Any new power plant that’s not built at a pre-existing power plant needs transmission lines, however, so nuclear, coal, natural gas, and centralized renewable all need new transmission lines. Only decentralized renewable (primarily solar installs on existing buildings, but wind could qualify in certain parts of the country) wouldn’t need new power lines.

Of course, we’ll probably need a lot more lines regardless, just to keep up with growth. Going to HVDC lines would help a lot, however, especially if they were run on existing towers and in existing easements.

Proliferation is an issue beyond the U.S., given concerns about Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, India, etc. And just because there aren’t proliferation problems within the U.S. due to nuclear security, that doesn’t mean that proliferation isn’t an issue beyond the U.S. And if we’re using uranium-based reactors (I’ve not heard of thorium reactors, so I’ll need to do some research before I can talk intelligently to them), setting up breeder reactors and reprocessing plants scattered around the world is still a serious proliferation concern.

Thorium nuclear energy isn’t new. it’s been devolped and tested for for 50 years. Problem was the MIC wanted plutonium for their weapons so we got what we have today conventional nuclear with it’s problems of waste and inefficiency. Contrary to what environmentalist say there is no proliferation problem with building nuclear reactors in the United States. Waste with LFTRs is extremely small. LFTRs breed uranium necessary and there is enough thorium in the earth to keep them operating for at least a million years.

Nuclear is much more cost effective than solar and wind and more reliable. Don’t know why nuclear would require massive transmission lines since the transmission lines are already there. Solar and wind will require new transmission lines since the proposed locations are in deserts and other remote places.

Solar and wind is subsidized isn’t it?

See this for a cost analysis: How much would a reliable wind system cost?

As for the paper I’m talking about, here’s the link: http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-342.pdf

As a member of a pro-nuclear group, I generally agree that nuclear is part of the plan, but there are significant problems with it. First off, there are precious few 2nd generation plants in existence, no third generation plants at all, so calling for a 4th generation plant is extremely aggressive. Second, there is a limited amount of uranium available, and so the only way to produce more is via breeder reactors and reprocessing plants, ie major proliferation problems. Third, nuclear isn’t presently cost competitive with any other form of electricity generation without massive government subsidies. Fourth, there’s all the waste that needs to be dealt with somehow, and while I have my preferred method (and it’s not Yucca Mountain), there’s insufficient agreement among the various experts and concerned parties about how to handle it, and I think that’s a big problem.

If nuclear can be made cost effective without subsidies, I think it’ll be fine over the long run. But right now, solar and wind are both far cheaper per kWh than unsubsidized nuclear is, and they’re distributed and so may not require the kind of massive transmission lines that nuclear does.

When you said “I’m familiar with Pielke’s work, … I’m in the process of reading one of his most recent papers and it’s relying on some data that I’m pretty sure has been shown to be inaccurate.” which paper are you referring to?

My opinion, and I’m certainly not an expert on it or close, is that the climate models are incomplete and can’t accurately reflect current conditions based on the historical data. If climate models are to be trusted the should also be able to accurately account for El Nino and La Nina and I don’t think there is any model that does so. Obviously the reason is those are not well understood but affect the climate greatly. Furthermore, I don’t trust the IPCC any more than I would trust a politician.

It is clear that we must use another energy source other than fossil fuels even if there was no global warming. The answer is not solar or wind or wave energy although those could be useful in certain niches.

The answer to our energy needs, and the worlds energy needs, is nuclear. There’s no denying that. have a look at what nuclear should have been if it weren’t for the military industrial complex:
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

Also look at this blog: Energy from Thorium

There are people trying get thorium and fourth generation nuclear more attention, among them is widely known scientist Dr James Hansen: Tell Barack Obama the Truth — The Whole Truth

Absolutely!

There’s something called the “bias effect” (IIRC) in psychology that basically says the more challenges a theory faces, the more the proponents of that theory try to bulletproof their arguments, and so there’s a gradual drift toward where the challenges are coming from. In the case of climate disruption, the bias effect would suggest that the proponents of the theory are spending time making sure they’re right and thus the scientific community should be drifting away from what you’re calling “hype.” Yet if you follow the state of the science as I do, you’ll notice that the scientists aren’t doing that. In fact, I’d say it’s biased toward more serious consequences, not less ones, because the actual science is saying things will be worse than previously thought, not better.

