Showing posts with label carbon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon. Show all posts

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Wrong

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, announces conclusions and directives that are not in the realm of reality. Ending the use of coal by 2040 and eliminating cars by 2050 is not going to happen. Future generations will have to deal with the damage caused by climate change because people are just human. A dead crow is left on road to be crushed into obliteration. No one stops to picks it up and throws it into the bushes. No improvement will be made until most people accept that Climate change is real.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments Consensus Project Translations About Donate TwitterFacebookYouTubePinterestRSS PostsRSS CommentsEmail Subscribe Climate's changed sun bad consensus cooling Models unreliable Temp record unreliable Animals plants adapt hasn't warmed 998 Antarctica gaining ice View Arguments Username Password Keep logged New? Register Forgot password? Latest Posts Archives Climate Hustle IPCC global surface warming projections accurate science Global surface temperature measurements range IPCC projections. Climate Myth IPCC global warming projections wrong Yet leaked report extraordinary concession past years, recorded world temperatures increased quarter rate IPCC claimed published last assessment 2007. Back then, observed warming years 990-2005 taken place rate 0.2C per decade, predicted would continue 20 years, basis forecasts computer climate models. report observed warming recent years 2012 0.05C per decade computer predictions." (David Rose) figure 2013 Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change (IPCC) report compares global surface warming projections 990, 995, 2001, 2007 IPCC reports temperature measurements. IPCC AR5 Figure .4. Solid lines squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes NAS (blue).

NO (yellow), UK Hadley Centre (green). colored shading shows projected range surface warming IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), Fourth (AR4; red). IPCC AR5 Figure .4. Solid lines squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes NAS (blue), NO (yellow), UK Hadley Centre (green). colored shading shows projected range surface warming IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), Fourth (AR4; red). 990, global surface temperatures warmed rate 0.15°C per decade, range model projections 0.10 0.35°C per decade. IPCC notes. global climate models generally simulate global temperatures compare observations climate timescales ... 990–2012 data shown consistent [1990 IPCC report] projections, consistent zero trend 990 ... trend globally-averaged surface temperatures falls range previous IPCC projections. Naysayers? weeks months leading publication final 2013 IPCC report, flood opinion articles blogs mainstream media claiming models used IPCC dramatically over-predicted global warming thus failure.

This narrative clearly conflicts IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, what's going on? mistaken climate contrarian articles suffered combination errors. ) Publicizing flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure Late last year, early draft IPCC report leaked, including draft version figure shown above. version graph flaws, including significant immediately noted statistician climate blogger Tamino. flaw this: series (both projections observations) aligned 990. observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas projections average multiple models averages ... projections aligned value due existing trend observations 990. Aligning projections single extra-hot year projections seem hot, observations cool comparison. draft version IPCC figure, simply visual illusion surface temperature data appeared warming less slowly model projections, measured temperature trend fell range model simulations. Obviously mistake subsequently corrected. This illustrates bad idea publicize material draft form, definition work progress. 2) Ignoring range model simulations single model simulates possible future climate outcome. reality, infinite number possible outcomes, depending various factors greenhouse gas emissions natural climate variability change. This climate modelers predictions; projections, say scenario 'x', climate change 'y' fashion.

shaded regions IPCC figure represent range outcomes individual climate model simulations. IPCC illustrates "multi-model mean," averages together individual model simulation runs. This average easy comparison observational data; however, there's believe climate follow average path, especially short-term. natural factors act amplify human-caused global surface warming, 990s, climate likely warm faster model average short-term. natural factors act dampen global surface warming, 2000s, climate likely warm slowly model average. model simulations averaged together, random natural variability individual model runs cancel out, steady human-caused global warming trend remains left over. reality climate behaves single model simulation run, average model runs. This important retain shaded range individual model runs. 3) Cherry Picking claims IPCC models failed based surface temperature changes past years (1998–2012). During period, temperatures risen 50 percent slowly multi-model average, remained range individual model simulation runs. However, 998 represented abnormally hot year Earth's surface due strongest El Niño events.

