PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Set aside fears and Build reactors not windmills
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7626

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
But not in the Antarctic . . .

If you are interested in knowing why the Arctic and Antarctic environments have experienced such different changes under the same solar forcing I can suggest this paper:

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6120
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9806
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could also be one of your feedback mechanisms, Inspector. More water vapour in the atmosphere causing more snow, giving rise to thicker ice, which takes longer to melt? There's no water in the central Antarctic to capture the sun's heat and cause warming and melting.

The central US is certainly noticing the extra water vapour at the moment. Hadn't you heard about the tornadoes, which are related to thunder storms, followed by the record flooding in the Mississippi basin caused by record winter snows melting?
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't own any feedback mechanisms.

Your explanatiojn for the US is nice. And of course, global warming is supposed to push more water vapour into the air, and as water vapour is a greenhouse gas, that will also constitute a positive feedback mechanism. (What happens in the Antarctic?) But then again, it could also create more clouds, which are a negative feedback mechanism. And no one knows which way it goes. And weren't we supposed to have wetter summers as well?

Hey ho, let's cut carbon emmissions anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is that the precautionary principle????
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12459
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
...and weren't we supposed to have wetter summers as well?
No. Prediction I've heard is for long dry spells interspersed with the odd downpour. Not very good for growing food and the like.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
...and weren't we supposed to have wetter summers as well?
No. Prediction I've heard is for long dry spells interspersed with the odd downpour. Not very good for growing food and the like.


Oh, that's not exactly the case . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2351170.ece
Wonder why the last three winters have been so dry, then . . .

But up pops Lord Turnbull with his views on the whole subject:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/interim-report.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12459
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh, that's not exactly the case . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2351170.ece
Wonder why the last three winters have been so dry, then . . .
How bizarre, that leads to an article about DSK being granted bail. I always said the quality of science-writing in the broadsheets had taken a dive recently.

Back to climate: the best prediction I've heard is that mid-latitude weather will...get less predictable! Can't argue with that Very Happy
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that really is bizarre, because it doesn't here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2351170.ece
Quote:
Global warming will get wetter yet forecasters forgot the plants
Mark Henderson: Science Editor

Global warming could leave Britain facing more severe flooding than existing models predict because they have failed to take account of the way that plants consumption of water will change with the atmosphere, scientists said yesterday.

Although computer projections already suggest that Britain will experience heavier winter rainfall as the climate warms, the picture may be even worse because rising carbon dioxide levels will cause plants to mop up less groundwater than at present, research has shown. Land that is saturated with water will not be able to absorb heavy rainfall, leading to more floods, scientists said.

Increased rainfall alone will boost the volume of river flows in Europe by 11 per cent when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches double preindustrial levels, which is forecast by the middle of the century.

The lower uptake of water from plants, however, will increase this still further, adding two percentage points to swell rivers by 13 per cent compared with preindustrial levels, according to the study by the Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire. Britain is likely to experience even greater rises in river volume than this, researchers said.

The figures do not discriminate between European regions, and while the Mediterranean is expected to become drier, northern Europe is likely to get wetter, particularly in winter.

The research, published in Nature, suggests that models on which Britains adaptation plans for global warming are based underestimate the extent to which flood risk will increase.

At the same time, the risk of drought in summer is likely to be lower than predicted, as the effect of carbon dioxide on plants leaves more water in rivers and reservoirs.

Richard Betts, of the Met Offices Hadley Centre, who led the study, said: It is a double-edged sword. It means that increases in drought due to climate change could be less severe as plants lose less water. On the other hand, if the land is saturated more often, you might expect that intense rainfall events are more likely to cause flooding, which is what happened this summer.

The models used by the Environment Agency need to be adjusted in the light of the new data, which should also be used in considering issues such as the replacement of the Thames Barrier. Dr Betts added that he has informed the Environment Agency of his teams findings. They were quite cross, he said.

While plant growth is expected to increase as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, the research has shown that the same effect will lower the amount of water they take up from the ground and release into the air as vapour. This is because higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide shrink the size of microscopic holes in plant leaves called stomata, through which water escapes into the air. Smaller stomata mean that plants will absorb less groundwater, leaving more to saturate the ground and flow into rivers.

In some parts of the world this is likely to be beneficial, offsetting some of the increased tendency to drought that higher temperatures would bring. In regions that are already wet, however, it will raise the risk of flooding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9806
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Although computer projections already suggest that Britain will experience heavier winter rainfall as the climate warms, the picture may be even worse because rising carbon dioxide levels will cause plants to mop up less groundwater than at present, research has shown. Land that is saturated with water will not be able to absorb heavy rainfall, leading to more floods, scientists said.


That's very counter-intuitive! If there are more plants with more CO2 and warmer weather, surely there will be more transpiration resulting in a greater uptake of water from the ground. Although during the winter there is very little or no plant growth anyway.

Having read the rest of the piece they address that issue. But with a greater area of plant and higher number of plants, wouldn't that be negated. There's certainly no shortage of transpiration in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7626

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Quote:
Although computer projections already suggest that Britain will experience heavier winter rainfall as the climate warms, the picture may be even worse because rising carbon dioxide levels will cause plants to mop up less groundwater than at present, research has shown. Land that is saturated with water will not be able to absorb heavy rainfall, leading to more floods, scientists said.


That's very counter-intuitive! If there are more plants with more CO2 and warmer weather, surely there will be more transpiration resulting in a greater uptake of water from the ground. Although during the winter there is very little or no plant growth anyway.

Having read the rest of the piece they address that issue. But with a greater area of plant and higher number of plants, wouldn't that be negated. There's certainly no shortage of transpiration in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.


Not really counter-intuitive, the logic is that in a higher CO2 world, plants will have fewer (and smaller) stomata. We've already seen stomata density fall quite a bit (something like a third from memory over the last 150 years) and so lose less water vapour. The magnitude of the impact on the hydrological cycle is pretty big.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9806
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about the rate of transpiration through those smaller stomata and the increased number and size of the plants?
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12459
Location: York

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It just says summer drought probability is lower than previously predicted. Not the same as low per se. It still mentions the possibility of floods in both winter and summer.

And above all it's not yet confirmed by other researchers.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2011 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wind more reliable than nuclear: http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/Japan/FukushimaNuclearYeartoYearReliabilityandGermanWind.html

(Hat-tip RC)
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does that observation scale globally? For example, someone I think reported on these very pages that the American nukes (and there are lots of American nukes) were approaching a load factor of 90 %. Have you reported similar capacity factors for wind - did I miss that?

And it would be essential to have an explanation of why the load factor in Japan has been reduced. In France, they report a load factor of 70 % for their nukes (again, I think that might be higher than wind, but I'll accept any clarification) which was forcibly lowered because their nukes had been load following! So can these new wind turbines load follow?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2011 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I finally got round to watching the last episode of the Secret Life of the National Grid yesterday.

Apparently, when Thatcher was on her privatisation spree, the sell-off of the national nuclear assets had to be cancelled because, when the books were examined (the first time the accounts had been looked at seriously), it was discovered that, far from being the cheap electricity producer we had been told it was, the decommisisoning costs of one nuclear power station alone would exceed all the likely government receipts from the sell-off of all grid-related assets. Consequently no one wanted to touch nuclear with that uncertainty about who would pick up the tab for all those revealed costs and no one has since built nuclear without goverment subsidy and the liabilities tacitly going to the local population - as the Japanese are now discovering.
_________________
I'm hippest, no really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group