Can we save the climate without nuclear power?

[phantom power]

Most regulars are probably aware that my personal viewpoint is some combination of (5) and (8). To say nothing of my viewpoint that unscientific opinion polls are worthless. But for some reason I found myself curious about the lay of the land on the nuclear power issue. Resistance is futile -- weigh in!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. well, I guess we could use it to improve the climate now

Of course, the waste will be laying around for a million years to wreak havoc on whatever parts of the world we manage not to kill off in this century.

How bout we just stop being such f*cking pigs, and reduce our consumption instead. Nah, that would be hard work. Oh, well... back to American Idol...

[phantom power]

2. so that would be a vote for (3)?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. combo of 3 and

1, actually.

:evilgrin:

[AZCat]

3. I wish to add a caveat to my vote.

While I am cynical about our chances of survival, I don't think that relieves us from trying to save ourselves (and by extension the rest of the biosphere) and nuclear power must play a role in such an attempt (IMO). It is one of a handful of power generation technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases and unfortunately it is only one of two that have been developed to the level that would be necessary to support our current demands (hydro being the other, but it has its own limitations). The other technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) have not yet been deployed successfully in large-scale systems and even if such deployment is possible it will not happen without a lot of trial-and-error.

[jpak]

21. I'm sorry but I disagree with this

"The other technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) have not yet been deployed successfully in large-scale systems and even if such deployment is possible it will not happen without a lot of trial-and-error."

Global wind turbine capacity is currently >59,000 MW and growing by >11,000 MW per year.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-23-04.asp

A 730 MW wind farm began operation in Texas last month.

Germany deployed 837 MW of PV capacity last year and will probably install close to 1000 MW this year.

Australia is building a 154 MW PV farm...

Portugal is building 64 and 116 MW PV farms...

California utilities are deploying *large* (300-500 MW) solar electric facilities today.

Scale and *success* are not issues with renewable power systems...

[AZCat]

24. You don't have to say "I'm sorry"

I don't mind that you disagree with me, as long as we keep it civil.

Perhaps I'm just more pessimistic, but I don't like depending on extrapolation. Wind is still only supplying about 3% of the EU's electrical consumption (from the article). It is trending upwards, but how far are you willing to extrapolate before the prediction becomes unreliable?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. If we refit every building possible with solar panels/shingles, we'd need

far less energy from other resources. Tie in geothermal, tidal and wind power, we'd make a serious dent in the need for fossil fuels or nuclear power.

[suziedemocrat]

26. and those wind mills that catch the wind coming over the facade of the building.

like the one here: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=150809a.xml

Here is a fantastic kos thread on micro-wind. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/3/14647/1276

I think MICRO is the way to go. The "grid" is inefficient (with energy lost during transmission) and it's ugly to see power lines everywhere. MICRO!!

Edit to Add: There is no doubt in my mind we COULD switch to renewable, green, energy. We just don't WANT too. (We meaning the large corporations and governments of the world.)

[havocmom]

5. Yep, if we stop breeding like rabbits, living like kings

and letting capitalist run amok without any meaningful oversight and regulation.

If we stop letting radical, irresponsible capitalist make the laws and set the rules, there will be a better climate for alternative, clean, renewable energy to be developed and implemented.

If we grow up and develop some character instead of filling our empty souls with consumer goods, we and the planet can be greatly improved.

[RC]

9. BINGO!

Neither of my 2 girls want kids. My oldest for sure, even though she is married. MY youngest I am reasonable sure of. I am ok with no grand kids. People think I am nuts not to want any grand kids.
Well, I may be nuts but I have known for a long time that we humans are the dandelions of the animal world. We are crowding out all other life forms except those we grow for food and the pests species, such as rats and cockroaches.

[havocmom]

12. Isn't likely I will have grandkids either, and that is fine

There are lots of little people to love and care for out there. Blood ties not required.

If you really care about the welfare of children, you recognize it is a finite world and get over the need to have your gene's passed into the battle for dwindling resources. If you really care about the planet, you set your goals within reason and without greed.

Like the saying goes: Live simply that others may simply live.

I love the line from Milagro Bean Field War where Melanie Griffith asks 'Does the world really need another golf course?'