20th century. Thus represents poor choice starting date analyze surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or points known 'cherry picking'). For example, select different 5-year period, 992–2006, surface warming trend nearly 50 percent faster multi-model average, statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates figure below. Fast warming trend 992–2006, slow warming trend 997–2012. Global surface temperature data 975–2012 NAS linear trend (black), trends 992–2006 (red) 998–2012 (blue). short, climate contrarians declaring global surface warming accelerating control 2006, business declaring global surface warming 'paused' 2013. Both statements equally wrong, based cherry picking noisy short-term data. IPCC models accurate. For 992–2006, natural variability climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, dampened surface warming 997–2012. Over full period, overall warming rate remained range IPCC model projections, 2013 IPCC report notes.

long-term climate model simulations show trend global-mean surface temperature 951 2012 agrees observed trend (very confidence). are, however, differences simulated observed trends periods short years (e.g., 998 2012). IPCC notes climate models accurately simulated trends extreme cold heat, large-scale precipitation pattern changes, ocean heat content (where global warming goes). Models better simulate Arctic sea ice decline, previously dramatically underestimated. all, IPCC models impressive job accurately representing projecting changes global climate, contrary contrarian claims. fact, IPCC global surface warming projections performed better predictions climate contrarians. important remember weather predictions climate predictions different. harder predict weather further future. With climate predictions, short-term variability (like unpredictable ocean cycles) predictions difficult. actually better predicting climate changes several decades future, time short-term fluctuations average out. That's climate models hard time predicting changes 0–15 years, predictions several decades future, IPCC illustrates.

This news, climate change, long-term changes worried about: IPCC surface temperature change projections IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes emissions scenario (RCP8.5; red) emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue). Intermediate rebuttal written dana1981 Update July 2015: Here related lecture-video Denial101x Making Sense Climate Science Denial Last updated July 2015 pattimer. View Archives Printable Version | Offline PDF Version | Link page Comments Comments : sailing 01:57 AM September, 2017 Nice work! would convincing record temperatures 2014, 2015, 2016 plotted. Post Comment Political, off-topic ad hominem comments deleted. Comments Policy. logged post comment. Login left margin new, register here. © copyright 2018 if john if cook if home if links if translations if about if us if contact us
Coral reef pollution

Un-Australian Barbecue Smoke Ban in Tasmania



Laws are un-Australian

The backyard barbecue is an Australian icon. Chops, burgers, and snags in bread are things for all family celebrations. New tough laws restricting smoke are to be introduced in Tasmania. A maximum of $16,000 fine with be given for barbecue cooking - unlawful.

People face a draft of laws anti smoke laws by the Tasmanian Government allowing fewer landholders to to light wood heaters and vegetation. Good for greenies perhaps. But barbecues will also be covered and Tasmanians will be fined for smoke emission.

The Environmental Protection Authority site show it will be unlawful for barbecues to give off smoke if:

(1) A fireplace, cooking appliance and outdoor heating cannot cause or allow smoke to be emitted by a person.

(a) Should not seen for a period of time exceeding 10 minutes;

(b) During the period of 10 minutes it cannot be seen for longer than a duration os 30 seconds

(i) No smoke is allowed to a distance of 10 metres from a building point, emitted from a fireplace or heating appliance inside a building

(ii) When the cooking appliance, outdoor heating, or heating appliance is situated outside of a building or part of, the limit distance is 10 metres from the source of emitted smoke.

So it is unlawful for barbecue smoke to emit smoke for a distance of 10 metres or continuously for 30 seconds.

Oppinons on the new draft laws can be put in writing and sent to enquiries@epa.tas.gov.au by the Tasmanian public by August 17.

