The bottleneck: In a single year, they can currently only make “four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor.” They may double capacity over the next two years, but that won’t allow the huge ramp up in nuclear power that some are projecting for the industry.
Given Japan Steel’s limited capacity, the math just doesn’t work, said Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear industry consultant near Paris. Japan Steel caters to all nuclear reactor makers except in Russia, which makes its own heavy forgings.
“I find it just amazing that so many people jumped on the bandwagon of this renaissance without ever looking at the industrial side of it,” Schneider said.
At the same time, that capacity increase represents a gamble that the nuclear renaissance is here to stay, even in the face of a US recession, safety concerns, and a historically volatile industry.
Bloomberg has a very thorough article on the company, its potential competition, and “the precision and patience required to fashion a 600-ton steel ingot into a tube with walls 30 centimeters (12 inches) thick”:
Seriously! In a post ironically titled “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” (actually you can — that’s what most deniers do), Roger Pielke, Jr. responds to my last post (that challenged his absurd defense of the “Earth is cooling” nonsense) as follows:
And people wonder why some people see the more enthusiastic climate advocates akin to religious zealots.
Who are these “some people” Pielke cites? Go to his link — why, “some people” is none other than NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who became famous in the climate arena for saying:
So Pielke cites denier/delayer Griffin his defense. And yet Pielke’s upset I called him a delayer. I realize rereading it that one could perhaps read my post to say I called him a denier, but I merely meant to call him a delayer. Note to Pielke — if you aren’t a delayer, I’d love to hear your answer to the key question:
“If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?”
But it is absurd for Pielke to naively write on his blog:
Now according to Grist Magazine’s Joe Romm I am a “delayer/denier” because I’ve asked what data would be inconsistent with IPCC predictions. Revealed truths are not to be questioned lest we take you to the gallows.
No, you aren’t a delayer because you’ve “asked what data would be inconsistent with IPCC predictions.” You are because you wrote a long post giving credence to the notion — which is clearly at odds with the data — that the climate is in a cooling trend. In fact, you begin with a graph that implies we’ve been in a major cooling trend since 2001 and you yourself write of “the recent cooling in the primary datasets of global temperature.”
Roger, do you think the data shows it has been cooling since 2001? If so, then I don’t know what to call you but “delayer” is the mildest thing I can think of. Denier of science would be fair, I think — since that ain’t what the data shows, as the Hadley Center (and NASA) folks I cite explain.
If you don’t think the data shows it has been cooling since 2001, then why not say so in your post — rather than titling it “Update on Falsification of Climate Predictions,” which, given the graph and your comments, sounds like you are saying recent data has falsified climate predictions, which they have not.
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility — an organization that has done yeoman’s work exposing the Bush administration’s political manipulation, corruption, and stifling of the thousands of scientists who attempt to serve the public interest with integrity — today highlighted the ethical conundrum facing scientists currently serving under Fish & Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall.
The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 – thoseare also the 8 warmest years in the NASA record, in a different order, starting with 2005, then 2007 tied with 1998). Where the heck is the cooling trend? Shame on you, Pielke for lending your name and website to this delayer-1000 nonsense.
It is only fair to ask what the Hadley Center thinks its data shows (much as we’ve heard NASA explain that its data shows unequivocal warming). Answer: they believe it unequivocally shows we are in a warming trend, including this decade. They make one of the best analytical points I have seen in the whole discussion of this cooling nonsense:
This comes from a terrific page titled, “Climate Change Myths” by Prof. John Mitchell, Chief Scientist at the Met Office. One of the myths he debunks is “Myth 6 — 1998 was the warmest year in the global annual temperature record and this has led some to claim that temperatures have been decreasing ever since.” Here is his reply — it is worth reprinting and reading in its entirety:
1998 saw an exceptional El Ni±o event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Ni±o can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El-Ni±o, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Ni±o conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.
The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph (right, top) of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties which are shown as thin black bars. Recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Ni±a conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
Prof. Mitchell then makes the comparison that 2007 was 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. Finally, he writes:
The diagram [below] ranks global temperatures for the last 150 years. It can be seen that the 17 warmest years all occur in the last 20 years.
Skyrocketing gas prices are crippling the budgets of Americans, as Bush has newly discovered. But he doesn’t have a solution. Nor does Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Bush’s every response to energy problems is to drill for more oil and blame China. McCain has a more evolved position: his solution is to drill for more oil andbuild nuclear power plants, and blame China andterrorists. But neither will address a major culprit in the recent shocking spike in oil futures and gas prices – the collapse of the American dollar due to a vicious circle of shortsighted right-wing economic policies.
When asked if OPEC followed his call to increase production, how much oil prices would fall, Bush replied: “I’m just a simple president. But I really don’t know what it would do.” McCain was baffled when asked on 60 Minutes what he would do for the person facing rising gas prices: “I would love to tell you that I have an immediate answer for that. And I don’t.”
The lower dollar reduces supply and increases demand, thus raising oil prices. As a result, the value of US oil imports increases, which in turn widens the trade deficit, which weakens the dollar further.
Bush and Bernanke’s policies are creating inflationary pressure on the U.S. economy and making our financial markets riskier. This one-two punch drives the flight from the dollar into stable foreign economies and commodities like oil. Democratic attempts to fix the systemic problems and buffer American citizens from the whiplash on the job and at the pump are being stonewalled by Senate Republicans, Bush vetoes, and corruption in the executive branch.
John McCain, who happily admitted in December that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” followed up with a troubling preview of how he would guide the American economy through these troubled waters:
Some aquatic dead zones are primarily due to global warming, and some are due to fertilizer runoff. In the future the two will combine with acidification to wipe out most ocean life if we don’t change course soon. Now a new study says U.S. corn ethanol policy will aggravate the New Jersey-size (!) area of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.