If we don't grasp the difference between NEED and WANT, we or our progeny will be in serious NEED in the not too distant future.

[RC]

13. I think we are already past the point of no return.

We just don't know it yet.
The oil will be gone before we are ready and Mother Nature will do some cleansing of her own.
We are such an arrogant species. Plowing up and/or paving over the habitat needed for the rest of the live forms on this wet rock we live on. A speck of dust in the universe really. And we think we are important in the grand scheme of things? Not hardly.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. I'd be amazed, to be honest...

It would be nice, but I can't see us coming up with any meaningful storage solutions before the shit really hits the fan: I went for 5 because I'm in a good mood (8 would be more like me :)).

Sadly, there are a lot of people who would rather wait for those solutions than act with what we've got. :(

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Nah, Just execute 5 of every 6 people

Then again the way were going it won't matter. The merciful solution would be to eliminate 5 out of every 6 people.

[RC]

10. Then slice & dice them for steaks and hamburger so the

survivors have something to eat while ecology recovers. :P

[AZCat]

11. A truly "green" flavor of soylent, huh?

I'm glad I ate already. :puke:

[greenparty]

14. We need

Nehkleaor but not as a one point save all.Like we have done with coal and gas.Need green diversification but im surprised no one has brought the point up that we really dont need the grid at all.
Solar prices will come down and due to its portability,will replace coal,gas and nuke when the prices are similar per W.2008 you will see panel prices dip slightly by about 25$ but as more silicon processing plants get online,prices will do nothing but fall and very quickly.
If people can buy 200$ 80W panels and get offline,there will no longer be a vast demand for people to pay an offsite contractor to produce their power.
Of course there will always be a use for the grid,a demand for it and will always be a place for nukes but home generation of electricity is what is beginning to happen.The future has started and will have a major impact on our national consumption and how people look at and discuss the grid.
In transportation,it has already been proven that full electric vehicles work.GM and the EV 1 are the historical case study on that and the recharger paddles it used could have been powered by solar.From point to point,power consumption is inevitably going to go way beyond DIY circles and hit the mainstream and become the norm,not the exception.THAT is what nuke,coal and oil want to keep from people.To keep us from realizing that we dont need them.
All of this is not way off either,the string along stories and "new!" breakthroughs...well alot of those old stories are now manufacturing realities.The Si thinfilms stan ovinsky engineered are now mass produced solar shingle strips.You now have to basically wait in line to get those.New Al pastes,purified dopant techniques,metal hydride tanks for H2 storage,H2 generators....all now available and used/produced in turnkey manufacturing.
The GT Solar ingot cookers were a massive step forward and allowed ingots per week instead of per month.The only thing left is silicon processing,thats it.When that falls,the 10,000$ computer syndrome will pass(what the first pcs cost) and you will see panels everywhere.
Solar small device rechargers are now breaking into the hardware market and are set to be compatible with cordless power tools and some heavy equipment.Just endless where it can expand and radically change things.
The future really is here and for those on the edge of buying but dont due to price,the days are coming when you can afford it.
Nuke,and all that other stuff,in my mind,is obsolete.

[phantom power]

15. I imagine you've noticed that...

solar power's "days have been coming" for at least 30 years (which is about as far back as my memory goes). I will, of course, be happy to find out that I'm wrong, but I no longer hold my breath.

[greenparty]

16. its here

im using it and it works great.





Can start a small system for under 1K and add as money permnits at about 400-450$ a panel for 80W.

[NNadir]

17. Oh gee, a picture. How cute.

Any idea how much energy that massive display produces?

No?

Why is that not a surprise.

Here. Let me help you. The answer is contained in something called numbers.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_1_a.xls

In a rolling 12 month accounting the amount of energy produced by solar means has decreased from the same period in 2005 from 545,000 MW-hr to 503,000 MW-hr in the period ending in 2006. No one has noticed, of course, since solar energy is a completely trivial form of energy, mostly hyped by marketeers who have a very poor sense of reality.

One may ask what fraction of US electricity solar electricity provided, if of course one knows what numbers are, which would exclude immediately members of the Green Party.