Environmental Policy and Support Services
EPA Tasmania
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
GPO Box 1751
Hobart, TAS 7001

~ barbecuing, cook, cooking, steak, pork, beef, outdoors, backyards, carbon, gas,
Backyard barbecue smoke ban
| ★ images ★


Greenhouse Pollution Reduced by Natural Gas

Plants destroyed in australia
| Impact on greenhouse gases reduced with LNG over coal power generation greenhouse computer pollution to type on reduced numbers natural greenhouse figure pollution keys gas text natural in letters keyboard gas paragraph greenhouse create pollution colors code software gas eh reduced pollution color greenhouse or natural up reduced || global warming climate strategic electricity generation environmental shale oil energy emissions || emissions energy oil shale environmental electricity strategic climate warming global || emissions company energy reduce oil power study methane development ghg community leakage producing global studies information companies shale production plants giving local communities spirit operations worldwide fact share states united industry flaring sustainable questions resources water innovative market produce magazine libya brunei timor-leste australia china indonesia malaysia qatar norway colombia canada alaska standards data agency protection environmental wells joined generation electricity analysis strategic institute joint published liquids university year areas plan venting change climate technology releases warming compared estimates common contact presentations corporate search career locations reporting impact seekers grant employee education math stewardship biodiversity working safely cooperation business solutions creating exploring find explore legacy sheets exploration independent || independent exploration sheets legacy explore find exploring creating solutions business cooperation safely working biodiversity stewardship math education employee grant seekers reporting locations career search corporate presentations contact common estimates compared warming releases technology climate chang venting plan areas year university liquids published joint institute strategic analysis electricity generation joined wells environmental protection agency data standards alaska canada colombia norway qatar malaysia indonesia china australia timor-leste brunei libya magazine produce market innovative water resources questions sustainable flaring industry united states share fact worldwide operations spirit communities local giving plants production shale companies information studies global producing leakage community ghg development methane conocophillips study power oil reduce energy company emissions || impact ||
Natural gas story

Not Positive Work on Coal-Fired Power Station Carbon Capture - Pollution

Coal powered power stations to lessen pollution by carbon capture - power.
For decades there has been much talk about capturing carbon from coal-fired power stations. So far projects have failed to come up with a viable solution. Coal is dirty and it remains so. Nuclear is more realistic alternative but it is dangerous.
  power pollution carbon coal-fired capture soda ash power stations pollution news
Pollution from coal-fired power station
A new attempt is about to be made in India by Carbon Clean Solutions (CCSL). Claims are being made of capture costs as low $30.00 a tonne, half of that achieved so far in other tests. Pollution is also claimed to be reduced to zero. Such figures are obviously totally baseless.
    carbon coal-fired pollution power stations cement fertilizer news
Reduction of carbon by salt and amines to soda ash is the method to be used. Soda ash is used for fertilizer and cement. There is more than one system. The list includes solvent, membrane and negative emission.
  carbon power stations coal-fired soda ash fertilizer cement station
The UK has cut funding in its research program. President Trump of the US has indicated he will expand coal power stations as there is no global warming caused by pollution - he believes. Countries are not acting in a positive manner to reduce the deleterious affect of coal.
Chemistry 
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ELECTRICITY ISSUE
research capture coal-fired positive station

Higher Carbon Dioxide Changes Behavior

Carbon dioxide changes behavor.
Higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be making us stupid. Research has shown that greater concentrations of CO2 causes neurological impairment in fish. Sea water stores the dangerous element - the ocean has become more acidic because of its increased presence.
Damsel fish.
The test subjects were Damsel fish (Acathochromis polyacanthus), which live in coral reefs. Half were kept in a normal atmosphere. The other half were put in an atmosphere with elevated CO2.  Brain chemistry, blood and behavior were measured.

The behavior test involved the fish choosing between entering normal sea water or going to water containing injured fish. The smell of the injured fish should have stopped the damselfish from choosing to enter that water. However, the fish exposed to higher CO2  ignored or did not pick up the chemical warning: the injured fish didn't bother them.

This is ground breaking stuff. It could show what will happen to humans as carbon dioxide dramatically increases in coming years. People are not fish, but we are all animals. The process of preventing internal body tissues from becoming more acidic from a dangerous CO2 environment does cause chemical imbalance that affects behavior.
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STUPID FISH
Damsel, fish, Acathochromis, polyacanthus, carbon, dioxide, CO2, sea, water, tests, research, injured, choose

Higher Carbon Dioxide Changes Behavior

Carbon dioxide changes behavor.
Higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be making us stupid. Research has shown that greater concentrations of CO2 causes neurological impairment in fish. Sea water stores the dangerous element - the ocean has become more acidic because of its increased presence.
Damsel fish.
The test subjects were Damsel fish (Acathochromis polyacanthus), which live in coral reefs. Half were kept in a normal atmosphere. The other half were put in an atmosphere with elevated CO2.  Brain chemistry, blood and behavior were measured.

