Author Topic: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare  (Read 7325 times)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2020, 03:47:24 PM »
Watts are units of power not energy.    Very few people need to use 5 kW of electrical power on a continuous basis.      This is roughly like running your oven, your clothes dryer and your air conditioner at the same time all day, every day.
The figure was derived by a British scientist who studied the entire energy requirement for his own person life and then studied the average power needs of developed countries.  All energy requirements to live a "normal" first world life.  Not just the electricity power needed to run your stove and tv.  As mentioned previously, that number was then less than halved for developed country citizens and roughly doubled for average developing world citizens.

Do you think it more likely developed world citizens will suddenly see the light and start using less than half the energy they currently do or that they remain the same or even increase their energy consumption?  Personally I think 5Kw per day by the average first world citizen is a pipe dream and therefore the numbers are way, way underestimating the energy needs.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 03:50:22 PM by PKFFW »

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2020, 04:20:48 PM »
Regardless of the waste storage problems, nuclear fission isn't really the answer anyway.

Brian Cox in the documentary "Can we make a star on Earth" did some calculations with the following assumptions;
Assumption 1:  All 6 billion people (at the time of the documentary) in the world used 5Kw of energy per day.  This results in 30 Terawatts per day energy needed
The USA average at the time of the documentary was 11.4kw per day.  So a little less than half what they currently use.  The global average was 2.2Kw per day so about double.  That would increase standards of living in the developing world while not throwing the developed world back to the Stone Age.  Let's be honest, getting the developed world to consume on average less than half the energy it currently does is pretty much a pie in the sky dream.  However, lets be optimistic and assume it can be done.
Assumption 2:  Only 1/6 of the 30 Terawatts of energy would be produced by nuclear fission reactors.
Assumption 3:  We need this 30 Terawatts of energy being produced by 2035. (25 years at time of documentary)

Take a guess how many full sized nuclear fission reactors would need to be built each week for 25 years to produce only 1/6th of that highly optimistic energy requirement......

2.5 full sized nuclear fission plants per week every week!!!

So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer.

Documentary be seen here legally for free  http://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=Can%20We%20Make%20a%20Star%20on%20Earth

Watts are units of power not energy.    Very few people need to use 5 kW of electrical power on a continuous basis.      This is roughly like running your oven, your clothes dryer and your air conditioner at the same time all day, every day.

I feel like they must have been quoting kWh.

EDITed to add - maybe?

According to the EIA, in 2017, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential home customer was 10,399 kilowatt hours (kWh), an average of 867 kWh per month. That means the average household electricity consumption kWh per day is 28.9 kWh (867 kWh / 30 days).

EDIT2: I used 349 kWh last month, but I have gas heat and range.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 04:37:54 PM by PDXTabs »

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2020, 05:22:18 PM »
We use around 600 kWh per month, so that sounds about right.  That translates into 20 kWh per day or average power of 800 Watts.    so 5 kWh per day per person is within reason.   But this wouldn't include your personal vehicle...

Suppose we add in energy to run your car.   Using 20 Hp = 15 kW of power for a 1 hour commute twice a day moves the total way up, by adding an extra 30 kWh of energy to your daily budget.   
PKFFW, you'll need to confirm your units before I can comment.   

Personally I think the notion of conserving energy is a poor long term strategy by itself.     Cheap convenient energy has been a big enabler of the high standard of living we enjoy today.    We would be better off long term developing cheaper, cleaner sources of energy.     It makes me happy to see large scale projects for wind and solar power!

Companies are also starting to design small modular reactors now.    Not sure how you get rid of the waste though.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-developed-SMR-design-unveiled

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2020, 05:47:45 PM »
But this wouldn't include your personal vehicle...

It sure does! ;)

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2020, 05:54:42 PM »
Apologies, didn't mean to sound as if I was actually stating anyone should give up on their illusions just because I say so.  Take it as a suggestion rather than any sort of order if you will.

Ah, it's illusions I'm having now! Thanks for the underhanded apology!

Not much point in engaging if you admit you can feel confident a physicist who has taken at least a little time to study the problem is wrong without even bothering to listen to what they have to say.

Then why did you just engage? I did mention I left the door open (and I genuinely have). But I've watched documentaries by nutritionists who got the food science blatantly wrong and documentaries by meterologists who bugger up climate science. I don't trust a physicist to get the economics of energy correct on the first go. My point main point is that the data on whether or not nuclear fission is economically feasible is muddy, AT BEST, and I lean toward the notion that we are not going to solve our energy needs with renewable and fossil fuels are doing too much damage to just stay the course. Pipe dream it may be, but the trends seem to show that we will need something to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear is our most scalable option.

I will say though, that as for France, last I looked, France is not the entire world and their effort doesn't make a bit of difference to the increasing power consumption needs of the developing world.

Then you can't see the forest for the trees. And this statement right here is a big tell on your end- you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to adjust to new information (whilst blaming me for doing just that). France in isolation invalidates that documentary. The premise that you presented is that nuclear on a mass scale with modern first world living conditions is not feasible. France has plenty fine living conditions and industry, and somehow manages on 70% nuclear. As a microcosm for the world... why doesn't that count? I'm not saying we use France's energy, I'm saying we use their energy model. They also pay half price for their electricity that neighboring countries do now that the cost of the plants has been amortized.

Look, I am no nuclear physicist (although I do hang out with a retired one, who does keep me up to date on the modern developments). But I don't have to watch that documentary to smell a stinker...
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 05:57:30 PM by StashingAway »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2020, 06:23:21 PM »
PKFFW, you'll need to confirm your units before I can comment.   

Personally I think the notion of conserving energy is a poor long term strategy by itself.     Cheap convenient energy has been a big enabler of the high standard of living we enjoy today.    We would be better off long term developing cheaper, cleaner sources of energy.     It makes me happy to see large scale projects for wind and solar power!
See my previous post.

5Kw per day is the total energy consumption target for everything.  Energy used to grow and transport the food you eat, energy to produce the clothes you wear, energy to heat your home, energy to supply water, energy to travel to and from work, etc, etc, etc

ETA:  And yes, abundant clean energy is the actual point of the documentary.  Fission simply doesn't stack up as the answer.  Fusion on the other hand, is the proverbial "get out of jail free card" if we can make it work.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 06:32:53 PM by PKFFW »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2020, 06:31:43 PM »
Ah, it's illusions I'm having now! Thanks for the underhanded apology!

I would posit it is an illusion to think nuclear fission is the answer to the global energy crisis, yes.

Quote from: StashingAway
Then why did you just engage?

I guess for shits and giggles but I don't really know to be completely honest.  Possibly due to the snarky tone of your initial comment in reply to me.

Quote from: StashingAway
I did mention I left the door open (and I genuinely have). But I've watched documentaries by nutritionists who got the food science blatantly wrong and documentaries by meterologists who bugger up climate science. I don't trust a physicist to get the economics of energy correct on the first go. My point main point is that the data on whether or not nuclear fission is economically feasible is muddy, AT BEST, and I lean toward the notion that we are not going to solve our energy needs with renewable and fossil fuels are doing too much damage to just stay the course. Pipe dream it may be, but the trends seem to show that we will need something to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear is our most scalable option.

So you've seen mistakes in other documentaries and therefore dismiss this one out of hand and without watching it.  Sounds like that door is wide open.

Quote from: StashingAway
Then you can't see the forest for the trees. And this statement right here is a big tell on your end- you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to adjust to new information (whilst blaming me for doing just that). France in isolation invalidates that documentary. The premise that you presented is that nuclear on a mass scale with modern first world living conditions is not feasible. France has plenty fine living conditions and industry, and somehow manages on 70% nuclear. As a microcosm for the world... why doesn't that count? I'm not saying we use France's energy, I'm saying we use their energy model. They also pay half price for their electricity that neighboring countries do now that the cost of the plants has been amortized.

