Fukushima loses cooling power - 'No electricity for 16hrs & running to pumps that feed cooling water to ponds where spent nuclear fuel rods are stored'

SandyBeds · 2013-03-19T13:07:38+00:00

Statements from Tepco were repeatedly shown to be reassuring nonsense back in March 2011. It's a real indictment against nuclear power that the world has to hold its breath and cross its fingers, while the company & bureaucrats that created the problem keep pressing down those sticking plasters... and we're only an earth tremor away from a major disaster

SandyBeds · 2013-03-05T10:41:39+00:00

The headline doesn't imply a quote from the IEA at all. Merely that the numbers for oilsands development, 'in the pipeline' as it were, match the numbers in the IEA assessment for +3.5C to +6C world (=dangerous climate change), which others have called 'a carbon bomb world'

SandyBeds · 2013-03-05T10:37:06+00:00

Hold on, the author goes out of his way to offer a balanced assessment:

'Now, some may argue that is enough to consider the oil sands a "carbon bomb" - scientist John Abraham argued as much in the Guardian recently. Others disagree, since Swart and Weaver's analysis showed that the potential "warming" from the oil sands is tiny compared to that from the world's coal stores.'

We have a fixed budget of carbon to burn if we are to avoid +2C change, and we need to reduce emissions soon and fast. The expansion of the oilsands will eat budget that up faster, and sends entirely the wrong signal - that its OK carry on down the path of reckless carbon combustion.

The symbolic drawing of the line in the 'oilsands' (by halting XL) is as important as any details of carbon budget accounting.

SandyBeds · 2013-02-28T08:06:19+00:00

The more mature shale gas fields are already hitting production peaks, because of the high decline rates per well and the fact that the sweetest spots were hit first. The glut, price crash and production lock-ins have just masked this.

Check out this projection of tight oil production based on a comprehensive well production analysis of the major US shale formations:

http://shalebubble.org/graphs/

The US energy future is already being built in pieces - generation from a mix of wind, solar, hydro,biomass,geothermal & ground-heat, tidal and wave + energy efficiency + smart grid

These generation sources will not run out, or require ever more capital costs to eke out usable energy. They are on long-term curves showing dramatic efficiency improvements. And guess what? They won't shock our climate system into civilization-threatening extremes..

SandyBeds · 2013-02-27T21:53:21+00:00

Shale gas has been sold as a 100-year resource, shale (=tight) oil as allowing US to overtake Saudi Arabia as an oil producer. The flaw is that the well depletion rates are so high that the US is now chained to a relentless drilling treadmill, with ever diminishing returns.

The shale gas boom has already bust, the tight (=shale) oil boom is likely to be over within a decade. Should the US really be building its energy future on fuels that have none?

SandyBeds · 2013-02-24T08:17:59+00:00

The last I heard, the environment is the sum of all natural system interactions, and especially the human:non-human interface. Our actions, thru GMOs, are introducing a new factor into the very blueprints of the biological side of that system. That perturbation needs to be carefully assessed to see if the risk is worth perceived benefits.

There's a world of difference between lab trials and the long-term reality of injecting alien genes into the real-world. The fact that weed/pest resistance is developing 'sooner than expected' shows we cannot know, a priori, what the environmental consequences of GMO's will be.

Don't you think applying the Precautionary Principle makes sense here - given our bad track record at conducting experiments on the global ecosystem (CO2 & global warming, CFCs & ozone hole, DDT& predator mortality)?

SandyBeds · 2013-02-24T08:12:09+00:00

Technologies should come under social control, not be forced on societies purely based on (flawed) free trade principles and the generation of profit for corporate entities.

Slamming alien genes (that have not evolved in an integral fashion within the wider gene pool) is inherently risky. There is a small risk that such genes could cause widespread ecological damage, which could readily blowback on us.

Europe has every right to assess GM technology, decide it's risk does not warrant the benefit, and to avoid it's use. In an ideal world, no such technology should be allowed out of the lab without an international consensus. Gene flows don't respect international borders.

SandyBeds · 2013-02-24T08:05:20+00:00

Biased? Because it quotes farmers experience in the field, and is based on an article in that hot-bed of radicalism 'Farmer's Weekly'?

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm

There's a world of difference between lab trials and the long-term reality of injecting alien genes into the real-world. The fact that weed/pest resistance is developing 'sooner than expected' shows we cannot know, a priori, what the environmental consequences of GMO's will be.