In 2004 US electricity consumption was 3,716 billion kilowatt-hours, or 3,716 million megawatt-hours.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table62.xls

Thus, the proportion of electrical energy provided by systems like those in the cute marketing pictures represent 0.01% of US electrical energy demand. Now some people look at these pictures and see a solution to global climate change. These are, of course, exactly the same people who looked at George W. Bush and saw Al Gore.

The fact is that producing 0.01% of any nation's energy supply of any form and announcing it is enough is a criminally misleading strategy, because it is an advertisement for doing nothing at all. It's like looking at George W. Bush, I mean Al Gore, or AlGoreBush standing on the carrier with a "mission accomplished" banner.

No mission is accomplished by solar PV energy. It is a technology that fifty years after its invention that cannot produce any thing but cute marketing pictures of the type that into which only those with a very suspect appreciation of reality could buy. It cannot produce significant amounts of energy sufficient to meet the critical and terrifying realities of global climate change.

Recently it was announced that the Sharp Corporation, one of the world's largest manufacturers of solar PV cells was increasing it's production of solar cells to 600 mega"watts" where the "watts" refers to the fact that by 600, they mean "peak," at noon.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46419

Typically solar cells operate in the range of 20% capacity utilization, meaning that the entire production of the Sharp production would be the equivalent of a 120 MW continuous power plant of any type, in other words, a tiny power plant, insufficient even for a fraction of the energy needs of Haiti or Botswana. There are 8766 hours in a year, meaning that the worldwide production for the Sharp corporation (at 20% capacity utilization) would produce about, roughly, 1,000,000 MW-hours per year, for the entire planet. In the meanwhile, worldwide electricity demand between 2003 and 2004, the psychotic hallucinations of Amory Lovins notwithstanding, grew by 638,000,000 MW-hrs. (See table 62 linked above.) Thus the Sharp Corporation's expanded capacity will not be able to meet 637/638ths of new electrical energy demand - and I'm not counting the need for night time back up nor the environmental costs and inevitable inefficiencies of batteries. Put another way, one of the world's largest solar PV companies is incapable of meeting 0.2% of new energy demand.

Of course, if you have contempt for numbers, then I guess the appropriate response to these cute marketing pictures is "Ouuuuuuuuu!!! Ahhhhhhh!!!!"

But if you're a grown up, especially an educated grow up, the appropriate response is "What the fuck?"

It's marketing this solar business. It's not serious energy. The anti-nuclear community thinks that you are stupid enough to buy their "chalk is cheese," "Ralph is Jesus," "Bush is Gore," "Soap is Jet Fuel" type of arguments.

[suziedemocrat]

27. Your condescending tone is starting to grate on me.

You're not the only one who understands math, and I don't think you are nearly as smart as you think you are. In my experience, the TRULY smart ones are not so eager to tell everyone else how stupid they are.

The Man Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks.

[NNadir]

32. Well one way to prove your contention would be to demonstrate

that I am wrong using numbers.

I do think I'm very smart, as it happens, and I think I'm right that the production energy of solar is trivial. Somehow no one ever seeks to prove that I am wrong about that. Instead, we have people who want to think that solar energy is an acceptable way to address the extreme crisis of global cliamte change - and in fact is nearly the only acceptable way - remarking that I have a grating personality. I do, in fact, have a grating personality. I confess this frequently. However my personality has nothing to do with the fact that solar energy produces less than 0.02% of electricity here and around the world.

I am always being offered opinions about the graces of truly smart people. I really don't care. When a college kid is taking a physics test, nobody asks him about his manners. It's all about concepts, numbers and calculation.

[suziedemocrat]

33. ok - i guess i'm in a bad mood today. but --- a question?

Some people live very comfortable lives off the grid. Not Joe Woodchuck lives like they did in the 1970's, but very nice lives that you don't notice are different from the suburban norm. How could that be possible if solar panels (along with passive solar home design and a little attention to energy efficient living) were so worthless?

[NNadir]

34. How many such people?

I am a Democrat and a liberal.

I'm not particularly interested in a few rich people living in splendid isolation with complete indifference to those of are suffering vast deprivation. If I were only concerned with rich people, I could become a Republican.