How exactly does France, a highly developed industrial nation, replacing their current energy consumption requirements with nuclear, show that it is possible for the developing world to build enough reactors to supply roughly double their entire energy consumption needs within 25 years?

Quote from: StashingAway
Look, I am no nuclear physicist (although I do hang out with a retired one, who does keep me up to date on the modern developments). But I don't have to watch that documentary to smell a stinker...

Yep sounds like that door is wide open.  So wide that an hour of your time before dismissing information that might not conform to your current view is too much to expend.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2020, 06:50:33 PM »
Yep sounds like that door is wide open.  So wide that an hour of your time before dismissing information that might not conform to your current view is too much to expend.

The only difference between how you're acting and how I am is I'm not hypocritical about it. You're just as dismissive as I am.

And, despite your insistence, I do believe that my door is open. It genuinely is. I could be wrong about all of this. I've eaten my words before and I presume that I will do it again. That's just the learning process.

I didn't claim outright that your documentary is inaccurate, I am only claiming that the trend for those types of documentaries to be accurate doesn't play in it's favor. I've been reading about and discussing nuclear power for years now ... casually ... and in that time I've heard many extreme claims about nuclear "problems" that don't hold water when you actually look at the data. I preemptively filed your claims in that category in my understanding until I have more data. It takes way more than an hour to look into the claims of an hour long documentary. Looking at sources, organizations, funding, research, etc, are all things that I do when I am serious about believing something like this. 

 In general, if 30 physicists say it's possible on a global scale and one say it isn't, I'm inclined to believe the 30. If 97 climate scientists say that anthropomorphic global warming is happening, I am inclined to believe them over the 3 dissenters. Dissenting is important, but I am cautious about it.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 06:54:36 PM by StashingAway »

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2020, 07:28:53 PM »
5Kw per day is the total energy consumption target for everything.

kW is not a unit that makes sense in that context. kW is an instantaneous unit. kWh is the unit for kW over time. Neither 5kW average per day nor 5kWh per day line up with what the EIA has to say on the matter. To be specific the EIA says 28.9 kWh per day which is the same as ~1.2kW constant throughout the day.

EDITed to add - unless maybe they meant peak demand.

EDIT2 - When you say "Energy used to grow and transport the food you eat, energy to produce the clothes you wear, energy to heat your home, energy to supply water, energy to travel to and from work, etc, etc, etc" perhaps they meant 120kWh/day.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 07:38:49 PM by PDXTabs »

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2020, 07:53:25 PM »
5Kw per day is the total energy consumption target for everything.

kW is not a unit that makes sense in that context. kW is an instantaneous unit. kWh is the unit for kW over time. Neither 5kW average per day nor 5kWh per day line up with what the EIA has to say on the matter. To be specific the EIA says 28.9 kWh per day which is the same as ~1.2kW constant throughout the day.

EDITed to add - unless maybe they meant peak demand.

EDIT2 - When you say "Energy used to grow and transport the food you eat, energy to produce the clothes you wear, energy to heat your home, energy to supply water, energy to travel to and from work, etc, etc, etc" perhaps they meant 120kWh/day.

What PDXTab said.   Also your numbers don't add up.    It doesn't matter how scientific the Brit was if his numbers can't be sanity checked they aren't any good.

Fusion reactors are still in the experimental phase.     Whether they will solve power generation problems is pure speculation.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2020, 07:57:45 PM »
How exactly does France, a highly developed industrial nation, replacing their current energy consumption requirements with nuclear, show that it is possible for the developing world to build enough reactors to supply roughly double their entire energy consumption needs within 25 years?

Just caught this bit. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding on energy use here. Developing countries don't use more energy than stable 1st world countries do. They have more impact on the global average because they are going from effectively zero consumption to more consumption. They perhaps use dirtier energy (India and China are going through tons of coal). But energy use, in general, increases with standard of living. There is a slight taper over the last couple of decades per capita in some countries as we get more efficient. But developing nations do NOT use more energy than France, even as they're developing.

You are postulating that developing nations have to double France's relative (per capita) production of energy. I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding or a miscommunication, but that is incorrect. Let's look at an anecdote. Currently, France consumes about 6700kWh per citizen per year in energy total. Egypt consumes 1600kWh per citizen. All Egypt has to do, in theory, is build nuclear reactors instead of coal plants as it develops its infrastructure to match that of France's.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 08:01:40 PM by StashingAway »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2020, 08:44:15 PM »
The only difference between how you're acting and how I am is I'm not hypocritical about it. You're just as dismissive as I am.

I never claimed I wasn't being dismissive.  I've seen enough to convince me to be dismissive of fission as the answer to the energy crisis and all that goes with that.  I've seen nothing to convince me it is a viable answer.  The documentary was simply a single example that I think sums up the problem quite well.

You claim I am being hypocritical so please show me where I ever claimed to be anything other than what my posts have shown me to be.

You on the other hand are claiming to have an open mind but dismissing out of hand a documentary you have not even bothered to watch.

Quote from: StashingAway
And, despite your insistence, I do believe that my door is open. It genuinely is. I could be wrong about all of this. I've eaten my words before and I presume that I will do it again. That's just the learning process.

I didn't claim outright that your documentary is inaccurate, I am only claiming that the trend for those types of documentaries to be accurate doesn't play in it's favor. I've been reading about and discussing nuclear power for years now ... casually ... and in that time I've heard many extreme claims about nuclear "problems" that don't hold water when you actually look at the data. I preemptively filed your claims in that category in my understanding until I have more data. It takes way more than an hour to look into the claims of an hour long documentary. Looking at sources, organizations, funding, research, etc, are all things that I do when I am serious about believing something like this.

Actually you claimed you don't have to watch a documentary to "smell a stinker".  What makes it a "stinker" if not being inaccurate? 

Quote from: StashAway
In general, if 30 physicists say it's possible on a global scale and one say it isn't, I'm inclined to believe the 30. If 97 climate scientists say that anthropomorphic global warming is happening, I am inclined to believe them over the 3 dissenters. Dissenting is important, but I am cautious about it.

Plenty more than 1 seem to think fission is not the long term answer.

Quote from: PDXTabs
kW is not a unit that makes sense in that context. kW is an instantaneous unit. kWh is the unit for kW over time. Neither 5kW average per day nor 5kWh per day line up with what the EIA has to say on the matter. To be specific the EIA says 28.9 kWh per day which is the same as ~1.2kW constant throughout the day.

EDITed to add - unless maybe they meant peak demand.

EDIT2 - When you say "Energy used to grow and transport the food you eat, energy to produce the clothes you wear, energy to heat your home, energy to supply water, energy to travel to and from work, etc, etc, etc" perhaps they meant 120kWh/day.
Quote from: scottish
What PDXTab said.   Also your numbers don't add up.    It doesn't matter how scientific the Brit was if his numbers can't be sanity checked they aren't any good.

For those actually interested the pertinent part of the documentary begins at the 21min40sec point and goes to the 25min40sec point.  A total of 4 minutes.

I will admit, I made the assumption the 5Kw number is per day.  That is not actually stated.  However, from looking into it elsewhere the 11.4Kw average US citizen energy consumption seems to tally with per day requirements of that standard of living.

I do acknowledge if the Britts numbers can't be checked they aren't any good but since there's no desire to even verify if I have expressed those numbers correctly by watching the documentary I don't really see anyone being interested in sanity checking the numbers.

Quote from: scottish
Fusion reactors are still in the experimental phase.     Whether they will solve power generation problems is pure speculation.

