Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045

[terracore]

perhaps you all might finally acknowledge what you've been told for 50+ years? 

50 years you say?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-year...edictions/

[HiloJulie]

Agreed that recycling is still very, very new, and methods and automation will need to grow exponentially, and it will.  The problem that I project is that the need for those raw materials will not be as valuable when alternative energy and storage sources are so readily available, and the megatons of waste we create are less profitable or feasible to recycle, and they become mountains in the desert Let's face it: Nuclear can easily replace all domestic power needs today if we choose to do it. For vehicles, hydrogen is about less than 10 years out of the mainstream. If we are being honest with ourselves, the only reason it isn't further along is due to the massive worldwide oil cabal.

I would say that extolling the virtues on nuclear power as replacing all the power needs today is a bit disingenuous as well.

First, and while not specifically for Hawaii, but construction of a nuclear power plant takes an average of 10 to 20 years. The last 2 nuclear units just recently brought on line - Unit 4 in April of this year – at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, cost 34 BILLION. Construction started in 2013, so it took 11 years to build it. But then there was VC Summer – the plant in South Carolina started in 2010 that was problem after problem from day one – with Westinghouse (the reactor maker) even going bankrupt stopping the construction then restarting the construction back up and having billions in cost overruns on top of the billions already spent, finally was just stopped altogether.

Let’s also remember, that back when nuclear power first gained traction and as units started being built and going on line back in 1965, no one knew what they would be doing with the eventual stockpile of contaminated waste and while being protected of course, more or less sat on the power plants land for several decades as everyone scratched their heads as to what to do with this stuff.

Then, the amount of labor, education, training and so on needed to run a nuke does not come cheap. Or at least it shouldn’t. In as much as a 19 year old high school dropout might easily get – and deserve that job at either an oil, coal, gas or now solar or wind – and even possibly geothermal, I don’t think they should be near a nuke under any circumstance.

And then, of course there is safety. And while, for the most part, the US has been pretty safe with regards to nuclear power accidents, the possibility of one “oh, shit” moment exists – that at a minimum and upside could cost billions, but even worse yet, an explosion and meltdown that would make Chernobyl look like someone just lit a candle.

And of course, there is always the potential of the terrorist threat.

And yes, there is promise in hydrogen fueled vehicles, but again, the biggest obstacle to that as I can see, is the distribution of hydrogen o be able to fill your tank. Which is a good 10 plus years away from fruition.

In the short term then, I’d say that EV and solar is worth investment in right now, as the window for alternatives to burn baby burn is slowly closing and I’m pretty sure there is no “god” going to open a door once that window is closed!

So then you post a mere 800,000 years worth of data?  The co2 500 million years ago was 9000 ppm.
And if you look at the warming data over millions of years, it can be argued that rising temperatures cause co2 to increase, not the other way around.  In the 1970's the "science was settled", and they told us we'd be in an ice age right now.  I didn't panic then, and I'm not going to panic now.  I'm certainly not sending any plastic to China.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-b...ry-of-co2/

Yeh, life was a bitch for humans back then wasn’t it? Oh, wait…..

50 years you say?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-year...edictions/

I don’t think much of your sources, namely:

“Academic research has identified Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) as one of the think tanks funded to overturn the environmentalism of the 1960s, central to promoting climate change denial. It was involved in assisting the anti-environmental climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration. CEI promotes environmental policies based on limited government regulation and property rights, rejects what it calls "global warming alarmism", and denies the science of climate change.”

You actually remind me of the guy in the YT clip I posted from 1984 who stated that he will have to detour Richland Village on his way to Kalamazoo due to Richland Village’s mandatory seatbelt law!

PS: Did you by chance notice that virtually everyone in that clip was smoking? 1984. Try light up a pipe, cigar, cigarette or vape at Ken’s next time and let’s see what happens!

[Durian Fiend]

50 years you say?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-year...edictions/

I don’t think much of your sources, namely...

The sources are all legit newspapers from the past. In reference to concerns expressed in some of them about pollution blocking out enough sunlight to cause global cooling, they were not wrong. Particulate matter in the atmosphere does have a cooling effect, whether it be from a volcanic eruption or diesel emissions from ocean going vessels for instance.  Obviously the good news is that the air pollution trend they were concerned about has been dramatically reduced since those days.  Also note that their opinions did not reflect a consensus in the scientific community that had been building over years and decades as we now see is the case with global warming/climate change.  Projections for the magnitude of inevitable future warming will be subject to change depending upon the vagaries of yearly co2 emissions.  I believe the current analysis shows the world is past peak co2 production, finally heading DOWN.

[HiloJulie]

Projections for the magnitude of inevitable future warming will be subject to change depending upon the vagaries of yearly co2 emissions.  I believe the current analysis shows the world is past peak co2 production, finally heading DOWN.

Unfortunately, humanity cannot afford to rely on what YOU believe the current analysis of CO2 production is and further unfortunate, for whatever OTHER planet you think CO2 levels are "finally heading DOWN" is - show me a verifiable source that states that.

A graph from one of terracore's links that is similar to the graph MyMano posted, but a little more definitive in information.

   

[MyManao]

Unfortunately, these ideas fall into the trap of techno-hopium

As Roger pointed out.. this species has amused itself to death.

