2 2
JoeWeber

To gouge or not to gouge

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy 

Well, except for offshore wind farms in a few places.  Most significantly is that nuclear is also the most reliable type of power. That reliability comes at a premium price. For me, reliable energy (in the context of home and business electricity) should be the only kind that exists in a 1st-world economy. As to cost comparison; You're now reverting to older threads that have already been debated to exhaustion. The costs have lot of variables for comparative energy density and billeisele has mentioned some other aspects of 'green' expenses in the previous post.

Also consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')?  Contrast that against solar panel fabrication, cobalt, zinc... How is our relationship with these suppliers in the current political climate?  ..and how could that affect future pricing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, metalslug said:

As to cost comparison; You're now reverting to older threads that have already been debated to exhaustion.

Then why are you bringing it up again? You agreed that nuclear is expensive, why not just leave it at that? For that "exhausted" argument, you can look it up at the IEA.

13 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Most significantly is that nuclear is also the most reliable type of power. That reliability comes at a premium price.

Then you should have started your argument as being about reliability, not about money. Why didn't you? You specifically mentioned money.

 

Look, I'm actually agreeing with you about the need for nuclear and spending more money. But you're just being rather inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Well, except for offshore wind farms in a few places.

Offshore wind: $83/mwhr

Nuclear power: $131-$204/mwhr

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

I am sure you can come up with an example where an offshore wind farm failed miserably, but then you are going to have to compare that failed wind project to the cost of Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Quote

Reliable energy (in the context of home and business electricity) should be the only kind that exists in a 1st-world economy. 

OK.  So it's not the people or the money.  Now it's reliability?

I have, by far, the most reliable power of anyone else here, because I have both solar generation and a backup battery system.  Every home, company, military base, school, hospital etc in the US could do the same thing and guarantee themselves very reliable power.  Much lower risk of a crane taking out a power line, a wildfire causing transmission line shutdowns or a truck running in to a transformer.   If it's not people and it's not money, and reliability is everything, then that's the way to go.

Quote

Also consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')?  

The two largest uranium suppliers in the world are Kazakhstan and Namibia.  No, they're not friendly to us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

The toxic materials in solar panels are serious. Unfortunately the cost to recycle is 10-30 times higher than the value obtained from the recycled materials, that makes recycling unlikely. Once in a landfill those chemicals will leach into drinking water. There are plenty of articles on the topic.

The vast majority of solar cells DO NOT contain toxic materials. Those which are toxic are perovskite solar cells or thin-film (CIGS) solar cells, neither of which are very common. (Perovskites are still in the lab research phase)

Most solar cells just contain silicon and glass, and maybe aluminium or steel supporting structure.
 

Edit to add: they do not use cobalt (and zinc is used in your ordinary galvanised steel so it's everywhere, not a conflict or rare metal at all)

 

While the HBR article has a good point, partly-degraded solar cells are still useful, so it's unlikely their hypothetical "home user" would send it straight to landfill. There will be industrial or other users which would be glad to get their hands on a cut-price panel that's still generates some energy. It's the same with lithium batteries - their lifespans are now so long, that even degraded EV batteries can get a second life as domestic batteries or even grid-scale batteries.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Offshore wind: $83/mwhr....

The two largest uranium suppliers in the world are Kazakhstan and Namibia.  No, they're not friendly to us.

Generac has the highest penetration in the consumer market for backup generators. They have recently started advertising backup battery power.

IMO you're summation is correct.. Nuclear power is so politically hard to get approval for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

When the waste stream issues are included renewables become a major problem.

I agree that the solid waste stream is an issue.  It is, however, a far less serious issue than the waste issue with nuclear power or coal.  And for OVERALL waste (including CO2) even natural gas is a lot more of a problem.

Quote

The toxic materials in solar panels are serious.

Yes, and the toxic materials in coal fly and bottom ash are even more serious - and leak into the environment at a far higher rate. 