Absolutely agree.  And please note, I never claimed that fusion will be the answer.  I only claimed fission isn't.  Regarding fusion, I also specifically stated "if we can get it to work".

Quote from: StashingAway
Just caught this bit. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding on energy use here. Developing countries don't use more energy than stable 1st world countries do. They have more impact on the global average because they are going from effectively zero consumption to more consumption. They perhaps use dirtier energy (India and China are going through tons of coal). But energy use, in general, increases with standard of living. There is a slight taper over the last couple of decades per capita in some countries as we get more efficient. But developing nations do NOT use more energy than France, even as they're developing.

You are postulating that developing nations have to double France's relative (per capita) production of energy. I'm not sure if it's a misunderstanding or a miscommunication, but that is incorrect.

I am not postulating that at all and never claimed developing countries use more energy than developed worlds.  I specifically stated the average is 2.2Kw which would seem to indicate that developing countries use massively less than developed countries per capita.  That's how averages work.  If the USA uses an average of 11.4Kw per capita and developing countries used more than that the average would have to also be more wouldn't it.

You are correct that energy use generally increases as standards of living increase.  At the time of the documentary there were 6 billion people using an average 2.2Kw each.  That equates to 13.2 Terawatts.  The point of settling on a 5Kw energy usage per capita for the world was to allow developing countries (at the time obviously consuming way less than even the global average, otherwise the avereage would be higher) to raise their standards of living to something approaching a developed world standard.  At the same time, 5Kw usage would require citizens in the developed world to get used to consuming less than half what they currently do.

Even with the idea that the developed world would actually reduce energy consumption to half what it was, this hugely optimistic target of 5Kw would still result in a global per capita energy consumption 2.5 times what it was at the time of the documentary.  I would argue that it is a massive, massive, under estimation of the need.  Then, rather than trying to rely solely on fission reactors the documentary suggested only 1/6 of that energy requirement would need to come from fission with the other 5/6 coming from other renewable sources.  The result was still 2.5 full sized reactors built each week for 25 years.

But anyway, I've said my piece.  I'm not terribly interested in convincing anyone.  So I'll leave it there and let the thread get on with it.

Moonwaves

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Location: Germany
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2020, 12:56:05 AM »
Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread through yet but in case anyone is interested, the realclimate blog posted on Shellenberger's op-ad yesterday. I haven't read that full post either, but the blog itself is generally good.*




* If you're not familiar with it, this is their "about" section:
Quote
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is mostly restricted to scientific topics and will only rarely get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2020, 02:05:27 AM »
Thought this was an interesting read
He does not speak for all environmentalists. Or anyone except his fellow nuclear advocates.

As for nuclear: people don't want it in their back yards. And it has to be in someone's back yard. So it won't happen. That's democracy.

Then there's diplomacy. Advocating nuclear for the world means advocating nuclear for North Korea and Iran, and whichever other country the West hates this week. Think of all the drama that causes, now multiply that through another fifty countries. So it won't happen. That's diplomacy.


Storing it could radiate vitamin B6 to everyone around, and demolishing the reactors too bashed-up to repair could leave land super-fertile and beautifully green, it doesn't matter. People don't want it for themselves or other countries.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 02:13:25 AM by Kyle Schuant »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2020, 05:04:16 AM »
As for nuclear: people don't want it in their back yards. And it has to be in someone's back yard. So it won't happen. That's democracy.

I disagree with this premise as well. People have been told they don't want it in their backyard. They watch a documentary about Chernobyl and decide that it's dangerous. Media and fossil fuel industries have been very successful about that.

BUT, people can shift their views. It's not a forever proposition. People also used to not want to put their credit card number online, but now look at how we function. Perceptions and views adjust. If people vote against nuclear, then that's fine, we live in a democracy. But if they do so by being inundated with info from environmentalist groups and fossil fuel industry, then are they really making an informed decision? The general public thinks about nuclear power probably less than 30 minutes a year. They're basing most of their view on information campaigns from decades ago.

I, for one, would gladly have nuclear "in my backyard". It's way more healthy to live by than a coal plant!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 05:16:49 AM by StashingAway »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2020, 05:15:01 AM »
You claim I am being hypocritical so please show me where I ever claimed to be anything other than what my posts have shown me to be.

You were pointing fingers at me saying that I wasn't open to changing my mind, whilst doing the same yourself. Look, this is going nowhere.  I explained why I was skeptical about the documentary (before watching it, and I gave my reasons). Let me ask you this: If I were to watch the documentary, and if I were to find holes in the argument presented, would you be open to receiving those? Especially after this discussion (but before it as well)? I would watch it in good faith (my ultimate goal is to be accurate). I will change my mind if it is wrong.

As a side note, and as others have mentioned, you should start using kWh when discussing energy usage. kW is instantaneous power, but does not indicate total usage when talking about these things.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #66 on: July 10, 2020, 05:28:16 AM »

You are correct that energy use generally increases as standards of living increase.  At the time of the documentary there were 6 billion people using an average 2.2Kw each.  That equates to 13.2 Terawatts.  The point of settling on a 5Kw energy usage per capita for the world was to allow developing countries (at the time obviously consuming way less than even the global average, otherwise the avereage would be higher) to raise their standards of living to something approaching a developed world standard.  At the same time, 5Kw usage would require citizens in the developed world to get used to consuming less than half what they currently do.

Ok, so this was just a misunderstanding. We're on the same page about developing nations, etc. Now, let me ask you this:

Say India wants to increase their per capita energy usage to that of the modern first world. Right now they're at about 900kWh per year per person. So bumping that to 5000kWh per year per person. You are skeptical about how many nuclear plants this would take (2.5 per week globally or whatever). But, what is the alternative? Mostly coal for these nations. So, while 2.5 nuclear plants sounds extreme, 2.5 coal plants is way worse. And modern coal with carbon sequestration is about as expensive to build as a nuclear plant. And while it's nice to imagine, solar, wind, and geo will only make a small % of what we have. 2.5 nuclear plants (if that's an accurate number) might sound excessive, but compared to the alternative it's likely the best.

Leisured

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Age: 79
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #67 on: July 10, 2020, 07:06:20 AM »
NIMBY does not work in France which has many nuclear reactors. We need to know why NIMBY does not work in France.

I live in Australia, which is resistant to the idea of nuclear power. Yet we are sparsely populated, with low rainfall and stable geology, so having nuclear reactors, sunk into hillsides, so that they are already in a tomb in case anything goes wrong, is a realistic option. High Voltage Direct Current electricity transmission is already a thing, and I can see nuclear reactors supplying electricity to Sydney from 1000 km away WNW, Melbourne and Adelaide from nuclear reactors 1000 km north. Nuclear reactors in desert regions can smelt aluminium or make cement, energy intensive. Perhaps even ammonia production, mainly for fertiliser.

Australia can also accept and bury nuclear waste, for a fee. Modern reactors usually burn up much of their nuclear waste in the outer regions of their reactor cores where neutrons split nuclear wastes and liberate modest amount of heat, in addition to the heat of the nuclear reaction. The Sahara could also accept nuclear waste, for a fee.

Rich countries have facilities where nuclear water, loosely defined, sits in large pools to keep them cool. This is a large waste of energy and is purely political, and stems from nuclear proliferation agreements. Rich countries cannot agree on a political mechanism to allow these wastes, loosely defined, to allow plutonium to be separated from real nuclear waste which does not emit much heat. Plutonium can be used for weapons or for nuclear power.

Nuclear power production need not translate into nuclear bombs. It can - but need not.


Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2020, 08:19:10 AM »
Developing countries don't use more energy than stable 1st world countries do. [...] energy use, in general, increases with standard of living.
I'm not sure what you mean by "standard of living". If you mean "income", then past a certain minimum, it's more true to say that a higher income allows higher consumption than a higher consumption allows a higher income. Looking at the energy consumption of wealthy countries and assuming that their high energy consumption is necessary is like looking at bankers' consumption of renaissance art $130 steaks and assuming that's necessary.

It's sensible to look not at total electricity use, but total energy use per capita. After all, people are often talking about things like changing from using internal combustion engine vehicles to electric ones. If you look here -

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita -

you quickly see that energy use and quality of life don't perfectly correlate. It's like when you look at per capita healthcare spending in the US being twice that of comparable Western countries - yet with worse outcomes. Energy, money, same deal - you need a certain minimum for a bearable quality of life, but past that they can be spent well, or spent badly.

Climate change is real and an issue, but the simple fact is that even if burning coal were harmless, it's finite.

Every year we consume vastly more coal, oil and gas than we discover. Fossil fuels were built up over 300 million years or so, and we are burning through them in 300 years. We're burning them one million times faster than they were made. This is equivalent to someone inheriting a fortune it took his family 100 years to build and spending it in less than an hour. No energy will ever be as cheap and easy as this. All the solar PV, wind turbines, nuclear and all the rest rely on fossil fuels to be built and maintained. We can't make steel without coal, or artificial fertiliser without natural gas, or plastics without oil.

So we should spend our fossil fuels very, very carefully.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 08:20:44 AM by Kyle Schuant »

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2020, 08:51:42 AM »
The nice thing about petroleum is that it has a pretty well-defined supply-demand curve.  When you combine that with a market economy, it gives me  great peace of mind.  As cheap (to produce) oil/gas gets scarce, the price goes up, and slightly-less-cheap-to-produce oil and gas become viable.  The rising prices also make alternatives more attractive.  Thus, the idea of "peak oil" doesn't scare me at all.

Just because it sounds unreasonable to build 3,000 nuclear plants in 25 years doesn't mean that nuclear isn't viable and shouldn't be pursued.  There really isn't an "energy crisis"--there's already sufficient generation capacity (well, unless you're in California, I suppose).  It's more a matter of "where do we go from here," as demand increases and older plants age out.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2020, 09:20:42 AM »
I'm not sure what you mean by "standard of living". If you mean "income", then past a certain minimum, it's more true to say that a higher income allows higher consumption than a higher consumption allows a higher income. Looking at the energy consumption of wealthy countries and assuming that their high energy consumption is necessary is like looking at bankers' consumption of renaissance art $130 steaks and assuming that's necessary.


I agree; I was using broad strokes to generalize. I was under the impression that PKFFW was saying that developing countries use more energy per capita to grow their economy than developed countries use to sustain it. In that sense, "standard of living" was referring to just that. Nothing more specific. I am unsure now of what the argument was.

Every year we consume vastly more coal, oil and gas than we discover. Fossil fuels were built up over 300 million years or so, and we are burning through them in 300 years. We're burning them one million times faster than they were made. This is equivalent to someone inheriting a fortune it took his family 100 years to build and spending it in less than an hour. No energy will ever be as cheap and easy as this. All the solar PV, wind turbines, nuclear and all the rest rely on fossil fuels to be built and maintained. We can't make steel without coal, or artificial fertiliser without natural gas, or plastics without oil.

So we should spend our fossil fuels very, very carefully.

I agree 100%. My personal opinion (an that of the majority of economists who study this) is that we can drive this conservation of resources through the market by putting a fee on fossil fuels at their source. That way we only use them for cases where we actually need them and not just in cases where they're cheap. Currently we subsidize fossil fuels which is sending the opposite signals to the market.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2020, 10:06:46 AM »
I agree 100%. My personal opinion (an that of the majority of economists who study this) is that we can drive this conservation of resources through the market by putting a fee on fossil fuels at their source. That way we only use them for cases where we actually need them and not just in cases where they're cheap. Currently we subsidize fossil fuels which is sending the opposite signals to the market.
I have two issues with this opinion:
1) "cases where we actually need them" -- Who would decide this?  I'm guessing it would be some sort of government organization, but that raises all sorts of issues of accountability, politics, lobbying, etc.  Currently, the use of petroleum is decided by the market, i.e. who's most willing to pay for it, which would seem to me to be the most democratic way of doing it.  In other words, the current system ain't broke :)
2) Can you elaborate on the point about fossil fuels being subsidized?  I've heard it several times, and that argument never seems to hold up to much scrutiny.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2020, 10:40:55 AM »
2) Can you elaborate on the point about fossil fuels being subsidized?  I've heard it several times, and that argument never seems to hold up to much scrutiny.

- direct tax breaks given to fuel and oil companies
- loans and guarantees at favorable rates
- price controls
- government provided land/water at below market rates
- failing to force oil and gas companies to pay for externalities associated with the environmental costs of their business

Estimates vary, but including externalities I've seen some as high as 5.3 trillion dollars annually world-wide.

EvenSteven

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2020, 11:05:41 AM »
I agree 100%. My personal opinion (an that of the majority of economists who study this) is that we can drive this conservation of resources through the market by putting a fee on fossil fuels at their source. That way we only use them for cases where we actually need them and not just in cases where they're cheap. Currently we subsidize fossil fuels which is sending the opposite signals to the market.
I have two issues with this opinion:
1) "cases where we actually need them" -- Who would decide this?  I'm guessing it would be some sort of government organization, but that raises all sorts of issues of accountability, politics, lobbying, etc.  Currently, the use of petroleum is decided by the market, i.e. who's most willing to pay for it, which would seem to me to be the most democratic way of doing it.  In other words, the current system ain't broke :)
2) Can you elaborate on the point about fossil fuels being subsidized?  I've heard it several times, and that argument never seems to hold up to much scrutiny.

Here is a place to start. You can check out the reports that are cited if you happen to dislike the source.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2020, 11:24:18 AM »
I have two issues with this opinion:
1) "cases where we actually need them" -- Who would decide this?  I'm guessing it would be some sort of government organization, but that raises all sorts of issues of accountability, politics, lobbying, etc.  Currently, the use of petroleum is decided by the market, i.e. who's most willing to pay for it, which would seem to me to be the most democratic way of doing it.  In other words, the current system ain't broke :)

The market would still decide. If we can't figure out a better way to make fertilizer, then then we will still use fossil fuels to do so, but now with the external costs of carbon factored into the market. We will use it more efficiently.

This is different from Cap and Trade, which is what you seem to be describing. Cap and Trade needs tons of oversight and has many potential issues with corruption in the system, politicians doing favors, mismanagement etc.

Here's the basic idea of a carbon fee:

1) Each fossil fuel emits a very measured amount of carbon as it is used (in terms of severity it is coal>oil>gas.

2) We already have a government structure to tax these items as they are mined and pulled out of the ground. All we would need to do is add a line item with a fee/ton of fuel pulled. This should start out low and get progressively more expensive so as to let the market adjust predictably. The more carbon that a fuel has, the higher the fee. This way the external damage that fossil fuels cause is priced into the market right at the source.

3) Now the fuel costs of different processes will balance out. It will make more sense to buy local strawberries because shipping is more for strawberries from Mexico (whereas before the cost difference was negligible). Or now that electricity costs more, adding insulation or being more efficient with your house will be more appealing.

4)Importantly, that fee that is collected is returned back to the citizens in the form of a dividend. This is important because rising fuel costs will hit poor families the hardest, but a flat monthly dividend will more than compensate. People will still have the incentive to buy/do the cheapest thing, but now buying habits will automatically accelerate the efficiency in which we use fossil fuels.  It is also important because it is revenue-neutral. The government keeps their hands off of things and the efficiencies of the market will drive the best practices to the top. No politicians deciding which markets are off limits or things like that.

