Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,748
I believe it's the other way around. Angular velocities for large windmills are smaller, so it's easier for the birds to time their flight through without getting hit.
Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
I believe it's the other way around. Angular velocities for large windmills are smaller, so it's easier for the birds to time their flight through without getting hit.
Belz...
Fiend God
I do believe that's a straw man. From what I've read, they're just saying that it's much, much safer than the public believes, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Oh, and that no other source of energy comes close.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Definitely a strawman. I'm beginning to wonder if Luddite is even really all that interested in a true discussion on the topic.
I'd also add that there's one other comment: That the fear of danger of nuclear energy is not only exaggerated, but people fear the supposed "risks" of nuclear energy, when those risks also exist in other venues (such as in chemical storage facilities), at MUCH greater amounts.
But it's not nuclear, so it's okay.
Anyways, I need some low-level toxic waste to get started in my day... er, I mean, coffee.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
It's probably worth pointing out that there is still a law on the books making it a misdemeanor to permit your horse to **** on the street in New York City. I thought your point about classifying waste according to a more objective standard of how hot it's measured to be, rather than where it came from, was a good one. We were super-careful for sixty years to make sure we wouldn't discover some novel new type of radiation; we haven't and it's time to state definitively that we know what kind of radiation comes out of nuclear materials, we can measure it, and we can classify waste based on that.Anyways, I need some low-level toxic waste to get started in my day... er, I mean, coffee.
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_Commentary.pdf
the above link indicates the cost of producing power in the UK from various sources. The study was designed for direct comparison without subsidies.
http://www.ceri.ca/documents/CERIComparativeCostsSept2006.pdf
similar for Canada
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.pdf This one is very comprehensive and takes a bit to go thru, but covers the whole world
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy1/exec_summary.html
This link shows how much various forms of energy were subsidized in the US...the total subsidy was only 1.1 % of the total...the most was given to renewable fuels. This is why wind power is getting much attention now as it receives a very high subsidy.
glenn
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
Just pick a utility and type conservation into the search and the conservation programs will show up.
http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/energy-efficiency/initiatives.asp
http://www.energyright.com/
http://www.cl-p.com/clmres/indexclmres.asp
Having worked in the power industry, I know where we can conserve. With so much of the energy going into commercial and industrial sections, there is little energy that can be conserved. I will try to find a link that has a good study.
glenn
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
Here is a good link which shows how much energy consumption can be conserved in the US. Since the US is by far the largest consummer, it would be a benchmark. It indicates that 28% or about 27 quads could be conserved.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/pimentel/bioscience/conservation/conservation.pdf
glenn
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/pimentel/bioscience/conservation/conservation.pdf
glenn
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
This report makes no mention of solar, makes no mention of taking into account the costs of dismantling and storing nuclear plants at the end of their life cycle, and (judging by the fact it states that nuclear is a zero-carbon emitter) seems to assume that the fuel for these power plants squirts from the forehead of Zeus rather than being mined.
Contains insufficient information to tell if they are playing the same games.
This one is too long, and it is too early.
I might try and dig through it later.This seems to be picking out one year and summarising just the subsidies then.
My belief was that nuclear power plants are heavily subsidised during construction and decommissioning more so than in the middle of their lifespan. So I suspect that these figures could be completely accurate and still be meaningless.
I cannot comment on the longer paper but the rest look like massaged figures to this educated layperson.
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
I would venture to say that solar, which typically has the highest generation cost and twice what wind power is was not considered viable in the UK climate....why bother. It said nuclear was carbon neutral...along with other renewable...it didn't say it was zero carbon. I suppose the Royal academy of engineering could be lying, but what would be the point.
here's another link showing cost for various technologies including solar.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf
I picked something that indicated its independence...outside the utilities with no reason to be biased.
This one is too long, and it is too early.
It is very comprehensive, but requires a lot of detailed study. I haven't looked at it totally
I see no evidence that independent analysis--which is why I selected them-- has massaged figures. These coincide with many of the stuff I have read over the years. I cannot say for countries outside the US, but nuclear is not heavily subsidized in the US. Most subsidies were to study fuel design and what could be done to burn excess plutonium. Currently, the US is partially subsidizing initial study of next generation reactors...but that is in the millions of dollars. Currently, US congress is subsidizing ethanol and wind power most...ethanol will be a useless endeavor here due to a very poor energy balance. It is easy to check other years as well and there is no great difference.
