The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Huskie87 on July 02, 2020, 11:59:39 AM
-
Thought this was an interesting read:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare#disqus_thread
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona (https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/).
Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.
Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)
-
Have you read the book, or just the ad/comments on the ad? Because those are very different things. Very rarely have I seen book summaries that don't distort the book in some way.
The guy behind it, Michael Shellenberger, has been around a while and has several books it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger
-
Have you read the book, or just the ad/comments on the ad? Because those are very different things. Very rarely have I seen book summaries that don't distort the book in some way.
The guy behind it, Michael Shellenberger, has been around a while and has several books it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger
Just the ad. Which is what I assumed that OP was talking about, but that may have been a bad assumption. Also it's an ad for his book, written by him, on his website, so if it's a distortion he has no one but himself to blame.
I did look him up too. He seems to be a pro-nuclear lobbyist / fanboy, which for the record I agree with him on that.
But there's just sooo much about the ad that sets off alarm bells for me. Not only the laughably-false bits quoted above, but the whole conspiratorial "fake news" "everyone else is evil bad guys out to get you" "I alone will tell you the truth" tone to it too.
-
Here are some facts few people know:
* Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
Here are some facts that even fewer people know:
* The number of fires hasn't declined 25% since 2003 but, rather, the number of square km burned has dropped 25% since 2003.
To put it another way, he misquoted his source in that bullet list.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-look-at-two-decades-of-wildfires-globally-in-just-30-seconds
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona (https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/).
Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.
Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)
This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
The UK is known for its shitty climate and small houses. Over here, covering the roof in solar covers about 1/2 your electricity need. I'm sure big houses much further south than the 55degrees we are here would easily meet your home energy need
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona (https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/).
Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.
Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)
-
The UK is known for its shitty climate and small houses. Over here, covering the roof in solar covers about 1/2 your electricity need. I'm sure big houses much further south than the 55degrees we are here would easily meet your home energy needs.
Right, and windmills/hydro also exist. My point was not to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solar power solution to the world, merely to demonstrate how drastically off the author's numbers were. As in, so insanely off that it sounds like straight up propaganda.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
-
The fact my local ignorant climate change denying politician has jumped all over this tells me everything I need to know.
It isn’t worth looking into at all. Not even going to bother wasting my time on it.
-
But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
The real problem with nuclear is not the technology, it's much more practical. It's the NIMBYism. No one wants a nuclear plant in their back yard, or the waste stored near them. Further nuclear plants are extremely expensive because of all the safety precautions they necessarily must have, and take forever to get regulatory approval and to build.
Nuclear power itself is very practical, building the plants is not.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production. (https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24)
-
But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
The real problem with nuclear is not the technology, it's much more practical. It's the NIMBYism. No one wants a nuclear plant in their back yard, or the waste stored near them. Further nuclear plants are extremely expensive because of all the safety precautions they necessarily must have, and take forever to get regulatory approval and to build.
Nuclear power itself is very practical, building the plants is not.
Agreed! It would be highly dependent on every other country building highly standardized nuclear plants as well. Do we really want to put our faith in that? One Fukushima was more than enough. We don't want to be dealing with one per year.
-
There are multiple issues with present day industrial agriculture; direct and indirect fossil fuel use are only part of the problems.
Stupid storage issues keep coming up with nuclear, as in the proposal to have spent fuel stored only a few km from the Ottawa River. No one has heard of ground water leaching? People want fast cheap easy solutions.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production. (https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24)
I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production. (https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24)
I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.
The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production. (https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24)
I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.
The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.
That still sounds pretty industrial to me. I guess my point is the problems with farming are carbon release, habitat destruction, and nutrient runoff. Some of these problems can be solved or mitigated with better agricultural technology that doesn’t involve starving off half the planet. Complaining about “industrialized farming” seems to be missing the point in favor of buzz words.
-
An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.
In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978)
And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.
They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.
So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?
I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?
Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production. (https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24)
I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.
The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.
That still sounds pretty industrial to me. I guess my point is the problems with farming are carbon release, habitat destruction, and nutrient runoff. Some of these problems can be solved or mitigated with better agricultural technology that doesn’t involve starving off half the planet. Complaining about “industrialized farming” seems to be missing the point in favor of buzz words.
Not sure where you are going with this. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers in industrial farming is pretty prominent. These issues aren't mutually exclusive to what you deem the problems are as fertilizer production leads to carbon emissions (as we discussed) and fertilizer applications lead to runoff issues. I don't know what buzz words you are talking about.
-
...snip...
Not sure where you are going with this. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers in industrial farming is pretty prominent. These issues aren't mutually exclusive to what you deem the problems are as fertilizer production leads to carbon emissions (as we discussed) and fertilizer applications lead to runoff issues. I don't know what buzz words you are talking about.
I consider "industrial farming" to be a buzz word without a clear definition, where different people use it differently. When I hear that phrase it includes using synthetic fertilizer, using GMOs, using mechanized farm equipment, and is often the opposite of organic farming.
