|
Post by Barry Brook on Oct 5, 2012 2:00:38 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/is-japans-nuclear-free-pathway-an-environmentally-friendly-choiceThis is an essay I co-wrote with one of my current Ph.D. students, Sanghuyn Hong. In it, we take a critical look at the current national energy policy of Japan, and highlight the unfortunate implications of a strategy that preferences fossil fuels over nuclear energy. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by Martin WesleySmith on Oct 5, 2012 4:41:26 GMT 9.5
Professor Brook: you mention "many self-proclaimed environmentalists and anti-nuclear power protesters." Do you mean that these people are not really environmentalists or anti-nuclear power protesters? If so, why denigrate them? Is your point of view not powerful enough to convince your readers without casting a slur on your perceived opposition?
|
|
|
Post by Frankie on Oct 5, 2012 6:41:53 GMT 9.5
The Brundtland report called for measures that "meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Meanwhile, our energy demand continues to grow at a much greater rate than population in most nations. Does this mean that the basic "needs" of the human race increase with every generation?
Here's a novel idea: how about we actually take onboard Brundtland's plea and focus out economies and energy policies towards meeting everyone's "needs" first rather than trying to maintain and grow our grossly over-consumptive (and globally inequitable) lifestyles. This would of course also solve much of the conflict between nuclear advocates and the so-called "self-proclaimed environmentalists" by removing the need for nuclear in many of the highly developed energy-intensive economies as we shrink to accommodate others.
I know it wouldn't be easy, but shouldn't we instead be advocating for this as the "sustainable solution" to global climate change? Wouldn't our efforts be better utilised by promoting systemic and fundamental change rather than a patch on top of current unsustainable and inequitable patterns of consumption and production? Even if we "solve" our climate change troubles, by allowing this growth model to continue (using nuclear energy as its fuel), aren't we just pushing ourselves closer to other ecological limits?
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Oct 5, 2012 8:00:14 GMT 9.5
Frankie; meeting everyone's needs, globally, at a standard that allows some expectation of future control of population - which responds more strongly to affluence than most other acceptable alternatives - requires signficant increases in energy availability.
You seem to be starting from the idea that nuclear power is a tool we should only use reluctantly (eg. "removing the need for nuclear"). This is entirely unjustified - nuclear power has shown itself to be a safe and deployable source of useful energy. We should increase the use of this source to reduce our dependence on the hydrocarbons that we need to phase out for everyone's sake. "Self-proclaimed environmentalists" who are rigidly against nuclear power are actually working against the best environmental solution; conflict is not to be avoided, but worked through.
What we do simultaneously to the same end of hydrocarbon reduction is less important, provided it also works towards the goal of minimal - preferably zero - fossil fuel combustion. Better to have too many solutions than not enough. Weather-based renewables (wind and solar) beyond the limits of what hydro can back up have a link to fossil fuels that I remain skeptical can be broken; but I am willing to be shown a (costed) plan where they do not need that support.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 5, 2012 8:25:41 GMT 9.5
Weather controlled renewables can have NPPs as balancing agents. It is probably necessary to add a thermal store to the NPP; nobody has done so yet but it is technically feasible. What is less clear is whether this is cost effective. As best as I can work out it is not for wind generation; it would be better to forgo the wind turbines entirely. However, consumer installed solar PV appears to be cost effective as certain transmission and distribution costs are minimized.
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Oct 5, 2012 9:14:25 GMT 9.5
Frankie,
You need to look at the numbers. Without numbers, it can at best, all be little more than good intentions. Suppose the world was reorganized such that average electricity consumption per capita was equal in all nations. To achieve this goal you would need reductions of consumption as follows:
United States: 78% Australia: 75% Japan: 64% Germany: 59% Russia: 55% UK: 50%
These are impossible reductions in any reasonable time frame and could only happen in circumstances of complete economic collapse that would make the great depression look very mild in comparison. And it would be truly global in scope, affecting the developing nations just as badly.
Now also consider there will be a couple of billion extra heads in the world over the next 50 years or so, and that for a safe climate, increased (low emission) electricity consumption is required to substitute for other energy use in areas such as transport and heating.
What "systemic and fundamental change" can plausibly change these realities. When we add in the very tight time constraints imposed by the climate problem, impossible is not too strong a word.