My interest is all of humanity, humanity being more than six billion people who will not survive decently without nuclear power. Sorry that I offend you, but your contention offends me. How many Africans are powering their TIVO with solar cells? Any idea?

Solar power is an elitist conceit. Units of energy that matters on a scale that addresses all of the world's citizens is measured, still, in exajoules. Solar energy has never produced a single exajoule, and the world needs 467 exajoules as of 2005. Weren't you just lecturing me about how I am not the only person who understands numbers? Well, if your contention is that you understand numbers, please subtract 1 from 467 and tell me when your favorite renewable schemes will produce the other 466.

Solar energy doesn't produce very much energy except barely enough for a few rich people who wish to assauge their guilt about their indifference.

[suziedemocrat]

36. I'm not talking about rich people. here's a link to affordable eco-homes.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?229

Article is from 1997 - so almost 10 years out of date. These houses aren't 100% off the grid, but I'm to tired to look for the Austin, TX Professor who has a beautiful passive-solar, off-the-grid home. This will have to do for now.

The "Ecology House"
...

The two-bedroom house is suitable for northern climates at 40 degrees latitude and northward, encompassing areas such as New York and Denver. It has about 1,400 square feet of living space, including a solar-heated basement which is earth-bermed on sides not facing south, and an optional 162-square-foot greenhouse. "In a small footprint, every square inch is used," says Watson.

Like Maloney's design, these plans suggest using structural stressed skin foam paneling for the walls, because it's easy to work with, uses minimal wood and achieves a reasonable level of insulation and air-tightness. The approximate all-in building cost (based on 1990 prices) for the Ecology House is $96,000. Heating and cooling costs are estimated at $100 per year. Watson sells the plans at cost, for $99.

....

n Dallas, architect Betsy Pettit and engineer Joe Lstiburek designed a 12-house development, "Esperanza del Sol," with 1,270-square-foot, three-bedroom homes that maximize winter solar gain and natural lighting, shading and ventilation. The $80,000 homes are heavily insulated and have controlled ventilators to ensure circulation of fresh air. In Chicago, Shaw Homes is experimenting with a resource-efficient inner city development with 1,670-square-foot homes for about $90,000. ECO-House is a modular, passive solar house designed by Pennsylvania State University graduate student James Rioux that, he says, will cost only $130 a year to heat. The home's construction was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of a program to encourage solar homes in the U.S.

...

David Easton, the principal designer at Rammed Earth Works in Napa, California, has created a relatively low-end, 1,241 square-foot home of "rammed" earth--massive walls of compacted soil--for $80,000 ($64 per square foot). The handsome two-bedroom home was another winner in the 1990 Compact House Design competition. It includes active and passive solar systems, radiant "terra-tile" flooring (of earth and cement) and alcoves and bookcases carved from 24-inch-thick walls. In Napa, California, heating and cooling costs are estimated at $150 per year.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon. I think we could learn a lot from people in poorer countries. Like designing homes to fit the local climate. Houses there had concrete floors that they treated to be shiny and attractive. Nicer homes had tile floors. Even on the hottest days, they always seemed a little cool on your feet. Here, new homes in Arizona are built just like new homes in Maine. How wasteful is that?

Oh, and I would say the average Cameroonian was much happier than the average American. Poverty is not as big of a problem in the third world as corruption and civil war. (And sexist attitudes - but I won't go there!) Cameroon in the 1980's was a very good place to be because they had a semi-stable government and it's a beautiful place. Most homes there did not have electricity.
My pet-peeve is when people talk about "Africa" like it is a homogeneous place. It's a HUGE continent, each country and region is different.

[NNadir]

37. Sigh...

I'm sure that there are lots of these homes available for $96,000, and they are found all over the world, in the billions, thereby establishing that global climate change is a problem that barely exists.

The per capita annual income of Cameroon, renewable paradise, apparently is a little less than $550 of course, which of course you know, because you are an expert in Africa on the grounds you've been there. I'm sure that the average citizen of Cameroon is very, very, very, very happy and fulfilled.

