|
Post by anonposter on May 30, 2013 22:04:51 GMT 9.5
Yet energy demand is higher now than it was at any time before 1973.
sod doesn't understood that a reduction in energy usage means a reduction in standard of living compared to what we'd have if we didn't reduce our energy usage.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 30, 2013 23:24:55 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 30, 2013 23:49:06 GMT 9.5
Energy use per capita may be a flat graph. However that is not what concerns us, Electricity use is what concerns us. It is highly likely that electricity demand in the majority of the first world will double in the low carbon future you purport to want. Renewables can't hope to provide a hundred gigawatts in the UK or even more absurd figures in the rest of Europe (excepting places like Norway). Additionally this rather proves our point. Despite the myriad forms of energy efficiency introduced since the oil shocks, we have not managed to significantly cut energy use per capita. That is plain out false. There is absolutely zero difference between a fridge that uses less power and one that uses more. (apart from saving money, that is) Now find me a use for that spare money that uses no energy at all. People tend to celebrate the fact that they are spending less on running their refrigerator by buying more goods that use electricity or by taking holidays or whatever. And that is before we get on to the fact that the only way to cut energy use through efficiency is to spike the price. If renewables really were the same price as nuclear, you could not expect any significant additional savings in energy use. Yes, but it still shows you have not managed to reduce energy use overall, all the endless talk of energy efficiency has managed is to hold it flat. You also have to adjust for the abandonment of energy intensive manufacturing and metallurgical industries in most of the west that has suppressed the demand for energy in those countries. That effect is unlikely to continue much longer for the simple reason that all those industries are already gone.
|
|
|
Post by JekR on May 31, 2013 6:24:37 GMT 9.5
Thanks for the link to an interesting article, sod.
I don't think anyone would care about the increasing construction time and cost of nuclear plants if energy efficiency measures were effective.
The fact is that they're not, for two reasons as others on this board have pointed out.
Firstly, gains in efficiency are balanced by increased consumption nullifying any benefit.
Secondly, the magnitude of deep cuts to emissions that are required would impose an unacceptable social cost from the drastically reduced standard of living for everyone. Turning off a few light globes here and there is not going to cut it.
Therefore I'd suggest that "supporters of nuclear power" have come to their position on the basis of rational analysis of what is most likely to succeed in averting climate catastrophe, rather than taking an ideological position.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 31, 2013 9:16:44 GMT 9.5
sod --- Your inference is completely wrong. For example, I advocate both nuclear power and energy efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 31, 2013 12:12:47 GMT 9.5
The reduction that shows looks more like normal variation except for China's increase which does indeed seem to be something other than normal variation. Off-shoring of manufacturing is also likely a big part of it, but that'd be shifting the energy usage to China (partly explaining the increase in Chinese energy usage). sod doesn't understood that a reduction in energy usage means a reduction in standard of living compared to what we'd have if we didn't reduce our energy usage. That is plain out false. There is absolutely zero difference between a fridge that uses less power and one that uses more. (apart from saving money, that is) Except that the one that is more efficient will probably be bigger since if you spend less per volume you may as well just get the bigger fridge. Then there's the fact that the money saved on cooling your food could go to other things that also use energy. So you see, we could get some reduction in energy usage while keeping our standard of living constant (but probably not enough to make renewable energy viable in most places), but we could get a higher standard of living if we instead kept our energy usage constant but used the efficiency to allow us to do more what that same about of energy (e.g. bigger fridge, larger house, more comfortable temperature setting). The average person would rather be more comfortable with the same energy usage than as comfortable as now with less energy usage, otherwise how do you explain energy efficiency of heating in Melbourne increasing an order of magnitude with energy use per capita for heating remaining constant? Yes, because we use the energy efficiency improvements to grow our economy, not to reduce our energy usage.
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jun 1, 2013 18:24:42 GMT 9.5
I simply can't agree with this article. Surely the best, least cost approach is to hammer down energy demand AND decarbonise, not do one OR the other. i completely agree with you. there is a reason, why supporters of nuclear power dislike power saving. Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build up. the future of nuclear power depends on increased power demand. A reduction in power demand is the doom of nuclear power, as it has to compete with (cheap) old plants and financing a plant 10 years in advance is a massive financial gamble. this new article gives reduced demand as a main reason for the decline of nuclear power in the USA around the time of the 3 mile island accident. bos.sagepub.com/content/69/3/63.fullthe article also has this interesting graph: bos.sagepub.com/content/69/3/63/F1.expansion.htmlI support Nuclear Power, Renewables, and demand side reduction measures (efficiency, home PV etc.). I think you'd find most in agreeance, with the occasional black and white proponent. All of these together will work and bring our societies to a low carbon future. All Nuclear build = inflexible All Renewable build = overbuild, goldplate All Efficiency/reduction build = Stone age What BNC and DSA have shown is that not one technology will work, there needs to be a synergy of all. So when a 100% renewable plan comes along BNC will criticise it for it's complexity and overbuild (i.e. Goldplating; building 3 turbines for the work of 1) and the fact it ignores the use of Nuclear. Have the Nuclear plants replace the large fossil plants, have renewables replace and work in the intermediate and peak loads, and have households develop ways to be more electricity efficient. This will not only reduce the numbers of Nuclear plants required (lower more efficient demand) but put renewables with their flexible dispatchability into an area where they can work well. But that conversation is too logical and obvious for our policy makers to latch onto. I've been there and it's all about niche short term projects to impress, rather to achieve a long term objective.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 1, 2013 18:57:39 GMT 9.5