The often stated belief by some environmentalists that behavioral change can fundamentally address the climate problem, in the end boils down to denial. It is a world of unreality that they simply must live in to accommodate their nuclear phobia. That is very dangerous because to meaningfully address the climate problem, you must grasp it's magnitude and scope - not understate it
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Oct 5, 2012 9:35:50 GMT 9.5
As a footnote to the previous comment, Japan in 2011 despite what certainly appear to be genuine and widespread efforts at electricity conservation managed just a 2.7% reduction over the 2010 figure.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 5, 2012 12:03:36 GMT 9.5
Professor Brook: you mention "many self-proclaimed environmentalists and anti-nuclear power protesters." Do you mean that these people are not really environmentalists or anti-nuclear power protesters? If so, why denigrate them? Is your point of view not powerful enough to convince your readers without casting a slur on your perceived opposition? Calling anyone who is anti-nuclear an environmentalist would be just as bad as calling a person who denies global warming a skeptic (it's insulting to those who really are environmentalists or skeptics as well as being inaccurate). The Brundtland report called for measures that "meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Which in many cases is best done by increasing our capabilities and growing our economy so that future generations are as wealthy as possible. Meanwhile, our energy demand continues to grow at a much greater rate than population in most nations. I'd be more worried if it didn't. Does this mean that the basic "needs" of the human race increase with every generation? Define need? What we think of as needs changes over time. It's hardly novel, in fact it's been proposed for thousands of years and still hasn't gotten more than superficial popularity (for good reason I might add). how about we actually take onboard Brundtland's plea and focus out economies and energy policies towards meeting everyone's "needs" first rather than trying to maintain and grow our grossly over-consumptive (and globally inequitable) lifestyles. But if we use nuclear power we can sustain what you call 'overconsumption' for everyone on this planet (in fact we could sustain for everyone the UN thinks we'll have). Is having an air-conditioner over-consumption? Is not starving over-consumption? Is a room for every kid over-consumption? Is women being treated as people over-consumption? This would of course also solve much of the conflict between nuclear advocates and the so-called "self-proclaimed environmentalists" by removing the need for nuclear in many of the highly developed energy-intensive economies as we shrink to accommodate others. So your suggestion to solve the conflict is for us to just give in to the green dystopia? Guess I shouldn't be surprised. The real conflict is between the majority of the public (who want things to keep getting better, which implies energy usage will keep increasing as energy is the ability to do work) and people like you, all that the "we must use less instead of nuclear" nonsense is doing is keeping the fossil fuel pushers in business. I know it wouldn't be easy, but shouldn't we instead be advocating for this as the "sustainable solution" to global climate change? The only results we've gotten out of that is more fossil fuel burning. It's time we face up to the fact that there is no soft energy path. Wouldn't our efforts be better utilised by promoting systemic and fundamental change rather than a patch on top of current unsustainable and inequitable patterns of consumption and production? Changes the public does not want. Oh sure they may say they do if you ask them, but that's only because they don't actually know what you're asking them (I don't think you even know what it would entail). But anyway, the current patterns are only unsustainable if you refuse to use nuclear power (and even then we'll be burning every lump of coal we can dig up, every drop of oil we can drill for, every tree we can cut down before we do what you want us to). Even if we "solve" our climate change troubles, by allowing this growth model to continue (using nuclear energy as its fuel), aren't we just pushing ourselves closer to other ecological limits? We'd also be pushing ourselves closer to moving our civilisation to space, which to the best of our knowledge is infinite. Though nuclear can help with the other ecological limits, e.g. nuclear desalination can remove the need to take water from ecosystems which need it. Weather controlled renewables can have NPPs as balancing agents. It is probably necessary to add a thermal store to the NPP; nobody has done so yet but it is technically feasible. What is less clear is whether this is cost effective. As best as I can work out it is not for wind generation; it would be better to forgo the wind turbines entirely. However, consumer installed solar PV appears to be cost effective as certain transmission and distribution costs are minimized. I understand that in Australia rooftop PV doesn't actually do anything to reduce distribution costs (or at least that the electricity companies have said that in submissions to government). Nuclear could do the job if you wanted it to, but there really doesn't seem to be any good reason to have nuclear back up renewables given that there'd really be no possibility of savings in emissions or costs (which are at least a possibility if the back up is fossil fuels). If you were to do try it an LFTR would probably be the best bet, those could probably handle the load following without needing to add an extra thermal store.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Oct 5, 2012 13:37:34 GMT 9.5
The article included a reference to TCase 4, for which the comments are now closed - or at least, if they continue on the new site I have not been able to find them.
So I'm here and one step removed.
TCase 4 examined the embodied energy in renewables. That was back in 2009. Things have moved on. For example, solar thermal arrays (collector fields) have been constructed using almost no concrete at all. Novatec, which is a German corporation with shareholders including ABB (Switzerland) and Transfield Holdings (Aystralia) have constructed lightweight but very strong and fine tolerance flat panel arrays which include: - Aluminium reflector frames, assembled by robot. - Light steel supporting structures. - Steel screw-type foundations.
There is no concrete in the collector fields, apart from minor quantities in footings for steam mains and in concrete drainage pipes. The total would be of the order of 1 cubic metre per hectare.
