Imagine a group of 100 fisherman faced with declining stocks and worried about the sustainability of their resource and their livelihoods. One of them works out that the total sustainable catch is about 20% of what everyone is catching now (with some uncertainty of course) but that if current trends of increasing catches (about 2% a year) continue the resource would be depleted in short order. Faced with that prospect, the fishermen gather to decide what to do. The problem is made more complicated because some groups of fishermen are much more efficient than the others. The top 5 catchers, catch 20% of the fish, and the top 20 catch almost 75% of the fish. Meanwhile the least efficient 50 catch only 10% of the fish and barely subsist. Clearly, fairness demands that the top catchers lead the way in moving towards a more sustainable future.
The top 5 do start discussing how to manage the transition. They realise that the continued growth in catches – driven by improved technology and increasing effort – is not sustainable, and make a plan to reduce their catch by 80% over a number of years. But there is opposition – manufacturers of fishing boats, tackle and fish processing plants are worried that this would imply less sales for them in the short term. Strangely, they don’t seem worried that a complete collapse of the fishery would mean no sales at all – preferring to think that the science can’t possibly be correct and that everything will be fine. These manufacturers set up a number of organisations to advocate against any decreases in catch sizes – with catchy names like the Fisherfolk for Sound Science, and Friends of Fish. They then hire people who own an Excel spreadsheet program do “science” for them – and why not? They live after all in a free society.
After spending much energy and money on trying to undermine the science – with claims that the pond is much deeper than it looks, that the fish are just hiding, that the records of fish catches were contaminated by being done near a supermarket – the continued declining stocks and smaller and smaller fish make it harder and harder to sound convincing. So, in a switch of tactics so fast it would impress Najinsky, the manufacturers’ lobby suddenly decides to accept all that science and declares that the ‘fish are hiding’ crowd are just fringe elements. No, they said, we want to help with this transition, but …. we need to be sure that the plans will make sense. So they ask their spreadsheet-wielding “advocacy scientists” to calculate exactly what would happen if the top 5 (and only the top 5) did cut their catches by 80%, but meanwhile everyone else kept increasing their catch at the current (unsustainable rate). Well, the answers were shocking – the total catch would be initially still be 84% of what it is now and would soon catch up with current levels. In fact, the exact same techniques that were used to project the fishery collapse imply that this would only delay the collapse by a few years! and what would be the point of that?
The fact that the other top fishermen are discussing very similar cuts and that the fisherfolk council was trying to coordinate these actions to minimise the problems that might emerge, are of course ignored and the cry goes out that nothing can be done. In reality of course, the correct lesson to draw is that everything must be done.
In case you think that no-one would be so stupid as to think this kind of analysis has any validity, I would ask that you look up the history of the Newfoundland cod fishery. It is indeed a tragedy.
And the connection to climate? Here.
I’ll finish with a quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, one the founders of the original conservative movement:
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
See here for a much better picture of what coordinated action could achieve.
http://www.google.com/search?q=ieee+wrong+electrical+grid
Take a look at this: Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought,
That’s interesting because of the economic angle. See this also:
Global Warming Causes Severe Storms, Jan 2009
Then, you have the spread of drought regimes, something many countries are almost completely unprepared for, plus sea level rise estimates, plus studies that show that while seafloor methane is stable, land-based permafrost is not – we can expect a methane increase from permafrost melting, in other words:
So, we can count on a positive carbon feedback effect from permafrost melting, but a giant belch of seafloor methane seems unlikely, we hope.
Obviously, eliminating fossil fuel combustion and replacing it with renewables as quickly as possible is the way to go – and money spent on nuclear is not the best return-on-investment. Look at the overall costs, from building the plant to procuring the fuel to disposing of the fuel to finally having to decommission the plant – and those decommissioning costs are getting higher every year. Thus, new investment should go into solar, wind and biofuels, not nuclear – costs are too high for nuclear to be viable, and cheap uranium ore is a limited resource. Just keep the existing ones in operation, and solar and wind can easily make up the difference.
Yes, it will take a lot of work, or create a lot of jobs. If we’re too lazy, greedy and corrupt to do this, then we’ll end up with Kazakhstanis making fun of us, not the other way round:
Energy City building on eco-friendly features, Gulf Times May 14
Don’t waste your time reading U.S. newspapers on this issue, however – they won’t cover it. For example, I’d suggest canceling your subscription to the NYT and the WaPo and sending them a letter telling them it is because of their reporting on climate and energy issues – they’ve written some incredibly dishonest stinkers on climate lately – and they won’t even cover the renewable energy story.
It’s really a complete failure of the U.S. media, across the board – for example, since CNN fired their science team, they have CNNMoney running climate science articles, like What if global warming fears are overblown? CNN May 14 2009
Oh, this will make you wince:
“His most controversial argument is that the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says.”
What radiosondes? What melting ice? What atmospheric satellite records? What agricultural irrigation effect? Just keep pounding the propaganda theme… of course, CNN is owned by TimeWarner, and their major shareholders (Barclays etc.) are heavily invested in fossil fuels, so no surprises there – and the NYT has a Carlyle Group (fossil fuels, mainly) director on their corporate board. Apparently, this is enough to cause serious distortion of stories on climate and energy.
