Climate Change No Thanks

@HannoKlausmeier Jacobson - seriously? #Incurred_and_averted_emissions" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Mark_Z._J…

Here a nice study from M. Jacobson (Stanford University about carbon intensity). It confirms that EM is using values which are way too low. web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jac…

Electricity maps: I took a deeper look at electricity maps. What highlighted my attention? It is a Danish company but with French decision makers coming from ecole centrale Paris. Those people are typically very nuclear minded. I also took a look at their data. Interesting is that the carbon intensity for the same "ingredient" varies from country to country. You may compare gCO2/kwh gas in Germany, Spain and the UK. The numbers are different. Why? I can hardly see any scientific reason. It seems rather pretty obvious that the authors are trying to push one electricity source over an other. Another point. Nuclear is set with the absolute minimum 5 gCO2/kwh. I am not saying it is wrong however the literature goes even up to 116 gCO2/kwh. On the other hand Germany and Poland is always "punished" with the worst data electricity maps could get hold on. For Germany electricity maps takes the worst data that they could get hold on just using lignite data. Hard coal has however a different carbon intensity! Why not differentiate lignite from hard coal and take an average value? My conclusion is tough and hard: Electricity maps is not a reliable source of information and is even manipulative in its representation. I used to take a look at their data in the past but I will stop doing so. It is obvious to my that they are just pushing the nuclear agenda. I am not saying that those numbers are THE RIGHT ones but is shows that electricity maps is always taking THE BEST numbers for nuclear and always the worst for Germany and their Energiewende. Here some additional remarks from Holger Mitterwald about their bugtracker: Auffällig ist, dass bei Atomkraft die absolut unteren Werte für CO2 genommen werden, bei Kohle, PV, Wind sehr hohe Werte. Wurden vorher einheitlich die Werte aus den IPCC Berichten genommenen, wird jetzt wild je nach Gusto aus verschiedenen Papern zusammengestellt. Teils auch mit völlig abweichenden Berechnungsmethoden. Braun - und Steinkohle wird in einen Topf geworfen. Für deutsche Kraftwerke liegen sehr genaue CO2 Werte aus einer Studie vor, die die vor- und Nachemissionen mit berücksichtigen. Bei anderen Ländern werden sehr Standardwerte verwendet, die Vor - und Nachstufen nicht betrachten und nur auf Schätzungen beruhen. Damit nicht genug. Trotz genauer Werte in Deutschland wird über alle Kraftwerke eines Typs ein Durchschnitt gebildet, der allerdings auch schon lange stillgelegte, "dreckige" Kraftwerke voll mit einrechnet. Bei Gas ist es so, dass etwa 65% (!) der Gaskraftwerksleistung gar nicht berücksichtigt wird. Berücksichtigung finden vot allem kleine, alte ineffiziente Kraftwerke mit schlechter CO2 Bilanz. Zufälle? Ist kaum vorstellbar. Hier wusste jemand ganz genau was er tut. Woher wir das wissen? Electricity-Maps ist Open-source. Der Sourcecode ist einsehbar, der Bugtracker ist einsehbar, die Berechnungsmethoden von Electricity-Maps teils sehr detailliert beschrieben. Man, muss sich nur mal die Mühe machen, da etwas tiefer einzusteigen. Fazit: Seit Electricity-Maps ihre Berechnungen "verbessert" hat, sind die Werte nicht mehr zwischen den Ländern vergleichbar, weil schon die Quellen der Ausgangswerte auf völlig unterschiedlichen, nicht vergleichbaren Annahmen basieren.

How about… no

Oh look it's the arithmetically challenged, supposedly impartial, energy "expert" and IPCC author posting childish anti-nuclear propaganda

🚨 EXCITING NEWS ALERT! 🚨 Vogtle 4, the newest Westinghouse AP1000 reactor in the USA, is now officially in commercial operation! Plant Vogtle has now claimed its spot as the largest nuclear power plant in the country. Having visited for PRA work not long ago, it's incredible to finally see it operational. Huge congrats to everyone involved for their hard work in making this happen! Definitely a major leap forward for clean & efficient energy! ⚛️

RR had been waiting on the results of the government’s competition, which have been repeatedly delayed, before deciding whether to proceed. Thanks to the delay, RR now can’t meet the 2030 target that had been set. So goodbye to the project. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.