Some other benefits are that we don't have to do any micromanaging with this system. We don't have to constantly measure each coal plant's carbon output to make sure they're scrubbing correctly. We don't have to do audits to make sure businesses require as much energy as they say they do. We would still have to keep track of pollutants, but that is a different subject. The government gets to do what it does best - collect and distribute money on a large scale - and the private industry can chase profits like normal.

This is by far the most supported option by economists, and has very bi-partisan implications should it get in the right hands.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 11:33:24 AM by StashingAway »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #75 on: July 10, 2020, 11:40:47 AM »
Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread through yet but in case anyone is interested, the realclimate blog posted on Shellenberger's op-ad yesterday. I haven't read that full post either, but the blog itself is generally good.*

Excellent read, thanks for posting it. The author has a shorter version here that addresses what the scientific consensus actually is. He concludes with:

Quote
David Appel asks “Is this the problem, then? Half-truths, incoherent cases, sound-good arguments that in total don’t add up to a coherent case against environmentalism except seemingly on 4-minute between-commercial segments on conservative talk radio but not in thought-out rational discourse?”

I think that hits the nail on the head. It’s a pitch to denialism, not to moderation.

The cure to doomerism isn’t denial. The cure to denial isn’t doomerism.

They are two sides of the same problem; both amount to an abdication of responsibility hidden under enthusiastic vilification of the other side. Changing sides (or pretending to change sides) in a culture war can get you some attention. It can sell some books. What it can’t do is help.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #76 on: July 10, 2020, 11:57:42 AM »
As for nuclear: people don't want it in their back yards. And it has to be in someone's back yard. So it won't happen. That's democracy.

I disagree with this premise as well. People have been told they don't want it in their backyard. They watch a documentary about Chernobyl and decide that it's dangerous. Media and fossil fuel industries have been very successful about that.

BUT, people can shift their views. It's not a forever proposition. People also used to not want to put their credit card number online, but now look at how we function. Perceptions and views adjust. If people vote against nuclear, then that's fine, we live in a democracy. But if they do so by being inundated with info from environmentalist groups and fossil fuel industry, then are they really making an informed decision? The general public thinks about nuclear power probably less than 30 minutes a year. They're basing most of their view on information campaigns from decades ago.

I, for one, would gladly have nuclear "in my backyard". It's way more healthy to live by than a coal plant!
I'm not the one who made the comment you are replying to.

As for democracy, nothing says the voter has to be informed.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #77 on: July 10, 2020, 12:05:28 PM »
You were pointing fingers at me saying that I wasn't open to changing my mind, whilst doing the same yourself.

I was only pointing out that your claim to having an open mind was demonstrably untrue as evidenced by your dismissal of something you admit to not even bothering to watch.  Nothing hypocritical in that.

Quote from: StashingAway
Look, this is going nowhere.  I explained why I was skeptical about the documentary (before watching it, and I gave my reasons). Let me ask you this: If I were to watch the documentary, and if I were to find holes in the argument presented, would you be open to receiving those? Especially after this discussion (but before it as well)? I would watch it in good faith (my ultimate goal is to be accurate). I will change my mind if it is wrong.

Honestly, probably not.  As I mentioned before, I've seen a lot more than that one documentary.  And I've re-watched the 4 minutes that I mentioned in this thread.  I've already admitted that I agree that considering no one here can sanity check the Britt dudes numbers, they can be considered as garbage by anyone who so wishes.

So there's nothing really to "find holes" with in that regard anyway.

Quote from: StashingAway
As a side note, and as others have mentioned, you should start using kWh when discussing energy usage. kW is instantaneous power, but does not indicate total usage when talking about these things.

I did previously admit that I made the assumption it was a daily total.  As in 5Kw per day.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #78 on: July 10, 2020, 12:09:28 PM »
Ok, so this was just a misunderstanding. We're on the same page about developing nations, etc. Now, let me ask you this:

Say India wants to increase their per capita energy usage to that of the modern first world. Right now they're at about 900kWh per year per person. So bumping that to 5000kWh per year per person. You are skeptical about how many nuclear plants this would take (2.5 per week globally or whatever). But, what is the alternative? Mostly coal for these nations. So, while 2.5 nuclear plants sounds extreme, 2.5 coal plants is way worse. And modern coal with carbon sequestration is about as expensive to build as a nuclear plant. And while it's nice to imagine, solar, wind, and geo will only make a small % of what we have. 2.5 nuclear plants (if that's an accurate number) might sound excessive, but compared to the alternative it's likely the best.
Totally agree coal is way worse and never once claimed it wasn't.

I only claimed that nuclear fission plants are not the long term viable problem solver that people think they are.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2020, 12:18:27 PM »
I did previously admit that I made the assumption it was a daily total.  As in 5Kw per day.

5 kWh;  5kW is a "speed" of electricity. kWh is a "volume" of it. Just trying to help on this one. We measure daily/weekly/hourly usage of electricity in kWh or Wh. We measure instantaneous usage in kW or W.



Honestly, probably not. 

Herein is where the hypocrisy lies. I was open and up-front about my distrust about your source. I am actually open to being wrong. That is NOT demonstrably untrue, despite you claiming so. I will genuinely give it a look this weekend. But you've already admitted that that has no bearing on your world view, because you are in fact also not open to feedback. At least I am aware of my limitations; you have the same limitations but are not factoring them in.

jambongris

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2020, 12:18:35 PM »
You were pointing fingers at me saying that I wasn't open to changing my mind, whilst doing the same yourself.

I was only pointing out that your claim to having an open mind was demonstrably untrue as evidenced by your dismissal of something you admit to not even bothering to watch.  Nothing hypocritical in that.

Quote from: StashingAway
Look, this is going nowhere.  I explained why I was skeptical about the documentary (before watching it, and I gave my reasons). Let me ask you this: If I were to watch the documentary, and if I were to find holes in the argument presented, would you be open to receiving those? Especially after this discussion (but before it as well)? I would watch it in good faith (my ultimate goal is to be accurate). I will change my mind if it is wrong.

Honestly, probably not.  As I mentioned before, I've seen a lot more than that one documentary.  And I've re-watched the 4 minutes that I mentioned in this thread.  I've already admitted that I agree that considering no one here can sanity check the Britt dudes numbers, they can be considered as garbage by anyone who so wishes.

So there's nothing really to "find holes" with in that regard anyway.

Quote from: StashingAway
As a side note, and as others have mentioned, you should start using kWh when discussing energy usage. kW is instantaneous power, but does not indicate total usage when talking about these things.

I did previously admit that I made the assumption it was a daily total.  As in 5Kw per day.
kW and kWh are not interchangeable. They mean different things.

kW is a measure of power, it’s an instantaneous measurement.

kWh is a measure of energy and is cumulative.

If you’re drawing 5 kW of power for one hour then you’ve consumed 5 kWh of energy.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2020, 02:22:20 PM »
As for democracy, nothing says the voter has to be informed.

To work properly, people need to be aware enough to vote in their own self interest.  At a fundamental level democracies don't work when the average voter is ignorant.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2020, 03:34:07 PM »
You were pointing fingers at me saying that I wasn't open to changing my mind, whilst doing the same yourself.

I was only pointing out that your claim to having an open mind was demonstrably untrue as evidenced by your dismissal of something you admit to not even bothering to watch.  Nothing hypocritical in that.