I think the problem here lies not so much with the fossil fuel companies, who can easily adapt to work in the renewable sector, but rather with the banks and shareholders, who don’t want to lose out on any short-term profits from fossil fuel sales, regardless of the consequences.
Thus, progress on these issues is best accomplished by focusing efforts on regulating the banking sector and on the media sector to eliminate monopolistic practices that lock out renewable energy and news. That means the major U.S. newspapers and media outlets, plus their owners, the major investment and commercial banks. If they are deliberately printing lies and refusing to make credit available for renewable projects (and they are), then they are the real problem. If the government goes along with this by delivering billions to coal and not to solar, then they are also part of the problem.
Despite the propaganda push, 75% of the American public still supports the rapid expansion of renewable energy – so how is it that the democratic process has failed? We give $2.3 billion to a bogus coal plant design (FutureGen) while Australia just gave $1.3 billion to build the world’s largest full-scale solar power plants. Why can’t we do the same?
#782 i david:
A little too simple, I fear. Many words, but you failed to actually address any of the issues I brought up. Regarding Carnot limitations, etc., citing pure efficiency potentials without including actual application contexts is a fundamentally incomplete “rebuttal”. The sole example you provided on gas turbines is essentially exceptional and does not apply to real world applications.
“Growth – progress, same difference, just depends on the viewing point.”
No, unless you mean “growth” in the sense of “I grew by learning”, as opposed to “I grew by eating a double bacon cheeseburger”.
“If you want to discuss control over common goods or the conversion of a common good to a personal good, we have many subjects to choose from such as Wind, Sun, Water and Land, feel free to choose”
Yes, exactly, so no need to apologize as that’s what we’re doing, hmm?
#794 Dan:
“No nuclear systems designed for electricity production can experience the nuclear processes that occurred at Chernobyl.”
Rubbish. Have you read any of the lead-up and aftermath reports on Chernoybl? The design was one of several choices available, Pu production was not the objective of reactor operation. The surviving unit at Chernoybl were operated for years after the “main event”, precisely because it was desperately needed for electricity production, not because Ukraine was producing plutonium.
You’re bringing a distorted perspective to the issue, I guess in a misguided attempt to defend nuclear power?
You’re right that a nearly unbroken chain of technical developments lead from weapons research to civilian reactors, but production of plutonium was not the primary purpose of TMI, Chernoybl, or the many other plants operating less conspicuously. Numerous CANDU reactors are in operation now and they are entirely unsuited to Pu production.
In fact, the bulk of plutonium production has been done at reactors specialized for that purpose. Why do you imagine we have a problem with spent fuel assemblies slumbering in pools all over the country? Because it’s far easier to produce Pu from a specialized reactor as opposed to recovering it from a messy mix of elements and isotopes. Intentionally or not, you’re fabricating, I guess to help folks feel good about future prospects of nuclear power generation. If the technology is good, we don’t need to spin it for the sake of promotion and in fact we know that doing so will only hurt.
#802 Ike:!
” …banks and shareholders, who don’t want to lose out on any short-term profits from fossil fuel sales, regardless of the consequences.”
That would be the “invisible hand of the market” at work. Because it’s invisible we think it is “magic”, overlooking that it is congenitally blind and mindless, lacking consciousness or conscience, able to function at all only by iterative catastrophic errors that occasionally work to the advantage of a few individuals.
Sort of like evolution, but more more crude and wasteful.
RE: 803
Hey Doug,
I attempted to address the issues as you appear to have stated. Are there issues that you believe you stated and are not present in black and white in this forum?
As to bio alternatives, I believe I stated that the resources available on an annual basis are insufficient to replace the current fossil carbon sources at the current demand level. This will obviously require additional resources to be combined in an attempt to relieve the deficit.
Nuclear as a Utility baseline would be useful to a point; however, unless we invest in Breeder Technology (read Nuclear Proliferation potential) this resource would also be terminus. With the most recent Gen. 4 failsafe designs, where a systemic failure results in a complete shutdown and possible long term sequestration in place looks promising. However, for certain applications this source, or a storage system related to this source, is not appropriate.
As for biomass resources, algae or cellulose farming along with other renewable technologies are generally going to be subject to reliability issues. In a slower civilization pace this would not be critical; however, at the current pace of civilization this will be very critical. (The potential quantity of renewable resources have previously been assessed and are not pertinent to follow on discussion.)
For simplicity sake the best estimate is that even at maximum generation capacity renewable resources will only account for roughly 30% of the current western civilization demand. With the combination of renewable and sequestration of fossil carbon resources (using algae filled silos on coal power plants and then pumping the algae into former oil wells) the fossilized carbon sources will still be terminal. The key is to maximize technology today in preparation for that situation.