So if a way is developed for producing synthetic fertilizer using green energy and water, it is bad because it is still industrial. If GMOs are developed that drastically cut insecticide use, then that is bad because GMOs are industrial. If some big agribusiness comes up with some sort of precision fertilizer application that reduces use and run-off, then thats bad because it is industrial.
I am all for changing or advancing farming to be more environmentally friendly. I don't think running farming practices through the filter of "industrial farming" is useful to that end.
-
The rub with nukes is that if we're ever going to be interplanetary or interstellar we need to get good with the atom. Solar power doesn't work "out there." It'll be a lot easier to get good with the atom here where the planet provides you some radiation shielding from solar/cosmic, rather than out there where you need to solve not only the nuke plant's problem, but all the space problems too, and all the problems space is going to cause with the plant on top of all that.
Oh yeah and that little bit where they don't smash passing birds, take up a lot of arable land, etc.
They probably shouldn't be privately run. This is a place for the Feds to step in and Do It Right. France has largely done a good job of it. Russia not so much. The Feds clearly can -- plenty of reactors running out there under the ocean surface and we haven't lost one due to reactor issues yet.
Fusion is a great plan, but its always been 20 years away. It might be nice to have power and heat on the moon or Mars sooner than that...
-
I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel. No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue
There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there. There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized. The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production. It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.
-
I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel. No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue
I advocate nuclear power too.
There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there. There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized. The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production. It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.
When some people hear or read "nuclear" the very next word that comes to their mind is "bomb." They don't understand that the uranium in a reactor CANNOT be instantly converted to energy as happens in a thermonuclear bomb.
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona (https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/).
Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.
Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)
This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.
However, the Arizona sized solar farm is only referring to replacing current electricity usage. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't account for any combustion engine / natural gas power use.
-
I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:
* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations. Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...
You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona (https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/).
Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.
Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)
This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.
However, the Arizona sized solar farm is only referring to replacing current electricity usage. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't account for any combustion engine / natural gas power use.
It accounts for replacing all "electricity consumption." That would include any natural gas used for electrical generation. No it doesn't account for internal combustion.
-
There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there. There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized. The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production. It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.
As one of those 'skeptical people', I find the above claim very hard to believe. Everything I've been able to find online regarding new nuclear designs seems to fall into one of two categories. Either it has a) serious security concerns (such as thorium reactors producing weapons-grade fissiles) or b) are untested designs that still have serious logistical or engineering hurdles to overcome (such as molten salt reactors, where they are still trying to engineer internals that won't corrode within a couple of years from the salt).
If there are 'totally automated and safe' designs out there that have been tested and are viable, I haven't heard about them. And considering the number of investors that would be climbing over each other to fund said 'magic bullet' energy solution the minute someone announced (with proof) that they had a 100% perfectly safe nuclear reactor design that did NOT produce insanely dangerous waste that needed to be stored for hundreds-to-thousands of years ... well, I think people are right to be skeptical about nuclear power. And for that matter, perfectly reasonable not to want current reactor designs (or their associated waste) anywhere near where they live or work.
-
I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel. No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue
There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there. There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized. The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production. It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.
I largely agree with you. While nuclear reactor design isn't my particular field of science/engineering, my understanding is that there are modern designs that are intrinsically stable(that is to say, they will fail "off" instead of a runaway state) - but that in many cases these haven't been widely built yet as many of the nuclear reactors in service are much older designs.
In my mind, if you can deal with the waste disposal issue, Nuclear is a (relatively) mature technology that's available today, without some of the limitations of wind/solar(reliance on weather/seasonality).
-
I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel. No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue
There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there. There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized. The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production. It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.
I largely agree with you. While nuclear reactor design isn't my particular field of science/engineering, my understanding is that there are modern designs that are intrinsically stable(that is to say, they will fail "off" instead of a runaway state) - but that in many cases these haven't been widely built yet as many of the nuclear reactors in service are much older designs.
In my mind, if you can deal with the waste disposal issue, Nuclear is a (relatively) mature technology that's available today, without some of the limitations of wind/solar(reliance on weather/seasonality).
But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.
-
As one of those 'skeptical people', I find the above claim very hard to believe. Everything I've been able to find online regarding new nuclear designs seems to fall into one of two categories. Either it has a) serious security concerns (such as thorium reactors producing weapons-grade fissiles) or b) are untested designs that still have serious logistical or engineering hurdles to overcome (such as molten salt reactors, where they are still trying to engineer internals that won't corrode within a couple of years from the salt).
If there are 'totally automated and safe' designs out there that have been tested and are viable, I haven't heard about them. And considering the number of investors that would be climbing over each other to fund said 'magic bullet' energy solution the minute someone announced (with proof) that they had a 100% perfectly safe nuclear reactor design that did NOT produce insanely dangerous waste that needed to be stored for hundreds-to-thousands of years ... well, I think people are right to be skeptical about nuclear power. And for that matter, perfectly reasonable not to want current reactor designs (or their associated waste) anywhere near where they live or work.