Now, three years later, references to TCase 4 should probably include a comment that, due to the passage of time since the original study was completed, the data and hence the results are indicative only and should be checked or revised before they are relied upon.
Of course, there will be substantial volumes of concrete and steel in the steam turbine and generators and associated plant. The end result may well end up similar, despite technical advances.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 5, 2012 13:48:04 GMT 9.5
Anon --- Yes, the distribution infrastructure still must be there, solar PV or no. My mistake.
There currently are no fit-for-service LFTRs. When (finally) available I still seriously doubt the ability to load follow (net of solar PV) on a partly cloudy day when the solar PV contribution keeps going from almost zero to full blast at the rate the winds are blowing aloft.
Given the difference between busbar+transmission (wholesale) electricity rates and retail electricity rates I remain of the opinion that in many sunny localities the least expensive low-carbon option might well be plenty of solar PV with NPPs, equipped with thermal stores, as the balancing agents. My pilot studies on a reference grid model suggest this is likely as soon as solar PV prices drop somewhat further.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 5, 2012 15:28:01 GMT 9.5
There currently are no fit-for-service LFTRs. True, though we could probably have them within the decade if we wanted them enough (i.e. we'd need to fix the regulators first). When (finally) available I still seriously doubt the ability to load follow (net of solar PV) on a partly cloudy day when the solar PV contribution keeps going from almost zero to full blast at the rate the winds are blowing aloft. Personally I'd be surprised if MSRs couldn't handle it (homogeneous reactors are known to be able to change power level very quickly). Given the difference between busbar+transmission (wholesale) electricity rates and retail electricity rates I remain of the opinion that in many sunny localities the least expensive low-carbon option might well be plenty of solar PV with NPPs, equipped with thermal stores, as the balancing agents. My pilot studies on a reference grid model suggest this is likely as soon as solar PV prices drop somewhat further. I suspect that would depend on the capital cost difference between thermal storage or a larger nuclear plant (whether that be larger units or more units) given the low operating cost of nuclear. It would also depend on just how far PV prices drop (and in the longer term whether they stay low as opposed to the temporary price crashes that accompany removal of subsides that shouldn't have existed).
|
|
|
Post by Christine Brook on Oct 5, 2012 15:32:18 GMT 9.5
Professor Brook: you mention "many self-proclaimed environmentalists and anti-nuclear power protesters." Do you mean that these people are not really environmentalists or anti-nuclear power protesters? If so, why denigrate them? Is your point of view not powerful enough to convince your readers without casting a slur on your perceived opposition? The "self-proclaimed environmentalist" refers to those who declare themselves to be worried about the planet but unwilling to support the only current CO2 free baseload power available. It would seem they are more anti-nuclear than environmentalist. How much warming of the planet, with all the dire effects caused by that, are they willing to accept before they will support nuclear power? Green groups have no compunction about wrongly accusing Barry of not being an environmentalist and claiming he is in the pay of the nuclear power industry. Unlike them he is a Promethean Environmentalist, who would never have been drawn to look at nuclear power if it wasn't for his grave concern about the ability of renewable power to replace CO2 energy sources. He is after all, first and foremost a conservation biologist, and saving species and environments from extinction is his primary motivation.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Oct 5, 2012 17:36:12 GMT 9.5
A large number people still live in rural or non-urbanized areas. Renewable s like wind and solar energy are still relevent to them. However, they should not stick to urban technology of an electric power from a grid and be more dependent on energy storage and adopt appropriate technology. Proper use of wind has to be completely transformed. Rather than huge bird-killers, the wind should be funneled to a shorter cross=section and higher speed. There it should run a turbine and mechanically compress some of the air to have a storage of compressed air as energy storage. Compressed air can be used for all the mechanical needs like pumping water, use of pneumatic motor powered tools and heating or cooling using buried heat ex-changers in earth at a more suitable temperature. This energy need not be used for heating or electric applications involving higher cost. Solar energy, on the other hand, must be converted to electric power and stored in batteries. It should then be used in high value electronic applications like CFL lighting and a 12V DC system as in vehicles. It could be also used for running of radio, TV, or computers. Long transmission lines for small use or transport of fuel for these uses must be eliminated or minimized. There is no escape from nuclear for fast increasing carbon-free urban or industrial use.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Oct 5, 2012 18:52:12 GMT 9.5
David B Benson suggests that a NPP should have energy storage to offset fluctuations from distributed solar PV, presumably with a week's reserve. Surely we need energy storage located at the intermittent source, so that it can supply to the grid when it is needed, and as he implies, close to its main consumer ?
Japan's high population density would imply that a patch of sunlight travelling across, say the Kansai, would be squirting a gigawatt or so of transient power through the grid, only to flush back again as the clouds rolled in. If a thermal energy store were to sit beside a nuclear supply, it would need capacity of maybe 4 GW-weeks of heat. That would be more scary to the locals than the nuke itself.
