dramatic and comedic effect, Chernobyl goes a step too far.  Frightening people away from clean, abundant, safe and affordable nuclear to sell a cable channel does the world a great disservice.

The facts reveal that nuclear power is a safe, smart, affordable way to generate electricity.

People need to know.

For nature and people too,

 

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Climate Alarmism, CO2, Fakke Science, Media Bias, Nuclear Energy

UN Forecast Year 2100 World Population At 10.9Billion. Only Nuclear Can Provide Needed Energy

Posted on June 19, 2019 | Leave a comment

The “UN 2019 Revision of World Population Prospects” report says that by the end of this century the world’s population will be about 10.9 people. What does this mean with respect to the UN goals of having only renewable power—wind and solar –and the elimination of fossil fuels as an energy source? 

The Pew Research Center analyzed the UN report and came up with some eye-opening observations.   China will begin to lose population by the end of this century.  India will have the world’s largest population, surpassing China.   Africa will have 4.3 billion people at the turn of the century, substantially more that the 1.5 billion it has in 2020.  And Africa’s average age will be 35. The World’s median age will be 42.

Look at this chart:

By 2100, Asia and Africa combined will be 9.0 billion of the forecast total world population of 10.9 billion. We can expect that the really undeveloped populations of the world will be demanding a standard of living approaching that of Europe and North America. 

China and India have already launched programs to achieve a very much improved standard of living for their people.  Africa will surely do the same and with a relatively young population they will be aggressive.  That standard of living will only be realized through energy.

It will not come from renewables.  It probably cannot be fully realized by fossil fuels.   It will have to come from nuclear energy.  Ultimately, nuclear will dominate the energy sector.  

For the US, economics are causing some shutdowns of nuclear plants as natural gas generates energy at a lower cost.  In the long run, nukes should be the lowest cost reliable energy.

However, there are several nukes that are being shutdown because a governing body does not like them.  These are bad choices.

Germany seems to have an irrational fear of nukes that were prompted by the Japanese Fukushima nuke plants being flooded by a tsunami.  When was the last time a tsunami hit Germany?

It is my opinion that the greens opposition to nukes is that the nukes have the potential to solve the energy problem. Many leaders of the green movement have publicly announced that their goal is a one-world socialist government based out of the UN. They would prefer an energy limited world where they would be in charge.   Nukes could solve the energy problem, destroying their dream.  

Ok, will these population estimates prove-out?  Will Ebola wipe out millions of Africans?   Will there be a war or wars that slash these estimates?   Could the expectations for lower fertility be wrong and the world population grows even larger?   Of course, I don’t know answers to any of those questions.  But for the moment, I am assuming these estimates are going to be accurate.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, China, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, fossil fuels, Nuclear Energy, Paris Agreement, Renewable Energy, solar cells, Windpower