WolfStock1

No.

Perhaps Vogtle is an outlier, but it's still clear that costs are way above where they should be, based on the skyrocketing trend in the late 80's; and noting that that was generally for just completion of plants whose initial planning and design was done *before* TMI. Not sure what you mean by "the workforce" being the primary road block. Workforce expertise is flexible - if we started getting serious about nuclear energy and ramping it up, the workforce would follow, just like it has always done for so many other things (e.g. look at the explosion in AI recently, the explosion of the internet in the late 90's, etc. etc.). Demand creates the workforce - the workforce doesn't create demand.

BTW w/regards to the US and renewable - we have in fact been trending strongly on that recently. This year about 3/4 of our new generation capacity was solar. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/us-installed-nearly-26-gw-of-new-generating-capacity-from-january-to-august/804848/ As it has for most of the past two years, solar continued to dominate new generation resources, accounting for 2.7 GW out of 4 GW brought online in August alone, and 19 GW — about three-quarters — of generation capacity additions this year. (Not sure if that capacity is peak or average; average on solar is of course a fraction of peak) There's a new field being done near me (at Dulles airport). Unfortunately these things take tons of space - this will be about 100 MW peak on 835 acres. By comparison there's a 774 MW natural gas plant down the road on 100 acres. So it takes about 200x the land area per unit of energy. If we can find the space great - just please don't use areas that otherwise could be forests. (not sure about this area since it's airport property)

100% agree - and thanks for the chart. (though I would quibble with the China trendline - having it slope down IMO is a stretch - it appears the downslope is based solely on those couple of early 90's extreme outliers; in reality the trend is flat, if it were based on median not mean). That's a good illustration of how badly skewed the American view on nuclear energy risk is. We need to fix that. Much as I dislike Trump, he's at least taken some steps in that direction on this issue; though I think it's a drop in the bucket to what really needs to be done. The cost #'s for the two new Vogtle units are simply shocking; especially given the location - in a state that's generally been more friendly to nuclear power. NY recently announced intent to pave the way for one new unit, and I had to laugh, knowing that state's history. Good luck with that.

When I say "cheap labor" I'm not just talking about menial things. Even though a lot is automated - it still takes a lot of people to run those factories, the mines, do the installation, maintain the installation, etc. The average wage in China is still 1/3 what it is in the US. Throw in the government overriding any NIMBYism and your average large solar installation for instance is probably 1/4 or even 1/10 the cost of what it is in the US. (it's hard to get a true comparison because China doesn't typically publish their costs.) If the US were to do what it takes to implement the policies that China has - the outcry from the left could be heard from Mars. Environmental destruction, wages below minimum (or even below "living wage"), etc. etc. Are they eating our lunch with regards to the volume of renewable energy implementation? Yes. Is that a good thing? Not so much, for the above reasons, and because they are still emitting tons more carbon, with way less respect for human rights. We really, really need to focus on nuclear. That is the best solution. Unfortunately it probably won't happen due to willingness of policymakers to bend to the demands of those who don't properly understand risks.

You don't seem to understand that *the* key ingredient for China's growth - including the growth of their energy industry (both renewables and fossil) is an abundant supply of cheap labor. That is something we simply do not have. It's not an issue of attitude, priorities, or policy - it's an issue of resources.

Priorities. Discussion of gender as it relates to CC is of course much more important, thus why topic 14 wasn't deferred.

Looking at the bigger picture though - China still has a *long* ways go to catch up with the US in terms of their general energy mix. E.g. the biggest source by far (unlike the US) is still coal, and fossil is still 1, 2, and 3 (coal, oil, and gas) in their energy sources. People tend to highlight China's growth in renewables - but the fact is that all their energy sources - including fossil - are growing rapidly.

Is there land under the bottom-left tip there? Interesting that that area remains stationary while the rest of the shelf continues moving. Based on the movement there it does look like it could break free at any time; the connection with that non-moving section looks very weak now.

Is there actually increased solar energy during the peaks of the cycle? From all I've seen those peaks are the peak of *activity* (magnetic fluctuations resulting in sunspots), not actually energy peaks. Wouldn't the actual solar energy received by the earth be *lower* during periods of peak sunspot activity? (Given that a sunspot is a "cool spot" where less energy is being output) I know there are more CMEs during the peaks, resulting in more-frequent aurora peaks; but it seems like that would be just noise in what might otherwise be a general lower level of overall energy from the sun. Not an expert on the subject - just putting out a "seems to me" theory.

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise. https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/ Something doesn't jive. Methinks it's the information in these "reports". (So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

Unfortunately the end toll will probably come in that high. It's early. Saving grace is they had lots of warning. However unlike the US most people just don't have the ability to evacuate, at least in terms of going somewhere hundreds of miles away in another state that's safe.

Yeah very sad situation there; and good points about being an island. Saving grace perhaps is that the most-built areas of the island - around Kingston - was not as hard hit. But yeah as you say it's not like Katrina etc. where people can be driving there from other states to help with cleanup and rebuild; it's a much harder thing on an island like that, even for people that have a vested interest. I would encourage everyone to donate some $ - there are already charities collecting funds for use for Jamaica.

Reading up - it does seem like a vessel or two - including S.S. Phemius and the schooner Abundance - that got caught in it and I guess got accurate enough measurements. Poor sods. Though it seems like they had to do a lot of extrapolating to come up with the 78-hour number.

Nah - most of those went below Cat 5 before being affected by land - e.g. the other 4 besides Melissa over the last two years. What I'm wondering about is how they knew the 1932 was Cat 5 for so long. We didn't have satellite or even radar back then; nor did we have C130's to do fly-throughs. Can't do post-hoc damage analysis on the water. So how did they know?