You are correct that there are lots of walk-away-safe designs that for now are purely hypothetical, i.e. haven't been built. The reason investors *aren't* climbing all over each other to build them is because the regulatory, political (NIMBY!), and legal hurdles (note the conspicuous absence of "engineering" in that list) have an enormously negative impact on the ROI of a nuclear power plant. Yes, engineering is more demanding than a fossil fuel reactor, but it's not as large a contributor to delays as the other three. If you're interested in diving into it, this video does a great job (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY) of explaining it in back-of-the-napkin numbers.
But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.
Waste disposal isn't as large an issue as you might think. The spent fuel is almost always stored on the same site as the reactor, and actually ends up being a pretty small quantity, relatively speaking. The reactors only need to be refueled every couple of years, so over the lifespan of a reactor, the fuel doesn't amount to a whole lot, volume-wise. IIRC, it's the low-level waste that can be a problem to store long-term--stuff like clothes, tools, equipment, etc that is mildly radioactive. And when I say "mildly," I really mean it. It's slightly elevated from background radiation, but realistically, it's not actually very dangerous. That stuff piles up to a larger volume, and out of an abundance of caution, it gets the kid glove treatment, even though it's not really dangerous.
-
We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal. Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).
-
We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal. Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).
I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways. Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.
The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U) about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing. He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).
-
We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal. Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).
I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways. Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.
The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U) about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing. He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).
Um, it was seriously proposed here. Totally stupid, things rust, things leach, and lots of cities are down stream of the proposed location. Including Ottawa.
-
Nuclear is an option, but the problems are political. Modern reactor designs can lost electric power to their coolant pumps yet still stay safe by passive thermal circulation. I understand that modern reactor designs include nuclear waste into the outer levels of nuclear fuel, so that neutrons from the reactor split the nuclear water into more benign compounds, adding s small amount of reaction heat in the process.
I live in Australia, with a land area similar to that of the US. with a sparse population, stable geology and low rainfall. We are well placed to accept nuclear waste from other countries, for a fee, and use nuclear power to make energy intensive products such as fertiliser (ammonia), cement and aluminium.
Fukushima is a distraction. The plant was sixties technology, the emergency generators sere installed too low for a tsunami, and Japan is in a volcanic region.
-
We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal. Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).
I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways. Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.
The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxksKmJa6U) about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing. He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).
To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary. Think of the changes that have occurred between now and when Jesus was born. Then think of how many chances will happen in five or six times this period of time. It is hubris and foolhardy to expect any storage system we devise now to last for that period of time.
I'm not anti-nuclear at all . . . but the long term storage of nuclear waste that you're brushing off here is a serious issue. There exists no such thing as an 'everything-proof' cask, and waste is piling up as we use nuclear power. It may be better than many of the ways we're generating power right now, but it's absolutely not a panacea, or without problems.
-
Um, it was seriously proposed here. Totally stupid, things rust, things leach, and lots of cities are down stream of the proposed location. Including Ottawa.
I looked back, and all I saw was "stored near". That doesn't mean that they're planning to dig a hole and toss radioactive fuel rods in. In fact, the NRC has a handy page describing how spent fuel can be stored (https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html[/url). Aside from the wet storage, the dry storage approach takes the fuel, sticks it in a steel tube, and then encapsulates a bunch of steel pipes in concrete, above ground. That way it can be easily monitored, is impervious to anything that wouldn't cause greater problems on its own*, poses no proliferation risk, and poses no contamination risk.
To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary.
The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage. But we don't have to. All we need is good enough. If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case. Or they can reprocess it into new fuel (another issue that's more political than technical), or whatever.
When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?
-
To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary.
The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage. But we don't have to. All we need is good enough. If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case.
"It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Safeguards are also required to ensure that neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium is diverted to weapon use. There is general agreement that placing spent nuclear fuel in repositories hundreds of meters below the surface would be safer than indefinite storage of spent fuel on the surface." - https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/ (https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/)
You're talking about a monitoring and maintenance program that lasts for tens of thousands to millions of years. This is a little more mind-boggling than the casual way you're dropping the idea would indicate - can you tell me anything that humanity has stuck to doing for this period of time? Just a thousand years ago the language we're speaking in didn't even exist. Politically, I can't think of any institutions that have even lasted 500 years. While not necessarily unsolvable - these are problems that humanity has never solved before and are extremely difficult. Although the problem will come about thousands of years from now doesn't mean we can just wave it away.
Or they can reprocess it into new fuel (another issue that's more political than technical), or whatever.
"Reprocessing does not eliminate the requirement for a repository, however, or even reduce its size much. This is because, in effect, reprocessing merely exchanges the problem of managing light-water-reactor spent fuel for the problem of managing not only spent MOX fuel but also the high-level waste from reprocessing, plutonium waste from MOX-fuel fabrication, and eventually the waste from decommissioned reprocessing and MOX-fuel fabrication facilities." - https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/ (https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/)
Nuclear reprocessing may at some point be a possible solution, but currently it's not able to replace the need for extremely long term nuclear waste storage.