On the other hand, if a lone householder's PV is dedicated to topping up a ~1 kW-week energy store, he would always be able to sell electricity at its highest price, especially when the sun has been hidden behind cloud for a week.
Such a system would be appropriate to Jagdish's "rural or non-urbanized areas", where the producer and consumer are nearby, and remote from a national grid.
The fact that such small-scale energy storage technology does not yet exist must surely be reason that its development should get top priority for any subsidies in the renewables area.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 5, 2012 19:30:38 GMT 9.5
The "self-proclaimed environmentalist" refers to those who declare themselves to be worried about the planet but unwilling to support the only current CO2 free baseload power available. It would seem they are more anti-nuclear than environmentalist. I very much suspect that a lot of them don't so much care for the environment as an end in itself but as a means to achieve social changes that the rest of the public doesn't want. If you want the environment not to be destroyed then nuclear power is a good thing as it can provide what energy we need without destroying the environment (assuming of course it's done properly, but even then it is no worse than other technologies we don't give a second thought to) but if instead your goal is to return everyone to a simpler way of life whether they prefer it or not then you've got to oppose anything which can support an advanced civilisation (never mind that all their opposition has managed to do is make us use environmental destructive power plants to run our civilisation). A large number people still live in rural or non-urbanized areas. Renewable s like wind and solar energy are still relevent to them. However, they should not stick to urban technology of an electric power from a grid and be more dependent on energy storage and adopt appropriate technology. Those who are off the grid are a relatively small proportion of the population in developed countries (and in developing countries where the majority is off the grid most of the development is happening near cities which are getting a grid) so I would say that what they do isn't too relevant to global warming. Though I should note that power grids can go to some rather remote places, you'd need to be really far out in the sticks for a transmission line not to make sense. Proper use of wind has to be completely transformed. Rather than huge bird-killers, the wind should be funneled to a shorter cross=section and higher speed. How is that meant to help? Reducing the area but increasing the velocity could be done, but you won't get any extra power out of it (in fact you'll lose some). There it should run a turbine and mechanically compress some of the air to have a storage of compressed air as energy storage. Compressed air can be used for all the mechanical needs like pumping water, use of pneumatic motor powered tools and heating or cooling using buried heat ex-changers in earth at a more suitable temperature. This energy need not be used for heating or electric applications involving higher cost. Compressed air whilst very good for some applications (e.g. running machine tools) is a very expensive source of energy. Long transmission lines for small use or transport of fuel for these uses must be eliminated or minimized. I don't see any moral reason why we must avoid those so as far as I'm concerned it'll come down to economics.
|
|
|
Post by trag on Oct 6, 2012 1:07:23 GMT 9.5
However, consumer installed solar PV appears to be cost effective as certain transmission and distribution costs are minimized. In the USA it really isn't, unless your cost of electricity is well above the national average (for the USA). In sunny central Texas, one only generates 135 KWHr/Month on average per KW of installed capacity according to the NREL calculator, which I've verified the few times I've had access to actual figures from roof top installations. Even at the low end of $4000 per KW of installed capacity (note that costs can be as high as $9000/KW) the savings just don't pay for the system until the cost of electricity is well above the (USA) national average. A loan calculator says that $4000 over 30 years requires payments of $24 per month. At 135 KWHr/month, that's about $.18 per KWHr, or 1.5 times the national average. And that assumes zero maintenance and repair costs over the life of the system. Basically, the home owner is taking up electricity generation as a hobby and will have to spend his own time and risk his own broken legs cleaning the thing. I don't consider electricity which costs 1.5X the national average to be "cost effective". And note that $4000 is the low end cost. The upper end takes the cost of the electricity up into the $.40 range. And the output is for sunny central Texas. A few other areas will do better, but most areas do worse. Also, this is assuming that the system actually lasts 30 years. Perhaps the output is better on average in Australia and the cost of electricity already higher?
|
|
|
Post by trag on Oct 6, 2012 1:14:15 GMT 9.5
But anyway, the current patterns are only unsustainable if you refuse to use nuclear power (and even then we'll be burning every lump of coal we can dig up, every drop of oil we can drill for, every tree we can cut down before we do what you want us to). This is a point that the "REDUCE" people are in complete denial about. Environmentalism is a luxury practiced by the wealthy. A man with a starving child will cut down the last tree in existence if it will somehow feed his family. You can talk to him all day long about "preserving the ecosystem", he's still gonna cut down that tree. If you want folks to be "eco-friendly" you better make them well-off first. All the "REDUCE" philosophy will lead to is a world a lot like the Sahara Desert.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 6, 2012 8:08:14 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton --- Less expensive small scale energy storage would certainly help.
trag --- Around Tokyo residential customers pay about US$0.25/kWh and the price is going up. I don't have the figures but it must be close to that in California.
|
|
|
Post by Frankie on Oct 7, 2012 7:37:54 GMT 9.5
Anon said:
"Which in many cases is best done by increasing our capabilities and growing our economy so that future generations are as wealthy as possible."