As I have stated in the past, the US requires decommissioning funds to be collected over the life of the plant. Utilities here are public companies and there are no subsidies during construction and certainly none during operation. Such things are public record.
glenn
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
A little more research about subsidies in the US and I found the 2005 energy bill changed some of the subsidies for the energy industry...quite a bit--it provides subsidies across the board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
specifically for nuke power.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/highlights_of_nuclear_provisions_in_energy_bill_0805.pdf
glenn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
specifically for nuke power.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/highlights_of_nuclear_provisions_in_energy_bill_0805.pdf
glenn
Last edited:
PB Power, which wrote this report, build nuclear power plants. In their report they refer to "nuclear and other renewables". They have no involvement in true renewable power. The fact that they would find nuclear economical is not surprising. Wind developers will undoubtedly find that wind is far more economical. And while decomissioning costs are included in the study, disposal is not.
They report that the most economical generation option is natural gas. They also do work with oil and natural gas pipelines.
Finally, they state that the costs for nuclear and wind would remain unchanged if there were penalties from carbon use. This is false. Every generation option currently has tremendous carbon inputs. It is my understanding, not disputed by nuclear proponents, that the carbon inputs involved in generation from nuclear are significantly greater than those for wind, and also more difficult to overcome.
http://www.pbworld.co.uk/index.php?doc=53
The CERI study you quoted is frequently pointed to by nuclear promoters in Canada. Apart from that, I have no knowledge of CERI, though they are a Canadian energy consultancy. They do claim, in their own description, that their research program is guided by a board of directors named by their sponsoring organizations. These sponsors include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. They do not include corresponding proponents of renewable power.
They also state that their research pertains to "oil, natural gas, coal, and electricity economics."
Their evaluation of biomass, landfill, small hydro, large hydro, solar and geothermal is based on a report whose principal author is the Nuclear Energy Agency:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=IBC...&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1
Interesting. I looked up your 3rd link and it was the same study that the second study was based on, whose principal author was the Nuclear Energy Agency.
I don't mean to discount any work done by the nuclear industry. But I don't think they can be relied on to produce reports that balance all energy sources fairly.
I am also concerned with the connections between nuclear proponents and the fossil fuel industry, as highlighted by both CERI and BP Power. As I've noted, it's the nuclear proponents in Canada who often take the side of coal as well. In Canada, the next big jump for nuclear will be the construction of two reactors to fuel tar sands extraction. Now, you may be pleased that they'll be replacing natural gas as a fuel, but they will also theoretically enable an expansion of the extraction of the dirtiest oil on the planet.
For the 4th study, Kevin Lowe already pointed out that it was for one year only in the US, during which no nuclear plants were built and none decommissioned. More importantly, the study included direct subsidies and research grants, but didn't include underwriting insurance nor spent fuel waste storage costs.
You're also mistaken about where the study said the greatest subsidies went.
Under renewables, they identified ethanol as the leading recipient of subsidies. They didn't even mention the others specifically. This suggests to me that subsidies for ethanol dwarf subsidies to other renewables. It has always been my understanding that ethanol subsidies are enormous, so this fits. Wind subsidies may be very modest, or even non-existent, for all we know. I see no basis for your conclusion that wind power is getting so much attention because it receives a high subsidy. With a difference of 18% of all subsidies for all renewables and 10% of subsidies for nuclear, and especially if you throw in insurance and storage subsidies, or building subsidies, nuclear may well come out the big loser compared to wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. We just can't tell from these conclusions.
Last edited:
Actually, Glenn, as I said I'm not really counting on a link. I provided a link to the BC power company that targets 50% conservation reductions. It was jumped on by a number of people who said "It ain't gonna happen". Ditto my link to California's net-zero building program. I pointed to a conservative provincial study that identified vast and economical wind potential. It was ignored.
Likewise, Robinson has pointed out that building nuclear plants to replace coal plants isn't going to happen. And even you've expressed doubts for how far a nuclear renaissance can go. And that doesn't stop people from thinking it's possible.