That individual transportation systems are not going to go away only suggests there needs to be a change in the motivating system. Certain fuels and technologies are not effective for this purpose nor is a return to the former technology. If we wish to elicit the least economic duress the recommended technical solution would have a direct vertical progression from fossil to a terminus technological goal. (Not all Carbon is “bad”, only adding “fossilized” Carbon to the common goods is considered a threat.)
In truth, there is little to this discussion that relates to the commons or Public Goods anymore. Not unlike the discussions we have seen before regarding smog producing pollution or CFCs. Protecting the pristine nature of the common goods is the primary motivation for the current impetus to address CO2. However, for the follow on we do have significant commons issues that will need to be dealt with as regards access to future resources. The actual goal of many here is to define a technological path forward that reaps the least negative impact of human action (or inaction). The issue is energy is not the only human activity that needs addressing; however, to pursue that subject matter is detracting from the purpose of this forum.
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
Two things from “For simplicity sake the best estimate is that even at maximum generation capacity renewable resources will only account for roughly 30% of the current western civilization demand”
1) Why “for simplicity sake”? It doesn’t simplify anything to take the statement you propose.
2) Why is that the best estimate? Citation? Will the sun go dark if we take more than 30% of our needs from it alone (and use other sources as backup)? What then limits renewables to 30% of our current needs?
Those of you intimately interested in the UNFCCC negotiation process, or just keen to see what the people who make the decisions are actually up to, could take a look at the draft negotiation text on the table for Copenhagen.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600005243&suchen=n
English language PDF
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf
Drafted by the independent Chairman, this is the first draft of what a Copenhagen deal might look like. If it’s in brackets, or called an “option” it’s highly contentious.
Pages 8 and 9 contain proposals on the level of mitigation that could be coded into the deal.
e.g.
13. Emission pathways towards the long-term global goal for emission reductions require that global
GHG emissions peak {between 2010 and 2013}{by 2015}{by 2020 at the latest}{in the next 10-15
years}{in the next 10-20 years} and decrease thereafter.
14. To this end, {developed country Parties} {Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex
I Parties)} {developed country Parties included in Annex II to the Convention (Annex II Parties)}, as a
group, {shall}{should} reduce their GHG emissions:
(a) {By at least 25-40}{By 25-40}{By more than 25-40}{In the order of 30}{By at least
40}{by 45}{by at least 45} per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, {with further reductions
to be achieved through policies and measures that promote sustainable lifestyles};
(b) {And {by more than 95}{in the range of 75-85} per cent by 2050}.
I’m afraid that for a newcomer to this sort of thing it is largely incomprehensible
#783 Pekka Kostama
Thanks for the reference and the data.
You discuss the same kind of cogeneration processes that I am trying to get people interested in here in the USA.
It is quite well accepted at the commercial and industrial level, and very large diesel engines are quite commonly involved. There are also microturbine systems that do this very effectively.
One of my campaigns is to get the same process implemented at the household level using the engine-generator equipment in hybrid cars, specifically the kind with very low powered engines. By limiting opertion to times when the discharged heat can be effectively used by the household, the system efficiency can be made to approach 100%, subject to how well heat is transferred from car to household.
The ideal way for this to operate would be fuel from the existing natural gas infrastructure to run the engine when parked and using gasoline for mobile operation.
This has a huge efficiency advantage over anything possible with the kind of central electric power plants that we mostly depend on in the USA, where these are located far away from locations where heat can be effectively used.
By giving a electricity production alternative that would carry a fuel cost that gets close to that of coal, distributed cogeneration could do far more to cut use of coal than would ever be politically possible by legislative action.
L. David Cooke wrote: “For simplicity sake the best estimate is that even at maximum generation capacity renewable resources will only account for roughly 30% of the current western civilization demand.”
Who says? Commercially exploitable wind and solar energy resources far exceed current demands. Harvesting even a tiny fraction of the solar energy resources of the USA’s southwestern deserts alone could provide all the electricity the country currently uses, plus enough to electrify ground transport.
#805 L. David Cooke,
It seems to me that the purpose of this forum is set by the lead article. That clearly discusses the process of determining if action is needed and how best to do that.
Why is not the technological path forward a relevant topic as a parallel to that “how best to act?”
After general agreement is reached that there is a need for action, the appropriate business at hand is to determine how to act. On this forum there seems to be a lot of interest in such discussion, and it shows to me that we are far beyond the indifference that can be characteristic of the scientific ivory tower.
#784 L. David Cooke,
Thanks for the catalyst reference. And yes, the heat needs to be fully captured in the cogenertion system.
The development of hybrid car technology has brought about different requirements on engines. Specifically, the need for variation in speed has been greatly minimized by the electric system which serves to level the load on the engine. That is an important part of the reason why the Prius engine tested out at 38% efficiency, far greater than most of us had expected.
Lots of things are changing or need to be changed. Small cars is a big part of the answer. I resist the idea of putting small cars on trains because it is a time drag on how people want to live. Yes, it could “work wonders for fossil fuel reductions,” but we could do almost as well with some very different aerodynamics. Once people come to love the funny look, they should realize that it enables life as they have always wanted it to be, maybe even better. And the small aerodynamic car can skip going to a train station altogether.