Fortunately the materials in solar-PV can be recycled.  And forunately when PV panels are replaced, 99.9% of the time it is due to newer more efficient panels being available, or an old power plant being shut down.  In other words, they still work.  And given the huge appetite for the developing world for very cheap solar, the only problem becomes how to get those older panels to them cheaply.

Quote

"In turn, this would catapult the LCOE to four times the current projection."

Which would still make it cheaper than gas, coal or nuclear.  And if we apply the same requirements to those sources (i.e. all nuclear waste has to be recycled, all coal ash has to be recycled, all CO2 from natural gas has to be sequestered) then those all double in price at LEAST, leaving solar cheaper by a wide margin.

BTW the author of that article is famous anti-renewables lobbyist (and climate change denier) Michael Shellenberger.  He calls solar panels "genocide panels."  A little hard to take him seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Also consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')? 

 

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

The two largest uranium suppliers in the world are Kazakhstan and Namibia.  No, they're not friendly to us.

That's fascinating but has fsckall to do with what you replied to. Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada have the largest reserves of Uranium. I'm sure we'll get by if governments are willing to commit.

Edit to FYI; Namibia is friendly to the US at least.

Edited by metalslug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Then you should have started your argument as being about reliability, not about money. Why didn't you? You specifically mentioned money.

Look, I'm actually agreeing with you about the need for nuclear and spending more money. But you're just being rather inconsistent.

The discussion of money came up when were discussing budgets for preparing for local change vs preventing global change. I advocated that the former should take precedence, at least for a decade or two, and within an Australian context I'm fine for government to keep using existing coal and LNG power as the best current cost vs reliability balance while they conserve budget to build dams, flood levies, military spending, national debt reduction, etc. Once those things are at an acceptable level (subjective opinion) then gradually swap coal power sites for nuclear, whereby some of the expenses are mitigated by existing infrastructure at those sites and modular reactor costs might even be lower than present.  I accept that other countries may have different scenarios.

Edited by metalslug
Edited to include LNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Once those things are at an acceptable level (subjective opinion)

So...never then.

In 2019 Australia burned, in 2022 it floods. Who knew having a stable climate is actually good for finances? To each his own I guess, after all, it's all about the money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, metalslug said:

That's fascinating but has fsckall to do with what you replied to.

You said that you have to "consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')? "

Supply chain starts at the mine.  And in reality that means it starts at Kazakhstan and Namibia.

But no worries.  I am sure that in a few days, in another thread, you'll go after EV's because they mine cobalt for certain types of batteries in the Congo.  (Who we also have good relations with.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, olofscience said:

In 2019 Australia burned, in 2022 it floods. Who knew having a stable climate is actually good for finances? To each his own I guess, after all, it's all about the money...

Oh, that's hilarious. You're one of the people who believe that Aussies reducing their 1.3% of global emissions contribution will somehow reduce bushfires and flooding there? This ties with your AI 'all jobs are doomed' as the biggest whopper you've written yet. 'Scientist' indeed.  OTOH building dams and flood levies will actually have a meaningful impact in NSW regardless of whether China, Russia or India reduce their emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, metalslug said:

You're one of the people who believe that Aussies reducing their 1.3% of global emissions contribution will somehow reduce bushfires and flooding there? 

Nope.  But if they are one of the continents reducing their emissions along with all the other continents, then yes it will help.

That's a basic difference between progressives and conservatives.  If a few pizzas get delivered to a party, the progressive might have only one slice in case they don't have enough for everyone.  The conservative has four slices - for exactly the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  But if they are one of the continents reducing their emissions along with all the other continents, then yes it will help.

Which is not what is happening, hence it should not yet be a priority over more immediate concerns, especially for smaller contributors.

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

That's a basic difference between progressives and conservatives.  If a few pizzas get delivered to a party, the progressive might have only one slice in case they don't have enough for everyone.  The conservative has four slices - for exactly the same reason.

You can recite that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Doesn't make it true. It's right up there with "anything that sounds bad" which of course can only have a conservative cause. I'm sure when your next pizza delivery is late there will also be a conservative to blame for that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Which is not what is happening, hence it should not yet be a priority over more immediate concerns, especially for smaller contributors.