I hope that I'm receptive to new information. That doesn't mean I'm likely, when I'm talking to dozens of respected people who say 50% reductions are entirely feasible, to accept a link to an organization saying "no it's not". Especially from a utility that would have to lay off 1/2 its workers and close 1/2 its plants and possibly cut its profits.
Any more than you're likely to accept that Luddite says 50% is possible and has a link to a BC utility when everyone you speak to says the opposite.
I'm far more likely to be engaged by real assessments of where vast amounts of power are needed and will continue to be needed in any sort of low-carbon future. "Industry" is not specific enough. What industry? Why will we need it?
A friend of mine, an engineer, recently sat down with the Greenpeace staff. He was engaged as a consultant to make their building net-zero. It was challenging because they had purchased a leaky heritage building. Their architects were saying it could not be done economically. My friend said "If you start with that attitude, it will surely never be done. If you assume it will be done, there's a good chance you'll succeed".
Conservation, renewables and nuclear each have their own sets of challenges. How much of each we end up with will hugely (but perhaps not entirely) depend on where we put our energies.
You've said recently that I seem to be resistant to seeing the viability of nuclear power. I see this as a very polarized forum, where there are nuclear enthusiasts and nuclear avoiders. And perhaps my biggest problem is that I don't understand the enthusiasm. I completely understand people thinking "we need enough power to keep people from freezing, starving, dying of heat stroke or otherwise suffering". If that must include nuclear, I'd have no argument. But all I hear are assertions. And I can dredge up assertions by the hundreds from environmental organizations that say the opposite.
So here's my question to everyone. If it were possible to feed, comfortably house and provide education and health care to a level where the majority was satisfied with the results, all without recourse to nuclear power, would you support a shift to complete renewables?
Because the question then becomes "Is it possible?" Right now, the questions are a muddle of "Is nuclear possible?", "Are renewables possible?", "What are the limits of conservation?", "Is luddite an environmentalist flake?", "Can environmentalists be trusted?", "Can the nuclear industry be trusted?", "Is nuclear economical?", "Are renewables economical?", "Is nuclear power safe?", "Aren't some chemical products more dangerous than nuclear waste?".
All of these questions are interesting to me. But I sense that they are disingenuous questions, at least to some authors. Most minds are more or less made up. There's a thrill about enormous amounts of power that's got a lot of appeal. It's that appeal that car companies cater to. "Imagine the freedom". If all I'm saying is I want to take your toys away, you're not going to like me. And you'll resist what I'm saying.
And, on the opposite side, I'll admit that I'm very skeptical about nuclear. I've said it all along. Fusion, which everyone is so excited about, seems like too much power to entrust to anyone. If you look at how well we've managed our affairs with our current energy, it's hard to feel optimistic about what we'll do to our rivers, aquifers, the air we breathe, the fish in the oceans and so on if we manage to get our hands on fusion technology.
It's funny, I don't really need links, especially for future projections. Who knows what's possible? Oh, maybe for some statistical claim that seems really off, I'd really appreciate a link. But I think most of the people here are honest about their backgrounds and knowledge. They aren't particularly dumber than folks who do studies to benefit particular interests.
So I'll grant you that in your experience, conservation from the industrial sector is severely limited. I know that. It follows what all the power workers I speak to say. I'm not sure that's at all indicative of what things will be like in a low-carbon economy. Right now, industries are being targeted in Europe. In Ontario, which has a strong industrial base, there are a lot of people saying our economy will collapse if energy prices go up. Meanwhile other analysts point out that in most of Europe and even New York State, higher energy prices have made the industries more efficient, and the economy is as strong as ever. Then people counter that by saying these places are de-industrializing. Well, so what, I say, does it matter? Are New Yorkers complaining? They have cleaner air. But even I know the answer to that. They're buying just as much stuff as ever, if not more. It's being made in China in factories powered by coal.
The question is whether all this is inevitable. Are past trends indicative of future trajectories? We are about to have an energy crisis. Either because we address global warming responsibly or because cheap oil becomes a thing of the past. In either case, we won't be able to build nuclear power plants quickly enough to completely offset the slide. I think when people can't fuel their cars, they're going to be pissed off that the government is bailing out the car companies yet again, or offering subsidies to petrochemical companies who continue to make unheard-of profits. When I speak to people about what happens when natural gas supplies can't meet demand, they respond in striking unison that the first thing any responsible government will do is to limit or suspend natural gas for industrial uses, then ration natural gas for home heating. People come first, because when push comes to shove, people protect their homes over their jobs. I cannot believe that the residential sector will be asked to make all the cuts.