Cameroon's forests are disappearing at a rate of 0.9% per year.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Data/20799687/Cameroon.pdf

I have not been to Cameroon, renewable paradise, but I have been to Mumbai, and so I am expert in the happiness of the people of India, all of whom are waiting on line for new $96,000 homes designed by architect Betsy Pettit. In the meantime they're living in cardboard boxes or under pieces of torn plastic. This explains the happiness of the people living in this city.

I have never been to Cameroon, though. You have a point. I obviously do not have as much sympathy for them as you, architect Betty Pettit, and the good people at Rammed Earthworks in Napa, California. I note that since 1990 the ideas of Rammed Earthworks in Napa, California have achieved wide acceptance throughout the world, solving all of humanity's problems.

Maybe you should write the people at "World Rain Forest" who write this overly depressing and unhappy account of Cameroon and tell them to stop worrying, since all the people of Cameroon are just so damned happy:

http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/Africa/Cameroon.html

Then there's this fellow who comes from generic "Africa," - and who knew there were different countries in Africa and that one could never discuss "African" poverty without listing all of the countries there. He writes the following:

In Cameroon, the supply of fuel wood from forests accounts for over 60% of the energy consumed and has been increasing at a rate of 2.5% per year since 1974-1976 (Cleaver, 1992, P.65). The forestry sector occupies the first place in export tonnage and third place in foreign earnings. It accounts for about 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and offer about 40,000 jobs (Besong, 1992). Cameroon’s forests contain an estimated 300 different tree species and the country can be said to have a forest based-economy (Idem). With her potential, Cameroon is at the second position amongst forestry African countries after the Democratic Republic of Congo...

...Many of the world’s tropical forests are however, being decimated as the immediate needs of the developing world overshadow the often uncertain future benefits from these forests. New studies demonstrate a rate of forest loss considerably worse than previously known (UNESCO, 1990; Houghton.R.A,1990; Serageldin. I, 1992; FAO, 2001). These studies indicate an annual tropical forest loss of over 20 million hectares, a staggering 55,000 hectares per day (Serageldin, 1992, P.337). This figure is nearly 80% above the FAO’s 1980 estimate of tropical deforestation rates. Thus, within the last decade, despite the growing global concern about forest destruction, the rate of loss has continued to increase without abatement...

http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2004-GPRaHDiA/papers/2p-Gbetnkom-CSAE2004.pdf

Now with my ability to think that I'm much, much, much smarter than I actually am - since a sarcastic and dismissive personality is clear evidence that one isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is - I will quote some numbers about Cameroon's energy situation, using that really, really, really grating EIA website which is obviously designed to rain on the happy parade of new homes being constructed all over the world by Rammed Earth of Napa, California, a company that has won an award:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablef1.xls

The above table - and these numbers are so annoying and grating - shows that Cameroon's entire energy requirement was 0.190 exajoules (0.181 quads) in 2004. In continuous power terms, this is about 6,000 MW for the entire country for all energy for all purposes, including heat rejected to the atmosphere. Sixty percent of that energy as noted by Daniel GBETNKOM of University of Yaounde, Yaounde being somewhere in Africa, comes from burning wood,

If we assume that Africa, whoops, I mean Senegal, Chad, Mali, Namibia, Central African Republic...Gabon, Guinea-Bassau...Senegal, Sierra Leone...Zambia..., all obey the second law of thermodynamics, this means that the useful energy requirement of Cameroon is about 2000 MW.

According to Professor Gbetnkom's paper, the forest is Cameroon is disappearing at the rate of 80,000 and 200,000 hectares per year or at about between 200 and 550 hectares per day.

Here is a picture of the nuclear plant at Palo Verde, Arizona:



The three reactors combined produce more useful energy than the entire nation of Cameroon, as each reactor in the picture is rated at 1270 MWe. (The thermal energy produced in the reactors is 1.5 times as large as the thermal requirement of the entire nation of Cameroon.)

http://www.nucleartourist.com/us/pvngs.htm

The entire reactor complex sits on 4000 acres (approximately 1600 hectares, or about 4 to 6 days worth of Cameroon deforestation.) Obviously as can be seen from the picture, the reactors consume only a small portion of the property. Most of the reactor property is desert, probably quite nearly in a totally natural state. The three reactors supply the energy needs of 4 million people living a western lifestyle, not a Cameroon lifestyle.

