Swedish leader plans to use climate change miracle to cut greenhouse gases

Key line for all those nervous nellies claiming cutting CO2 emissions will ruin our economy: "50 per cent economic growth since 1990 combined with a 10 per cent cut in CO2 emissions"

MattJ wrote:

Key line for all those nervous nellies claiming cutting CO2 emissions will ruin our economy: "50 per cent economic growth since 1990 combined with a 10 per cent cut in CO2 emissions"

That was accomplished only because Sweden gets about half of its electricity from nuclear power.

I don't suppose anyone here has bothered to check the size and population of Sweden and compared both figures to the USA?

No?

Thought not.

Algernon Sidney wrote:

<quoted text>That was accomplished only because Sweden gets about half of its electricity from nuclear power.

If that were the reason, then France should have achieve it too, since France gets an even greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear.

Earthling wrote:

I don't suppose anyone here has bothered to check the size and population of Sweden and compared both figures to the USA?
No?
Thought not.

Well, you got one part right: you didn't think.

If you had thought, you would have realized the implication is the opposite of what you grasp for: the greater population in the US gives us the chance to take greater advantage of the economies of scale, so that our GDP would rise even MORE during the switchover to green power.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you got one part right: you didn't think.
If you had thought, you would have realized the implication is the opposite of what you grasp for: the greater population in the US gives us the chance to take greater advantage of the economies of scale, so that our GDP would rise even MORE during the switchover to green power.

Oh, nonsense. In order to achieve those "economies of scale" you first have to have a production method that will generate enough energy to fuel a country of our size and energy needs. After coal and oil, the ONLY thing that will do that is nuclear.

Unfortunately, the enviro wackos have put the U.S. on the nuclear sidelines. Their brain-dead answer? Double the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, an environmental, social and fiscal disaster.

As for Sweden, they have access to more hydro than most countries, so their template is not easily transferable. Also, their program actually called for the elimination of nuclear, but after years of trying, they gave up last year and began reinvesting in nuclear.

Some "miracle."

JRobert wrote:

Unfortunately, the enviro wackos have put the U.S. on the nuclear sidelines.

You haven't read the Climate Change bill, HR2454. It takes us out of the sidelines.

As for Sweden, they have access to more hydro than most countries, so their template is not easily transferable.

But we have more solar than they do. So it is still transferable.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You haven't read the Climate Change bill, HR2454. It takes us out of the sidelines.
<quoted text>
But we have more solar than they do. So it is still transferable.

"You haven't read the Climate Change bill, HR2454. It takes us out of the sidelines."

Go ahead and educate me. Tell me how nuclear, the ONLY viable alternative to oil and coal, will soon play a major part in our energy picture. Even if ALL the myriad restrictions were to be lifted tomorrow, it would be many years before nuclear energy even begins to come on line in any significant way. Just finding approved sites would be a small miracle.

"But we have more solar than they do. So it is still transferable."

Wrong. You spoke of "economies of scale", and solar is nowhere near able to provide enough energy to provide an alternative energy replacement to oil and coal.

---

I also notice you ignored the rest of the points I made regarding Sweden's energy. They're now dishonestly pretending they ALWAYS planned to use nuclear as part of their energy package, when ELIMINATING it was their intent.

P.S. The cap and trade scheme is pie in the sky with nothing but childish "magical thinking" to support it. The only thing it will do is
1) enrich fat cats like Al Gore, whose company is positioned to make huge profits, and
2) Drastically raise the energy costs and the cost of living to Americans.

Both China and India, the world's two fastest growing economies have already said they want no part of the scheme.

You think our economy is bad now? You think unemployment is high now? Just wait until cap and trade begins to take effect.

JRobert wrote:

<quoted text>
"You haven't read the Climate Change bill, HR2454. It takes us out of the sidelines."

Go ahead and educate me.

The impossible we do immediately. Miracles take a little longer.

Tell me how nuclear, the ONLY viable alternative to oil and coal,

First, get this fact straight in your thick little head: nuclear is NOT "the only viable alternative to oil and coal". Why, it can't even replace them as a drop in replacement, since nucler reactors require constant load.

Do you understand why this is so? Or do I have to educate you on that, too?

"But we have more solar than they do. So it is still transferable."
Wrong. You spoke of "economies of scale", and solar is nowhere near able to provide enough energy to provide an alternative energy replacement to oil and coal.

No, you are wrong. Solar thermal is available NOW. Once you have to pay for the REAL costs of carbon fuels, solar thermal is even competitive with oil and coal.

I also notice you ignored the rest of the points I made regarding Sweden's energy.