- It is true that economic growth is good for helping to meet people's needs - up to a point. This is provided that the growth is equitable and focussed on "good growth" such as improving health and education services. Economic growth (based on increasing material affluence) past a certain point is ultimately counterproductive to human wellbeing as well as environmental integrity.
"I'd be more worried if it didn't."
- Why?
"Define need? What we think of as needs changes over time."
- That's true. "Need" is a difficult term to pin down. I can tell you unequivocally that a "need" for most people isn't purchasing a new iphone every year, driving 500 metres to the shops, or having access to vegetables grown in Spain. Yet we all seem to consume them anyway.
"It's hardly novel, in fact it's been proposed for thousands of years and still hasn't gotten more than superficial popularity (for good reason I might add)."
- Of course it's not novel. I was using sarcasm.
"But if we use nuclear power we can sustain what you call 'overconsumption' for everyone on this planet (in fact we could sustain for everyone the UN thinks we'll have)."
- Why do you assume that "overconsumption" simply refers to energy usage? The human species consumes a lot more than fossil fuel.
"Is having an air-conditioner over-consumption? Is not starving over-consumption? Is a room for every kid over-consumption? Is women being treated as people over-consumption?"
- If you read my post you would know that I state that "undeveloped" nations should grow such that they can support and meet the needs of their populations. Yes, in many cases having an air-conditioner is overconsumption as we can build (and retrofit) houses with simple materials to reduce heat flow. I'm not sure what you mean by a "room for every kid" - a bedroom? Women being treated as people has nothing to do with the consumption of material goods.
"So your suggestion to solve the conflict is for us to just give in to the green dystopia? Guess I shouldn't be surprised."
- What is dystopian about my suggestion? You seem predicate this statement on the assumption that continual economic growth is always a good thing and that anything else leads to chaos and misery. This is unfounded.
"The real conflict is between the majority of the public (who want things to keep getting better, which implies energy usage will keep increasing as energy is the ability to do work) and people like you, all that the "we must use less instead of nuclear" nonsense is doing is keeping the fossil fuel pushers in business."
- I'm not arguing against nuclear power. Install as much nuclear power as you like. It's not going to change the fact that we are still overconsuming many of the world's natural resources.
"The only results we've gotten out of that is more fossil fuel burning.
It's time we face up to the fact that there is no soft energy path."
- Economic growth remains the core policy goal of virtually every nation on the planet. I would not consider this in any way a concerted effort by governments to address global equity and climate issues.
"Changes the public does not want."
- True. But the public also does't want nuclear energy (at the moment). I assume you're not advocating giving up on the good fight for nuclear though, right?
"Oh sure they may say they do if you ask them, but that's only because they don't actually know what you're asking them (I don't think you even know what it would entail)."
- I do know what it would entail. Localisation of economies, the improvement of individual skill-sets, hard work, likely significant migration of populations, greater emphasis on non-material wealth, etc.
"But anyway, the current patterns are only unsustainable if you refuse to use nuclear power (and even then we'll be burning every lump of coal we can dig up, every drop of oil we can drill for, every tree we can cut down before we do what you want us to)."
- No, again, you seem to think that fossil fuels are the only thing that humans are overconsuming.
"We'd also be pushing ourselves closer to moving our civilisation to space, which to the best of our knowledge is infinite."
- What benefit would we get from moving into space? Where do you see the human race moving to?
"Though nuclear can help with the other ecological limits, e.g. nuclear desalination can remove the need to take water from ecosystems which need it."
- Of course, nuclear energy can help to desalinate water in coastal regions. What about in farming communities across the Murray-Darling? Can nuclear energy solve the agricultural crisis that will soon hit many nations because of the perpetual over-use of fertilisers, pesticides, etc.? Can nuclear energy replace precious metals? Can nuclear energy stop the destruction of rainforests for palm oil, paper and soybean crops? I'm not convinced that simply replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables (without a parallel change to consumption patterns and the economic growth paradigm) can deal with these issues in any meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 7, 2012 10:14:14 GMT 9.5
Frankie --- Materials scientists and engineers are always looking for ways to improve usage of, well, materials. As an example, gold has become very expensive so electronic connectors are now plated in palladium alloys rather than gold.