And it is particularly fortunate that the very efficient car can get along on a very small auxilliary engine and generator that can double as a contributor to car/home/grid while parked; operating when heat is useable in the house.
Cheers, Jim
Mark, well, for starters, the green electrons won’t fit in no wires…
Geeez
L. David, I’m still in the disagree notch, but then we don’t have to. Sorry I got your name wrong– I need bifocals.
RE: 806 and 809
Hey All,
My apologies, I was focusing on the issue of carbon such as biomass versus petrol/coal and by definition was considering renewable resources to be combustion resources of non-fossilized carbon. To that end, the theoretical potential based on roughly the current 88×10^km of arable land, the maximum estimated theoretical biomass resource would be approximately 2900 Exojoules. (While the technical or practical resource recovery appears to be on the order of greater then 276 Exajoules per year.)
ref: 5/20/09
World Energy Assessment http://www.undp.org/energy/activities/wea/index.html
http://www.undp.org/energy/activities/wea/drafts-frame.html
Part II Energy Resources and Technology Options
Chapter 5
Page 168
TABLE 5.26. SUMMARY OF THE RENEWABLE RESOURCE BASE (EXAJOULES A YEAR)
(In Adobe page 35 of 38, bottom left of the page)
(The theoretical limit appears to suggest that we would have to dismiss apparently 80% of the arable land necessary for sustaining human life to the exclusion of all other life for the production of food stuffs as the human population continues to grow.)
I apologize about the error on my part. Apparently most here regard the classic definition of renewable energy apparently being related to all primary energy sources driven by either Sol or the Earth.
Granted given all alternative resources there is sufficient total energy to easily replace our current infrastructure. The primary issue is storage or capacity factor required to provide for reliability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor 5-20-09)
We currently are in the process of utilizing most of the secondary energy sources (stored primary energy sources) due to the reliability of the resource. Until such time that we can co-generate secondary sources economically we will remain energy resource challenged.
A quick and cheap clearing house for references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
SecularAnamist, I couldn’t find EIA stats for 2008, but 2007 wind grew 13% and accounted for slightly less than 1% of the total generated, while nat gas grew 9+%. Wind will probably soon surpass wood. But this isn’t the point. I’ll grant you large increases in wind power and the fact that it is being installed at an ever-faster rate. My point is that it ain’t easy. Not done by taking a turbine off the back of the pickup, running it up a pole, and stringing a wire to the nearest utility pole. And yes we need to upgrade the grid anyway; my point was that is difficult, too, though connecting all of the new wind and solar farms will make it much more difficult.
You imply getting to a predominance of wind and solar power is almost a few snaps of your fingers, but new nuclear generation is swamped with insurmountable difficulties. My only point is that I think the difficulties for either are great but not, in general, different in difficulty (though much of nuclear’s difficulties are our own doing). I never said wind and solar can’t be done or shouldn’t be done; I think they should. But because you got a thing against nuclear doesn’t change the realities of project implementation.
RE: 810 and 811
Hey Jim,
If the discussion were in regard to the effect on the Public or Common good I would agree. Instead it is in regard to the mix of technologies and in disregard to the commons as much as everyone tooting their own horn (yes me included…) as to potential alternatives. Kind of a theoretical free market selection rather then a scientific analysis or weighing of alternative paths. Not a problem, I just thought it was important to thank Dr. Schmidt for allowing the discussion though it had ventured away from his initial intent.
As to the RailCar and AutoRack suggestion this was actually an attempt to realize a design that was recommended in Popular Science around about May of 1976. The idea was a small local personal transport that would join up with others and was motivated by a public power source for regional or greater trips. The idea I shared was a side loading autorack where you could drive right onto the autocarrier. The use of a small RailCar would allow for both the transport of Suburban passengers and to pull the vehicles using a highly reliable transportation mode, rail.
(The reliability portion is in regards to how to transport multiple small vehicles using a central power source. If you consider a 20 mule team pulling a team of wagons with each wagon wheel a potential weakness that would stop the wagon train, you quickly understand why individual wagons were generally utilized. Similarly if you use a central power source for multiple vehicles you need a system of easy on/off where the failure of a any unit not impeding the whole. Using linear programing techniques similar to manufacturing the design is reasonable and can be implemented today with vehicles under 12 feet in length and using a 88 foot triple rack capable of transporting about 20 vehicles each.)
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
James
Still awaiting your cogent thoughtful response to #781, and of course the date upon which you will be moving to Chernobyl.
http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/
Rod B @ 812:
Right, because wires don’t exist.
Bulk transmission lines are all over the place, and the smaller stuff is pretty much ubiquitous. On the flip side, in many instances the voltage for the transmission cables can be “upgraded”, and it is actually done today, so it isn’t magical.
What’s so special about the transmission lines needed to connect West Texas to the rest of Texas is that West Texas is pretty sparcely populated. It isn’t like, say, in Nevada where Los Vegas has enough load that the permissible supply from nearby out to who knows where is fairly huge. But even as special as West Texas is, adding transmission lines is a well understood process. It’s also unneeded wherever load is high enough that turning the electrons around the other way is possible.
A commercial park, complete with rooftop solar, can generate the peak load that the distribution lines were sized to carry. The PEAK load, not the average or something else. Congestion might become a problem if too much local renewable generation is happening, but I’m not seeing that as a likely problem any time soon.
FurryCatHerder, out of curiosity, how is Pickins going to get his electricity to, say, Michigan; and when and for how long?
Rod B @ 815:
Would you PLEASE provide a BASIS for your claims?
In many instances wind really IS as easy as taking a turbine off the back of a truck, standing it up, and connecting it to the utility. There are product installation videos for turbines up to 10KW in capacity that show people doing precisely that. We have a moderate amount of diurnal wind where I live and I’ve toyed with the idea of putting up a 700 watt turbine “just because”. Mostly “just because” wind and solar are very complementary, due to storm winds coming with storm clouds. If I could find one with 240V output (I have a 240V 50A circuit at the rear of my house — 120V is close by, and the 48VDC batteries are around the corner) it would be about an afternoon job — about the same as the 10KW turbines I’ve watched on video be raised.
For wind (DC turbines), micro-hydro and solar, companies such as Outback Power Systems make pre-wired assemblies for renewable power up to 7.2KW 120/240 single phase, with 36KW being not much more than an exercise in assembling building blocks — though the 36KW systems aren’t capable of selling back to the utility, only of feeding a local micro-grid. Or one could string five of the 7.2KW assemblies together, if they had to.
In terms of grid stabilization, up-regulation is well covered by existing art and down-regulation is coming along nicely. Most of my work has been in balancing energy, which means that ready reserves and base power is all that’s left to crack (and I’ve done work on ready reserves, mostly through demand response). With potential regulatory responses in the range of many megawatts-per-second, pre-fabbed megawatt rated turbines that ship by flatbed truck, and utility grade inverters for anything that isn’t outputting AC already, I’m still not seeing these limitations.
So … what are they?
#816 L. David Cooke,
I strongly concur with your thanks to Dr. Schmidt whether or not it was his intent. He has shown many times his openness to many opinions, not to mention his efforts to improve the general knowledge base on climate science.
I also want to say thanks to all the commenters who have made this a very thought provoking forum.
Best regards to all, Jim Bullis
Wilmot McCutchen – EL #717, 726, 734 — You suggest that Gavin start a new topic on something like “what are you going to do about global warming?” This just in: only 18% of Americans are “alarmed” about the issue, with another 33% “concerned.” The rest either don’t care or are skeptical. http://www.physorg.com/news161967659.html
Maybe part of the problem is that the alarms have been going off for so long that they are getting ignored. Used to be, when a car alarm went off, people looked up to catch the thief. Now the first thought is: “Another goober.” The example of the placid frog is very apposite. Although the problem is now looking worse than we thought before, public indifference is growing.
When a general prepares for war, he or she must plan for strategy and sacrifice. If the general is able to contribute more to one, he or she will need less of the other. While we may like stronger numbers, sometimes we have to go to war with what we have, and we must adjust our plans accordingly. We have a dangerous enemy descending upon us, and time is running out.
My intentions of the frog story is to convey the idea that the numbers are not going to get much better. We can waste precious time arguing over technologies, or we can spend time trying to be intuitive. If one person comes up with a small idea that saves on emissions, people who don’t believe in global warming may implement it because it saves them money; however, arguments over big fish are not going to slow the advance of global warming.
It would be a mistake to bet everything on wind power. The limitations of wind power should indicate its abilities to everyone. While it is useful for energy support, it’s not going to be the dominate solution because of its technological problems and because of people in general. In theory, we can power the world off of bicycles, but in practice, it wont happen.
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) Says (20 mai 2009 at 7:16 PM):
“Still awaiting your cogent thoughtful response to #781, and of course the date upon which you will be moving to Chernobyl.”
Do try to have a little patience, please. I have other things to do besides this, including making a living. When one of my clients sends an email asking “Can you add this new feature soon?”, reading RealClimate drops way down the priority list.
As to when I’ll be moving to Chernobyl, it’ll be when I’m given a choice between living there and someplace like Manhattan or Los Angeles. Not that I’d have any intrinsic objection, you understand, beyond the fact that it’s flat and I’m not happy living away from the mountains. But I expect the local authorities would present difficulties.
But as for the rest of your comments, whose imagination did they arise from? Doesn’t seem to correspond with any of the reports from people who’ve been there.
But let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that your description of life in that little hut is accurate. (Though I do resent the disparagement of my construction skills. I could surely manage say a comfortable passive solar cottage). How’s that life worse than dwelling in say a Manhattan studio, breathing in the chemical carcinogens produced by your 8 million neighbors and their vehicles, eating food that is often produced in unsanitary conditions (research the number of nationwide food poisoning scares in the last year or so), stuffed full of hydrogenated fats, high-fructose corn syrup, and salt. If you leave your tiny apartment, you’re at risk of being run down by one of the thousands of vehicles that try to race madly through the streets (and sometimes elsewhere – I could tell a story about a Manhattan bus driver who believed he could drive his bus through a garbage truck), at risk of being shot down in an episode of gang and/or police violence, caught in a riot, victimized by a serial killer… Why wouldn’t anyone prefer a bit of ionizing radiation to that?
Now maybe you think my description of city life is just a bit sensationalized? As indeed it was – but the difference between my description and yours is that I know it :-)
#554: FurryCatHerder:
“The “billing” problem you described is not a ‘real’ problem, in that it isn’t breaking things. While the technology exists, to some degree (electric meters with wireless reporting capabilities exist), I suspect deploying what you’ve described is fraught with problems as it means the “Retail Electric Providers” in deregulated areas (where “generation”, “transmission” and “sales” are all split apart) would find themselves in a real-time book keeping nightmare. That administrative cost would have to be added in and I’m not convinced it would benefit anyone, besides full-employment for bookkeepers, in the long run.”
I`m afraid I don`t understand your first point. As to the next, competition makes it profitable for utilities to help their consumers save money, and peak-pricing also lets the utilities better manage the demand and generating costs that they face.
Certainly the market sees plenty of CURRENT business opportunities in this area. CNET reports “estimate[s] that simply surfacing information on trends and individual appliances will allow the typical consumer to lower electricity use by 5 to 15 percent.”
More on the very active investments in allowing firms and consumers to profit by having greater information:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10245295-54.html
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2242510/cisco-flicks-switch-smart-grid
We would see even more (and less demands for billions in government pork to green energy) if we further deregulated; see the commwents by Lew Rockwell that I cite and link here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/04/23/in-which-i-applaud-another-balanced-productive-post-by-dr-reisman.aspx
TokyoTom knocks down a series of straw men:
Somebody who’s against slavery is a know-nothing?
I appear to know more history than you do. It’s been an interest all my life. I was a classics minor and have studied Roman, Byzantine, and English history extensively.
And I for one am uninterested in your incredibly stupid point that “voluntary slavery” is better than regular slavery because the slave agreed to it in the beginning.
No, they are responses to the stupid argument advanced here than owning something automatically means you take good care of it.
How could any sane person conclude that from anything I said?
Since I don’t think slavery = property rights, that whole rant is irrelevant. And, BTW, I am giving away my surplus possessions as fast as I can.
Slavery is evil. “Libertarian” excuses for slavery are also evil. That’s one of the reasons I left the Libertarian Party in 1990 and am now a liberal Democrat.
We need new grids to provide wide-area distribution of renewable power. So-called “smart grids” could make switching over to renewables on a large scale much easier. Wind and solar power input is highly variable at an individual location; to provide a steady level of available electricity you need to average it out over a large area. Smart grids can do that. Some existing grids either aren’t big enough or don’t have enough flexibility.
Reading back on the forum, I was thinking that what is, or is not, “easy” has to be one of the most subjective assessments around.
Will achieving a sustainable energy economy be “easy?” Probably not. But many times the perception shifts after the first few steps are successfully undertaken. Perhaps we’re seeing a few such small steps now.
More helpful questions, perhaps, are “Is it necessary?” and “Is it possible?”
Do we have a consensus-on this forum at least–that the answers are “yes,” and “yes?”
FurryCatHerder, mucho experience in actually implementing and managing major system projects, though none near the size of what we’re talking about. I assure you, cool videos not withstanding, you aren’t going to get it done by calling Jim-Bob and saying, “Hey, Jim Bob, whip a 10KW turbine out to Billy Joe’s south pasture, put it on a pole and run a wire. On second thought, make that a 1000KW dealie. On third thought make it a million of ‘em – but not all at Billy Joe’s – some other place.” Don’t hold your breath.
The fact that you’ve worked some on grid design challenges (and good work!) doesn’t change the inherent difficulties of replacing, adding and upgrading – all in some sort of coordinated reliable manner.
BPL, the Libertarian Party excuses slavery?? Really?
Rod B, I again suggest that you look at actual, real world, ongoing installations of wind, solar and nuclear generating capacity.
Wind and solar are, in fact, faster and easier and less costly to deploy than nuclear.
Kevin McKinney,
Even independent of climate concernns, sustainability dictates that we have to make the transition to renewable energy some time. Climate considerations increase the exigence and imediacy of the concern. I think anyone who has given the matter any thought can agree there.
Disagreements start when the discussion turns to:
1)what sustainability looks like (# or people Earth can support and at what standard of living, is there equity or are there still haves and have-nots, etc.)
2)how we get there (jump to renewables immediately, an interim period of renewables supplemented by varying degrees of nukes/coal)
My take on things is that I place climate risks as the most serious we face long term. As such, I place the transitional strategies as:
1)Conservation
2)Increased renewables where possible
3)Nukes/other stop-gap energy sources
4)Coal as a last resort to maintain economic health
Economic health is a prerequisite for coming up with solutions for a sustainable world. If we can get there with conservation and renewables, great. If not, we have to look at less palatable options.
Re #820:”….many megawatts-per-second,….”
Watts are already expressed as a rate of energy use. One watt = one joule per second.
Re:#830:”Wind and solar are, in fact, faster and easier and less costly to deploy than nuclear.”
And should provide lots of employment to many of those who lost jobs during this current recession.
I endorse Ray Ladbury’s post in #831. Let me address his point 2) as follows:
It seems to me that the most rational thing to do is to go balls-out to wind and solar technology. To make it a national (planet-wide?) project similar to the urgency we (the USA) did in 1942 to move over our production facilities to making war machines.
I see many estimates of how fast this is already happening — but how fast COULD it happen? Could we engender the political will to MAKE it happen? Would we be willing, for example, to accept reduced living standards for a few years — as we did in 1942-1945?
I remember those years. We were all in together and the burdens (to a teenager) did not seem all that heavy.
Burgy
Re: Ray Ladbury’s comment (currently #831), nuclear power is a “stop-gap” solution only to the extent that we keep the existing nuclear power plants operating until sufficient clean, renewable energy is available from wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal, biomass, etc, at which time they can be shut down and decommissioned.
Building new nuclear power plants is not a “stop-gap” because they take MUCH longer to build than wind and solar.
Indeed, if for some reason nuclear were highly desirable, then wind and solar would have to be used as “stop-gaps” to provide electricity during the long, long time it would take to build new nuclear power plants.
#833 John Burgeson
We also took on a huge national debt burden in those years. What you suggest will make that look like chicken feed.
We can replace existing cars over a ten year period with a very different kind of car and the additional cost is zero. Then we can use these cars to produce electricity so as to reduce need for electricity from central power plants. Again, the cost is zero, or nearly so, since the machinery to generate this replacement electricity is already in the cars, which would be a kind of hybrid vehicle. Electricity so produced would be fueled by natural gas, but it would be two to three times more efficient since it would be done using a cogeneration process.
Large power plants would be gradually phased down to a limited number needed for backup of the cogeneration units.
With this as an underlying power system, solar and wind could be effectively phased in ways that they could best be effective. The time schedule seems generally feasible, with solar in the day, wind in evenings, and cogeneration more or less during late evenings, early morinings or at night.
The economic load of this seems minimal, but industry would be shifted from making cars that are inappropriate for real needs, and the USA could reestablish a lead as an innovative country.
Maybe there would be a national budget surplus with this approach.
Lawrence Brown @ 832:
That’s correct. However, regulatory power is often expressed as megawatts-per-minute.
The grid is kept balanced, as to supply and demand, by varying the generation. Large plants don’t “turn up” or “turn down” so easily, so “balancing energy” is provided by smaller generators, or by reserve capacity in larger generators. The important value here is the generating capacity that can be added (megawatts) per unit time (minutes, being the most common).
Thus, megawatts-per-minute, or for very fast acting generators, megawatts-per-second.
#805 L. David Cooke:
‘breeder’ technology would not make nuclear an unlimited resource (at least, not in the sense that solar is). I’ll make examples of two different sorts of ‘breeder’ technology. First, Th-232 to U-233 conversion. Like U-238, Th-232 is not naturally fissile, but neutron capture converts it to U-233, which is fissile. Thorium is about 4 times as abundant as uranium, so Th-232 to U-233 conversion also expands potential fuel sources – and much more than U-238 to Pu-239 conversion. Second, U-238 to Pu-239 conversion. U-238, the most common isotope of uranium, is not fissile. But it can be converted to Pu-239 by neutron capture. Since U-238 is 140 times as common as U-235 (the only naturally available fissile isotope), this greatly expands available fuel – but does not make it unlimited. In both cases available nuclear fuel remains finite.
Furthermore – it is not true that ‘breeder’ technology necessarily results in greater nuclear proliferation potential. Of the 3 fissile isotopes I have mentioned – U-235, U-233, and Pu-239, Pu-239 is the most appropriate for weapon manufacture, and U-233 is the least. Bombardment of Th-232 with neutrons results in the production of both fissile U-233, and non-fissile U-232. U-232 and U-233 cannot be separated chemically, and the difference in the atomic weights is small, making normal uranium enrichment methods are less effective. U-232 emits gamma radiation which greatly complicates weapon design. For this reason, Th-232 to U-233 conversion technology actually represents less nuclear proliferation potential than U-235. Perhaps more importantly – U-233 fueled reactors can be designed to be fueled with Th-232, which is not converted to U-233 until it is inside the reactor. (As I know, all proposed designs have this property.) So when the Th-232 is mined, refined, and stored, and transported to the reactor, is not fissile. In contrast – U-235 is fissile in nature, and is a nuclear potential danger all throughout the mining, refining, storage, and transport.
(The catch is that there is little experience with thorium / U-233 reactors; as far as I know, only two were built, and also little experience with thorium fuel cycles.)
FurryCatHerder:
Then ‘regulatory power’ is not really power, but the derivative of power with respect to time. It relates to power more or less the same way acceleration relates to velocity.