This graphic in the Financial Times is interesting for what it shows and doesn’t say

German industry unlikely to fully recover, warns CEO of energy company RWE. ‘Angela Merkel’s decision in 2011 to shut down its nuclear fleet without replacing the fuel with another energy source aside from Russian pipeline imports was a “mistake”.’ ft.com/content/5d98bc…

GB needs more nuclear ☢️ Sizewell B commissioned 1994 Then…. Tumbleweed Crickets 🦗 Hinkley C. Much needed. But delayed and over priced. BECAUSE- the panjandrums flushed away the nuclear capability in GB 🇬🇧 😔😔

Free film screening & discussion, April 17 at Imperial College London. I’ll be speaking on the panel after the screening. For tickets > eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-atom-a-l…

@CarolineLucas Great! Let's also go after those who reject the scientific consensus on the safety, efficacy, and necessity (though not sufficiency) of nuclear energy for climate mitigation.

Radical right-wing charities on Tufton Street, like the Global Warming Policy Foundation, are constantly spreading harmful climate change disinformation & denial. What does the Charity Commission do to stop them? Nothing. So we're taking them to court 👇 theguardian.com/environment/20…

I don’t know if this was the best use of my time, but I spent all morning in the DM’s of anti-nuclear Taiwanese people just asking questions listening and trying to find out where their resistance comes from. here are my tentative observations : They are a lot less confrontational in DM‘s than in public and quite often concede that nuclear energy has a lot of potential, and might even be in favor of it elsewhere, or in Taiwan later under different circumstances. They hate Taipower hate, hate, hate . if you just listen to them, you think Taipower is the most corrupt, incompetent evil organization ever to exist. The nuclear they can envision Taiwan having has to be somehow separated from the taint of the legacy nuclear so they want a whole new plant built by overseas team as much as possible, and all the operators to be trained overseas. When I asked them why Taiwan seems to have used the nuclear safely and effectively for 40 years without an accident they’d say it’s just luck . They are really worried about nuclear waste, but only if we are still using nuclear power. I asked one of them what they would do with the nuclear waste after Taiwan stop using nuclear power. Their response “just let it sit where it’s been sitting I suppose.” They are very cynical about decarbonizing with renewables. I’m sure this is not a representative sample but everybody I talk to this morning happened to say something along the lines of well unless we can stop China from polluting what does it matter what Taiwan does? They readily acknowledge that renewable energy will be very expensive in Taiwan, and that corruption is actually a part of the reason why. Now to figure out what narrative could convince them that we should do the life extensions actually…

@gordonmcdowell Not the only hazard!

I think this is not typical or we would have heard of earlier examples? Why did this hailstorm destroy these panels?

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER It took 70 years of using nuclear power before a summit discussing the industry’s future on a world leaders’ level. But it finally happened last week in Brussels. So let’s take a 👀 back at the 🔑 points and 🌶️ quotes on the first ever ⚛️⚡️🏔️:

I don’t want to say ‘middle-aged, white man’, but I’m definitely seeing a trend in the bullshido and absolute lack of knowledge when it comes to net zero. Ok, let’s fact this out. The particular mower, a 36v Ebauer will run for 80 mins on a full charge and consume 360Wh/0.36kWh in the process. At today’s cost of 33p/kWh it would cost 11.88p. On that particular day the grid intensity was very low, and despite what Lee said, Ratcliff doesn’t run on gas, only coal and coal mix. The emissions for his area were 99g CO2/kWh, so if he used the full battery, he’d have emitted 35g/CO2. The most fuel efficient B&S push along mower will burn approx 1.66 litres of fuel for the same time, (I’ve under quoted this as the figures are tricky to pin down) Burning 1 litre of petrol produces approx 2.3kg of CO2, so the B&S mower would emit 2.875kg for the 80 minutes and a host of other emissions. PM, CO, NOx, SO2 to name a few. (In his street) comcar.co.uk/emissions/co2l… The cost in petrol based on a 5hp B&S mower of 1.25l/hour would have been £2.39 for the 80 mins. Emissions 33g for electric 2875g for petrol Energy use 0.36kWh for electric 16.6kWh for petrol This chap has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. If he can’t square away the basic figures of a lawn mower, what else do you think he’s going to struggle with. Think about it 🤔 @LeeAndersonMP_ your welcome 😘

LinkedIn is special

How it started // How it’s going

They knew, and they did it anyway. And now, after the fact, they’re talking about it as if it’s a surprise. theguardian.com/environment/20…

Amazed that this is still news to anyone tbh Here’s what journalists are still missing: anti-nuclear activists *prefer* gas to nuclear. Greenpeace state this openly. Shutting down reactors has never been about emissions. It is only about blind ideology and vested interests

In which a photographer captures fairly standard images of pipes, reactors and other tech & the editor at The Guardian labels them as A PICTURE OF HELL Next up: images taken of aspirators and X-Ray machines in hospitals

@ziontree Jeez, as a plumber I could show you some pipes from hell!