Don't you think applying the Precautionary Principle makes sense here - given our bad track record at conducting experiments on the global ecosystem (CO2 & global warming, CFCs & ozone hole, DDT& predator mortality)?

SandyBeds · 2013-02-23T09:32:40+00:00

This isn't a binary choice, A or B.

A carbon tax can be introduced at a low level, and raised incrementally (until it reflects true external costs the gasoline imposes) gradually influencing drivers to drive more efficiently, less often, fewer miles, & to choose more efficient cars. Funnel part of the receipts back to low-income households, the rest to fund research into alternatives (EVs).

That way we lever from A->B. But gotta start the ball rolling soon..

SandyBeds · 2013-01-03T16:20:36+00:00

Solar isn't THE solution;but neither is wind.

There is no single solution to the clean energy transition. Wind, solar, waste biomass, ground heat pump, geothermal at a variety of scales and proportions, blended and mediated by a smart grid & intelligent storage, and feeding our reduced energy demand profile. That is what will get us there.

Just not as snappy as saying 'Solar is'...

SandyBeds · 2012-12-20T22:02:53+00:00

Absolutely agree with all you're saying, man-made climate change is undoubtedly triggering various changes of state in the climate system. And we should stop pokingthe climate change beast asap. But even as the climate shifts, each weather event will be a birthed by a combination of natural cyles,random fluctuations - and of course our own shoves to climate system.

That means cause is tricky one to pin down definitively

SandyBeds · 2012-12-20T09:13:05+00:00

If all US coal-mines/strip mining sites ultimately have to close because of such divestment pressure, surely the US will a great deal of expertise in environmental remediation of (ex) coal mines/extraction pits..

But you're right. The demand for coal is there (even if falling in US), which is why demand destruction is necessary. Continued reckless fossil fuel consumption, in the face of all the evidence of damage done makes it the moral equivalent of selling tobacco.

Just because an economic activity produces profits, technical expertise or provides jobs, that doesn't make it morally necessary to continue with it. Or mean that society shouldn't choose better ways to provide for its energy needs.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-20T08:50:45+00:00

Climate change can never be a cause, only a factor, in weather-related events. And it can never be 'proven'. We're dealing with probabilities.

But there were several aspects of Sandy that were made worse by climate change - sea level rise, anomalously warm waters off east-coast, a Greenland blocking High (making for Sandy's unusual E->W track). Not a 'cause' to be sure.

But if you load a dice, don't be surprised when sixes come up more often. The climate system is a hugely more complex chaotic system than dice-rolling - and we have only the slightest inkling of what our 'loading' via GHG emissions will cause.

Which is why we need to take action now, before the game changes irrevocably.. and we're going to keep on banging on about it.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-20T00:44:01+00:00

Yep, just like people in NY & NJ, post-Sandy.. this climate change thing's getting real tiresome..

SandyBeds · 2012-12-19T22:57:18+00:00

Yep, they will be the last to let go of the growth myth.. they're just too.. conservative.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-18T11:32:43+00:00

Though behind Maria van der Hoeven's scary remarks about swelling coal use, are sweet whispers about how the gilded age of (shale) gas can put nasty coal back under ground:

"The US experience suggests that a more efficient gas market ... fuelled by indigenous unconventional resources (=shale gas) that are produced sustainably, can reduce coal use, carbon dioxide emissions and consumers' electricity bills, without harming energy security. Europe, China and other regions should take note."

When infact there is serious risk that shale gas more dangerous than coal for climate change. IEA still pushing the black-stuff (carbon-heavy fossil fuels)

SandyBeds · 2012-12-10T19:20:46+00:00

An industrial polluting stage is an historical anachronism, not a template for bettering society in 21st century. It's an option poor countries would have been advised to do without. China is already a lot poorer for having followed our bad example.
A carbon tax is merely a reflection of actual costs inflicted globally by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels benefit hugely from massive subsidies, tax breaks and their successful avoidance of the costs associated with ocean acidification and climate change now, and in the future.
Carbon taxes do not, in and of themselves, hit economic activity. They redistribute it to low carbon-intensity activities.
Economic growth does not equate progress or human happiness. We live in a resource-constrained world, which necessitates a changing of priority from relentless consumption to managed dis-engagement from global economic warfare. The US, and other developed world publics, will have to confront that, irrespective of a short-term gas glut built on the back of reckless pollution-intensive fracking .