The behavior test involved the fish choosing between entering normal sea water or going to water containing injured fish. The smell of the injured fish should have stopped the damselfish from choosing to enter that water. However, the fish exposed to higher CO2  ignored or did not pick up the chemical warning: the injured fish didn't bother them.

This is ground breaking stuff. It could show what will happen to humans as carbon dioxide dramatically increases in coming years. People are not fish, but we are all animals. The process of preventing internal body tissues from becoming more acidic from a dangerous CO2 environment does cause chemical imbalance that affects behavior.
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STUPID FISH
Damsel, fish, Acathochromis, polyacanthus, carbon, dioxide, CO2, sea, water, tests, research, injured, choose

DNA From Mucus Shows the Sex of Whales

Genetics: Scientists work on whales instead of cattle.
Work on cattle genetics has shown the way to determine the sex of whales using a sample taken from blow holes. Specimens are composed of water and mucous membrane material.  They are collected from the sea by people in dingies, canoes and kayaks. The process involves scooping with a six-metre long carbon-fibre pole.
Getting samples of whale mucus
A team of researchers has enjoyed the chance to get away from working with cattle. They have also done a genetic study of koalas. Improving cattle and meat are their priorities, however.  A few hundred samples are to be taken.  This compares to a half a million already collected from cattle.

While blow hole samples are used for whales, hair is taken from cattle. Researchers have identified favourable traits for cattle from DNA. The real problem is getting these into cattle. Farmers are the ones who breed animals, not researchers. It is no surprise to find the more direct work on whales a welcome change.
 Genetics by Ty Buchanan 
 Australian Blog
            Australian Blog   Adventure Australia
ALL BLOG ARTICLES· ──► (BLOG HOME PAGE)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Genetics dna collecting whale mucus in the sea people in small boats articles news politics economics society anthropology historiography history sociology people nations country asia europe africa u.s. south america central Mediterranean eastern western interesting funny technology free news sex

Nanodots From Pencil Leads

If you want to improve the efficiency of solar cells, use your pencil. Well, the graphite in pencils can now be used to make tiny nanodots. Graphite rods in sodium hydroxide solution produce nanodots which can potentially be used to augment existing solar panels.
Nanodots from pencil leads
The Pencil study involved using pencil "leads" as the cathode and anode, which were dropped into ethanolic sodium hydroxide. Nano particles of 3 nanometers (nm) were produced. Nanodots in a compound with carboxyl and hydroxyl collected on the anode. The nanodots were then drawn into the pores of a titanium and silicon dioxide template.

Other mesoporous materials have been tested. They each have particular properties in regard to sensing, catalysis and optoelectronics. This allows for fine tuning of solar panels. The pencil lead system improved current transfer from simulated sunlight by 38 per cent.
 Chemistry by Ty Buchanan 
 Australian Blog
            Australian Blog   Adventure Australia
ALL BLOG ARTICLES· ──► (BLOG HOME PAGE)
chemistry science tests pencil lead graphite carbon solar panels mesoporous synthetic materials optoelectronic Mesoporous materials polymer templates titanium dioxide and silicon dioxide nanoparticles sunlight electrochemical anode cathode porosities pores articles news politics economics society anthropology historiography history sociology people nations country asia europe africa u.s. south america central Mediterranean eastern western interesting funny technology free

New Carbon Dioxide to Monoxide Process to Reduce Pollution

Turning carbon dioxide in carbon monoxide may seem like a silly thing to do, considering carbon monoxide is a deadly poison. However, if this can be done easily and cheaply it could reduce pollution: it is used to produce fuels and plastics.
Carbon capture at coal power plant at Boundary Dam in Canada
A catalyst has been made that does the conversion into carbon dioxide. It does the task rapidly. Last year the world's first commercial capture process at a coal power plant began operating. Waste gases were bubbled up through vats of amine solution. This is very expensive though.