What? You think that just because you pile on irrelevancy after irrelevancy in one big heap, I am responsible for answering all of them. Think again.

It doesn't matter what type of generation is used, without proper power corridors in place across the nation, there is no way to move the generated product from source to destination. First you have to have the highway, before you can drive the cars.

MattJ wrote:

If that were the reason, then France should have achieve it too, since France gets an even greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear.

Who has the smaller carbon footprint, Sweden or France?

MattJ wrote:

First, get this fact straight in your thick little head: nuclear is NOT "the only viable alternative to oil and coal". Why, it can't even replace them as a drop in replacement, since nucler reactors require constant load.

That isn't a fact, it is a myth. Nuclear reactors were designed to load follow, particularly GE and Babcock and Wilcox plants. Some of the later GE plants even had controls installed that would allow load dispatchers to directly contol power output. The NRC never allowed those controls to be activated. But every licensing safety evaluation report describes the load following capability of the reactor plant that is evaluated. Nuclear power plants are normally operated as base load units due to their low fuel costs.

MattJ wrote:

First, get this fact straight in your thick little head: nuclear is NOT "the only viable alternative to oil and coal". Why, it can't even replace them as a drop in replacement, since nucler reactors require constant load.
Do you understand why this is so? Or do I have to educate you on that, too?

Educate me on how nuclear powered ships operate at constant load. If you're assuming that nuclear fuel cells fission at constant rates, you're mistaken.

Actually, most if not all types of power plants need to be designed for constant load in order to be designed for maximum efficiency, but that's a different question.

We agree on most matters here Matt, but I think on the subject of nuclear power you are letting biases and assumptions have their way with you.

BTW I do not believe that nuclear is the only viable option. I do believe that a mix of nuclear and other non-fossil fuel energy sources is our only viable option. But in any case we're talking about theoretical options. I don't see any likelihood of our phasing out fossil fuels in time to avert a global disaster.

neighbour wrote:

<quoted text>
I think on the subject of nuclear power you are letting biases and assumptions have their way with you.

Don't be silly.[Giving it back to you ;)] He is comprised of biases and assumptions about nuclear science and technology.

<quoted text>
BTW I do not believe that nuclear is the only viable option. I do believe that a mix of nuclear and other non-fossil fuel energy sources is our only viable option. But in any case we're talking about theoretical options. I don't see any likelihood of our phasing out fossil fuels in time to avert a global disaster.

Wait for the Copenhagen Conference for the next phase. Have you looked at the AGW cost in warmaking?

MattJ wrote:

the greater population in the US gives us the chance to take greater advantage of the economies of scale, so that our GDP would rise even MORE during the switchover to green power.

There's a subtle difference between the US and Sweden, mainly that Sweden works well as a community.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The impossible we do immediately. Miracles take a little longer.
<quoted text>
First, get this fact straight in your thick little head: nuclear is NOT "the only viable alternative to oil and coal". Why, it can't even replace them as a drop in replacement, since nucler reactors require constant load.
Do you understand why this is so? Or do I have to educate you on that, too?
<quoted text>
No, you are wrong. Solar thermal is available NOW. Once you have to pay for the REAL costs of carbon fuels, solar thermal is even competitive with oil and coal.
<quoted text>
What? You think that just because you pile on irrelevancy after irrelevancy in one big heap, I am responsible for answering all of them. Think again.

Other than tossing out ad hominem insults, you clearly have nothing to say. Try responding to the specifics of my post.

JRobert wrote:

Other than tossing out ad hominem insults, you clearly have nothing to say. Try responding to the specifics of my post.

Miracles take a little longer.

neighbour wrote:

<quoted text>
Educate me on how nuclear powered ships operate at constant load. If you're assuming that nuclear fuel cells fission at constant rates, you're mistaken.

Well, that was a pretty stupid assumption on your part.

Actually, most if not all types of power plants need to be designed for constant load in order to be designed for maximum efficiency, but that's a different question.

No, that IS the issue people are referring to when they say,(I did not make up the terminology), that nuclear plants require constant load. They are referring to the fact that nuclear power plants are designed to be used as baseload power generators, not peak load generators.

Obviously the nuclear reactor in a sub has to be more flexible, it is NOT designed as a baseload generator.

I don't see any likelihood of our phasing out fossil fuels in time to avert a global disaster.

The obstinacy of the AGW denialists certainly does inspire pessimism, doesn't it?

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>There's a subtle difference between the US and Sweden, mainly that Sweden works well as a community.

Whereas the US is too patient with your kind of deception and pig-headedness.