As for the Murray-Darling, one could always pump desalinated seawater. Rather expensive for farming, but done in some localities.
|
|
|
Post by Frankie on Oct 7, 2012 11:25:08 GMT 9.5
Frankie --- Materials scientists and engineers are always looking for ways to improve usage of, well, materials. As an example, gold has become very expensive so electronic connectors are now plated in palladium alloys rather than gold. As for the Murray-Darling, one could always pump desalinated seawater. Rather expensive for farming, but done in some localities. Why continue to hope for (unrealistic) technological fixes and efficiency gains? Sure, humans are very resourceful when we need to be. However, our species has been running on borrowed time (and resources) for decades now. How long do you seriously think we can keep it up?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 7, 2012 13:30:40 GMT 9.5
Frankie --- In the 1950s geochemist Harrison Brown wrote "The Challenge of Man's Future": www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/126131/harrison-brown/the-challenge-of-mans-future(There are many other reviews.) He also co-wrote "The Next Hundred Years". The one point I remember was his gloomy prediction about minable ores of copper. Guess what? New refining techniques were developed and it is only now that some are predicting copper shortages in a couple of decades. Somehow I expect something will be devised; perhaps you would care to check the copper content of seawater? Similarly nobody could have predicted the invention of carbon fiber materials; these are now used for some automobile bodies as for airplanes. Better than steel and aluminum. I certainly was on top of the developments in computers, but I didn't predict wireless; nobody did. Down one flight and down the hall is a mechanical engineer assistant professor whose research project is a deuterium pellet machine gun for the fusion reactor under construction in France; maybe sometime later this century that'll have a decent EROEI. There are always, always problems. Take delight in solving one or two.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 7, 2012 16:19:09 GMT 9.5
- It is true that economic growth is good for helping to meet people's needs - up to a point. This is provided that the growth is equitable and focussed on "good growth" such as improving health and education services. Economic growth (based on increasing material affluence) past a certain point is ultimately counterproductive to human wellbeing as well as environmental integrity. I question whether you can even have the good growth (as you define it) without the 'bad' coming along for a ride. It also likely requires an affluent society to be able to afford to provide the health and education services to everyone (along with absorb the cost of environmental protection for its own sake). Then there's the fact that parents want a better life for their kids than they had, for that to happen without coming at the expense of other peoples' kids you must have a growing economy. "I'd be more worried if it didn't." - Why? Because then our civilisation would have stagnated. - That's true. "Need" is a difficult term to pin down. I can tell you unequivocally that a "need" for most people isn't purchasing a new iphone every year, driving 500 metres to the shops, or having access to vegetables grown in Spain. Yet we all seem to consume them anyway. When you consider Li-Ion battery lifespan and that the iPhone battery isn't user replaceable I think there is a justification for buying a new one every few years (assuming you want to pay for an overpriced jailphone, that is) but on the whole it isn't all that significant (and old ones can be recycled, somewhat). Driving 500 m to the shops wouldn't be of environmental significance if we used EVs and transporting food is a small proportion of the environmental impact of agriculture (very often less than the impact of growing crops in climates they aren't suited to) which could be removed by increased electrification of rail and nuclear powered shipping. - Why do you assume that "overconsumption" simply refers to energy usage? The human species consumes a lot more than fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are our biggest global scale environmental problem and the solutions to many of the others rely on energy. Besides, what other resources are we running out of that we won't be able to replace? We have enough land available (in fact in the developed world we're giving land back to nature while increasing food production), we can get all the water we need through desalination, there isn't any chemical element we need to worry about running out of and with enough energy we can produce pretty much any compound from the elements which make them up. We are currently running out of wild fish but aquaculture is fast growing and should eventually replace fishing for all but recreation neatly solving that problem. In the long term by the time we come close to approaching any limits to growth on earth we'll probably have more of our population living in space. - If you read my post you would know that I state that "undeveloped" nations should grow such that they can support and meet the needs of their populations. Yes, in many cases having an air-conditioner is overconsumption as we can build (and retrofit) houses with simple materials to reduce heat flow. Even then there will be still be hot days when that isn't sufficient (and a lot of older structures aren't easy to retrofit). I'm not sure what you mean by a "room for every kid" - a bedroom? Yes, a bedroom. Women being treated as people has nothing to do with the consumption of material goods. Though if you look at the countries which have the most equality you'll find they are also the richest. In many cases for women to truly be treated as people you need them to be able to get a job on the other side of the city from the place their husband works (this in many places means two car household). - What is dystopian about my suggestion? You seem predicate this statement on the assumption that continual economic growth is always a good thing and that anything else leads to chaos and misery. This is unfounded. Can