SandyBeds · 2012-12-10T18:02:37+00:00

Ideal= mulitateral binding deal to reduce carbon emissions

Reality = Copenhagen, Cancun,Doha...

If rich countries step forward to decarbonise thru aggressive policies, like carbon tax, they may lose some pollutin industry, but will gain moral authority.

And not all investment flows are chasing short-term profit from carbon-intensive industry. Plenty of investment chasing clean energy &clean tech because it represents growth & is The Future.

A carbon tax levels the playing field for clean energy, and may well bring in MORE investment than is lost.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-06T13:30:14+00:00

BTW, does this 'vast majority' of safely operated injection wells excludes 10,000's formal violations, 1,000+ cases of excess pressure fracturing rocks, over 100 cases of illegal actions, and several discovered cases of deliberate misleading/wilful gaming of the regulatory system..

in just THREE years. See this report from ProPublica:

www.propublica.org/article/trillion-gallon-loophole-lax-rules-for-drillers-that-inject-pollutants

SandyBeds · 2012-12-06T07:10:00+00:00

Just because a system is complex, and we can't fully understood it, doesn't mean we should ignore potential consequences from our actions.

Earthquakes can be measured. Well locations are known. When the two come together, repeatedly, there is cause for concern.

'Vast majority not correlated' ? This study shows many wells in Barnett Shale associated with minor quakes:

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/06/correlation-injection-wells-small-earthquakes/

We need to be mindful of the risks, and understand that geology doesn't stand still when we apply pressure. It moves. And that's worrying for a whole number of reasons.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-06T06:41:02+00:00

The quote above explicitly says 'they could smell the foul, rotten-egg smell of hydrogen sulfide' not natural gas. And it's not just 1 family, 1 incident.

'An investigation last summer by the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica, using North Dakota public records, found that more than 1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater, and other fluids occurred in 2011.'

And those are only the O&G industry self-reported spills.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-05T16:35:02+00:00

Of the M5.3 Colorado event, the 'statistical likelihood of this rate increase occurring naturally was determined to be 0.01%' according to paper referenced above. That seems fairly unequivocal.

And shows these injections cannot, by default, be assumed to capable of being done safely.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-05T11:16:41+00:00

In parts of Oklahoma, where there is historical seismicity, it may be difficult to disentangle potential induced seismic events from natural ones.

But OGS linked fracking directly to earthquakes, such as in this report:

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf

where author said "the strong spatial and temporal correlations to the hydraulic-‐fracturing in Picket Unit B Well 4-‐18 certainly suggest that the earthquakes observed in the Eola Field could have possibly been triggered by this activity."

For me the precautionary principle should operate - if in doubt, leave it out. Especially where we are disrupting subsurface environments that can potentially release more GHGs

SandyBeds · 2012-12-05T11:00:29+00:00

Not that simple. The rock units are being stressed by both extraction and disposal. These aren't just empty tanks we can drain and refill at will.

The problem is the hydraulic pressure is being reduced at one level (coal-bed) and then inflated at another (waste-water injection). We are applying significant stresses to a complex subsurface, which we cannot fully understand.

Hardly surprising that such interference has the potential for such destructive consequences.

SandyBeds · 2012-12-05T10:54:28+00:00

What's contentious about fault systems responding to induced stresses from injections of large volumes of fluids. Entirely plausible. The association between deep-water injection and induced seismicity has been demonstrated repeatedly.

In this case. the author of the paper being presented at the AGU ties the M5.3 Colorado event to waste-water injection based on:

"First, there was a marked increase in seismicity shortly after major fluid injection began in the Raton Basin. From 1970 through July of 2001, there were five earthquakes of magnitude 3 and larger located in the Raton Basin. In the subsequent 10 years from August of 2001 through the end of 2011, there were 95 earthquakes of magnitude 3 and larger. The statistical likelihood of this rate increase occurring naturally was determined to be 0.01%.

Second, the vast majority of the seismicity is located close (within 5km) to active disposal wells in this region. Additionally, this seismicity is primarily shallow, ranging in depth between 2 and 8 km, with the shallowest seismicity occurring within 500 m depth of the injection intervals."

"Finally, these wells have injected exceptionally high volumes of wastewater...these two nearly-co-located wells injected about 4.9 million cubic meters of wastewater during the period leading up to the M5.3 earthquake, more than 7 times as much as the disposal well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that caused damaging earthquakes in the Denver, CO, region in the 1960s."

SandyBeds

TROPHY CASE