Quote from: StashingAway
Look, this is going nowhere.  I explained why I was skeptical about the documentary (before watching it, and I gave my reasons). Let me ask you this: If I were to watch the documentary, and if I were to find holes in the argument presented, would you be open to receiving those? Especially after this discussion (but before it as well)? I would watch it in good faith (my ultimate goal is to be accurate). I will change my mind if it is wrong.

Honestly, probably not.  As I mentioned before, I've seen a lot more than that one documentary.  And I've re-watched the 4 minutes that I mentioned in this thread.  I've already admitted that I agree that considering no one here can sanity check the Britt dudes numbers, they can be considered as garbage by anyone who so wishes.

So there's nothing really to "find holes" with in that regard anyway.

Quote from: StashingAway
As a side note, and as others have mentioned, you should start using kWh when discussing energy usage. kW is instantaneous power, but does not indicate total usage when talking about these things.

I did previously admit that I made the assumption it was a daily total.  As in 5Kw per day.
kW and kWh are not interchangeable. They mean different things.

kW is a measure of power, it’s an instantaneous measurement.

kWh is a measure of energy and is cumulative.

If you’re drawing 5 kW of power for one hour then you’ve consumed 5 kWh of energy.

yeah, pkffw, go read up on the difference between power and energy and we can analyze what you're trying to say.    confusing these two ideas makes it impossible to go forward.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2020, 08:29:27 PM »

To work properly, people need to be aware enough to vote in their own self interest.  At a fundamental level democracies don't work when the average voter is ignorant.
I often hear this stated, and the person is always, of course, excluding themselves from the "ignorant." This is a long tradition that goes back to Plato's Republic, where he suggested that society should be ruled by philosopher. That he was himself a philosopher was of course just a coincidence. Your statement is just another turn on this old merry go-round with the little tune playing, "if I only were a king."

It's self-serving nonsense, and it's the excuse every failed political party or movement uses for their failure. I know because I see environmentalists do it all the time. "teh problum iz taht teh peepul r st00pid!!!1one! lolz!" No.

Quote
"I maintain, therefore, contrary to the common opinion which avers that a people when they have the management of affairs are changeable, fickle, and ungrateful, that these faults exist not in them otherwise than as they exist in individual princes; so that were any to accuse both princes and peoples, the charge might be true, but that to make exception in favour of princes is a mistake; for a people in command, if it be duly restrained, will have the same prudence and the same gratitude as a prince has, or even more, however wise he may be reckoned; and a prince on the other hand, if freed from the control of the laws, will be more ungrateful, fickle, and short-sighted than a people. [...]

"If, then, we assume the case of a prince bound, and of a people chained down by the laws, greater virtue will appear in the people than in the prince; while if we assume the case of each of them freed from all control, it will be seen that the people commits fewer errors than the prince, and less serious errors, and such as admit of readier cure. For a turbulent and unruly people may be spoken to by a good man, and readily brought back to good ways; but none can speak to a wicked prince, nor any remedy be found against him but by the sword."

- Machiavelli, Discourses
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 08:32:11 PM by Kyle Schuant »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #84 on: July 10, 2020, 10:09:34 PM »
Herein is where the hypocrisy lies. I was open and up-front about my distrust about your source. I am actually open to being wrong. That is NOT demonstrably untrue, despite you claiming so. I will genuinely give it a look this weekend. But you've already admitted that that has no bearing on your world view, because you are in fact also not open to feedback. At least I am aware of my limitations; you have the same limitations but are not factoring them in.
hypocrisy
noun -
a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

Never did I pretend to believe something I do not believe.  For example, never did I dismiss as a "stinker" without watching it first anything you suggested while at the same time claiming to believe myself to be open-minded to what you were presenting.

Pointing out you are demonstrably not as open minded as you claim is not hypocrisy unless I falsely claim to be open minded myself.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #85 on: July 10, 2020, 10:18:32 PM »
Yeah, pkffw, go read up on the difference between power and energy and we can analyze what you're trying to say.    confusing these two ideas makes it impossible to go forward.
Firstly, I've already admitted that the numbers the Britt dude uses can't be checked anyway.  There simply isn't enough data in the documentary.  So there seems no going forward because of that.

Secondly, no one actually seems like even watching the 4 minutes of footage to perhaps better understand something I may not be explaining very well, so I can't really see the point in trying to go forward because of that fact either.  If watching 4 minutes of footage is too much effort to expend then certainly trying to expend the energy to go forward over the internet will prove insurmountable.

Lastly, as previously mentioned, while interested enough to post something I thought interesting and perhaps not too much effort to watch, I'm not terribly interested in convincing anyone that nuclear fission will not be the answer.  None of us here are going to build nuclear reactors or solve the energy crisis, so what each of us believes will make a difference so close to zero as to be completely and utterly irrelevant.  So there's not really any point in trying to move forward because of that as well.

jambongris

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2020, 06:53:05 AM »
Yeah, pkffw, go read up on the difference between power and energy and we can analyze what you're trying to say.    confusing these two ideas makes it impossible to go forward.
Firstly, I've already admitted that the numbers the Britt dude uses can't be checked anyway.  There simply isn't enough data in the documentary.  So there seems no going forward because of that.

Secondly, no one actually seems like even watching the 4 minutes of footage to perhaps better understand something I may not be explaining very well, so I can't really see the point in trying to go forward because of that fact either.  If watching 4 minutes of footage is too much effort to expend then certainly trying to expend the energy to go forward over the internet will prove insurmountable.

Lastly, as previously mentioned, while interested enough to post something I thought interesting and perhaps not too much effort to watch, I'm not terribly interested in convincing anyone that nuclear fission will not be the answer.  None of us here are going to build nuclear reactors or solve the energy crisis, so what each of us believes will make a difference so close to zero as to be completely and utterly irrelevant.  So there's not really any point in trying to move forward because of that as well.

For anyone else who's curious, the engineer in the documentary used kW throughout his interview although he used the terms power and energy interchangeably when discussing values in kW. Assuming he meant power I didn't see him clarify if this was peak demand (which is what the grid needs to be sized for) or if that assumed a steady state delivery of energy for everyone (which would seem difficult to implement in practice).

From what I can tell, his 5 kW value was meant to cover all energy expenditures (i.e. enough to replace our use of all fossil fuels for things like transportation).

Assuming this is an average demand required per person it seems on the high side to me. Our home draws an average of 0.2 kW per person (~150 kWh per person per month) although this doesn't include heating. The average western value of 11.4 kW per person mentioned by PKFFW seems high to me, even when you factor in all the energy used in our lives outside of our residential electricity bill.

Also, Wikipedia tells me that Canadians use 1.7 kW per person (15,000 kWh per year) if you divide all the electricity generated on the Canadian grid by our population. I know we use energy beyond what is generated on our grid but would that additional energy usage really bring the average from 1.7 kW to 5 kW, let alone 11.4 kW?

Regardless, I would agree with PKFFW that there really wasn't enough detail in that video segment to understand how the engineer being interviewed arrived at his numbers.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #87 on: July 11, 2020, 08:03:06 AM »

To work properly, people need to be aware enough to vote in their own self interest.  At a fundamental level democracies don't work when the average voter is ignorant.
I often hear this stated, and the person is always, of course, excluding themselves from the "ignorant." This is a long tradition that goes back to Plato's Republic, where he suggested that society should be ruled by philosopher. That he was himself a philosopher was of course just a coincidence. Your statement is just another turn on this old merry go-round with the little tune playing, "if I only were a king."

It's self-serving nonsense, and it's the excuse every failed political party or movement uses for their failure. I know because I see environmentalists do it all the time. "teh problum iz taht teh peepul r st00pid!!!1one! lolz!" No.

