In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 09 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: 'anti-energy' sounds ridiculous. It just seems like democrats seem to focus on promoting renewables. (which, as published in this http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html recent Stanford study, would actually be able to supply enough power for the US by 2050)
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
Promoting clean energy is fine but there are real short run limits. We're not at the point where we can ignore fossil fuels and if you push hard against them you do become anti-energy at some point.
Edit: there are also some inequality issues with green jobs as well.
Well when you think about China and India there is some rationale for pushing a bit faster than our personal situation might require.
Think about it like this. China/India is going to need a LOT more energy over the next 50 years. The harder we can push them away from dirtier and more dangerous fossil fuels the faster they will embrace safer greener energies. (Cleaner air and water for everyone and less environmental damage)
There are several ways we can put pressure on countries like India and China to embrace greener energy solutions.
I think there are good ideas and bad ones and some that work better at certain times than others. A robust and reasonable debate around the issue is crucial to coming up with high-quality effective solutions.
@oneofthem You could at least make the effort the read the study I linked before mindlessly starting to promote nuclear energy again with nonsensical two liners.
Promoting clean energy is fine but there are real short run limits. We're not at the point where we can ignore fossil fuels and if you push hard against them you do become anti-energy at some point.
Edit: there are also some inequality issues with green jobs as well
After all the best way for a developed nation to stay wealthy is to promote productive jobs that won't go away. The renewable energy sector seems quite reasonable for that. All US conservatives seem to promote are labour heavy blue collar jobs that might pay well in short-term, but fail to ensure long-term prosperity.
yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
On May 09 2014 10:19 oneofthem wrote: yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
In the long term renewables are the only option because they're fuel independent. If you don't give a crap about that you can build coal or gas plants. I don't see why someone would promote a source of energy that is expensive and unsustainable.
On May 09 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: 'anti-energy' sounds ridiculous. It just seems like democrats seem to focus on promoting renewables. (which, as published in this http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html recent Stanford study, would actually be able to supply enough power for the US by 2050)
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
Promoting clean energy is fine but there are real short run limits. We're not at the point where we can ignore fossil fuels and if you push hard against them you do become anti-energy at some point.
Edit: there are also some inequality issues with green jobs as well.
Well when you think about China and India there is some rationale for pushing a bit faster than our personal situation might require.
Think about it like this. China/India is going to need a LOT more energy over the next 50 years. The harder we can push them away from dirtier and more dangerous fossil fuels the faster they will embrace safer greener energies. (Cleaner air and water for everyone and less environmental damage)
There are several ways we can put pressure on countries like India and China to embrace greener energy solutions.
I think there are good ideas and bad ones and some that work better at certain times than others. A robust and reasonable debate around the issue is crucial to coming up with high-quality effective solutions.
What inequalities are you referencing?
In the short run we've been reducing pollution and CO2 in the US anyways so I don't think we need to rush for our own benefit. I think China's at the point where pollution is becoming a major concern, just like in the US 50 or so years ago. I won't be surprised to see them turn a corner in a few years.
As for inequalities... The subsidies go (directly at least) lopsidedly to the the relatively well off. 'Dirty' jobs tend to be in poor areas (ex. coal mining in Appalachia) and green jobs are often in well to do areas (solar panels in suburbs).
Just speculating on this bit, but green jobs may also exacerbate returns to skill. Dealing with the subsidies is complex so lawyers and financiers benefit. But the average green job isn't terribly productive and so the average pay isn't too great so there could be a wide differential. + Show Spoiler +
On average, green jobs pay less than their conventional counterparts: $48,210 vs. $58,130. But the differential, well, differs significantly between industries.
Those working in business and financial industries, for example, stand to benefit significantly from holding green jobs, which pay an average of $83,740 as compared to $69,530. Going green in architecture and engineering can pay even more of a premium: The average salary for green workers in the field is $105,670 as compared to $75,920 for conventional work. source
On May 09 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: 'anti-energy' sounds ridiculous. It just seems like democrats seem to focus on promoting renewables. (which, as published in this http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html recent Stanford study, would actually be able to supply enough power for the US by 2050)
I think it makes a little more sense to promote an industry that produces clean energy that is independent from fossil fuels than promoting blue collar jobs in energy sections that have very heavy environmental drawbacks and will probably go away in the foreseeable future.
Promoting clean energy is fine but there are real short run limits. We're not at the point where we can ignore fossil fuels and if you push hard against them you do become anti-energy at some point.
Edit: there are also some inequality issues with green jobs as well.
Well when you think about China and India there is some rationale for pushing a bit faster than our personal situation might require.
Think about it like this. China/India is going to need a LOT more energy over the next 50 years. The harder we can push them away from dirtier and more dangerous fossil fuels the faster they will embrace safer greener energies. (Cleaner air and water for everyone and less environmental damage)
There are several ways we can put pressure on countries like India and China to embrace greener energy solutions.
I think there are good ideas and bad ones and some that work better at certain times than others. A robust and reasonable debate around the issue is crucial to coming up with high-quality effective solutions.