The new process became possible when it was made to work in water. Electrocalysts have been used for two decades to take an oxygen molecule from a CO2 atom. As it now safely functions in water a whole new horizon opens up to clean up the environment.

conversion occurs at a rate of 290,000 atoms a second, an improvement of 26 times the pre-water process. Little maintenance of the system is needed. It has only been done in the lab so far. Plans are afoot to try it out at a coal power plant.
Chemistry by Ty Buchanan
            Australian Blog   Adventure Australia
ALL BLOG ARTICLES· ──► (BLOG HOME PAGE)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
carbon dioxide co2 monoxide co catalyst chemistry lab coal power plant electricity
CATALYST CONVERTS CO2 TO CO

Carbon Sinks in Australia Reduce Carbon

As carbon pollution continues what will happen to the Australian climate? We have just had the warmest May on record and are heading for the mildest winter ever. This will probably mean a stinking hot summer. Heat is rising while places like the United States are getting extremely cold conditions. This is mainly due to a permanent change in the Gulf Stream.

Because Australia is large open savannah, it does store carbon, but storage is only short term. It will be released again further down the track. Ironically, plants are absorbing more anthropogenic CO2 (man-made) than ever before. It seems the higher level of carbon is making flora work harder.

Forget pollution from cars it is maintenance of the Amazon Rain Forest that is important. As more land is cleared to make money residual carbon in the atmosphere will rise.

A change "is" taking place. Arid areas like Australia are getting greener. Warmer conditions seem to increase rain and plant growth. This is mostly in the tropical northern regions - the top half of the country. When El Niño returns this could all change. El Niño = hot and dry.
Funny Animal Photos by Ty Buchanan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     Australian Blog                         
ALL BLOG ARTICLES· ──► (BLOG HOME PAGE)

Study on Livestock Pollution Not Sound

Much has been said about cattle that increase carbon and methane levels in the atmosphere. Test were done on cattle in the European Union. Options were considered on how the emissions could be reduced. It was found that dairy and beef cattle contributed 60 per cent of pollution for the whole livestock industry.

Because little can be done about body waste emissions, efficiency factors were at the center of the study. Poor land use was the second highest factor in global greenhouse gas emissions after direct production. Pollution for wasted food followed inefficient use of land.

As usual the investigators did their calculations on how much pollution could be lessened if their advice was adopted by the livestock industry. It was estimated that the lowest impact would be a reduction of 12 per cent. Optimists in the group said 60 per cent.

Somehow consumption of meat was to be reduced. Just how this was to be done was not made clear. With people in developing countries adopting a taste for Western food potential meat consumption will probably increase, even if in the EU less is consumed.

It was found that changing to grain fed beef from grassland beef would decrease pollution. This is a questionable hypothesis considering more high quality grain would have be grown to feed more cattle. It is a very expensive way of producing beef as well. This finding was based on the assumption feed lots would be constructed on poor grazing land and good grazing land was left alone. This in itself would be a decrease in overall production efficiency. To reduce greenhouse gasses consumers would ultimately have to pay the price. Like the carbon tax, few countries will introduce a more costly meat production system purely because it will raise the price for consumers.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Science
TwitThis

Water is the Problem not Oil

We are obsessed with the oil crisis. So much so that we fail to see other problems that face us in the near future. For example, what about fresh drinking water. If nothing is done soon, the world will be in crisis. Even countries with cold climates, in Europe, are facing a shortage of potable water because of the high population density. As people become Westernized they consume more water. They change from bathing when they can, to having showers every day.

Production oil also impacts on the availability of water. it takes 2.5 liters of water to produce every liter of oil. Even growing bio fuels puts pressure on water, with a thousand liters of water needed to make a liter of bio fuel. The modern way of life is water "heavy":


Wealthy people use 3,000 liters of water each day to live their lives. More drought in the world is putting prices of everything up. When water gets short it does so locally. Moving water from one place to another in bulk is problematical. In the short term it is possible, but in the longer term it is not. Food production will fall behind what is needed over the next two decades if nothing is done.

