Forecasting of energy consumption by G20 countries(nature.com)
nature.com
Forecasting of energy consumption by G20 countries
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17505-4
28 comments
I think they mean nuclear energy has the largest tail risk.
Catastrophic solar panel failure: you replace it
Catastrophic wind turbine failure: replace it, clean up debris
Catastrophic gas plant failure: 3 deaths, cleanup, rebuild
Catastrophic nuclear plant failure: hundreds of deaths, thousands of cancer cases, 1000 sq. Km is uninhabitable until the year 25,000
Catastrophic solar panel failure: you replace it
Catastrophic wind turbine failure: replace it, clean up debris
Catastrophic gas plant failure: 3 deaths, cleanup, rebuild
Catastrophic nuclear plant failure: hundreds of deaths, thousands of cancer cases, 1000 sq. Km is uninhabitable until the year 25,000
Oh, where do I start. This is pure misinformation, and I wish people would actually consider the worse case.. Which looks a lot like Chernobyl, but even then its massively overstated.
Yes, its true you can detect isotopes from an accident like that (which was a hydrogen explosion) for a very long time, but the way this works, is that isotopes with very long half lives, are basically not dangerous. AKA, if the half life of something is a couple hundred years, its not going to be decaying in your body. The chemical properties are going to have far worse effects. (AKA think about all the lead we blew into the air in every major metropolitan area). Things like Iodine-131, are what you have to worry about, but the half life is roughly 8 days. So its gone in a year. (and in fact its used as a cancer treatment, so...).
Even then, if you compare the atmospheric effects of Chernobyl, they are orders of magnitude less than the atmospheric testing performed by the USA and the Soviets. Which can be detected in every living thing on the planet.
So, 1: Managing to accumulate enough hydrogen for an explosion is something that modern designs avoid, thereby making it basically impossible.
2: Even if you manage to blow up, its actually not that dangerous outside of a very limited area because a couple KG of radioactive elements quickly get to the parts per billion levels of concentration, which can only be re-concentrated by biological processes, which itself is something fairly easy to detect.
3: When Chernobyl melted down, the other reactors at the plant continued to operate for another roughly two decades, and there has been continuous people living and working in the direct area.
So, given the track record of the existing plants, if the entire worlds power came from them, and you had a Chernobyl level event every decade, it would still be an order of magnitude safer than solar/wind, which kills people from falling off roofs and towers.
Never mind, that its 2020, and we have computers, which can monitor and apply fail safes long before humans sitting in a control room need to react if someone designed a plant which aren't mechanically impossible to meltdown. None of these designs from 50 years ago would be built today, for the same reasons we wouldn't build computers with discrete logic. Science and technology have advanced, and there isn't a need. We can build completely safe plants, where the largest problem is worrying about asteroid impacts.
So, knock off the fear mongering.
Yes, its true you can detect isotopes from an accident like that (which was a hydrogen explosion) for a very long time, but the way this works, is that isotopes with very long half lives, are basically not dangerous. AKA, if the half life of something is a couple hundred years, its not going to be decaying in your body. The chemical properties are going to have far worse effects. (AKA think about all the lead we blew into the air in every major metropolitan area). Things like Iodine-131, are what you have to worry about, but the half life is roughly 8 days. So its gone in a year. (and in fact its used as a cancer treatment, so...).
Even then, if you compare the atmospheric effects of Chernobyl, they are orders of magnitude less than the atmospheric testing performed by the USA and the Soviets. Which can be detected in every living thing on the planet.
So, 1: Managing to accumulate enough hydrogen for an explosion is something that modern designs avoid, thereby making it basically impossible.
2: Even if you manage to blow up, its actually not that dangerous outside of a very limited area because a couple KG of radioactive elements quickly get to the parts per billion levels of concentration, which can only be re-concentrated by biological processes, which itself is something fairly easy to detect.
3: When Chernobyl melted down, the other reactors at the plant continued to operate for another roughly two decades, and there has been continuous people living and working in the direct area.
So, given the track record of the existing plants, if the entire worlds power came from them, and you had a Chernobyl level event every decade, it would still be an order of magnitude safer than solar/wind, which kills people from falling off roofs and towers.
Never mind, that its 2020, and we have computers, which can monitor and apply fail safes long before humans sitting in a control room need to react if someone designed a plant which aren't mechanically impossible to meltdown. None of these designs from 50 years ago would be built today, for the same reasons we wouldn't build computers with discrete logic. Science and technology have advanced, and there isn't a need. We can build completely safe plants, where the largest problem is worrying about asteroid impacts.
So, knock off the fear mongering.
You're basically giving reasons why it's usually safe. I specifically talked about tail risks. I.e. extremely unlikely scenarios.
[deleted]
This looks really flawed - it seems to have taken 2020 as a "normal year" and not accounted for the lockdowns and economic shock of COVID-19. Sure there is a reduction in UK oil consumption from 20xx -> 2020 but to then take the rise after 2020 back to 2019 levels in 2022 as predictive is really silly.
But isn’t 2020 important to include because it shows a variance in observations outside of the rest of the sample? Ie it’s important to know how things react “in reverse”. But totally need to acknowledge exogenous restraints for that year.
Sure - if you treat it that way! I don't think that the authors do - instead they claim that brexit is linked to increase oil use which is really really odd.
What's going on with Figure 1? Caption and legend don't match and bars are stacked?
And here I thought Nature has some standards...
I think in the legend,
2021 should be 2027 and 2017 should be 2021.
Otherwise I doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone wrote by accident 2017 instead of 2027 and then swapped the legend so that it fits the graph's message.
Still, wondering why 6 co-authors, one editor and several peer-reviewers didn't notice it.
Or am I getting the graph wrong?
2021 should be 2027 and 2017 should be 2021.