So I may not be aware of all the different industries and all their different challenges, but the fact that steel and cement manufacture release a lot of CO2 (which I was aware of, by the way, I'm actually aware of most of the big industries) is strong indication to me that these industries will not survive in their present form at their present scale. We may not be building so many 50-story office towers of cement and steel that require huge cranes to build and elevators to operate once they're constructed.
I'm actually a lot more aware of the commercial sector. It's a lot more similar to the residential sector. It's also more homogeneous. I've mentioned the savings before. Again, I think when people are turning down their own lights and air conditioners, I don't think they'll be happy going to a store that has special spotlights to highlight the fish tank. Things will change.
Ralph Torrie, who is a highly respected energy consultant in Canada (the man who was the lead author of Canada's climate change strategy), spoke to me about how the utilities assess conservation potential. First they figure out what is "feasible", by which they mean "no more expensive than the least expensive generation option". Then they say they can attain 60% of that. Why? If we recognize that conservation has tremendous advantages in terms of safety, reliability, transmission costs and health and safety concerns over any generation option, why wouldn't you give it a much higher priority? Especially when we're facing a serious energy crisis.
Glenn, I respect your experience and value your opinions. I enjoy your input. If it can't singlehandedly counterbalance the input I get from my personal connections, don't be put off. There are things I doubt you'll convince me of. I doubt I'll ever convince you that nuclear power is unnecessary. That shouldn't prevent us from trading interesting information.
Last edited:
Why would you say that?
This link is just from Wikipedia, but it's intensely referenced and agrees with most of what I've read and understand.
There's an additional problem that our food is carried over immense distances. In Ontario summers, when I get my own parsley from my yard, where it seems to reseed itself, our supermarkets carry parsley from Mexico, hauled in refrigerated trucks over here. It's difficult to understand how this improves our lives. At the very least, it's difficult to understand how our economies will collapse if they are more localized. It would seem to be of general benefit overall.
I'm aware of the economic principle of competitive advantage. The problem is that it's not factoring in the destructive effects of carbon use. If it were, if carbon emissions were charged for their environmental and human harm, then local production would suddenly have the competitive advantage.
I've seen studies that indicate that 1/4 or more of our personal carbon footprint comes from our food. The fertilizers we put in, the transportation, the freezing, the cooking, etc. It is especially high for meat. A lot of this is easily avoidable.
Finally, there are plenty of places in the world where the current economy is causing starvation rather than preventing it. The pattern of large farms producing cash crops for the highest bidder is facilitated by cheap energy and produces immense suffering when it interferes with subsistence farming. We get cheap Philippean pineapples, which the Filipino working on the farms can't afford to buy.
http://www.dgmoen.net/video_trans/008.html
The coloured bars indicate a price range for 2004. They are thicker or thinner depending on the variation in price. The black bars indicate the direction the price would go if a carbon tax were introduced. The one part I find hard to understand is what happens to wind with a carbon tax. It seems to skip around.
Here's a fuller paper with better references.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
I don't think they advocate using natural gas. With carbon tax, natural gas looks worse than nuclear on this chart. They do advocate cogeneration. What he says is that the 13-15 times nuclear power's share explicitly excludes any use of fresh fuel. So yes, you do get energy from natural gas, but only natural gas that would have been burned anyway. You're using industrial waste heat.
I find it difficult to argue against using waste heat. I can. I do. But on grounds you wouldn't approve of. Specifically, building up cogeneration using waste heat ties our electrical generation with continued burning of fossil fuels. Tom Casten, who heavily promotes cogeneration, describes the relationship between generators and their related industries as "welded at the hip". So an industry has to be sure of a market for its electricity to enter such a relationship and the electrical utility wants to be sure that the industry will survive. I've mentioned my suspicions about basing our plans for future energy needs on current industrial use patterns, especially patterns that rely on fossil fuels. But you've been on the other side of that argument so far.