If I ruled the world - and clearly I don't - I would force the world to donate three such reactors to Cameroon, because in my mind their forest is part of the heritage of the entire planet. Every human being on earth has his or her flesh invested in that dying forest.

But obviously I must be high on something. All of us here on this website, except for me of course, are intimately familiar with these off grid homes of which you write so eloquently. There are just billions of them everywhere on earth and one can't go anywhere without seeing a $96,000 home with southern exposure and structural stress skin foam paneling. Now that I've learned that houses like this exist, everywhere, I think I'll have a truck come haul my house to a landfill, and just build a new one, south facing of course. I don't know what I was thinking when I thought this was elitist posturing. What's wrong with me that I am not more impressed with the wonderful parade of websites linked here saying "Don't worry, be happy (like a Cameroonian)!!!?"

Those of us, in the big bad "we'll fucking believe in renewable fairy land when people stop burning oil, coal and natural gas," world are simply making stuff up. There is no fucking problem. It's all been solved by carving bookcases in the 24 inch walls and by spending only $150/year on heating and cooling in Napa, California. Napa, California is the center of the earth and we need not look too far beyond there, because awards have been granted to Rammed Earth. We all live in a renewable paradise, just like Napa, California, just like Cameroon.

Excuse me if I just don't get all giggly and giddy and bubbly with optimism. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really thought there was a problem on earth and have been having a long nightmare about the subject. I never knew that there were countries in Africa that were such happy places. Glass half full, glass half empty, I guess. I must have been hallucinating the whole thing, since the problem is easily solved by building lots of 1400 square foot earthworks houses with optional 160 square foot greenhouses.

And people wonder why I'm so bitter and so fucking cynical...

[suziedemocrat]

38. I like your straw men.

I never said off the grid houses were "everywhere", I said they existed. If something is impossible, it can't exist at all, anywhere.

I never said Cameroon was a "renewable paradise." I did say we could learn a lot from them, and I still think that's true. And I'm pretty sure the poverty in India is much, much worse than it is in Cameroon. There was a very poor area around the stadium in Yaounde, but I didn't see anyone living under cardboard boxes in the Northwest, where I was. Mud brick homes maybe, but those aren't as bad as you would think. Do you think people can't lead happy lives without a lot of money? They can! As long as their basic needs are met and they have a good family, etc. I remember Cameroonians who had visited the US complaining about how people here took drugs and committed suicide. I had to try to explain why someone would want to commit suicide to these "poor" people in Cameroon. (How could people with so much available electricity commit suicide? - lol) Except for a local Muslim tribe called the Folani that smoked pot, drugs were rare in Cameroon. The United States is not the best country in the world in EVERY RESPECT. In Cameroon, they followed an English model for their schools, so their education system seemed superior to ours. I get sick of this dismissal of poor countries like they are worthless and don't do anything right because they don't have as much money, or use as much electricity as the U.S. Mexico, the poor country most Americans are familiar with, is a mess because it is CORRUPT.

I can see Cameroon using a lot of wood, probably mainly for cooking. Most people used these gas bottles for cooking, but they were $150 - so it was common to cook with fire. Most homes had a separate, small building for the kitchen, also a good design. Although they were starting to make more "Western style" homes with the kitchen in the main house. Growing up, I knew people who lived in an old farm house in Indiana, where the kitchen was in a separate building to keep heat away from the main house. But now we're too "smart" to have the kitchen in a separate building.

I think the grid has allowed us to be lazy and over-consume and not think about our wasteful ways. In poorer countries where energy is a luxury, they think about their energy usage and conservation is a part of life. But that doesn't necessarily make them unhappy.

You SHOULD go to Cameroon. Bamenda is where I was, in the English speaking Northwest province. Buy some fresh baked french bread from the bakeries that are everywhere and talk to the local people. They ARE happy. ( And while you are there, you can offer your nuclear plant to Paul Biya.)

[NNadir]

39. I dislike your changing the subject.

I am talking about energy, not Cameroonian drug policy or attitudes toward suicide.