Otherwise I doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone wrote by accident 2017 instead of 2027 and then swapped the legend so that it fits the graph's message.
Still, wondering why 6 co-authors, one editor and several peer-reviewers didn't notice it.
Or am I getting the graph wrong?
This is Scientific Reports, a separate sub-journal from the same publishing group and not “the” Nature.
So they’re stacked, that’s it! I was so confused how all countries could be doubling their population, this is such a weird way to present the data.
That is one of the worst charts I have seen in many years. Stacking just makes no sense!
I’m glad I’m not the only one. That presentation of data is so offensive to me, it nearly threw me off from reading the article. There are a dozen ways to present that data better. The way the authors chose is so unreadable that it would even be significantly improved as a text table.
> Nuclear energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as one mistake in handling nuclear power
“Fossil fuel energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as zero mistakes in handling and usage still means millions of excess deaths”
“Fossil fuel energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as zero mistakes in handling and usage still means millions of excess deaths”
I have a feeling that rooftop solar is being measured as the hole in generation, but not to its production side: we don't directly know the kWh burned onsite and not sold back to the generators and I suspect we may not adequately measure power used in the local network being backed, also except by centrally managed demand reduction.
Not that modelling isn't good. More that I think uncertainty in demand is quite large. It may be for central planning the only thing which matters is planning how much to make centrally, but it's a bit like economics: if people never bank it, and don't declare it, how big the grey or black economy is, can be a bit unclear.
Not that modelling isn't good. More that I think uncertainty in demand is quite large. It may be for central planning the only thing which matters is planning how much to make centrally, but it's a bit like economics: if people never bank it, and don't declare it, how big the grey or black economy is, can be a bit unclear.
If it would be relevant for the models (e.g. to prepare for prolonged cloudy periods where the net has to step in more), I suppose you could account for rooftop generation in your models by comparing energy consumption from the net on both cloudy and sunny days.
Good point. Except, lack of sun probably changes use of both AC (ok its britain: they dont HAVE AC but they do have heat pumps) and hot water/heating systems, a bit. So it would be setting an error bar on it maybe
> Most G20 countries do not make their nuclear energy consumption data available due to the government policy, […]
What? Can someone send explain the validity of this claim?
Makes zero sense. From the previous sentence also seem the authors can some clear bias…
What? Can someone send explain the validity of this claim?
Makes zero sense. From the previous sentence also seem the authors can some clear bias…
Fuller context:
“Nuclear energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as one mistake in handling nuclear power can cause loss of many lives and damage for centuries. Hence, it is a policy by all the United Nations members to reduce the use of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that the development of nuclear energy has a significant effect on coal, oil, and gas. Most G20 countries do not make their nuclear energy consumption data available due to the government policy…”
Sure seeing a lot of negatives with this paper.
“Nuclear energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as one mistake in handling nuclear power can cause loss of many lives and damage for centuries. Hence, it is a policy by all the United Nations members to reduce the use of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that the development of nuclear energy has a significant effect on coal, oil, and gas. Most G20 countries do not make their nuclear energy consumption data available due to the government policy…”
Sure seeing a lot of negatives with this paper.
Having sat with this for about 20 minutes now, this seems flatly unacceptable in a paper. You’re either here to do science, which is a facts-only sphere, or you’re not.
It’s absolute hogwash that puts the entire paper in question. Just off the top of my head:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/... (the 100% here is completely public information)
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuse...
If this paper made i through Nature's peer review process, it speaks badly of the entire field of economics if not all of science. The peer reviewers who reviewed this should be ashamed of themselves.
> Nuclear energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as one mistake in handling nuclear power can cause loss of many lives and damage for centuries
I consider Nuclear Energy an insurance policy for the local civilization. As long as a nation runs this things, the people running the gov can not totally detach from the populace and can not go totally insane.
Well, at least I thought so until Zelynsky was elected.
I consider Nuclear Energy an insurance policy for the local civilization. As long as a nation runs this things, the people running the gov can not totally detach from the populace and can not go totally insane.
Well, at least I thought so until Zelynsky was elected.
Would you mind explain and source your claims?
complete title: Forecasting of energy consumption by G20 countries using an adjacent accumulation grey model
but didn't fit HN rules, couldn't find better variation.
but didn't fit HN rules, couldn't find better variation.
(It did not fit the field size.)
I would have gone for 'Forecasting of energy consumption by G20 countries [...via discrete] grey model'. The method is abbreviated as 'DAGM' in the text, "Discrete adjacent grey model". The point seems to be have used a model in systems theory which is deemed suitable for "incomplete or inaccurate data". See article "Grey Systems: Theory and Application" - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252052256_A_brief_i...
I would have gone for 'Forecasting of energy consumption by G20 countries [...via discrete] grey model'. The method is abbreviated as 'DAGM' in the text, "Discrete adjacent grey model". The point seems to be have used a model in systems theory which is deemed suitable for "incomplete or inaccurate data". See article "Grey Systems: Theory and Application" - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252052256_A_brief_i...
hmm, yeah via DAGM would be good a solution I guess, don't think it's editable anymore though
> Nuclear energy is one of the most dangerous forms of energy as one mistake in handling nuclear power can cause loss of many lives and damage for centuries
Fossil fuel consumption is still rising. And we are still actively subsidizing it.
This is bad. But we already knew this.
Global coal usage is predicted to peak in 2024 for industrial use and 2028 for electrical generation.
But, we know how to do better for cheaper, and we've started doing so but we won't actually start reducing fossil fuels usage globally for a few years yet.
A slightly more important metric is carbon intensity, and pollution, so shifting from ICE vehicles to EVs powered by coal is good. And shifting from coal-fired electricity to gas generators is good.
Just looking at 'fossil fuel' usage might hide big changes within that.