Quote
"I maintain, therefore, contrary to the common opinion which avers that a people when they have the management of affairs are changeable, fickle, and ungrateful, that these faults exist not in them otherwise than as they exist in individual princes; so that were any to accuse both princes and peoples, the charge might be true, but that to make exception in favour of princes is a mistake; for a people in command, if it be duly restrained, will have the same prudence and the same gratitude as a prince has, or even more, however wise he may be reckoned; and a prince on the other hand, if freed from the control of the laws, will be more ungrateful, fickle, and short-sighted than a people. [...]

"If, then, we assume the case of a prince bound, and of a people chained down by the laws, greater virtue will appear in the people than in the prince; while if we assume the case of each of them freed from all control, it will be seen that the people commits fewer errors than the prince, and less serious errors, and such as admit of readier cure. For a turbulent and unruly people may be spoken to by a good man, and readily brought back to good ways; but none can speak to a wicked prince, nor any remedy be found against him but by the sword."

- Machiavelli, Discourses

Wasn't intended as an excuse or condemnation, just a statement of fact.  Fundamentally, a democracy depends on the average person voting in his or her own self-interest.  Without this, you don't really have a democracy because people who are unable to do this are not really free.  I wasn't referring to a specific democracy, nor was the argument for a ruling elite advanced . . . and honestly didn't think that the statement was too controversial.

Do you honestly believe that a group of people incapable of voting in their own best interests make for a strong democracy Kyle, or is this largely a tilting at windmills/railing against straw men sort of response?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2020, 09:01:57 AM »
Herein is where the hypocrisy lies. I was open and up-front about my distrust about your source. I am actually open to being wrong. That is NOT demonstrably untrue, despite you claiming so. I will genuinely give it a look this weekend. But you've already admitted that that has no bearing on your world view, because you are in fact also not open to feedback. At least I am aware of my limitations; you have the same limitations but are not factoring them in.
hypocrisy
noun -
a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

Never did I pretend to believe something I do not believe.  For example, never did I dismiss as a "stinker" without watching it first anything you suggested while at the same time claiming to believe myself to be open-minded to what you were presenting.

Pointing out you are demonstrably not as open minded as you claim is not hypocrisy unless I falsely claim to be open minded myself.

Hyprocricy: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations. Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

You pretended to be having an open discussion about the nature of nuclear power, while in fact concealing that you had already made up your mind. I did not pretend to be as such; I was open about my hesitancy to your propositions. I could be described as stubborn in this discussion, but not hypocritical.

Lol, you can't win! I'm always going to be right because this is the internet!


PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #89 on: July 11, 2020, 06:42:23 PM »
Hyprocricy: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations. Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

You pretended to be having an open discussion about the nature of nuclear power, while in fact concealing that you had already made up your mind. I did not pretend to be as such; I was open about my hesitancy to your propositions. I could be described as stubborn in this discussion, but not hypocritical.

Lol, you can't win! I'm always going to be right because this is the internet!
Pray tell, what part of my original statement which included the comments...

"nuclear fission isn't really the answer anyway." and "So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer."

was "pretending" to be having an open discussion about the nature of nuclear power?

You desperately want to believe that because I pointed out you are not open minded, as evidenced by the fact you dismissed without even watching, information that did not conform to your preconceived viewpoint, that I am being a hypocrite.  The cry of hypocrite is nothing more than an unwillingness to confront your own close minded attitude.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2020, 09:01:46 PM »
Do you honestly believe that a group of people incapable of voting in their own best interests make for a strong democracy Kyle, or is this largely a tilting at windmills/railing against straw men sort of response?
I don't believe that people are incapable of voting in their own best interests. You're saying that the general public are stupid - "excluding myself, of course." I don't believe the general public are stupid.

Rational judgement requires weighing up several different considerations. X matters, but so do Y and Z. Most people agree that X, Y and Z all matter, where they differ is how much weight they give to each. Party A says X is most important, Party B says Z is most important. And individuals swing between those, and there are even those who worry about Y. Circumstances, and policies laid out articulately by advocates of X, Y or Z will alter people's opinions.

The decisions of the general public may give more or less weight to X, Y or Z than you or I would like - but they're not stupid. Calling the public stupid is just the excuse an advocate of X, Y or Z uses when they're too inarticulate to persuade anyone to agree with them, or when their policy is so bad nobody will want it however well it's explained.

The nuclear advocate's excuse for everyone rejecting nuclear is that the public are stupid. The fact is that their policy is badly-explained, and a bad policy, which is why people don't want it.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #91 on: July 12, 2020, 07:24:03 AM »
2) Can you elaborate on the point about fossil fuels being subsidized?  I've heard it several times, and that argument never seems to hold up to much scrutiny.

- direct tax breaks given to fuel and oil companies
- loans and guarantees at favorable rates
- price controls
- government provided land/water at below market rates
- failing to force oil and gas companies to pay for externalities associated with the environmental costs of their business

Estimates vary, but including externalities I've seen some as high as 5.3 trillion dollars annually world-wide.
I'm guessing things are different in Canada, but here in the US:
--The tax breaks aren't unique to oil/gas, they're the same kind of breaks any business gets
--AFAIK, the government doesn't loan money to oil/gas companies
--Price controls on oil/gas certainly aren't a thing in the US.  Is it in Canada?
--I have a problem with this one, because this is typically land that's out in the middle of nowhere, and the government owns it by default.  There is no market for this land, so "below market rates" doesn't mean much.  Even more so for offshore drilling. There's zero cost to the taxpayer here, so I fail to see how it's a subsidy.
--Paying for externalities?  Yeah, no industry does that.  Again, this isn't unique to petroleum.  That's on the end user.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #92 on: July 12, 2020, 08:04:47 AM »
--Paying for externalities?  Yeah, no industry does that.  Again, this isn't unique to petroleum.  That's on the end user.

I want to isolate this.

We make companies pay for negative externalities all the time. It's one of the main things that government does (making sure that certain parties do not encroach on the rights of the general public). For example, we make companies dispose of chemical waste proper ways, which is expensive. They used to just dump in rivers and swamps. We make car companies meet strict pollutant regulations. Left to their own devices in a competitive market, they would not use catalytic converters and the like because they are expensive and reduce performance. We have building regulations that meet fire codes, which contractors would gladly forgo to make a cheaper house. All of these are variants on the "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon.

Oil and gas companies are currently not held responsible for the CO2 that the use of their product emits into the atmosphere. This is an externaltiy on a global scale and should be treated as such.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #93 on: July 12, 2020, 08:11:34 AM »
--The tax breaks aren't unique to oil/gas, they're the same kind of breaks any business gets

Tax breaks in the US directly targeted at oil/gas. These are in addition to the general subsidies given, which are also substantial (such as Last In, First Out Accounting [26 U.S. Code § 472]):


Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.


Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.


Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A. These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 08:13:08 AM by StashingAway »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #94 on: July 12, 2020, 08:35:38 AM »
Do you honestly believe that a group of people incapable of voting in their own best interests make for a strong democracy Kyle, or is this largely a tilting at windmills/railing against straw men sort of response?
I don't believe that people are incapable of voting in their own best interests. You're saying that the general public are stupid - "excluding myself, of course." I don't believe the general public are stupid.

No Kyle.  Please re-read my post.  I'm not saying that at all, and I don't believe the general public is stupid.  That's why democracy typically works.  My argument was simply that an informed electorate is better able to vote in their own self interest, which strengthens democracy.  If you have an extreme situation where a large portion of the electorate is incapable of voting in their own self interests (for whatever reason) then you have a weaker democracy.



Quote
Rational judgement requires weighing up several different considerations. X matters, but so do Y and Z. Most people agree that X, Y and Z all matter, where they differ is how much weight they give to each. Party A says X is most important, Party B says Z is most important. And individuals swing between those, and there are even those who worry about Y. Circumstances, and policies laid out articulately by advocates of X, Y or Z will alter people's opinions.