24 countries have reduced CO2 emissions between 1970 and 2018.

Quote

You can recite that to yourself if it makes you feel better.

You just provided a perfect example above.

Progressives will reduce emissions because it's the right thing to do, and will work together to bring down global CO2 emissions.  Even if it means they don’t get all the pizza they want right then and there.  And even if every other country doesn’t join them right away.

Conservatives say "not enough other people are doing it, so why the hell should I care?  I'll just get all the pizza oil I want and burn it because it helps me in the short term!  Let someone else suffer.”

It doesn’t help to make your point when you contradict it one sentence above.

Quote

I'm sure when your next pizza delivery is late there will also be a conservative to blame for that too.

Uh - I hate to ask this - but you realize that we're not actually talking about pizza here, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billvon said:

24 countries have reduced CO2 emissions between 1970 and 2018.

Wow, a whole 24?  And what global percentage reduction have they collectively achieved in that time? Some reports suggest global emissions have gone up by more than 50%. Other than less smog over their own cities (your LA example) , do those 24 nations regard that as money well spent? In a perfect world their efforts might be admirable but until such time as the largest contributors (notably India, China, Russia) start feeling real domestic pressure to act then I don't expect it will happen. The money and effort they saved by not taking climate action has in part been spent on their war machines (China & Russia) and somehow that feels more concerning to me right now that the rest of the world has not. Those nations, right now, can do a lot more damage than climate change over the same period and have expressed a willingness to do so.

The UK and parts of Europe have walked back on many of their COP26 commitments in view of Russian sanctions. Despite a heatwave in the UK right now it hasn't triggered them to again shut down all their coal powerplants today, as curiously electrical power is actually needed to run hospitals and cooling systems. It's fairly common sense to address the things that are going to matter most right now.

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Conservatives say "not enough other people are doing it, so why the hell should I care?  I'll just get all the pizza oil I want and burn it because it helps me in the short term!  Let someone else suffer.”

It doesn’t help to make your point when you contradict it one sentence above.

You choose to interpret it as a contradiction because your analogy doesn't fit. How about "Lets take a collection to buy pizza for everyone in the room but only willing contributors need to pay regardless of how much you can afford to give. Then we'll do the same each day and every day for the next several years, and it will always be the same people expected to pay, and you'll gradually all go hungry anyway as the collection is insufficient to adequately feed everyone."  Would it not be more effective by allowing the gluttonous freeloaders to go hungry until they actually decide to chip in on the next round?  And since nobody is getting global pizza until then you could buy yourself some local burgers instead to make do until they come around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Oh, that's hilarious. You're one of the people who believe that Aussies reducing their 1.3% of global emissions contribution will somehow reduce bushfires and flooding there? This ties with your AI 'all jobs are doomed' as the biggest whopper you've written yet. 'Scientist' indeed.  OTOH building dams and flood levies will actually have a meaningful impact in NSW regardless of whether China, Russia or India reduce their emissions.

First, it's spelled "flood levees".

Not being able to spell that, and running away from actually supporting your statements in that AI thread makes me feel secure about any judgements you make of my technical ability.

What's hilarious is you agreed with me about nuclear, but are now doing lots of mental gymnastics when I pointed out the inconsistency of your thinking, and are now resorting to personal insults.

 

Oh and by the way, 1.3% can get quite significant due to the effect of compound interest. So thinking that won't make a difference is silly, but I guess you're used to that aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Which is not what is happening, hence it should not yet be a priority over more immediate concerns, especially for smaller contributors.

You can recite that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Doesn't make it true. It's right up there with "anything that sounds bad" which of course can only have a conservative cause. I'm sure when your next pizza delivery is late there will also be a conservative to blame for that too.