I was talking about African policy, poverty, and the need for energy to address poverty and some how the subject got changed to something else.

I contend that the world needs nuclear energy in a safe way to address poverty and that the renewable conceit is an attempt to ignore poverty by talking about irrelevant consumerist crap like the happy horseshit about Rammed Earth.

Rammed Earth is irrelevant.

[hunter]

20. So, how many of those solar panel thingies do I need to power one of these?

We use 'em to recycle steel. Recycling is good, right?

[jpak]

22. Appropriate sources for appropriate needs

Most US aluminum smelters use hydroelectricity - so can steel works.

Biomass thermal plants provide hundreds of MW of base-load power in the US today (>430 MW in Maine alone).

Same with geothermal plants.

and large scale wind/wave/tidal facilities.

No need to use PV to smelt iron...

[htuttle]

18. I voted #3, but standard of living != energy consumption

What we need to do is re-engineer just about everything we do to put energy consumption as the foremost consideration, instead of the last. This need not mean a 'reduction in the standard of living' -- it just means living a lot smarter than we do right now.

[greenparty]

19. exactly

We as americans have had it good.Too good in fact.I lived in europe for awhile and due to their need to import alot of their energy it isnt cheap and they live accordingly.Through war and colonialism we have been able to steal alot of oil and keep prices down but soon we are going to see what europeans have dealt with for a long time.We will have to adjust but from someone who lives in suburbia and uses renewables,the changes are not drastic and you dont have to start living in a mud hut.
For the most part,aside from keeping an occassional eye on your batteries you forget you even changed to green power.

[hunter]

23. I voted #8, we'll be lucky to dodge extinction.

If your big fat Republican neighbor drops dead, is it ethical to make dog food and biodiesel and bone meal out of him?

I mean his little yappy dog is hungry, they always need fuel for the generators down at the hospital, and the public gardens seem to be a little low on phosphorus lately...

[Nihil]

25. Seems fair to me

And the bonus is that when you get really hungry, his little
yappy dog will come in useful after all!
:-)

[suziedemocrat]

28. I never thought Liberals could have such a violent streak.

Most Republicans I am around talk about killing this type of person or that type of terrorist, and "nuking" entire countries and even continents. I always figured Liberals were more civilized and far less violent.

[The2ndWheel]

29. Nothing less violent about the more civilized

The civilized gave us the ability to nuke. And where would America be if not for the violence of the civilized?

Peace and civilization, evolution and progress, these are not synonyms.

[phantom power]

30. Well, you know what they say....

a city is always 72 hours away from people eating their neighbor's dog for food
:evilgrin:

[hunter]

31. My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death; one or the other of us has got to go.

Those are reputedly the last words of Oscar Wilde, and perhaps the epitaph of this Empire of the United States will be something similar, if not a the more likely Homer Simpson "Doh!"

I was in New Orleans a few weeks before Katrina and I was talking with various people about the inevitability of the disaster that was about to occur there. But the political realities of this nation are that the most politically significant Americans live very protected lives and they cannot fathom beforehand that such disasters are possible.

No problem, let them eat cake...

This was unfortunately for me the third time during the unfortunate reign of George W. Bush that I've been unlucky enough to have informed associates who were cognizant of very serious dangers, the other two times being pre-9/11, and pre-Iraq war. Three times I've heard from very trustworthy sources that the sky is falling, and three times it did.

Gallows humor is unavoidable.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. American character that makes the upcoming Great Depression inevitable. As memories of the 1930's fade we slowly chip away at the protective mechanisms that were put in place to prevent it from happening again -- things like Social Security, minimum wages, public health and education programs, welfare, environmental protection...

A generous socialism is a good thing, it relieves those pressures in the economy that would otherwise blow out the gaskets. This current crop of Democrats can do something the Republicans couldn't -- they can implement universal healthcare, programs for affordable urban housing, and a re-subsidization of college and university education for lower and middle class students. If they can't do this our ship is doomed.

As for this thread's topic, our current energy policy is a disaster. Our increasing dependence on fossil fuels and these vague notions that things like ethanol or solar power can save us increase the fragility of our economic system.

Because we are not facing these problems directly, the potential for unspeakable savagery is growing.