When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?
Low level and short lived radioactive stuff is not as serious an issue, or as concerning. I'm talking about the waste produced that requires storage in a deep geological repository (our current only idea for how to store it) that is continuously piling up by using nuclear fuel for energy generation.
-
Google chalk river nuclear waste storage and a series of articles will come up. You can see the history and concerns about this proposal. At this point they have eliminated intermediate-level waste from what would be stored, and added river monitoring. The proposed site is 1.2km from the river (that is roughly 3/4 of a mile for non-metric people).
You are then trusting that everything will happen as it should. Good concrete (as opposed to the terrible concrete house foundations in an area I lived in, and all the crappy concrete in Montreal area overpasses, not to mention the Big O). Proper monitoring, proper equipment and well trained staff, no budget cuts as people become used to it. For at least 50 years? Guess I'm just cynical in my old age.
-
The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage. But we don't have to. All we need is good enough. If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case.
You're talking about a monitoring and maintenance program that lasts for tens of thousands to millions of years. This is a little more mind-boggling than the casual way you're dropping the idea would indicate - can you tell me anything that humanity has stuck to doing for this period of time? Just a thousand years ago the language we're speaking in didn't even exist. Politically, I can't think of any institutions that have even lasted 500 years. While not necessarily unsolvable - these are problems that humanity has never solved before and are extremely difficult. Although the problem will come about thousands of years from now doesn't mean we can just wave it away.
I'm under no illusion that any monitoring/maintenance program instituted today would last a thousand years. Science and technology advance, and I fully expect that during the next 50 years, we will develop even better (lower-cost, simpler, longer-lived) processes, materials, programs, etc that will carry us through the next decades or centuries.
Burying casks of spent fuel is the best solution we have right now, if you're assuming nobody touches it forever.
When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?
Low level and short lived radioactive stuff is not as serious an issue, or as concerning. I'm talking about the waste produced that requires storage in a deep geological repository (our current only idea for how to store it) that is continuously piling up by using nuclear fuel for energy generation.
Ok, good to know we're on the same page here. The amount of high-level waste is something around 60,000 tons in the US. Given uranium's high density, that doesn't amount to a huge volume (thankfully!).
Oooooh, here's a silly thought: SpaceX's Starship/Superheavy is (aspirationally) supposed to deliver 100T of cargo to LEO, at a cost (to SpaceX) of $2 million. That's $20/kg. At that price, we could launch the stuff into interplanetary space for less than it would cost to store it on earth!
-
Launching radioactive stuff into space sounds great (gone forever! no storage problems!). But that usually ends as soon as you think of all the things that can go wrong with a space launch . . . and then imagine all that nuclear material finely dispersed across the upper layers of the atmosphere. Although likely cheaper, the risks/reward there is pretty unbalanced.
-
If nuclear power plants are out, what do you all think we should use for electrical generation going forward?
-
But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.
It's a helluva lot less of an issue than the CO2 waste we dump into the atmosphere from our current sources of fuel. And a coal plant emits more radiation than a nuclear one to local residents.
We don't have to be "perfect" with nuclear, we just have to be significantly better than the current energy production sources. Which many would argue that it is (I'm in that boat).
As humans progress, we have constantly benefited from denser, cleaner power sources. wood>coal>petroleum>gas. Nuclear is the best way to power a growing worldwide power demand. Solar, wind, geo, tidal, power can all do their part, but we need grid-level, predictable, dense, clean power. Build the thorium reactors!
-
One other note. Nuclear has the lowset mortality/kWh out of all of the sources we have so far, aside from dams in the US (which are themselves ecological disasters for flora/fauna).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#58f2d8ef709b
-
Launching radioactive stuff into space sounds great (gone forever! no storage problems!). But that usually ends as soon as you think of all the things that can go wrong with a space launch . . . and then imagine all that nuclear material finely dispersed across the upper layers of the atmosphere. Although likely cheaper, the risks/reward there is pretty unbalanced.
That's why I prefaced the idea with the word "silly" :) Although, if Starship achieves arliner-like safety levels, it stops being silly...
-
I'm all for developing Thorium reactors, but today we have zero.
Also, it's not just the reactor that needs to be constantly cooled, its also the spent rod storage for a long time (approximately 10 years). This was one of the problems at Fukushima. Two of the reactors were successfully shutdown, but that doesn't mean that you can let the spent rods go. To put it another way: modern reactors (not the ones at Fukushima) have core catchers. But the cooling pools do not.
-
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
-
So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer.
Eh, not going to just quit because some internet rando says to!
Without watching the documentary, I can be confident that there are more than 3 major assumptions that Brian Cox makes to come to his conclusion. Those types of things are very rarely done in good faith. I am leaving the door to be open to be wrong about this. But back of the napkin math doesn't even make sense. How can it be so impossible to achieve if France is 70% nuclear right now?