 

6 hours ago, metalslug said:

Wow, a whole 24?  And what global percentage reduction have they collectively achieved in that time? Some reports suggest global emissions have gone up by more than 50%. Other than less smog over their own cities (your LA example) , do those 24 nations regard that as money well spent? In a perfect world their efforts might be admirable but until such time as the largest contributors (notably India, China, Russia) start feeling real domestic pressure to act then I don't expect it will happen. The money and effort they saved by not taking climate action has in part been spent on their war machines (China & Russia) and somehow that feels more concerning to me right now that the rest of the world has not. Those nations, right now, can do a lot more damage than climate change over the same period and have expressed a willingness to do so.

The UK and parts of Europe have walked back on many of their COP26 commitments in view of Russian sanctions. Despite a heatwave in the UK right now it hasn't triggered them to again shut down all their coal powerplants today, as curiously electrical power is actually needed to run hospitals and cooling systems. It's fairly common sense to address the things that are going to matter most right now.

You choose to interpret it as a contradiction because your analogy doesn't fit. How about "Lets take a collection to buy pizza for everyone in the room but only willing contributors need to pay regardless of how much you can afford to give. Then we'll do the same each day and every day for the next several years, and it will always be the same people expected to pay, and you'll gradually all go hungry anyway as the collection is insufficient to adequately feed everyone."  Would it not be more effective by allowing the gluttonous freeloaders to go hungry until they actually decide to chip in on the next round?  And since nobody is getting global pizza until then you could buy yourself some local burgers instead to make do until they come around.

Bill and olofscience are doing a bang up job of the head banging effort trying to educate a modern US conservative. Since you insist on bring up China, Russia, India and other developing countries....Oh hell.... perhaps the better educated may find this JP Morgan Asset Management 2022 Eye on the Market Energy Paper interesting. Naturally it contradicts everything you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Bill and olofscience are doing a bang up job of the head banging effort trying to educate a modern US conservative.

Yup, they have certainly being banging their heads a lot here.

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

He's not US based.

..and that is an indicator why Phil believes his document 'contradicts everything I post'. He either hasn't read his own document, or hasn't read what I've posted, or fails to properly comprehend either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, olofscience said:

Between the spelling mistakes, ...

That's your take now?  Some typos? That's the surest sign that you have nothing left in the tank.  Half the posts of everyone here have some grammatical slip somewhere. If you can convince yourself you're 'winning' by finding them then carry on...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2022 at 3:07 AM, metalslug said:

Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world?  ...as though that will reduce a perceived global problem?  Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine.

Sure, just like in communist Canada we have banned the use of asbestos, while happily shipping it to other parts of the world.

We also do something similar with coal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, metalslug said:

You choose to interpret it as a contradiction because your analogy doesn't fit.

OK so you took it in a different direction.  Let me explain.

In the case of the pizza, a liberal is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces.  Sure he could take two pieces, but he feels a responsibilty to not be part of the problem.  So he takes one piece, in the hopes that if everyone else takes one piece like he is doing, even though it leaves him a little hungry.  That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone will only take one piece.  They still might run out.  But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out taking one piece, he helps that happen.

The conservative is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces - just like the liberal does.  But the conservative looks at it a different way.  He figures he will take four slices because he is hungry.  And perhaps there might not be enough for everyone in that case, but his #1 priority is getting enough pizza.  And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way there will be enough - but as long as he gets his pizza before they run out, he 'wins.'  Let the people who lose deal with their slowness and be more aggressive next time.

Now this is an analogy.  There is really no pizza.  The pizza was an analogy to our current approach of using the environment as a "free dump."

So let's look at this in that light.  The below is the analogous comparison.

The liberal looks at the CO2 emissions that we are generating.  He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can.  So he does what he can to reduce the CO2 that he/his family/his business/his town/his state/his country emits.  Sure he could keep emitting as much as he can, but he feels a responsibility to not be part of the problem.  So he reduces his emissions, even if it leaves him a little poorer.  That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone else will reduce theirs.  They still might have problems.  But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out emitting less CO2, he helps that happen.