There is a way I can make a reconciliation with cogeneration, though. The amount of electricity generated from waste heat is relatively small. The theoretical potential of electricity from heat converts at best 33% of the energy released to electricity. In practice, the industrial priorities will reduce this number. There are reasons (and I can get into them, but since this is all speculation I thought I wouldn't bother) that I believe the amount of electricity produced would probably be used up entirely by the host industry anyway. So it makes the industry more competitive now, and if the industry fails anyway, the rest of us don't lose any electricity.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
I'm sorry, I don't have time to teach you economics. When you ignore what I wrote, it makes me tired. Good bye.
The only future I see for cars is electric (though I'm open to other suggestions). I also think there will have to be a lot fewer of them, and they will have to be lighter and more aerodynamic. I'm not trying to put Zenn out of business. Economics 101 indicates that when a company discovers that it's uneconomical to make its product, it's because the price is no longer right. Oil prices, worry about climate change, whatever the cause for this, I don't quite understand why driving up demand artificially is beneficial. If the big auto companies will need to compete with Zenn, then they should start now. If the taxpayers aren't buying the cars, they shouldn't object much if the product dies.
Every car we put on the road now adds to emissions now and for years to come. Since fewer cars would be a good idea, reducing the number now would be a good start for a lot of reasons. The remaining auto workers would be more than adequate to make a reduced number of cars.
I'm not sure you realize that the Canadian auto industry makes SUVs for the American market. We're making the gas-guzzlers that Zenn should be getting rid of. Only a fraction is sold here. We're a smaller market and SUVs are not as popular in Canada. If the product line died most Canadians wouldn't care. And the planet would definitely benefit.
Among Canadians, the big losers would be the auto workers. I'd be in favor of government subsidies to set them to work building wind turbines.
I have a personal anecdote from someone who sold his SUV because all his neighbours who had SUVs were getting their cars vandalized. It was clearly a targeted hit. This is a blatant example, the specific tactics of which I don't approve of, of a general pattern which I completely approve of. A similar, but more benign thing happens when people try to conserve water. They get annoyed at neighbours who leave hoses running for hours. They express their disapproval. People buy SUVs in part to impress others. If the only thing they're impressing on their friends and neighbours is that they are inconsiderate energy hogs, the SUV loses a lot of its appeal.
The market changes. Linda McQuaig, a Canadian author, wrote a book where there's a great section about how hard the car industry had to work to make SUVs popular. There's favourable tax treatment, relaxed CAFE standards, and still it was very hard to convince people that they wanted such aerodynamically impaired, gas-guzzling, unstable hulking monsters with bad acceleration. It's quite an advertising coup.
But it's got to be pretty easy to reverse.
I don't share your pessimism about auto workers, either. I wish the reason GM wanted to close their Canadian operations was because there was no market for their SUVs. The reality is that it's just very tempting to train some Mexicans. Apparently it can be done pretty quickly. I don't know why you imagine auto workers would be dead if GM closed, but if they're employed elsewhere and you want their skills, just offer them an appropriate salary and they'll come running. But even that may not be necesary. I don't imagine Canadians are any harder to train than Mexicans. They just want better pay. Which is fine. I just think that the Canadian government has better things to do with its money than artificially subsidizing a profitable industry that's damaging to the environment.
Glenn, we've had this back-and-forth a few times.
I'm aware that utilities promote conservation, so you don't need to convince me of that. I have 3 responses to this.
1. I said energy availability encourages demand increases. This does not necessarily pin the blame on the utility, so you're defending an argument I didn't make. I should point out that I agree the reverse is true too, just to confuse you. I know demand increases promote the construction of power plants.
2. I don't know the ins and outs of all utilities. Every utility that I'm more familiar with is paid to promote conservation. So the fact that they promote conservation isn't enough to convince me. Are the utilities you've pointed me to actually voluntarily reducing their market without compensation?
3. Once a utility builds a power plant, it wants to recoup its investment through energy sales. Can you show me any example of a utility advertising a goal of their conservation program being the closure of a recently constructed power plant?
The funny thing is, I don't think we actually disagree. Your comment about Henry Ford I completely agreed with.
Belz...
Fiend God
You don't live in Canada, do you ?