[ironyak]

terracore - https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-year...edictions/

The fact that it's 2024 and you would (unironically?) post that is wild. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose major funders have included ExxonMobil, the Charles Koch Institute, and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, say they don't believe in climate change? [shocked pikachu face] The real shock is that anyone would believe them given their vested interests. As your seem to espouse libertarian/contrarian leanings, can you not imagine that large companies would lie and cover up what they knew in order to protect their profits? Especially after they've already been shown to have done so?

For anyone interested in the history here of how the oil industry adopted the tactics, and many of the same lawyers, as the tobacco industry to deny and obfuscate the truth of their business and its impacts, Merchants of Doubt is a pretty good review of this well-documented history. The first season of the podcast Drilled also hits the highlights well, and their podcast Damages focuses on the related legal actions taking place in various countries and states, such as the one just settled here in Hawaii.

HiloJulie - Unfortunately, humanity cannot afford to rely on what YOU believe the current analysis of CO2 production is

Durian Fiend may be referring to the prediction that "If countries deliver on the promises made in their Nationally Determined Contributions, 2023 will also go down in history as the year that global carbon emissions peaked." IF is key there and most countries don't have a great track record at meeting their emission reduction goals. That is of course just slowing down how much CO2 is being adding yearly, the line for total CO2 as on the posted graph and HOTPE's ever-dutiful thread is still going up, potentially just not as fast, but there is already a lot of warming baked in that we'll have to content with even if carbon emissions dropped to zero today. Hopefully people won't keep going out of their way to make things worse by clinging to a high-consumption business-as-usual lifestyle, right? That would be almost as crazy as denying the problem altogether!

[Wao nahele wahine]

Just a quick detour folks regarding nuclear power and safety:

Safety is strongly emphasized at every nuclear plant in the U.S. Before you are allowed access to a nuclear plant for work, you have a lot of required training and testing which is tailored to your particular job at the plant.

Anyone can challenge anyone else at the plant if they see someone performing a job in an unsafe manner, not wearing the proper protective gear, not wearing your ID badge, etc. There are daily bulletins notifying everyone if there were any injuries or incidents the previous day.

Several years ago I was working graveyard shift at a plant during a routine shutdown inspection. Earlier that day an electrician somehow opened the wrong electrical box to work on, and suffered severe electric shock when he attempted to work on the wrong component. Everyone except for essential personnel was sent home for the night to think about safety and what could be done at the plant to prevent any other safety incidents. Everyone spent 6 hours of their next 12 hour shift discussing safety.

I have been working in the nuclear industry since I was 20...40 years ago. I still work with some of the same folks from back then. As HJ pointed out, the plants are expensive to build. Do I think they are safe? Absolutely.

[HiloJulie]

"Do I think they are safe? Absolutely."

I agree 1000000%

I just don't think that expecting a "renaissance" period of nuclear power is a currently feasible alternative to fossil fuels considering the costs and time involved. Much less here in Hawaii. I can just imagine the protesters if that was ever proposed!

But I can't agree more about today's nuke plant safety - it really is as safe as one can expect.

My Brother-in-Law (BIL) used to work for Commonwealth Edison in Illinois at the Byron Nuclear Plant. He was a maintenance supervisor who primarily oversaw contractors brought in for various maintenance items - but only limited to the steam generation, its related piping and the turbines and generators. They NEVER were near the nuclear side in any way.

He retired when Commonwealth Edison sold off its nuke generation facilities back in 2003. One of his last projects before he retired and during a planned shutdown of one of the units, one of dozens of sub-contractors that were brought in for the project performed thermal insulation services of the steam piping and turbines and was "low bid" and hired to perform the work needed. At that time, Commonwealth Edison had what was called an Owners Controlled Insurance Program or OCIP for short. In effect Commonwealth Edison becomes all of the sub-contractors on this project's insurance company and insures the sub-contractors for General Liability and Workers Compensation.

So, during the project, my BIL had reprimanded and even suspended for a few days this one subcontractor for violation of plant rules as well as unsafe work practices.

He was almost at the point of throwing them off the jobsite, but due to several Commonwealth Edison procedures allowed this contractor a "one more time" excuse. 

That is until his boss calls him and hands him a report from Commonwealth Edison's OCIP Insurance Company, who, unbeknownst to only a select few people in very high-ranking capacity, performed an audit of all of the sub-contractors involved in this project.

The report showed the findings of the audit in great detail for each sub-contractor listing multiple paragraphs of all things good and a few things of recommend correction.

Until they got to this one insulation sub-contractor causing my BIL all these problems and all the report said:

"UNFIT FOR HUMAN LIFE"

And that was it.

My BIL escorted them to the gate 15 minutes later. He has that one page from that report framed and on his wall in his "man cave" to this day!

[TomK]

This is just a quick response since I'm not following the thread closely. I see arguments being made that have been debunked many times elsewhere, so I take little notice of them. I'm not entirely sure why nuclear power was introduced here, but I agree it's a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and is safe if in the right hands, i.e., not Russia or North Korea. There's always the issue of what to do with radioactive waste, but I see the human influence on the Earth's atmosphere as a much more urgent problem we must solve. I don't understand why some can't accept this and disregard the evidence.

If, on the other hand, the nuclear power stuff was brought up because I mentioned nuclear bombs, I reasoned that a few large nuclear explosions in NEO would disrupt pretty much all the world's electronics. We'd be back to the middle ages very quickly.

[TomK]

Unfortunately, these ideas fall into the trap of techno-hopium

As Roger pointed out.. this species has amused itself to death.

Let me get this right. You two are arguing about things said in an online article written by a non-expert and someone singing a song?