We can joke about our Republican neighbor's yappy little dog, but it's not really a joke.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. People don't really know how thin the ice is

I really hate to pretend that I am in some kind of intelligent elite, that I "know" better than other people, and on this issue, I fall right in the middle. I DO understand that our economic system is "on thin ice", and I'm equally cognizant of my vast ignorance of most of what undergirds that system.

Most people don't have a clue; "Peak Oil" is just a catchphrase they recently heard, that refers to a vague threat. Most of us here don't even fully realize that maintaining sufficient energy resources is about more than turning off lights or having enough energy to run the TV set, and that any related activism must go far beyond the usual windmills -- solar cells -- tax credits images we see in the media.

My own perspective is similarly pinched. I only learned fairly recently that in all historical cases where energy consumption grew by less than about 2.5% per year, depression resulted. A long-term lack of growth resulted in economic collapse. And keep in mind, that's growth in consumption of energy. It makes no sense that energy consumption would have to grow to keep the economy working -- shouldn't it be actual work done, which increased efficiency can improve? -- but I may be missing a big part of the picture.

The thing is, that picture is not being presented well to the public, even the reading public, as we here are. Perhaps the economists themselves don't fully understand it. However, it's getting increasingly difficult to get that energy at a price that doesn't exert its own depressing effect on the economy.

So Peak Oil -- actually, passing the peak -- won't just mean we'll have to car pool and turn off the air conditioning in the summer. Actually, we probably will still be able to use our cars and A.C. The real implication is that once we hit that hump, prices skyrocket, consumption growth falls, and the economy tanks.

Unless, that is, we start planning for it NOW.

The idea that a hurricane was "due" to hit, and devastate, New Orleans, has been kicking around for at least two generations. It was the worst-kept secret in Louisiana. And when it happened, it was disastrous anyway. Heck, Katrina may not have even been THE BIG ONE, since it lost most of its power before the eyewall came ashore; projections based on a Cat-5 storm predicted 10,000 or more deaths, and New Orleans "only" suffered about 1700.

And we've already had one major modern pandemic disease disaster -- AIDS. And it still continues, more due to poverty than to any sexual practice.

So, too, the impending disasters of energy resource crises, climate change, pandemic influenza, war, etc., may seem to be distant threats, but anticipating them should be an integral part of ALL community planning. The "generous socialism" of which you write would include planning for the future. But the word "planning" is anathema to the radical free-enterprise thinkers that came of age in the post-Vietnam era of Ronald Reagan and the Bush dynasty. Their dogma dictates that the market must react spontaneously -- no matter how many corpses remain to be disposed of.

My fear is that our "response" to a drastic change in our resource base will be to simply let most of the population of the world die while the lucky rich ride out the "bad" years in physical safety but shedding their crocodile tears for the near-universal misery they can see but don't have to touch.

Most of us here are blind and uninformed about our situation to some degree, and I am no exception. But even in our benighted and dazed trance, we can, and should, prepare for Bad Times, and extend that preparation to ensure survival for as much of the world at as healthy a level as possible. Ultimately, it will be the best way to support progress, growth, affluence, and a healthy society.

--p!

[phantom power]

40. I believe that a big part of the "consumption growth" mystery is explained...

by the fact that humans have not yet learned how to maintain complex systems in steady-state. The old saying goes "If you aren't growing, you're dying." Historically, it's true of organisms, ecologies, cities, economies, civilizations, etc. I have some thin hope that modern insights into the theory of complex systems, combined with simulation capabilities, might allow us to come to grips with that some day. Of course, that could only make a difference if we elected people into power who would listen to such ideas. But I'm not holding my breath, considering that we're still trying (and failing) to get a largish fraction of people past the belief that the earth is 6000 years old, and governed down to the atomic level by an all-powerful and jealous sky being.

[bloom]

41. I think anyone who thinks

that people should expect to "hold on to our standard of living" are delusional. It's our "standard of living" that is the problem.


The sooner people get over that the better.

Does any reasonable person think that the US "standard of living" is viable worldwide? If it's not - then why should Americans think that they can keep consuming crap at the rate we are? With or with nuclear power?

I think it's nuts.