NickF:

"Blimey who knows which of the alternatives is best way to reduce GHG's? Is it ethanol, solar, butanol, biodeisel, nuclear power, biogas, wind, energy efficiency, coal co2 sequestering, or just plain cutting back?"

You know the answer ... it's "Yes" They all work and each will find it's place with time and economics. I would agree with a carbon tax ... you just need to make sure it's revenue neutral and non-disruptive. Government intervention is similar to various engine types, each comes with its own degree of inefficiency but it will still help you get where you want to go.

Its nuclear because nothing else has the capacity to replace coal in the short term, and coal power contribues over 50% of global emissions. Ignoring this fact is being willfully blind, and trying to prop up other technologies with legislation is going to prop up coal; Or cripple the economy and force the next government to prop up coal.

All this 'we should have a balance of everything' nonsense is all very polite, but it distracts from true solutions. Sure, wind power and solar power can make sense as small portions of the energy mix, but the true solution to reducing emissions is by far nuclear.

Its nuclear because nothing else has the capacity to replace coal in the short term

That's false.

coal power contribues over 50% of global emissions

That's also false - way off.

Ignoring this fact is being willfully blind

Neither of what you just asserted are facts. Perhaps before advocating solutions, you should get your facts straight.

Or cripple the economy and force the next government to prop up coal.

Ah, there's the chicken little line about "crippling the economy". Knew that was coming eventually. Prove that non-nuke approaches will "cripple" the economy.

Sure, wind power and solar power can make sense as small portions of the energy mix, but the true solution to reducing emissions is by far nuclear.

False.

That's also false - way off.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

In 2004 about 40% of world carbon emissions, and rising in its share.

Nuclear can displace coal and natural gas, well over 50% of the carbon emissions globally. Instead of childish negation, back up with facts.

What can replace coal besides nuclear?

Ah, there's the chicken little line about "crippling the economy". Knew that was coming eventually. Prove that non-nuke approaches will "cripple" the economy.

To replace coal, basically you have to build distribution and storage infrastructure for intermittent power on the scale of terawatts. Not that easy when your average price per watt in infrastructure is 4 dollars or more per watt, and it sends power prices per kw/hr way up, affecting all businesses.

Well, actually its impossible in a competitive world. People will just build coal or nuclear plants across the border and you'll import your power. Watch what happens to Germany.

Coal in 2004 -- 2,888 Million Metric tons CO2 equivalent
Total in 2000 -- 33,666 Million Metric tons CO2 equivalent
http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter2.pdf (Figure 2.1)

and that's before accounting for LUCF.

2888/33666=8.6% (again, that's dividing 2004 coal by all sources for 4 years prior to that, so the actual percentage is even lower than that).

In 2004 about 40% of world carbon emissions, and rising in its share.

First you say 50%, now you say 40%. In reality it's less than 8.6% before factoring in LUCF.

Nuclear can displace coal and natural gas, well over 50% of the carbon emissions globally. Instead of childish negation, back up with facts.

I just did. You were off by a factor of 6 to 7. Want to lecture me some more? Being childish is to assert something to be 50% when it's less than 9%, then be condescending towards people who know the real facts.

What can replace coal besides nuclear?

Renewables. Efficiency. Other demand-side management approaches. All kinds of things.

To replace coal, basically you have to build distribution and storage infrastructure for intermittent power on the scale of terawatts.

A totally arbitrary conclusion. There's all sorts of ways to come at the problem.

Not that easy when your average price per watt in infrastructure is 4 dollars or more per watt, and it sends power prices per kw/hr way up, affecting all businesses.

Another vague claim without any basis.

Well, actually its impossible in a competitive world. People will just build coal or nuclear plants across the border and you'll import your power. Watch what happens to Germany.

Whatever.

Here's better data (using Year 2000 data - MtCO2 equiv).

Coal - 8,797.62
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh4co2.xls

Exclude intl bunkers and LUCF
CO2 - 24,019.40
All GHGs - 33,661.50

Include intl bunkers, exclude LUCF
CO2 - 24,841.90
All GHGs - 34,484.00

Include intl bunkers and LUCF
CO2 - 32,460.50
All GHGs - 42,102.60

So, depending on how you want to define it, coal is 36.6% of global CO2 emissions, excluding international bunker fuels and land use changes & forestry. For all greenhouse gases, including international bunker fuels and LUCF, coal's share is 20.9%.

http://cait.wri.org/cait.php?page=gases

To top it off, the EIA's reference case projections to 2030 show coal's share of emissions declining.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ieorefcase.html

You're right in pointing out it's a substantial contributor to global warming, but it's not even in the neighborhood of 50% -- nor will it ever be. That's the point.