-
Eh, not going to just quit because some internet rando says to!
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.
Without watching the documentary, I can be confident that there are more than 3 major assumptions that Brian Cox makes to come to his conclusion. Those types of things are very rarely done in good faith. I am leaving the door to be open to be wrong about this. But back of the napkin math doesn't even make sense. How can it be so impossible to achieve if France is 70% nuclear right now?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://electricityplans.com/kwh-kilowatt-hour-can-power/)?
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.
-
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 (https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-developed-SMR-design-unveiled)
-
But this wouldn't include your personal vehicle...
It sure does! (https://surlybikes.com/bikes/legacy/pacer) ;)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.worlddata.info/europe/france/energy-consumption.php) per year in energy total. Egypt consumes 1600kWh per citizen (https://www.worlddata.info/africa/egypt/energy-consumption.php). 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.
-
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
-
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 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/07/shellenbergers-op-ad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shellenbergers-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:
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/07/shellenbergers-op-ad/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shellenbergers-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 (https://medium.com/@mtobis/the-consensus-the-crisis-the-scare-73520459fb64) that addresses what the scientific consensus actually is. He concludes with:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption) 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.
-
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.
"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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
--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.
-
--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.
-
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.
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?
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.
-
--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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063437083)), that still won't be feasible or cost effective for the entire grid.
-
--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?
-
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.
-
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.
Uh, that's a bit apples-and-oranges there.
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.
That's a good point, and one that's often overlooked. Nuclear power takes tens-of-minutes to ramp up and down, so you still need stuff like gas turbines that can supply the peaks. And that's also a challenge utilities face in places where residential solar has become commonplace--the utilities still have to purchase and maintain enough generating capacity to supply the whole grid (for cloudy, still days), but they get paid less by their customers because of the supply from solar.
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?
It may seem like it, but there are three things to keep in mind: (just off the top of my head)
1) oil and gas get used for lots of non-burning things, like plastics and fertilizer, as pointed out upthread
2) making the pollutant-producer pay for burning the oil and gas provides transparency, so they know how much they're paying for the actual product, and how much is tax
-
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.
That's a good point, and one that's often overlooked. Nuclear power takes tens-of-minutes to ramp up and down, so you still need stuff like gas turbines that can supply the peaks. And that's also a challenge utilities face in places where residential solar has become commonplace--the utilities still have to purchase and maintain enough generating capacity to supply the whole grid (for cloudy, still days), but they get paid less by their customers because of the supply from solar.
Do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Here in NC the power company (Duke Energy) has a pretty large residential solar stimulus program. Because solar produces a lot of power during the day in the hot summer months, which is the same time as people are using peak electricity (because AC), so adding residential solar *reduces* their peak generation needs and saves them money.
I guess that's different in climates that don't need AC as much, but the same argument can apply in general for wind. Days are generally windier than nights, and people generally use more power during the day. There does come a certain point where adding more wind/solar is harder for the grid to absorb because of the unpredictability of it, but I haven't seen any evidence that we're approaching that point in the US, and we haven't really even started deploying grid-scale batteries.
-
Wind power is sometimes dumped from the Columbia Gorge during snow melt season.
The duck curve, when solar and wind peak, has been studied for years.
So fear not: the duck curve doesn’t spell doom for variable renewables. In the U.S., PV deployment is approaching the highest levels of solar studied in the 2008 report by Denholm et al.
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2018/10-years-duck-curve.html
-
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.
That's a good point, and one that's often overlooked. Nuclear power takes tens-of-minutes to ramp up and down, so you still need stuff like gas turbines that can supply the peaks. And that's also a challenge utilities face in places where residential solar has become commonplace--the utilities still have to purchase and maintain enough generating capacity to supply the whole grid (for cloudy, still days), but they get paid less by their customers because of the supply from solar.
Do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Here in NC the power company (Duke Energy) has a pretty large residential solar stimulus program. Because solar produces a lot of power during the day in the hot summer months, which is the same time as people are using peak electricity (because AC), so adding residential solar *reduces* their peak generation needs and saves them money.
Solar is great when it's sunny and warm. But it doesn't *always* match up with demand. For example, on a hot, cloudy day, you lose a lot more solar power than you lose in demand, and people still expect to be able to run everything on demand. In addition, there are a lot of fixed costs which are separate from simply generating electricity--there's a whole power distribution network that requires building, maintaining/repairing/etc, regardless of how much of your customer base has on-site solar.
-
Yupp, solar generation mismatch with the demand curve is a "problem" everywhere.
The way utilities deal with the "problem" is to move the cost on the non-solar customers. They obviously don't do it directly, but money is fungible and that is the indirect result anyway.
The actual mechanism used for this cross-subsidy is complex (utilities make rate cases with the state regulators based on their cost basis -> rates are bumped up for everyone when marginal costs increase due to demand/supply mismatch due to solar).