The oil crisis and carbon pollution are problems but a shortage of water will hurt most of all.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Society

More People Are Turning to Wood for Heating

Price is already changing consumer behavior in regard to carbon. However, price signals can make people do the wrong thing. Because electricity has risen sharply in Australia over the last two years some people are going back to old wood burning appliances for heating and cooking.

Burning wood pushes more carbon into the atmosphere. It is just swapping wood for coal. Demand for fuel timber has risen 30 per cent this winter. It isn't cheap either. A tonne delivered to your door costs $350 and lasts about six weeks. More new fireplaces are being purchased, so there is a trend.

Sitting over a fireplace is bad for your health. Pollutants are drawn into the lungs. It is like smoking cigarettes. Over a year a wood heater produces more dangerous particles than five diesel trucks. Already 6 per cent of people in Sydney use wood burners and this number is rising.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Society

Culling of Camels in Australia's Outback Is Misplaced

Where there's money to be gained someone will jump in. This is now the case for camels in Australia. Plans are being made to kill the animals in exchange for carbon credits. It is claimed that their flatulence is polluting the atmosphere.

Northwest Carbon apparently believes it owns the camels or has the sole right to cull them. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency first suggested taking such action. Apparently, one camel produces a ton of carbon dioxide each year. This is an exaggeration.

Culling camels has nothing to do with reducing Australia's carbon footprint. It is just a money-making exercise. Admittedly camels are feral. They were introduced into Australia in the 19th century because they were ideal for moving goods about in the dry outback. But their metabolism is higher than cattle and their pollution level is low.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Climate

Australians Will Not Accept Nuclear Power

Ian Mcfarlane the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources says Australia should still consider nuclear power. He must be off his bonnet if he thinks Australians will have a bar of this dangerous form of electricity generation. If a Coalition government seriously suggested a move to nuclear energy people would be protesting in the streets. Then there is the "not in my backyard" syndrome. No community would accept such a potentially toxic plant in their area.

For Mr Mcfarlane's information lessons have been learned from the impossible situation in Japan where there in no solution to the problem. Australians do not want nuclear and will never want nuclear. Japan's economy is severely damaged and the Japanese will have chronic illnesses into the future. Much of the country will have to be fenced off, never to be used by humans ever again.

Australians like everyone else in the world will have to pay much more for electricity as systems of clean coal power generation are ultimately adopted and expensive solar, wind and tidal methods are in general operation. This will happen as countries are dragged screaming and shouting to the table to sign up for carbon pricing. Increasing climactic damage including hits on economies from bad weather will put strong pressure on countries to comply. Countries will put up barriers against products from other economies that do not have low emission policies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Science

Don't Get Excited About Nuclear Power

The world is in a tight corner and people are far too optimistic. Thinking that carbon pollution will cure itself is not scientific fact. Only a fool would hang onto the notion that nothing is wrong. The poles are thawing out and that is fact. Polar bears are dwindling in number as their traditional frozen feeding grounds get warmer. Butterflies that used to stay on in winter in southern England have moved north to colder climes. Those species that stay are getting larger.

Despite coal power stations being the main culprit more are being built to meet Mankind's increasing demand. Much is said about nuclear power stations holding the key to a "clean" future. Used uranium is going around Europe at this very moment without finding a home in any country. Where will this dangerous product be put in the future? Unless it is blasted into space toward the sun there is no where for it to go. France gets more than 80 percent of its electric power from nuclear means, but this is the country with the used uranium problem.

Even some scientists say the carbon footprint of nuclear power will be reduced to zero. This is hogwash. If you ignore nuclear waste everything looks good. Include it and it all looks very bad indeed. Nuclear power isn't cheap. Building a nuclear power plant requires long term planning. Safe guards are costly. Their useful life is also limited. Coal plants can stay in operation for much longer.

Within twenty years all 25 of China's new nuclear plants will come online. The world will be a militants' paradise with used uranium for sale on the open market. The consequences will be catastrophic. Saying there is no carbon price is absolute rubbish. If a bomb goes off there will be plenty of pollution.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .