Global Warming and all that stuff.

[tableplay]

<snip> I'll also point out that because of that very dearth of nuclear engineers I pointed out above, it's going to be ten years or more before the first post-AGW generation of nuclear plants comes on-line, and that generation will be much smaller than it should be. <snip>

Schneibster, perhaps the problem can be somewhat mitigated by outsourcing to foreign (non-US) companies.

Best Regards, tableplay.

 

[Azure]

I do. But there you have it. Our common conviction has led us to different perceptions of what's really going on, interestingly. But the most fascinating thing is, we've come to similar conclusions regarding what needs to be done.

Indeed.

I'd have said you were overoptimistic before this post. It appears you're almost as pessimistic as I, but for different reasons. NIMBYs are one thing; "environmentalists" who don't get that it's a housekeeping issue, not some sort of religious faith, are probably the most destructive force in this debate from my point of view.

I remember, about 5-6 years ago, when wind power was becoming really popular in my region, A LOT of environmentalists worked hand and foot to keep companies like Shell from funding the construction of these windmills.

Now, 6 years later, Shell is STILL funding the construction of these windmills, yet because of the inconsistency of the wind(it almost never blows during the summer)...many of the contracts have been delaying until further notice. As I understand it...constructing so many windmills AT ONCE, makes the grid unstable, because, like I said they generate almost no power during summer.

Now you see what kind of a problem these environmentalists have created? My company had a contract for over 60 windmills throughout the summer...we've now been delayed almost 3 years from building them. All because of what the NIMBY crowd created 5 years ago.

Which is frustrating because the region where I live has the highest concentration of wind in North America. Prime conditions for lots of windmills.

As far as the nuclear engineering-capable firms in this country having that much work, that at least is a hopeful sign. What we have to hope is that we don't get a bunch of half-assed nuclear engineers out of the schools. Or at least, if we do, they LISTEN to the people who've been doing it all their lives.

Yes, I can certainly imagine that the demand might bring in inept people.

True enough- but why not nip it at both ends? And if we do it right, we SAVE money to make up for that we can't earn.

In 1974, people cut back on gas, and bought efficient cars in droves. We can handle this.

Well I have cut back on how much I drive. Mostly because of the gas price...and because biking is good exercise. Instead of driving to the post-office, I bike. Works like a charm.

Efficient cars? Rich people could afford the hybrids...I know I can't.

What hysteria? In ten or twenty years, it's going to start to get nasty in a lot of places. That makes wars. Had we started ten years ago, we'd be in fat city right now. As it is, we are, as I said, about to be a day late and a dollar short. And why is that? Because a bunch of people made politics about AGW instead of doing something about it. And because a bunch of other people made politics about nucular enurgy. Idiots, on both sides. And here we sit.

Yes, idiots on 'both' sides. I agree.

Did I say that? One thing I find irritating (and I'm serious, this is not an insult, if you heed this we'll get along much better) is that you impute extreme positions to people based on taking what they say out of context. You'll note that I only do this to you to be deliberately nasty. If you'll avoid this, so will I.

Sorry.

I'll stop.

 

[Azure]

Thanks, to both of you.

Well I apologize if I came across that way.

 

[mhaze]

Schneibster, perhaps the problem can be somewhat mitigated by outsourcing to foreign (non-US) companies.

Best Regards, tableplay.

We are talking...a world wide demand and supply curve here. It knows no national boundaries. So basically there is and will be NO untapped talent or materials that are unaffected. US companies are just at the head of the pact when it comes to successfully doing complex billion dollar projects. But second and third tier companies are booming, too. Significant opportunity therein.

In a curious way, GW?AGW may be a negative consequence of a world wide prosperity curve post 1900 arguably, and certainly post 1950, that appears unprecedented in human history. Both of those are likely to be a dim shadow of the prosperity curve from 2000-2050.

 

[CapelDodger]

And how many gullible fools took that attention grabbing title, and believed every word the article says?

Who cares?

No it is hysteria. Saying the end of the world is nigh, IS hysteria.

Nobody said it. A sub used it in a headline. I think I can safely say they weren't hysterical at the time. On past experience I'd say they were hung-over, drug-dazed and half-asleep, but not hysterical.

Why you keep spinning it any other way is beyond me.

Why you make so much of a headline escapes me. Perhaps we should just agree to differ.

 

[Azure]

Who cares?

I guess not you.

Nobody said it. A sub used it in a headline. I think I can safely say they weren't hysterical at the time. On past experience I'd say they were hung-over, drug-dazed and half-asleep, but not hysterical.

According to you they were.

Not my problem you want to 'ignore' this 'time is running out' crap that IS making its way into numerous headlines.

It concerns me...not because I believe it, but because people are presenting it as COLD, HARD, FACT.

Why you make so much of a headline escapes me. Perhaps we should just agree to differ.

Why?

Because people read that headline....much like the Y2K scare, remember that? Some idiot came up with the idea that the world was going to stop when the calender switched over, and numerous people jumped on his bandwagon. My own grandfather wanted to stock up on supplies because he was scared the whole world was going to crash.

That is why I make a big deal out of one headline.

 

[fsol]

I remember, about 5-6 years ago, when wind power was becoming really popular in my region, A LOT of environmentalists worked hand and foot to keep companies like Shell from funding the construction of these windmills.

Now, 6 years later, Shell is STILL funding the construction of these windmills, yet because of the inconsistency of the wind(it almost never blows during the summer)...many of the contracts have been delaying until further notice. As I understand it...constructing so many windmills AT ONCE, makes the grid unstable, because, like I said they generate almost no power during summer.

It doesn't create as much of a problem as you might think. A farm of say 100 turbines is going to be about 2-300MW at rated power. The grid has ample backup for a loss of that scale. Typical coal fired powerstations are multiples of 500MW. The grid needs enough backup to cope with the loss of one of those.

Generally how much back up you need for the turbines depends on the overall penetration. At low penetrations the variation in demand is as big as, if not bigger than the variation of power from your windfarms. It's not really an issue. But as you increase the penetration of wind, you start needing to increase the back up and you come to a point where it starts to cost too much. But, if you spread your windfarms about a bit, you get the benefit of aggregation of generation, "the wind is always blowing somewhere," and the variation of power generated by your wind farms is reduced. This means you need less backup than it might first seem. You still get to the tipping point of course but it might come a bit later.

A more pressing issue for the connection of the turbines would be the strength of the local network. At 2-300MW you won't be able to connect to the distribution network without difficulty and you may need to pay for extra cables to get your electricity from the middle of nowhere to the higher voltage transmission network.

Now you see what kind of a problem these environmentalists have created? My company had a contract for over 60 windmills throughout the summer...we've now been delayed almost 3 years from building them. All because of what the NIMBY crowd created 5 years ago.

Which is frustrating because the region where I live has the highest concentration of wind in North America. Prime conditions for lots of windmills.

Trying to get turbines through planning is notoriously difficult. At least in the UK, it can drag on and on for years. Mostly because of misinformed NIMBYs and local politicians trying to score points it would seem.

 

[mhaze]

It doesn't create as much of a problem as you might think. A farm of say 100 turbines is going to be about 2-300MW at rated power. The grid has ample backup for a loss of that scale. Typical coal fired powerstations are multiples of 500MW. The grid needs enough backup to cope with the loss of one of those.

Generally how much back up you need for the turbines depends on the overall penetration. At low penetrations the variation in demand is as big as, if not bigger than the variation of power from your windfarms. It's not really an issue. But as you increase the penetration of wind, you start needing to increase the back up and you come to a point where it starts to cost too much. But, if you spread your windfarms about a bit, you get the benefit of aggregation of generation, "the wind is always blowing somewhere," and the variation of power generated by your wind farms is reduced. This means you need less backup than it might first seem. You still get to the tipping point of course but it might come a bit later.

A more pressing issue for the connection of the turbines would be the strength of the local network. At 2-300MW you won't be able to connect to the distribution network without difficulty and you may need to pay for extra cables to get your electricity from the middle of nowhere to the higher voltage transmission network.



Trying to get turbines through planning is notoriously difficult. At least in the UK, it can drag on and on for years. Mostly because of misinformed NIMBYs and local politicians trying to score points it would seem.

About an hour a day I am on Interstate 10W. That's the road that leads from Houston, etc., west toward New Mexico and Arizona. About 7 years ago I started seeing these big flatbed caravans. One would have the upright pedestal, two others would have the blades. These are really big trucks, with a pilot truck in front and back. They have been going west. Every week at odd times you'd see them. In the last year or two the frequency seems to have gone up. So if I've seen hundreds of these caravans, there must have been many, many thousand more.

 

[fsol]

About an hour a day I am on Interstate 10W. That's the road that leads from Houston, etc., west toward New Mexico and Arizona. About 7 years ago I started seeing these big flatbed caravans. One would have the upright pedestal, two others would have the blades. These are really big trucks, with a pilot truck in front and back. They have been going west. Every week at odd times you'd see them. In the last year or two the frequency seems to have gone up. So if I've seen hundreds of these caravans, there must have been many, many thousand more.

Your last sentence is not necessarily true but building windfarms can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned.

 

[mhaze]

But take a look at this.

 

[fsol]

It looks good to me, but what's your point?

Editted to add: In general the upper limit for average wind penetration is usually pegged at around 20%. That's the figure they use for the UK at least. The US from those figures above and from here

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

is at around 1% average wind penetration. There is plenty of scope for more development from the point of view of control of the grid.

Denmark have around 40 - 50% wind penetration I think, but they balance it against the Europe wide grid so the figures are a little misleading.

 

[tableplay]

So basically there is and will be NO untapped talent or materials that are unaffected.

Sure that's fair enough. But I could see the US getting their projects to the head of the queue by outbidding or offering large incentives for services rendered under a particular timeframe.

A nice example (IMHO) of how money talks is how quickly the 580/80 ramp was fixed in Emeryville,CA. A fuel tanker decimated this ramp due to heat created by fuel burning when it crashed. It seemed that it would take months to repair. But Caltrans offered a 6M dollar bonus if it could be done within a certain timeframe (I think 30 days) and it was repaired in a month. Obviously nuclear power plants are infinitely more difficult to put up than ramps, but people hustle (and reprioritize) when big money is involved.

Best Regards, Tableplay.

 

[mhaze]

Sure that's fair enough. But I could see the US getting their projects to the head of the queue by outbidding or offering large incentives for services rendered under a particular timeframe.

A nice example (IMHO) of how money talks is how quickly the 580/80 ramp was fixed in Emeryville,CA. A fuel tanker decimated this ramp due to heat created by fuel burning when it crashed. It seemed that it would take months to repair. But Caltrans offered a 6M dollar bonus if it could be done within a certain timeframe (I think 30 days) and it was repaired in a month. Obviously nuclear power plants are infinitely more difficult to put up than ramps, but people hustle (and reprioritize) when big money is involved.

Best Regards, Tableplay.

Absolutely true. But consider. In the decades past, it might have been argued that a greenie idealist would go into one of the basic research sciences or get a government job policing industry. Now, we are essentially saying (at least in this trend here) go build huge, good things, you will make a lot of money and you will "save the world". That's a very fundamental paradymn shift....

A very rough parallel might be the building of the first transcontinental railroad in the USA.

 

[CapelDodger]

Harking back to the "We are screwed" sub-plot, the G8 proceedings pretty much confirm it, IMO. It's quite possible that History (which is eternal) will regard this as the point beyond which action was no longer an option, and reaction was all that remained.

Despite the best efforts of the denialist camp - or, from another point of view, due to the insidious power and influence of scientists and greenies - AGW has been recognised by the powers-that-actually-be as a serious problem. About which Something Must Be Done.

It's nothing to do with the denialist camp that this Something must not interfere with the status quo. "Economic growth" remains paramount, as defined back when natural constraints were not an issue. More, bigger and better (for more people) of manufactures that exist, and a constant stream of new things to become bigger, better and more widespread. The US, China, and India will explicitly do nothing that impedes that process, and will do pretty much anything that they perceive as promoting it.

Whenever societies experience qualitative change they do so under a leadership that was shaped by the old way of things. In the end, events blow it away despite the deepest entrenchment. That 's the kind of storm that's a-comin' in this case. Mark my words.

 

[epepke]

I have a modest proposal.

Put a wind turbine on the top of every power pole.

 

[Harpoon]

Harking back to the "We are screwed" sub-plot...

Y'know Cape, I've been thinking about this "we are screwed" thing. Maybe it is really more "they are screwed" (as you've mentioned before) if we play our cards wisely.

There may be widespread suffering in the Third World, possibly mass immigration into the developed nations, maybe food shortages, energy rationing, bush wars (as opposed to Bush War), some societal upheaval, and certainly some kind of modification in what contributes to any country's GNP.

You suggest, if I get your meaning, that at the policy-maker level the AGW divisions are about to morph into a letharic, impotent acquiesence. Whatever, if anything, actually gets done will be too little, too late.

So personal preparation may be more productive than proselytizing the remaining anti-AGW heathens. It's time to get in on the ground floor (unless you're near the sea).

Business and markets will certainly prevail, with some sectors perishing while others flourish. What stock ventures of today will gain as AGW's effects become more apparent? What good investments of today will become dogs? (Sorry, Cape, it's just a figure of speech ).

Anyone got a tip?

 

[mhaze]

Y'know Cape, I've been thinking about this "we are screwed" thing. Maybe it is really more "they are screwed" (as you've mentioned before) if we play our cards wisely.

There may be widespread suffering in the Third World, possibly mass immigration into the developed nations, maybe food shortages, energy rationing, bush wars (as opposed to Bush War), some societal upheaval, and certainly some kind of modification in what contributes to any country's GNP.

Gee, that sounds like this week in the news-well, if you add P. Hilton in...

You suggest, if I get your meaning, that at the policy-maker level the AGW divisions are about to morph into a letharic, impotent acquiesence. Whatever, if anything, actually gets done will be too little, too late.

Does that mean the twin mantras of raise taxes and fine the nasty capitalists and industrialists.... might not work?

So personal preparation may be more productive than proselytizing the remaining anti-AGW heathens. It's time to get in on the ground floor (unless you're near the sea).

"I love the smell of kerosene in the morning."

 

[mhaze]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a roadway. Then he hid himself and watched to see if anyone would remove the huge rock. Some of the king's wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by and simply walked around it. Many loudly blamed the King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did anything about getting the stone out of the way.

Then a peasant came along carrying a load of vegetables. Upon approaching the boulder, the peasant laid down his burden and tried to move the stone to the side of the road. After much pushing and straining, he finally succeeded. After the peasant picked up his load of vegetables, he noticed a purse lying in the road where the boulder had been. The purse contained many gold coins and a note from the King indicating that the gold was for the person who removed the boulder from the roadway. The peasant learned what many of us never understand - "Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve our condition."[/FONT]

 

[Harpoon]

In ancient times, a King had a boulder placed on a roadway. Then he hid himself and watched to see if anyone would remove the huge rock. Some of the king's wealthiest merchants and courtiers came by and simply walked around it. Many loudly blamed the King for not keeping the roads clear, but none did anything about getting the stone out of the way.
Then a peasant came along carrying a load of vegetables. Upon approaching the boulder, the peasant laid down his burden and tried to move the stone to the side of the road. After much pushing and straining, he finally succeeded. After the peasant picked up his load of vegetables, he noticed a purse lying in the road where the boulder had been. The purse contained many gold coins and a note from the King indicating that the gold was for the person who removed the boulder from the roadway. The peasant learned what many of us never understand - "Every obstacle presents an opportunity to improve our condition."

"Do more than is expected of you... and they'll expect you to do more."
-- Ziggy

 

[CapelDodger]

So personal preparation may be more productive than proselytizing the remaining anti-AGW heathens.

From a cynical point of view (on which I'm an expert) it's better not to persuade people to plan for AGW, since they'd be competing with us. Better to hold the high ground (so to speak) when they discover they need it. And there are indeed business opportunites. I'm sure many businesses have acknowledged the reality of AGW and are planning on that basis, to the extent that they can. (The top Exxon echelon may well not believe the propaganda they push.)

Probably more businesses assume no significant change from the status quo - we've seen the "End of History", after all. Journey's end. AGW, Peak Oil - wha'?

t's time to get in on the ground floor (unless you're near the sea).

GoogleEarth for Cardiff, UK, if you're unfamiliar with its location. For a time, about 1850-80, the busiest port in the world by bulk. (London was the busiest by value, obviously. Cardiff imported bananas, molasses, rum and tobacco, not silks and spices of the Orient.)

My house is at 10m elevation, two-story, and stone-built. It can be proofed against the occasional flood, but my garden would suffer mightily. Salt-water flooding, not good. All the same, it should see me out.

Anyone got a tip?

Go short on dollars. Go long on minerals. Steer well clear of complex leveraged financial instruments - get into what you can clearly distinguish from high-falutin' woo-talk with graphs. (Not advice you really need, of course.)

There could well be a dot.con-like frenzy in the alternative-energy sector at some point, which would we worth riding if you get out at the right time. Once that's over, the reality-based AE market will probably be under-priced, a good time to get in on a carefully considered basis. You'll have more evidence to go on by then.

While your capital is soundly parked and earning, you could consider punting some high-falutin' AE technology with graphs and charts and PowerPoint, oh yes. A scientifically-proven sure thing that just needs development capital. The next MicroSoft. Nothing so crass as free-energy, of course. Something plausible.

They say poachers make good gamekeepers. Who better to do the woo than we ?