you provide any evidence that stagnation doesn't lead to misery? - I'm not arguing against nuclear power. Install as much nuclear power as you like. It's not going to change the fact that we are still overconsuming many of the world's natural resources. Such as? - Economic growth remains the core policy goal of virtually every nation on the planet. I would not consider this in any way a concerted effort by governments to address global equity and climate issues. Economic growth is considered a higher priority than the environment for the simple reason that the majority want a good life for themselves to not destroying the environment (of course they'd like both at the same time, but if asked to choose the economy will win). - True. But the public also does't want nuclear energy (at the moment). I assume you're not advocating giving up on the good fight for nuclear though, right? If we use the nuclear option then economic growth continues, most of the population doesn't see any change except for a bit less pollution, etc. But if we stop economic growth then people are going to see their lives stop getting better (or more likely get worse as the rich will still get richer, just that in a non-growth economy they'll do it at the expense of everyone) and may very well see a lot of other changes they don't like to their day to day lives. The public also isn't necessarily as anti-nuclear as you might think, more undecided on the issue (it's mainly that the anti-nuclear minority is very vocal). - I do know what it would entail. Localisation of economies, the improvement of individual skill-sets, hard work, likely significant migration of populations, greater emphasis on non-material wealth, etc. Going back to the village isn't really such a good idea given that we can handle long distance transportation without environmental problems and that some places really are better at some things than others due to local climatic conditions (especially the case with agriculture and mining). - No, again, you seem to think that fossil fuels are the only thing that humans are overconsuming. So what else are we over-consuming that we won't be able to replace? - What benefit would we get from moving into space? Where do you see the human race moving to? Solar power that's actually worth using, convenient access to zero-g, even more resources than we have on Earth, the ability to support populations thousands of times higher than Earth can with even higher standards of living, making our civilisation impossible to wipe out. I'd expect most of the population of space to be living in large space stations which rotate for artificial gravity (by large I'm talking multi-kilometre stations with relatively small ones suburb sized) though there'll be some on Mars and Venus (which I expect us to terraform eventually) and we'll probably see people settle on any habitable or terraformable planets we find around other stars along with those who remain on Earth (which becomes a tourist planet). - Of course, nuclear energy can help to desalinate water in coastal regions. What about in farming communities across the Murray-Darling? You could pipe the water, that requires more energy to pump it but nuclear could supply that without environmental problems. Water cost would rise but the cost of current desalination is comparable to the average cost of water so I don't see that as too big an issue but it would probably cause farmers to care somewhat more about efficient use of water (whether it'd be enough to make them go to hydroponics is another matter). Can nuclear energy solve the agricultural crisis that will soon hit many nations because of the perpetual over-use of fertilisers, pesticides, etc.? Genetic engineering is currently reducing the use of chemical inputs for farming (and farmers don't overuse them as much as is commonly assumed, they'd much rather not pay for something they don't need). Can nuclear energy replace precious metals? None of which we're running out of, though if we have to mine them at lower concentrations costs will go up (cheap energy could help us there though). Can nuclear energy stop the destruction of rainforests for palm oil, paper and soybean crops? Nuclear can replace a lot of biofuels (not needing to cut down wood for heating or to grow SUV fuel would really help, increased crop yields have allowed the developed world to increase food production while reducing agricultural land usage). It's also worth noting that privately owned forests used to make paper tend to be managed pretty well. I'm not convinced that simply replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables (without a parallel change to consumption patterns and the economic growth paradigm) can deal with these issues in any meaningful way. Would it not be better to try to deal with it without changing consumption patterns in a way the public won't like first? So far I haven't seen any limits to growth in our near term future we don't have a solution for that doesn't require a lower standard of living. Why continue to hope for (unrealistic) technological fixes and efficiency gains? Sure, humans are very resourceful when we need to be. However, our species has been running on borrowed time (and resources) for decades now. How long do you seriously think we can keep it up? People have been saying that for a long time and yet we keep coming up with technofixes and keep eking out efficiency gains (many of which end up subject to Jevons paradox).
|
|
|
Post by trag on Oct 9, 2012 2:05:38 GMT 9.5
Why continue to hope for (unrealistic) technological fixes and efficiency gains? What is unrealistic about them? All of human civilization for the last 20,000 years has been based on "unrealistic technologic fixes". I doubt that most hunter gatherers would have believed that humans could make plentiful food spring from the ground in locations of their choice. With enough cheap energy we can overcome most, if not all, limitations in resources. If relying on "unrealistic" technology makes you uncomfortable, you might as well go looking for a place where you can go back to hunting and gathering. We're on this treadmill whether any individual likes it or not and only way off is feet first.