The conservative is going to look at the CO2 emissions that we are generating.  He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can - just like the liberal does.  (I am making the assumption here that the conservative is not a climate change denier,)  But the conservative looks at it a different way.  He figures he will emit as much CO2 as he can because it's cheaper for him - his gas car is slightly cheaper, a gas furnace is cheaper than a heat pump, avoiding getting solar saves money, his car is more convenient than the train.  And perhaps there will be problems in the future if everyone takes his approach, but his #1 priority is getting more money.  And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way they will achieve a significant reduction.  After all, "Wow, a whole 24 countries?"  Think of "the money and effort they saved by not taking climate action!"   And as long as he gets richer than other people, and as long as he dies before the climate gets REALLY bad, he 'wins.'

Quote

"Would it not be more effective by allowing the gluttonous freeloaders to go hungry until they actually decide to chip in on the next round? "

Sure, that can work.  That in the context of climate is a ruinous carbon tax, such that if you are one of the gluttons, you lose a lot of money.  That way the people helping save the pizza are not impacted, but the gluttons are - and they have an incentive to reduce their gluttony if they still want access to that pizza.

So either you really proposed that, which would be something I could support if it's done well - or you missed the analogy that the free pizza is the ability of our environment to deal with our waste.  It is effectively a free dump.  Charging the gluttons to use the dump ends their freeloading.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

OK so you took it in a different direction.  Let me explain.

In the case of the pizza, a liberal is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces.  Sure he could take two pieces, but he feels a responsibilty to not be part of the problem.  So he takes one piece, in the hopes that if everyone else takes one piece like he is doing, even though it leaves him a little hungry.  That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone will only take one piece.  They still might run out.  But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out taking one piece, he helps that happen.

The conservative is going to look at the amount of pizza, and the number of people, and think perhaps there might not be enough for everyone if everyone takes two pieces - just like the liberal does.  But the conservative looks at it a different way.  He figures he will take four slices because he is hungry.  And perhaps there might not be enough for everyone in that case, but his #1 priority is getting enough pizza.  And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way there will be enough - but as long as he gets his pizza before they run out, he 'wins.'  Let the people who lose deal with their slowness and be more aggressive next time.

Now this is an analogy.  There is really no pizza.  The pizza was an analogy to our current approach of using the environment as a "free dump."

So let's look at this in that light.  The below is the analogous comparison.

The liberal looks at the CO2 emissions that we are generating.  He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can.  So he does what he can to reduce the CO2 that he/his family/his business/his town/his state/his country emits.  Sure he could keep emitting as much as he can, but he feels a responsibility to not be part of the problem.  So he reduces his emissions, even if it leaves him a little poorer.  That does not mean there are any guarantees that everyone else will reduce theirs.  They still might have problems.  But he has hopes that others will do the same as he did, and by starting out emitting less CO2, he helps that happen.

The conservative is going to look at the CO2 emissions that we are generating.  He thinks there might be serious problems in the future for everyone if just keeps emitting CO2 as fast as they can - just like the liberal does.  (I am making the assumption here that the conservative is not a climate change denier,)  But the conservative looks at it a different way.  He figures he will emit as much CO2 as he can because it's cheaper for him - his gas car is slightly cheaper, a gas furnace is cheaper than a heat pump, avoiding getting solar saves money, his car is more convenient than the train.  And perhaps there will be problems in the future if everyone takes his approach, but his #1 priority is getting more money.  And besides, he figures everyone else will be like him anyway, so there's no way they will achieve a significant reduction.  After all, "Wow, a whole 24 countries?"  Think of "the money and effort they saved by not taking climate action!"   And as long as he gets richer than other people, and as long as he dies before the climate gets REALLY bad, he 'wins.'

Sure, that can work.  That in the context of climate is a ruinous carbon tax, such that if you are one of the gluttons, you lose a lot of money.  That way the people helping save the pizza are not impacted, but the gluttons are - and they have an incentive to reduce their gluttony if they still want access to that pizza.

So either you really proposed that, which would be something I could support if it's done well - or you missed the analogy that the free pizza is the ability of our environment to deal with our waste.  It is effectively a free dump.  Charging the gluttons to use the dump ends their freeloading.

Making skydivers all gas guzzling pizza scoffing conservatives I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2