What inequalities are you referencing?
In the short run we've been reducing pollution and CO2 in the US anyways so I don't think we need to rush for our own benefit. I think China's at the point where pollution is becoming a major concern, just like in the US 50 or so years ago. I won't be surprised to see them turn a corner in a few years.
As for inequalities... The subsidies go (directly at least) lopsidedly to the the relatively well off. 'Dirty' jobs tend to be in poor areas (ex. coal mining in Appalachia) and green jobs are often in well to do areas (solar panels in suburbs).
Just speculating on this bit, but green jobs may also exacerbate returns to skill. Dealing with the subsidies is complex so lawyers and financiers benefit. But the average green job isn't terribly productive and so the average pay isn't too great so there could be a wide differential. + Show Spoiler +
On average, green jobs pay less than their conventional counterparts: $48,210 vs. $58,130. But the differential, well, differs significantly between industries.
Those working in business and financial industries, for example, stand to benefit significantly from holding green jobs, which pay an average of $83,740 as compared to $69,530. Going green in architecture and engineering can pay even more of a premium: The average salary for green workers in the field is $105,670 as compared to $75,920 for conventional work. source
It might be good in the long run for the people in Appalachia to not be tied to the coal industry anyways, though short term it would lead to unemployment.
On May 09 2014 10:19 oneofthem wrote: yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
In the long term renewables are the only option because they're fuel independent. If you don't give a crap about that you can build coal or gas plants. I don't see why someone would promote a source of energy that is expensive and unsustainable.
I could see how nuclear could be a viable bridge tech but I agree that it shouldn't be a significant part of a long term solution.
Fuel and waste are some real complications with something like nuclear energy. To be fair, renewables require some precious materials that do have enviromental and human costs that are often ignored in discussions around energy.
That's why I don't like terms like 0-emissions because they open the door for people to call renewable energy advocates 'liars' even if it's only a result of misunderstanding what was meant.
On May 09 2014 10:19 oneofthem wrote: yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
In the long term renewables are the only option because they're fuel independent. If you don't give a crap about that you can build coal or gas plants. I don't see why someone would promote a source of energy that is expensive and unsustainable.
I could see how nuclear could be a viable bridge tech but I agree that it shouldn't be a significant part of a long term solution.
Fuel and waste are some real complications with something like nuclear energy. To be fair, renewables require some precious materials that do have enviromental and human costs that are often ignored in discussions around energy.
That's why I don't like terms like 0-emissions because they open the door for people to call renewable energy advocates 'liars' even if it's only a result of misunderstanding what was meant.
Yes I agree. I didn't mean that we should abandon all nuclear plants immediately. But for a country like the US which isn't big on nuclear energy anyway it doesn't make much sense to start relying on it. Gas is amazingly cheap(and the US has plenty of it) and should be enough of a bridge technology until the country could make the transition to renewables.
On May 09 2014 10:19 oneofthem wrote: yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
In the long term renewables are the only option because they're fuel independent. If you don't give a crap about that you can build coal or gas plants. I don't see why someone would promote a source of energy that is expensive and unsustainable.
I could see how nuclear could be a viable bridge tech but I agree that it shouldn't be a significant part of a long term solution.
Fuel and waste are some real complications with something like nuclear energy. To be fair, renewables require some precious materials that do have enviromental and human costs that are often ignored in discussions around energy.
That's why I don't like terms like 0-emissions because they open the door for people to call renewable energy advocates 'liars' even if it's only a result of misunderstanding what was meant.
Yes I agree. I didn't mean that we should abandon all nuclear plants immediately. But for a country like the US which isn't big on nuclear energy anyway it doesn't make much sense to start relying on it. Gas is amazingly cheap(and the US has plenty of it) and should be enough of a bridge technology until the country could make the transition to renewables.
Not a huge fan of gas myself but truth be told the negative effects are largely concentrated on location of the fracking sites (other than when they release huge plumes of VOC's) but even the damage from those is pretty local. If I lived near a place where it was actively being done I would probably be ardently against it. But if those places want it/need it to keep people working/from moving away or whatever I suppose that's up to them.
On May 09 2014 10:19 oneofthem wrote: yes, you have some articles. but it is a fact that a linear non-threshold based radioactivity risk model is bunk. have you actually looked into the issue on the other side?
the germans' crusade against nuclear energy is dumb as fuck
In the long term renewables are the only option because they're fuel independent. If you don't give a crap about that you can build coal or gas plants. I don't see why someone would promote a source of energy that is expensive and unsustainable.
I could see how nuclear could be a viable bridge tech but I agree that it shouldn't be a significant part of a long term solution.
Fuel and waste are some real complications with something like nuclear energy. To be fair, renewables require some precious materials that do have enviromental and human costs that are often ignored in discussions around energy.
That's why I don't like terms like 0-emissions because they open the door for people to call renewable energy advocates 'liars' even if it's only a result of misunderstanding what was meant.