I happened to have had some interaction with Duke specifically way in the past (what's the chance of that!). Yes, it is a "problem" for them, and yes, they did have people looking at this issue last time when I had a chance to interact with them.
They may still be encouraging solar conversion because they may get incentives from the state and federal authorities to do so, and remember that they don't really lose anything in the end, they just make a rate case with the state regulators for a higher electricity rate that everyone will pay. Utilities are almost guaranteed - by legislation and regulation - to make a certain percentage of profit over their costs.
I personally think Solar is great. I am not so sure that all the market-distorting subsidies are all the great.
-
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.
That's a good point, and one that's often overlooked. Nuclear power takes tens-of-minutes to ramp up and down, so you still need stuff like gas turbines that can supply the peaks. And that's also a challenge utilities face in places where residential solar has become commonplace--the utilities still have to purchase and maintain enough generating capacity to supply the whole grid (for cloudy, still days), but they get paid less by their customers because of the supply from solar.
Do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Here in NC the power company (Duke Energy) has a pretty large residential solar stimulus program. Because solar produces a lot of power during the day in the hot summer months, which is the same time as people are using peak electricity (because AC), so adding residential solar *reduces* their peak generation needs and saves them money.
Solar is great when it's sunny and warm. But it doesn't *always* match up with demand. For example, on a hot, cloudy day, you lose a lot more solar power than you lose in demand, and people still expect to be able to run everything on demand. In addition, there are a lot of fixed costs which are separate from simply generating electricity--there's a whole power distribution network that requires building, maintaining/repairing/etc, regardless of how much of your customer base has on-site solar.
Again, do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Cloudy days are not going to require as much AC as non-cloudy days, so while "solar generation might dip further than demand does" on those days, solar production in general might still be a net-positive. Because demand is still dipping on those days, and so we might not be close to what otherwise would have been the peak capacity that they would have had to build out. Not building power plants = saving bucket-loads of money. And the fact that Duke Energy is giving people residential solar stimulus checks indicates to me that it is in fact a net-positive for the power company, at least in NC.
And fixed grid maintenance costs seem to be completely irrelevant to the discussion about peak demand generation. I mean, yes, I'm well aware that Duke and co will use literally any logic they can to attempt to add more fees and jack up rates. They're business in the business of making as much money as they can. But the fact that they themselves are subsidizing solar tells me that it's not really that much of a problem. And in NC they get their fixed-cost money anyway in the form of a $16/month fee, regardless of if you consume 0 electricity.
-
I happened to have had some interaction with Duke specifically way in the past (what's the chance of that!). Yes, it is a "problem" for them, and yes, they did have people looking at this issue last time when I had a chance to interact with them.
Okay, I guess I believe you, although I would be happier with sources. ;)
-
Again, do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Cloudy days are not going to require as much AC as non-cloudy days, so while "solar generation might dip further than demand does" on those days, solar production in general might still be a net-positive. Because demand is still dipping on those days, and so we might not be close to what otherwise would have been the peak capacity that they would have had to build out. Not building power plants = saving bucket-loads of money.
Peak capacity happens generally between 6 and 9. Solar generally does not generate at that time. So, the number of non-solar generators you need to meet peak demand is not impacted by solar capacity.
Wind is generally better matched with the peak demand periods. So, what you really need is a combination of different renewable energy sources. I even found a stanford whitepaper discussing this: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft)
I suspect (and it is a commonly held opinion by many) that the present day solar subsidies and cross-subsidies prevent the real, sustainable development of renewable and battery technologies.
e.g. I'm in the process of getting rooftop solar. Net metering will subsidize me at the cost of non-solar customers because my rooftop solar will generate during "cheaper" times, and my usage during the "peak"/"expensive" times will be offset by this. if there was no cross-subsidy, then it would likely have made more sense for me to get the Tesla PowerWalls and try to be less reliant on the grid altogether, especially for my peak-time usage.
It is a bigger topic than just Solar or even renewables, however. It would have made more sense for me to look for smart appliances and such that can intelligently time things based on electricity prices (think my diswasher or cloth dryer than starts based on price signals) had I, as a customer, been sensitive to the actual cost of operating generators and the grid.
-
Again, do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Cloudy days are not going to require as much AC as non-cloudy days, so while "solar generation might dip further than demand does" on those days, solar production in general might still be a net-positive. Because demand is still dipping on those days, and so we might not be close to what otherwise would have been the peak capacity that they would have had to build out. Not building power plants = saving bucket-loads of money.
Peak capacity happens generally between 6 and 9. Solar generally does not generate at that time. So, the number of non-solar generators you need to meet peak demand is not impacted by solar capacity.
Wind is generally better matched with the peak demand periods. So, what you really need is a combination of different renewable energy sources. I even found a stanford whitepaper discussing this: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft)
Really? Because according to the first graph in that article peak demand happens around 3pm in July (at least in California). Which is almost exactly the same time as peak solar PV production is happening (2pm), and is exactly when peak solar thermal production is happening.