The decisions of the general public may give more or less weight to X, Y or Z than you or I would like - but they're not stupid. Calling the public stupid is just the excuse an advocate of X, Y or Z uses when they're too inarticulate to persuade anyone to agree with them, or when their policy is so bad nobody will want it however well it's explained.

Yep.  I'd like to point out again that I didn't call the "general public" stupid.  Who are you arguing with here?



Quote
The nuclear advocate's excuse for everyone rejecting nuclear is that the public are stupid. The fact is that their policy is badly-explained, and a bad policy, which is why people don't want it.

Again, who are you arguing with here?  I'm not rabidly anti-nuclear, and certainly do see some serious problems with the energy source that are often brought up by those in the pro camp.  That's why I brought up those concerns several times on the last page.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #95 on: July 12, 2020, 02:03:21 PM »
--Paying for externalities?  Yeah, no industry does that.  Again, this isn't unique to petroleum.  That's on the end user.
I want to isolate this.

We make companies pay for negative externalities all the time. It's one of the main things that government does (making sure that certain parties do not encroach on the rights of the general public). For example, we make companies dispose of chemical waste proper ways, which is expensive. They used to just dump in rivers and swamps. We make car companies meet strict pollutant regulations. Left to their own devices in a competitive market, they would not use catalytic converters and the like because they are expensive and reduce performance. We have building regulations that meet fire codes, which contractors would gladly forgo to make a cheaper house. All of these are variants on the "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon.

Oil and gas companies are currently not held responsible for the CO2 that the use of their product emits into the atmosphere. This is an externaltiy on a global scale and should be treated as such.
I was a bit glib in my comment, so I should clarify--when I say "no industry does that", I mean that we don't hold companies responsible for how their customers use their products.  The oil/gas companies are not the ones creating the pollution through the use of their products (yes, they use some for generating the power they use, but it's a small fraction of what gets produced).  It's the end consumer who burns it and creates the pollutants.  You make a fair point about automotive emissions and the mandates for emissions controls, but the building code point is off the mark--that's not a tragedy of the commons, really, since it's really just between the consumer and the builder (unless you're talking about fire spreading from one building to another).  A better comparison would be to point out that we do not require car manufacturers to pay for automotive insurance, nor lumber manufacturers for home insurance.

--The tax breaks aren't unique to oil/gas, they're the same kind of breaks any business gets
Tax breaks in the US directly targeted at oil/gas. These are in addition to the general subsidies given, which are also substantial (such as Last In, First Out Accounting [26 U.S. Code § 472]):

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.

Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613). Depletion is an accounting method that works much like depreciation, allowing businesses to deduct a certain amount from their taxable income as a reflection of declining production from a reserve over time. However, with standard cost depletion, if a firm were to extract 10 percent of recoverable oil from a property, the depletion expense would be ten percent of capital costs. In contrast, percentage depletion allows firms to deduct a set percentage from their taxable income. Because percentage depletion is not based on capital costs, total deductions can exceed capital costs. This provision is limited to independent producers and royalty owners. In its analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the JCT estimated that eliminating percentage depletion for coal, oil and natural gas would generate $12.9 billion in the next ten years.

Credit for Clean Coal Investment Internal Revenue Code § 48A. These subsidies create a series of tax credits for energy investments, particularly for coal. In 2005, Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects. In 2008, additional incentives for carbon sequestration were added to IRC § 48B and 48A. These included 30 percent investment credits, which were made available for gasification projects that sequester 75 percent of carbon emissions, as well as advanced coal projects that sequester 65 percent of carbon emissions. Eliminating credits for investment in these projects would save $1 billion between 2017 and 2026.
Thanks for making a detailed list.  This is very helpful for this discussion:
1) Intangible drilling costs - While this is specific to oil and gas, it is directly analogous to deductions for capital investment and/or R&D that are available to companies in pretty much any industry.
2) Percentage Depletion - As the paragraph says, it's just like depreciation.  An oil field is an asset that loses value as it is produced, so it makes sense that a company can deduct that amount from their assets.  So yes, it's specific to O&G, but it's basically parity with every other industry.
3) Clean Coal Investment - I don't know a lot about this one, but it sounds like the credits are designed to pay for (either voluntary or mandated) projects that these companies would not undertake were it not for either the mandates or the credits.  So I have a hard time counting that.

Even if I were to accept all three, it adds up to about $4 billion annually (and $3 billion for O&G, which is pretty much separate from coal), out of $181 billion in revenue.  Compare that to the wind production tax credit (around $0.02/kWh), renewable energy tax credits (25% from the federal gov't, plus whatever your state is doing), loan guarantees, and accelerated depreciation (double!) that *are* specific to wind and solar, and which add up to something between 25 and 66% of their cost.  Given those, I'm not inclined to conclude that oil and gas companies are surviving on government handouts.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2020, 06:35:50 PM »
we don't hold companies responsible for how their customers use their products.  The oil/gas companies are not the ones creating the pollution through the use of their products (yes, they use some for generating the power they use, but it's a small fraction of what gets produced).  It's the end consumer who burns it and creates the pollutants.
That's the argument the producers and salespeople of illicit drugs use. It doesn't hold much water at their trial.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2020, 07:12:58 PM »
For all the kW and kWH debates - power generation capacity is planned based on peak demand + some margin.

So, in a discussion about how many power plants you need, "X kW" as a unit of measure makes perfect sense.

Nuclear power can be a good "baseload" (i.e. the constant part of the demand), but you need some other forms of generation for the peaks and troughs.


Note: All the above assumes we are not likely to ever see battery technology feasible at the mass scale that will be necessary even out all peaks and troughs. Even if the mythical "million mile batteries" actually come to fruition (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063437083), that still won't be feasible or cost effective for the entire grid.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2020, 08:49:49 PM »
--Paying for externalities?  Yeah, no industry does that.  Again, this isn't unique to petroleum.  That's on the end user.
I want to isolate this.

We make companies pay for negative externalities all the time. It's one of the main things that government does (making sure that certain parties do not encroach on the rights of the general public). For example, we make companies dispose of chemical waste proper ways, which is expensive. They used to just dump in rivers and swamps. We make car companies meet strict pollutant regulations. Left to their own devices in a competitive market, they would not use catalytic converters and the like because they are expensive and reduce performance. We have building regulations that meet fire codes, which contractors would gladly forgo to make a cheaper house. All of these are variants on the "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon.

Oil and gas companies are currently not held responsible for the CO2 that the use of their product emits into the atmosphere. This is an externaltiy on a global scale and should be treated as such.
I was a bit glib in my comment, so I should clarify--when I say "no industry does that", I mean that we don't hold companies responsible for how their customers use their products.  The oil/gas companies are not the ones creating the pollution through the use of their products (yes, they use some for generating the power they use, but it's a small fraction of what gets produced).  It's the end consumer who burns it and creates the pollutants.  You make a fair point about automotive emissions and the mandates for emissions controls, but the building code point is off the mark--that's not a tragedy of the commons, really, since it's really just between the consumer and the builder (unless you're talking about fire spreading from one building to another).  A better comparison would be to point out that we do not require car manufacturers to pay for automotive insurance, nor lumber manufacturers for home insurance.


What's the end result of this line of argument? That instead of oil and gas companies being taxed for the externalities, the consumer should be taxed at the point of sale because they are the ones who "burns it and creates the pollutants"?

It's one and the same thing, isn't it?

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2020, 09:16:33 PM »
I would just tax all fossil fuels at the moment they came out of the ground or into the country, and let the free market take care of it from there.