I don't think nuclear works well as a bridge technology. It takes a fairly long time to build and is expected to run for 40-50 years. Most of the cost is upfront, so if it only runs for 20-30 years that makes the cost of producing a unit of energy even higher.
It might be reasonable to extend the permits for some nuclear power plants, and it's certainly not a good idea to close down all of them, but building a lot of new ones doesn't really make sense.
But the only real solution is to drive down the cost of renewables to a point where almost all of the new capacity in developing countries is renewable for economic reasons. From a pure price/unit of energy that time is much closer than most people realize, but the fact that wind and solar are intermittent will continue to be a challenge in the short term.
Of course the holy grail would be carbon capture and storage that could be installed relatively inexpensively on existing power plants, but I don't think that's going to happen at all.
cap cost for nuclear plants is high, but keep in mind this is cost before applying process optimization and economy of scale, which would be in place if a more systematic effort of building nuclear is there. the scale coefficient for capacity on one site is something like n=0.4, with the equation cost of p1 = cost of p0 * (p1/p0)^n.
where p1 and p0 are capacity.
more importantly, with continued technological maturity we'll probably be able to have cheap and residue clean nuclear power and this can last for the history of civilization with good breeders and ocean mining. nuclear waste in some historical moments was not handled well, but it's not an unsolvable problem at all.
On May 09 2014 14:24 oneofthem wrote: cap cost for nuclear plants is high, but keep in mind this is cost before applying process optimization and economy of scale, which would be in place if a more systematic effort of building nuclear is there. the scale coefficient for capacity is something like n=0.4, with the equation cost of p1 = cost of p0 * (p1/p0)^n.
You're claiming unit costs would drop 33% for every doubling of capacity. What's the justification for that?
I actually have no idea how the cost structure of a nuclear reactor looks like. I've heard some new type of reactors built in Finland and France suffered delays and cost overruns but no idea what the specific issues were.
more importantly, with continued technological maturity we'll probably be able to have cheap and residue clean nuclear power and this can last for the history of civilization with good breeders and ocean mining. nuclear waste in some historical moments was not handled well, but it's not an unsolvable problem at all.
Surprisingly, long term (say 30-50 years from now) is not really an issue. Solar + wind + batteries will probably be more than good enough but it might as well be new types of fission reactors or possibly fusion. The question is what is the best solution in the the meantime. I suspect nuclear couldn't compete in cost even it higher scale but even if it could the political will is just not there.
of course cost for these things is highly site dependent and cost overruns have indeed happened, but this cost overrun is within the context of reduced nuclear construction. so a reverse scaling problem associated with lower experience in building.
china is building like 50 LWRs with a per kw cost of around 2k, which is less than half of the same cost for U.S. reactors, and a lot of that is scaling.
as for long term cost competitiveness with solar, it'll probably depend on what kind of storage tech is available. building le chemical batteries for grid is amusing and environmentally deadly probably, but hey if you manage to solve this problem then we can probably get rid of oil altogether so that's the bigger upside. on the nuclear side of things, new reactor designs like molten salt plutonium coupled with fast breeders should be simpler to build and design than older reactors.
On May 09 2014 14:24 oneofthem wrote: cap cost for nuclear plants is high, but keep in mind this is cost before applying process optimization and economy of scale, which would be in place if a more systematic effort of building nuclear is there. the scale coefficient for capacity on one site is something like n=0.4, with the equation cost of p1 = cost of p0 * (p1/p0)^n.
where p1 and p0 are capacity.
more importantly, with continued technological maturity we'll probably be able to have cheap and residue clean nuclear power and this can last for the history of civilization with good breeders and ocean mining. nuclear waste in some historical moments was not handled well, but it's not an unsolvable problem at all.
Chiefly, the major hurdle is changing public opinion about the dangers of nuclear power. The LWR's of accident fame are all these 70s and 80s designs (which, if you'll remember, solar and wind were pretty terrible back then). Conquer the regulatory moratorium and restore some confidence (Thorium, anyone? MSR's breeders anyone?) and then we have a level playing field where nuclear comes into its own. Cheap and clean nuclear power with virtually none of current renewal's issues with storage, variability, and power capacity. I've seen some scientists concerned with green energy get on board that acknowledge the great hunger for Power and not just Energy.
nuclear power's traditional high capital and basically everything cost also meant only a few utility companies were in the business and they didn't really have any design innovations despite experimental molten salt reactors running around. situation pretty different nowadays
Imo there are no valid substitutions in the near future. Nuclear energy is not that great considering the cost of the deject it create. What we need is to wake up, and propose a real policy at the global scale that seeks to reduce environmental impacts and not to reach some kind of pollution optimum. We need a change in consumption and production and not only in energy.
Personally, I would love a shift away from "clean fossil fuel" initiatives and towards nuclear options. That doesn't mean outright building traditional nuclear plants, but rather changing investment strategies and exploring those avenues more. We spend a lot of money trying to create cleaner energy out of coal and natural gas, when the result is STILL a plant that doesn't meet the lighter standards of pollution.
Renewables seem well funded and on the right track for now...
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rrkkoJo.gif)