Look I'm not arguing against mixing in various kinds of generation, or pretending that subsidies do not have unintended market-distorting side-effects. But so far all the actual evidence I've seen is that this is a "problem" like an optimization problem, like the engineers have to actually think about things and engineer the overall system so that everything works out, and that they will. Not a "problem" like "we're better off without it" problem.
-
Again, do you actually know that that's a problem anywhere? Cloudy days are not going to require as much AC as non-cloudy days, so while "solar generation might dip further than demand does" on those days, solar production in general might still be a net-positive. Because demand is still dipping on those days, and so we might not be close to what otherwise would have been the peak capacity that they would have had to build out. Not building power plants = saving bucket-loads of money.
Peak capacity happens generally between 6 and 9. Solar generally does not generate at that time. So, the number of non-solar generators you need to meet peak demand is not impacted by solar capacity.
Wind is generally better matched with the peak demand periods. So, what you really need is a combination of different renewable energy sources. I even found a stanford whitepaper discussing this: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft)
Really? Because according to the first graph in that article peak demand happens around 3pm in July (at least in California). Which is almost exactly the same time as peak solar PV production is happening (2pm), and is exactly when peak solar thermal production is happening.
Look I'm not arguing against mixing in various kinds of generation, or pretending that subsidies do not have unintended market-distorting side-effects. But so far all the actual evidence I've seen is that this is a "problem" like an optimization problem, like the engineers have to actually think about things and engineer the overall system so that everything works out, and that they will. Not a "problem" like "we're better off without it" problem.
Very much agreed on the bolded part. Without renewable sources, human civilization as we know it would likely not survive for another 100 years. So, I don't think there is anyone sane who would argue "we're better off without it" (and I know there are loads of insane people).
Yeah, I see the July curve too. That is contrary to what I thought to be the case. So I went back to double check at PJM (thinking this may be a localized CA thing) (https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx), and you are right, this time of the year the peak seems to be around 3pm or so. If so, Solar *can* actually meet the generator peak capacity requirements for a little bit at the top.
The market distorting effect of some of the subsidies and cross-subsidies is still a problem. But that is a different topic.
-
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.
I want to push back on this, because I don't think that insurance is a good corollary. Insurance i a tool to reduce the impact of a large financial loss. It's different from a known, measurable, consistent output. With insurance, specific large events cause this financial loss to an individual. With climate change we are at a completely different scale wherein the effects are not known but the mechanism is.
One key part of this is that the use of fossil fuels has very predictable CO2 output. We know very precisely how much CO2 a barrel of oil will put in the atmosphere by the end of it's life cycle. Same with gas and coal. So we already know the impact before the goods are used. For home insurance, we have no idea what random events will happen to an individual. So it is up to that individual to do a personal risk assessment and decide for themselves. I know there are caveats with minimum required and such, but the market mechanism of insurance isn't at all like a carbon fee.
This goes back to your proposition that oil and gas companies are not responsible for the pollution. I agree when it comes to pollution but not when it comes to CO2. Pollution is a local(ish) problem and highly variant on process. CO2 is quite steady and predictable. It's not much different than a company selling toys with lead paint saying that the consumer should be testing the toys on their end, because they're not responsible for what is done with the toys. Most people would agree that the company is responsible, and that toys are generally expected to be played with by kids. So we set regulations to make sure toy companies follow guidelines that make their toys safe for regular use. I shop down the toy aisle with reasonable expectation that the products are safe for kids. We do this in all kinds of markets.
Oil/Gas/Coal companies product has one main use, and that's to be burned, and that creates CO2. To me this means that the cost adjustment should be made at this point in the marked. We claim a fee on oil, they pass most or all of that fee onto their customers, and the market adjusts to the new price signals. It's essentially a "disposal fee" priced in because we know how much and where they are disposing it (the atmosphere). Applying this anywhere down market gets way more complicated.
Back to the carbon fee. It is favored by economists; the best way to dis-incentivize the use of something in the market is to make it more expensive. Taxing something where it enters the market is more cost effective than regulating it from the back end.
https://www.econstatement.org/all-signatories
On the last part regarding subsidies. I do agree that the subsidies are relatively minimal (at least the direct ones are, but there are some breakdowns that show that there are a lot more in the purchasing chain). And I would imagine that renewable subsidies are larger by %. But regardless, these subsidies are a problem to me. Currently they are the opposite of a carbon fee; they create an artificially low price on a product that we should be trying to limit our use of. There is no reason to have these, regardless of how small they are. It's the principal of the thing.
I was also being pedantic in that you said that "there are no oil/gas specific subsidies" which there are ;)
-
So I went back to double check at PJM (thinking this may be a localized CA thing) (https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx), and you are right, this time of the year the peak seems to be around 3pm or so.
Okay sounds like we agree. I'll just point out to everyone else that it's not really correct to talk about "the peak" "this time of year". The problem is that power companies have to have generating capacity to meet the absolute max consumption for the whole year, and that those plants are either under-utilized or off entirely the rest of the time (and therefore not paying for their construction/operation, and therefore not efficient and therefore costing people money).