If you don’t want to trust the media, fine. Don’t. But don’t trust ANY of the media, including groups like WorldNetDaily and Newsbusters and Fox any more than ABC, the NYTimes, and MSNBC. If you’re going to read Pielke, read Mann too. If you’re going to read Roy Spencer, read Ken Caldiera too. If you’re going to read the websies WattsUpwiththat and Climate Audit and Icecap, read Real Climate and Climate Progress and SkepticalScience.

And I’d like to suggest that you read my own Weekly Carboholic feature here at S&R too.

I’ve just started to read that book and I don’t have the time to read all the scientists papers ont he subject. So far I found that the book summarizes the the current state of the debate and yes there is a debate no matter what the IPCC and Al Gore say. The IPCC is a political organization and Al Gore is a politician. Their job is to scare people into doing what they want.

Another very good blog by a climate scientist who well known and respected and is critical of the IPCC and teh hype surrounding global warming is
http://climatesci.org
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News
That’s written by climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr.
I think he has some very good arguments.

It doesn’t hurt that, by reading everything myself, I’m also discovering that some errors are easy to make when I run my own data analyses, so I’ll be a better investigator when I do run my own numbers.

Jeff

I thought of a better (shorter) way to say it: if I have to stop listening to you to figure out whether I should be listening to you, one of those processes is not going to be performed efficiently. An emotionally-charged word is almost always going to tip my neurons towards evaluation, and I’m probably going to miss whatever you say next. My brain won’t do both at once.

Your brain, of course, may vary.

Of course, that means I’m now reading entire sequences of papers written in response to each other. It’s a lot to read, but damn, I do get a lot of information fast in the process. It sometimes feels like I’ve opened up my skull and poured climatology etc. directly into my gray matter.

I will not cheapen the impact of such words as “Nazi” and “genocide” and “war criminal” and “crimes against humanity” by misusing them or using them carelessly in order to win points in some screwed up game.

Jeff

I haven’t read any climate-focused books. Instead, I’ve read a large number of actual scientific papers (I’ve found that scientists often put PDFs up on their websites or are willing to email you an electronic copy free if you ask politely) from people like Vincent Gray, Carl Mears, John Christy, Gavin Schmidt, Ron Spencer, Peter Thorne, Roger Pielke Sr, Robert Allen, and so on.

For that matter, I’ve found that I use the book-sized IPCC 2007 report (which was criticized as obsolete before it was even released) mainly for pretty pictures and for the huge number of references on every subject that relates to climate, from atmospheric physics to geological chemistry to paleobotany to marine biology to forestry.

At that point in a debate about, say, climate change, not only am I processing a different opinion and new information, I feel the need to re-examine my initial assessment of the speaker’s intent, intelligence and judgment. If the comparison is purposeful and serious, does my own general worldview and moral compass allow me to at least understand the speaker’s perspective, even if I can’t agree with it? On the other hand, if the use of words like “Nazi” and “genocide” are facile rhetorical devices for the speaker, is this a person with whom I am willing to do the work of sustaining a rational debate? Will it even be possible? Or was this a fairly isolated incident of heat-of-the-moment, foot-in-mouth syndrome, from which we all suffer at times and which in my playbook deserves a pass now and then?

You know, like this:

But calling someone irrational, illogical, ignorant, wrong, intentionally blind, or a liar is not in the same category as calling them a war criminal or guilty of genocide. You can even mock or insult someone without making totally unreasonable and emotionally loaded comparisons that make your opponent into your enemy. You’ll not hear me make such comparisons.

I know that if this speaker were moved to make that comparison, he would be fully aware of its significance and scope. I don’t know that about everyone else.

Extrapolating a contention that there is no one in the world today capable of meriting that comparison… hmmm.

If this is not your contention, then you must instead be suggesting that when we counter a Nazi, it’s best to treat this person with the same level of respect and dignity that we accord those who aren’t capable of committing tremendous horrors.

Thanks for clearing this up.

It’s very, very difficult (for me, at least) to keep listening after someone drops the “Nazi” bomb.