(Forgive me if I’m belaboring the obvious.)
Correction: wikipedia lists somewhere around 20 thorium reactors, with about 10 in operation. I’m not going to try estimating total power delivered because some appear to be listed in watts thermal and others in watts electrical, and some of the reactors are research reactors, but it doesn’t look like a lot of power.
Lawrence Brown (832), and how many laid off auto workers in Michigan and Pennsylvania, say, is Pickins going to hire to build his north Texas wind farm would you say?
SecularAnimist Says (21 mai 2009 at 4:25 PM):
“Building new nuclear power plants is not a “stop-gap” because they take MUCH longer to build than wind and solar.”
(Sigh) One wind turbine or solar panel does not take long to build. Building many GWatts worth does take a long time. Why does this seem so difficult to comprehend?
Ilewelly @ 838:
No, that’s not correct. The time-rate-of-change of output is a specification of a generating facility. The generator must still produce that power, it just has to be able to do it within specific time periods or else the supply-demand balance gets out of kilter and grid frequency falls out of specification and bad things happen.
So, if there is a 100MW plant, whether or not it is suitable as a source of these other services isn’t based on being a 100MW generator, it’s based on the responsiveness of the generator itself to changes in the supply / demand balance.
Hopefully you better understand the not-so-obviousness of making grids work.
#825: Barton, I wish you`d put down your hostility stick. I`ve advanced not arguments FOR slavery whatsover, but simply pointed out that any libertarian arguments for it – very few indeed – do not at all support enslavement but are simply extensions of the argument that people should be free to make their own decisions, including contracting away their labor. I`ve also pointed out that indentured servitude is an historical example of this, but have made no pro/con arguments. You might be uninterested in indentured servitude but very interested in ranting about the evils of slavery, but I`m not. I don`t support slavery and am happy to leave all of the arguments to you.
“[Arguing against slavery is a] response to the stupid argument advanced here than owning something automatically means you take good care of it.”
I`ve certainly never advanced the “stupid” argument that you rail against, and I don`t think Rene has either, though it`s pretty clear that he thinks private property works better than a free-for-all. It`s the last point that I`m trying to make when I argue with people on the right (though I think that other managed strategies may also work as well or better, depending on the nature of the resource and community).
I certainly don`t argue that private property is perfect or that “owning something automatically means you take good care of it”. Clearly it doesn`t. My point as to private property is simply it is a set of institutions that societies have developed chiefly to manage conflicts over resources and to sidestep tragedies of the commons. “Private property” is a method – an imperfect one – and not a goal.
I`m pretty sure that Gavin is also analogizing our exploitation of the atmosphere as a tragedy of the commons-type free-for-all.
“How could any sane person”?
This is the kind of insult that led to my own measured over-reaction. I decline to carry the battle further.
re 841. Double sigh.
There are only so many people you can get to work on a single nuclear power plant. The same is true of wind, but that is PER TURBINE. And as you said, you need a lot of turbines to produce the power output.
Therefore, the scalability of manpower to power capacity growth is vastly higher.
And you don’t have to worry about people flying airplanes into your windmill unlike with the nuclear pile.
re 387: “Furthermore – it is not true that ‘breeder’ technology necessarily results in greater nuclear proliferation potential. ”
But politically it does.
“What you suggest will make that look like chicken feed.”
Prove that, Jim (835).
Economists have had plenty of chance to undo mistakes in the Stern report.
This doesn’t say anything like what you submit as (apparently) self-evident truth.
Rod B writes:
Not all Libertarians, but some have argued for “voluntary slavery” as a solution to unemployment, and other Libertarians don’t appear to have much of a problem with it. They seem to view contracts as overriding any ethical considerations. That kind of disconnection from reality is what turned me off Libertarianism.
CAPTCHA: sect as
I absolutely agree with John Burgeson in #833. We need to start building wind, solar, and smart grids on a large scale. If not through some TVA-like government project, then surely through massive incentive schemes.
Re #848, We have a cambridge physicist over here in the UK called David Mackay who wrote a book which is available online for free to read. He has been mentioned here many times but he says things that just make your heart freeze if we are to reduce carbon emissions by 80% via alternative energies.
The average UK citizen uses 125 kWhrs of energy per say. He says:
Britain could, for example, get 60 kWh per day per person by building wind farms with an area equal to Wales (which would deliver on average 20 kWh per day per person) and a hundred more nuclear power stations (which would deliver 40 kWh per day per person).
The average USA citizeb uses 250 kWhrs a day, twice as much.
This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8014484.stm) also speaks of electric cars demonstrating that the future of travel is electric energy wise and not hydrogen. In fact everyting will need to be electric inlsuing heat pumps, every efficient from high order energy and not burning fossil fuels.
Its just a massive undertaking and a massive cost.
Re #840: “……. and how many laid off auto workers in Michigan and Pennsylvania, say, is Pickins going to hire to build his north Texas wind farm would you say?”
These workers lost their jobs through no fault of the renewable power industry. There’s no reason to be-
grudge job creation in this field.