Solar seems to reduce the peak requirements. Which is a win-win, both environmentally and for a power company $$$$$ perspective. I see no reason to believe that we've arrived at or are anywhere near the point where the unpredictability of solar generation outweighs the peak-reduction benefit. Maybe if you lived in the frigid north peak consumption would happen in winter instead, but then if you're that far north you probably weren't considering inefficient-at-that-latitude solar anyway.
-
So I went back to double check at PJM (thinking this may be a localized CA thing) (https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx), and you are right, this time of the year the peak seems to be around 3pm or so.
Okay sounds like we agree. I'll just point out to everyone else that it's not really correct to talk about "the peak" "this time of year". The problem is that power companies have to have generating capacity to meet the absolute max consumption for the whole year, and that those plants are either under-utilized or off entirely the rest of the time (and therefore not paying for their construction/operation, and therefore not efficient and therefore costing people money).
Solar seems to reduce the peak requirements. Which is a win-win, both environmentally and for a power company $$$$$ perspective. I see no reason to believe that we've arrived at or are anywhere near the point where the unpredictability of solar generation outweighs the peak-reduction benefit. Maybe if you lived in the frigid north peak consumption would happen in winter instead, but then if you're that far north you probably weren't considering inefficient-at-that-latitude solar anyway.
There's another issue with distributed solar, and that is when installed solar production gets very wide spread. That's great on one hand, because you don't need to have fossil-fuel-burning plants generating that power. However, once you introduce Net Metering into the equation, it gets really messy for the utility. The reason is that generally net metering treats all electricty equally, regardless of when it went through a house's meter, or in which direction, but the utility pays for (or gets paid for) electricity at the spot price. So if you have a cool, sunny day, a homeowner may produce an excess 3kWh when the spot price (i.e. the price the utility pays) is 0.5 cents, but later in the evening, use 3kWh when the spot price is, say, 3 cents. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands of households, and you can see the problem the utilities run into. Even worse, there are times when there is so much PV production, in fact, that the spot price actually goes *negative*. And this is at the same time the utility has to maintain all the production capacity and grid for a worst-case scenario. Tying net metering to spot prices helps, but still doesn't eliminate the problem of having idle production capacity for hot, cloudy days. This is one of the major factors that drove Hawaii to end its net-metering arrangement.
Now, if we can get develop efficient, cheap-at-scale electricity storage technology, that largely solves a big chunk of the problem. Combine that with variable rate billing (i.e. the price a customer pays is tied to the spot price of the electricity when it was used) and you're almost there. But even then, there are times of prolonged overcast skies and calm winds, when the utilities will still need to supply nearly all the load.
-
If you want to use real-time pricing, don't you need some way to feedback the spot price to the consumer? i.e. so she can run the clothes dryer when demand is low and avoid the a/c when demand is high...
-
If you want to use real-time pricing, don't you need some way to feedback the spot price to the consumer? i.e. so she can run the clothes dryer when demand is low and avoid the a/c when demand is high...
Not sure if you asked me, but let me take a stab at it anyway..
Generally, you know when demand is low. e.g. between 1am and 5am, you can be pretty sure demand (and hence prices) will be very low. So you could just schedule things based on these assumptions.
Price feedback is obviously a great thing to have. I think, however, it will be too expensive and hence unlikely to be feasible. A bloomberg terminal, that can supply real time pricing info on all markets cost thousands of dollars in license fees every year for a reason.
Disclaimer: I last worked with the commodities/electricity markets a decade+ ago. So, a lot of my knowledge may be incorrect (e.g. I didn't know that summer peaks were in the mid-day) or outdated.
-
Considering the big electricity consumers (A/C, dishwasher, oven/stove, dryer) are something that runs for more than a few minutes, you don't need minutely pricing. Hourly is probably good enough.
-
We already have hourly pricing in Australia. In many cases when people get solar panels and remain grid-connected, they're put on variable pricing plans.
-
Ontario Hydro has peak, shoulder and off peak pricing. It changes from summer to winter.
-
Ontario Hydro has peak, shoulder and off peak pricing. It changes from summer to winter.
Well, we used to. It's all a flat rate now, thanks to covid.
-
It would work better in an automated industrial setting. When the sun is shining on the solar farms, that's the time to start up the smelter, etc., otherwise you run on the overnight shift.
It's one way to adapt the load to electricity sources with variable supply like solar and wind. I wonder where the break even point is or if this would even be worthwhile...
-
It would work better in an automated industrial setting. When the sun is shining on the solar farms, that's the time to start up the smelter, etc., otherwise you run on the overnight shift.
It's one way to adapt the load to electricity sources with variable supply like solar and wind. I wonder where the break even point is or if this would even be worthwhile...
I doubt it. Factories want to run as close to 24/7 as possible for the exact same reason that you don't want excess power plants sitting around: it's expensive and you want to get as much money out of that investment as you can.