My appologies. I hadn't realized this accounting for forestry allowed for such funny numbers.

If you looked at the 2004 data its at 40%, excluding 'LUCF.' If you include natural gas, it rises to well above 50%, which nuclear is also capable of displacing.

Go ahead and see what happens without nuclear power. Its coal and more coal, with token wind farms.

Renewables. Efficiency. Other demand-side management approaches. All kinds of things.

Right... You have only two technologies capable of providing baseload that are scalable. Fossil fuels and nuclear power. Some day we'll have alternatives I'm sure, but not in the next decade or five.

My appologies. I hadn't realized this accounting for forestry allowed for such funny numbers.

I love it. You first say coal is responsible for 50% of the problem, then lecture me about being free of facts, Then I show you the facts, and you then try to change your claim to 40%. I show you even more detailed facts. Then you talk about "funny numbers", as if somehow I made up the numbers or that the emissions aren't real. Then you latch onto a number far above the most conservative upper end, then toss in natural gas on top of coal -- just out of the blue.

If you looked at the 2004 data its at 40%, excluding 'LUCF.'

No, let me help you with simple division:
8,797.62/33,661.50=26.1%

So, excluding LUCF and bunkers, it's 26.1%. And according to the EIA, coal's share will go down by 2030.

Go ahead and see what happens without nuclear power. Its coal and more coal, with token wind farms.

Go ahead and see what happens? How does that work? Am I now some sort of god who can run experiments on Earth, then back up time, then try another experiment? No, it's just you speculating, after not grasping the material facts relevant to the problem (and lecturing others about it to top it off).

Right... You have only two technologies capable of providing baseload that are scalable.

You didn't even understand what I just said. This isn't 1950. People understand that it isn't just about ramping up some infinite amount of supply. We're smarter than that now.

Fossil fuels and nuclear power. Some day we'll have alternatives I'm sure, but not in the next decade or five.

Again, your totally limited opinion, based not on anything in reality going on.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

Total fossil fuel flaring:

27043.5728870333

Total Coal:

10591.9644214276

10591/27043= 39%

Now if you want to include other processes such as deforestation and different land use parameters as human CO2 emission groups, fine and well, but this is becoming an ego driven grudge match playing with different figures.

What you're doing here is scandalously absurd. You're arguing minutia about terms. Nuclear can compete one on one for coal and its clear that it is the easiest option for reducing emissions of any. If you care about emissions reduction, nuclear power offers the most scalable alternative to fossil fuels out of the box.

Total Coal: 10591.9644214276

You're pulling that number out of thin air.

Total fossil fuel flaring:

...that creates CARBON DIOXIDE. Do you understand the existence of other greenhouse gases? No, apparently not. You said coal is responsible for 50% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Even giving you bunker fuels and LUCF, it is ONE HALF of that. Period.

We're done.

Building all those Nuke plants presents a large CO2 source: Cement and Steel for containment buildings and facilities. To fuel them long term, reprocessing will present a NIMBY backlash, and a response from the X-nium phobes (constituent politics). Building 4th Gen Nuke plants will be more expensive, and has not been done on the Gigawatt+ scale. I do agree someone will do it (French, Japanese?).
___Increasing efficiencies of existing power generation (~50%) may do the trick, but only until ~2025 (if there is no cutback in consumption). Power transmission is another problem as NIMBY rears its head again. Siting hulking new plants near cities, that burn anything also incurs NIMBY.
___We got into this debacle over 50 years, and it will take 50 years to get out. Hard choices must be made and w/the Baby Boom retiring, the finanacial/economic/political options shrink.

And one more thing, the PRC is racing to get rich before it gets old. Expenses like emission/pollution controls will not be on important to the leadership, unless it threatens their control of the country. Pollution (SOX, particulates) from coal fired plants will be cut in the next decade, and largely remove the cooling efect on the atmosphere. You thought it was hot the past ten years, wait till next decade.

I have just put up a post with a series of links to the best blogs that i have found covering the Nairobi climate talks.

http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2006/11/blogs-onfrom-unfccc-cop12-mop2-talks.html

I think some of these may be of interest. If you have any additions then let me know and I will append them.

It is my intention that this post serves as a hub for blog coverage of the talks, if you would like to link to the post that would be great. Many of these blogs are new and therefore difficult to find through technorati/google blog search, and I think there is some value in highlighting blogs that are from rather than mearly about the events unfolding.

Regards
Calvin Jones

Thanks

Thanks