|
|
|
Post by Frankie on Oct 9, 2012 8:12:33 GMT 9.5
Why continue to hope for (unrealistic) technological fixes and efficiency gains? What is unrealistic about them? All of human civilization for the last 20,000 years has been based on "unrealistic technologic fixes". I doubt that most hunter gatherers would have believed that humans could make plentiful food spring from the ground in locations of their choice. With enough cheap energy we can overcome most, if not all, limitations in resources. If relying on "unrealistic" technology makes you uncomfortable, you might as well go looking for a place where you can go back to hunting and gathering. We're on this treadmill whether any individual likes it or not and only way off is feet first. trag, I'm not concerned about technology. I'm concerned about the blind faith that some people have in it being able to solve the ecological crisis and social inequality. We haven't exactly got a very good track record so far. True, there is lots of good that can come out of technological advancement (medicine, the Internet, transport, etc.) but it needs to be used with conscience and foresight to avoid catastrophic externalities (think climate change, destruction of an enormous amount of forest, ocean acidification, the widening of income gap, rapid loss of biodiversity). We can't just assume that if we pursue the nuclear energy path, and as such have essentially unlimited energy at our disposal, that we will suddenly become more enlightened as to the consequences of the choices we make. We are inherently a short-sighted species. Technology cannot improve foresight, wisdom can.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 9, 2012 14:05:34 GMT 9.5
trag, I'm not concerned about technology. I'm concerned about the blind faith that some people have in it being able to solve the ecological crisis and social inequality. We've shown the ability to solve ecological problems when we want them solved (e.g. ozone layer and if you're in a first-world city local air quality) and social inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing (in the developed world today our poor often have things better than the rich of centuries past). We haven't exactly got a very good track record so far. Compared to what? Has anyone managed to do better than we have? But I don't think our track record really is all that bad. We can't just assume that if we pursue the nuclear energy path, and as such have essentially unlimited energy at our disposal, that we will suddenly become more enlightened as to the consequences of the choices we make. We are inherently a short-sighted species. Technology cannot improve foresight, wisdom can. But with effectively unlimited energy at our disposal we'll be able to afford environmental protection and a welfare state.
|
|
|
Post by trag on Oct 11, 2012 7:23:47 GMT 9.5
We can't just assume that if we pursue the nuclear energy path, and as such have essentially unlimited energy at our disposal, that we will suddenly become more enlightened as to the consequences of the choices we make. We are inherently a short-sighted species. Technology cannot improve foresight, wisdom can. But with effectively unlimited energy at our disposal we'll be able to afford environmental protection and a welfare state. Additionally, cheap plentiful energy gives us more choices. Which is almost always a good thing. Also the ability to pursue multiple options simultaneously. People have treated each other better as wealth increases and populations grow. I think this will continue and the primary danger to it is that if we make choices which reduce wealth we will fall back into states in which we treat each other worse. One of my big fears is that we'll go down the unreliables road, energy will become scarce and expensive, but rather than recognizing the folly of that path, the popular opinion will be that our decline was caused by something else, and so we'll never solve the real sabot in our economic machinery. This kind of scenario also leads to more control as people cede more authority to "do something" to fix the problems, and the wealthy will use that kind of environment to concentrate decreasing wealth in ever fewer hands. Our best bet is a system of affordable, plentiful energy which creates an atmosphere of optimism and openness and does not foster an environment favorable to authoritarian control. "Renewable"/unreliable mandates are the beginnings of that authoritarian control and they are starting a slide to, if not poverty, then a lack of prosperity. Where unreliables are most common, the cost of energy is increasing the fastest.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 11, 2012 14:51:41 GMT 9.5
Of course having multiple countries with some degree of sovereignty is a good thing (despite what the world federalists may believe) because that way if some countries make a mistake others will do the right thing and end up out-competing those who screw up (which will cause many of the countries which screwed up to follow the example of the most prosperous countries).
|
|
|
Post by trag on Oct 12, 2012 2:12:55 GMT 9.5
Of course having multiple countries with some degree of sovereignty is a good thing (despite what the world federalists may believe) because that way if some countries make a mistake others will do the right thing and end up out-competing those who screw up (which will cause many of the countries which screwed up to follow the example of the most prosperous countries). But with so many variables, will they realize which part of the example is the critical one to follow? I mean, if France is prosperous because of widespread nuclear generated electricity, and the USA is floundering, but the popular wisdom is that unreliables are wonderful, wouldn't it be likely that when the USA tries to emulate France, they'd emulate their tax code or trade policy or something like that and overlook energy policy?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Oct 12, 2012 3:32:52 GMT 9.5
But with so many variables, will they realize which part of the example is the critical one to follow? Eventually most will figure it out, though it may take some time. I mean, if France is prosperous because of widespread nuclear generated electricity, and the USA is floundering, but the popular wisdom is that unreliables are wonderful, wouldn't it be likely that when the USA tries to emulate France, they'd emulate their tax code or trade policy or something like that and overlook energy policy? In which case they'll fail (eventually they will notice what the prosperous countries have in common). Of course some countries may be unable to actually figure out what they need to do to remain or become prosperous but it's better that there are some prosperous countries than no prosperous countries which is the realistic alternative.
|
|