I support Nuclear Power, Renewables, and demand side reduction measures (efficiency, home PV etc.). I think you'd find most in agreeance, with the occasional black and white proponent. The problem with renewables is that with the exception of hydro and geothermal they just don't damn well work. As for demand side reduction, they don't work at lowering CO 2 emissions or energy usage unless it is by hurting the poor. All of these together will work and bring our societies to a low carbon future. No they won't, nuclear will bring us to a low carbon future while renewables and efficiency will do basically nothing to help in that regard. All Nuclear build = inflexible Not really, LFTRs would be able to follow pretty much any load and even if you have to idle plants during low load you'd still only be overbuilding by a factor of about 2. All Renewable build = overbuild, goldplate A bigger problem is that except in the case of having lots of rivers per person it may not even be possible. What BNC and DSA have shown is that not one technology will work, there needs to be a synergy of all. This "all of the above" energy policy is the problem because it includes useless crap like wind and ground based solar among useful stuff like nuclear and hydro and polluting stuff like coal and methane. So when a 100% renewable plan comes along BNC will criticise it for it's complexity and overbuild (i.e. Goldplating; building 3 turbines for the work of 1) and the fact it ignores the use of Nuclear. The bigger criticism is that such a plan is completely unworkable (and usually depends on demand reduction which itself isn't something you should expect to happen). Have the Nuclear plants replace the large fossil plants, have renewables replace and work in the intermediate and peak loads, and have households develop ways to be more electricity efficient. Only if those renewables are hydro or geothermal would that be a good idea and even then households won't reduce their energy usage, they'll just use the same energy to do more unless you raise energy prices to the point at which the poor can't afford to heat their homes in winter (they are also the least likely to be able to afford new more energy efficient stuff). This will not only reduce the numbers of Nuclear plants required (lower more efficient demand) but put renewables with their flexible dispatchability into an area where they can work well. Only hydro and geothermal have dispatchability and we can't be enough of them. Building twice as many nuclear plants as we need for baseload and then just running them at 50% at night is likely to be a better idea than expecting get wind and ground based solar to be able to provide a useful contribution.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 1, 2013 20:44:50 GMT 9.5
Any nuclear power plant can load follow, through the ultimately very crude mechanism of simply dumping steam from the steam generator/reactor directly to the condenser.
Why you would want to is another question, surely you can find something to do with 1-2 cent/kWh electricity?
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jun 3, 2013 15:36:29 GMT 9.5
How am I supposed to respond to these? 1) You nitpick a specific issue out of a group and contextualise it as an absolute. 2) Arguing for arguments sake. Actually... Like it or not we are stuck with Wind, Solar, Coal, and Gas in Australia. It's better to find a way where these industries can fit in rather than shoot for a 100% Nuclear build, as it will remain in fantasy land where it has been. If you ostracise the renewable lobby, the coal lobby, and the petroleum lobby, you have just made three opponents who will all work to have the threat to their industries put down. Hence why it's often noted that the renewable and gas lobby works together, but in reality they aren't having back door meetings they just have a common threat. Look at how in NSW farmers (prolific land clearer's) are apparently working with green groups. They have just found a common threat in CSG. Be diplomatic, and work for realistic solutions. Rather than remaining in fantasy land where all the 100% [favourite energy generator] groups live. Real action is writing a letter to a local representative, or start up a campaign to have s10 of the APANS Act and s140 of the EPBC act revoked. That is real action on Nuclear that doesn't ostracise the other industry groups. Then work on the issues specific to a Nuclear industry in Australia, such as value adding to the Uranium industry i.e jobs, establishing further regulations and powers to ARPANSA, ASNO, and ANSTO etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 3, 2013 17:37:09 GMT 9.5
How am I supposed to respond to these? Maybe by showing what is wrong with them. Like it or not we are stuck with Wind, Solar, Coal, and Gas in Australia. Which means we don't have a chance at doing anything much, if the natural gas industry can control its methane leakage we could get to half as bad while a lot more expensive by replacing coal with gas but that's the best we could do without nuclear. It's better to find a way where these industries can fit in rather than shoot for a 100% Nuclear build, as it will remain in fantasy land where it has been. But those industries can not fit in, coal and gas produce too much CO 2 (though I'd close the gas plants down last) while wind and solar aren't reliable enough. The idea that we can keep our coal industry belongs in fantasy land as we simply can not do that and it is time for people to accept that reality. If you ostracise the renewable lobby, the coal lobby, and the petroleum lobby, you have just made three opponents who will all work to have the threat to their industries put down. It's only the coal and petroleum lobbies that are a worry, the renewable lobby only exists because they are useful to the later two. But it has been noted that countries without much in the way of domestic fossil fuels tend to do a lot better at moving away from fossil fuels for power generation. Be diplomatic, and work for realistic solutions. The only realistic way to solve global warming is to stop burning coal and to stop burning methane and the only technology that has a chance at replacing those sources of energy in most places is nuclear fission. Even if we try to say that we don't intend to get rid of all the others they will know full well that with nuclear there is essentially no place for anything else. Rather than remaining in fantasy land where all the 100% [favourite energy generator] groups live. Fantasy land is us solving global warming without switching our electricity supply to about 80% nuclear. Real action is writing a letter to a local representative, or start up a campaign to have s10 of the APANS Act and s140 of the EPBC act revoked. That is real action on Nuclear that doesn't ostracise the other industry groups. Making it possible for nuclear power plants to be built (not merely in the sense of not being illegal) here would ostracise the other energy industry groups as their market would disappear (only thing that kept nuclear from being dominant is that the regulations are set up to make it more expensive without improving the product, in places where it isn't just banned outright).
|
|