Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: 32BT on June 07, 2019, 10:35:03 am
-
Okay, to draw a really binary black & white picture, one could say that you spend on the military if you want the status quo to persist, and you spend on science & innovation if you want to move to higher ground.
Considering that oil is rapidly nearing end-of-life as a primary driver for our western luxury lifestyle, should we be spending more moneys on the military in order to defend our interests in such with all the additional side effects, or should we be spending more moneys on science and technology in order to innovate to a new energy regime?
Where would the balance be? How much total budget would be acceptable?
-
Okay, to draw a really binary black & white picture, one could say that you spend on the military if you want the status quo to persist, and you spend on science & innovation if you want to move to higher ground.
Considering that oil is rapidly nearing end-of-life as a primary driver for our western luxury lifestyle, should we be spending more moneys on the military in order to defend our interests in such with all the additional side effects, or should we be spending more moneys on science and technology in order to innovate to a new energy regime?
Where would the balance be? How much total budget would be acceptable?
On the energy of course!
Problem is everyone is concentrating on the wrong fields!
Said to say, the conservatives are trying to hold onto fossil fuels. Aside form the fact that they are dirty, they are running out. To anyone not so invested in these, it is obvious we need to look elsewhere.
Although it appears that the liberals are doing this, they are looking at the wrong technologies, wind and solar. Wind and solar are just too dilute and too intermitant to ever work.
Ted Talk with physicist David MacKay on the issues with renewables. (https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables?language=en)
Ted Talk with enviromentalist Michael Shellenberger on Why Renewables Can't Save the Planet. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w)
So, until we actually start to look to nuclear again, this issue is never going to be solved. By the way, nuclear not only would give us the energy we need, but would also be good for the environment.
Stewart Brand, the grandfather of the modern environmental movement, on why we must accept nuclear. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RKkkcL61Cc)
Interesting thing with nuclear, one of the biggest sources of uranium for fuel rods are decommissioned nuclear weapons. So, investing in nuclear would have the net effect of making the world a little safer place too.
PS, another one of my favorites for all of you doomsday nay-sayers on how unsafe nuclear is.
How the fear of nuclear is ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w)
-
Investing into the military often results in technological innovations which find ways into science, medicine and everyday consumer world.
-
...should we be spending more moneys on the military...
YOU spend more, we are self-sufficient in oil and gas :P
-
YOU spend more, we are self-sufficient in oil and gas :P
Wrong answer, and the energy producers know it.
Big Oil is using Solar and Wind (which produces cheaper electricity) to generate energy with which they can continue fracking for the oil and gas reserves.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wrong answer, and the energy producers know it.
Big Oil is using Solar and Wind (which produces cheaper electricity) to generate energy with which they can continue fracking for the oil and gas reserves.
Cheers,
Bart
Please provide your source.
Every single piece of data I see shows that wind and solar increases the cost of electricity. I have yet to see any detailed look at the overall infrastructure that shows wind and solar are cheaper. Additionally, since wind and solar can never be base load sources of energy, and only produce energy 10% to 20%, I just cant see a fracking exploration relying on these energy sources. It would greatly limit their operational time.
If they are using wind and solar, it more then likely to help promote the energy source since fossil fuels are heavily invested in wind and solar. Their investment is not however because they believe in the technology, but because since wind/solar can not ever be base load sources, traditional power plants are built in tandem when a wind/solar farm are built, most of which are coal/gas/oil plants. This has been most evident in Germany which has seen a net increase in carbon emissions even though it has great increased their wind/solar potential. (Note I said potential, not actual output.)
-
The premise qualifies as the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
-
Wrong answer, and the energy producers know it.
Big Oil is using Solar and Wind (which produces cheaper electricity) to generate energy with which they can continue fracking for the oil and gas reserves.
Cheers,
Bart
Not really.
Living in one of the US states with about the highest wind power production as well as oil, gas, and chemicals wind and solar are a very small fraction of the energy produced. Maybe it is different in Europe, but not the case here. Well fracking uses diesel based power generators for the most part. They tend to be "off the grid" as a matter practice.
-
Please provide your source.
Forgot to add the link, here it is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/oil-giant-exxon-turns-to-wind-solar-for-home-state-operations
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And here is a bit more historical insight into how it came to be:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/11/magazine/climate-change-exxon-renewable-energy.html
-
Forgot to add the link, here it is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/oil-giant-exxon-turns-to-wind-solar-for-home-state-operations
Cheers,
Bart
The date used is "unsubsidized levelized cost of energy." They do not give actual definition of what this means, but in a brief research it appears to be only based on the cost of the turbines and/or solar panels while assuming near full and constant energy production from each unit. No other costs seem to factor into this data.
In reality, this means little to nothing. Solar and wind farms only generate energy 10% to 20% of the time. Additionally, wind and solar farms need to be 450 times larger then a traditional power plant to have the potential to generate the same amount of energy (assuming 85% production). This uses up significantly more land, concrete, metal, glass, etc., which all factor into the overall price, and typically outweigh any cost savings. More people need to employed for wind/solar, which sounds good at first, but adds to the overall cost as well.
Like I said, you need to look at the entire infrastructure, not just the cost per unit of a panel or wind turbine.
If wind and solar are so much cheaper, and Germany has been the leader in implementing wind/solar, tell me why the cost of electricity has been rising in Germany more then any other place in Europe?
-
Like I said, you need to look at the entire infrastructure, not just the cost per unit of a panel or wind turbine.
Apparently, Exxon did.
And Texas apparently produces (and uses) more renewable energy than California.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently, Exxon did.
Cheers,
Bart
Like I said before, Exxon and other large oil/gas/coal companies are heavily invested in wind/solar because they know they will never be base load power sources and additional plants will always need to be built in tandem when a wind/solar farm goes up. This has been shown to be the case repeatably throughout the world, especially in Germany, where they have increased their usage of coal drastically and built many more coal power plants in tandem with their wind/solar farms.
It is nothing more then a marketing scheme to help them sell more oil/gas/coal.
Insofar as your comment on TX using more renewables then CA, many of the major oil/gas companies are based there and refer back to my previous point. 2nd, TX is the fracking epicenter and arguably the place where it is the cheapest to buy natural gas. This means that the incredibly big drop in gas prices in TX is offsetting the overall increase in cost that wind/solar adds to the grid. Forbes did an interesting article showing this, so they can (for now) afford wind/solar.
However, in every other market, as soon as wind/solar reach around 12% to 15% of total combined production, energy price start to sky rocket.
-
If wind and solar are so much cheaper, and Germany has been the leader in implementing wind/solar, tell me why the cost of electricity has been rising in Germany more then any other place in Europe?
I'm not sure if that's the case, but if it is, it might have something to do with the early retirement of Nuclear energy plants. And Germany still has a huge amount of Coal-based power plants that also need to be written off faster than anticipated.
And I'm not so sure they are building more new coal plants either:
https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/german-electricity-giant-says-it-wont-invest-in-new-coal-power-plants/
Cheers,
Bart
-
perhaps because the German government shut down the nuclear reactors and heavily subsidized the solar install cost and forced a premium price on the utility. A good friend of mine in Germany said he was making significant money due to installing a solar system on his house.
Exxon's move is an appeasement and marketing ploy for the most part for all the reasons mentioned before.
-
I'm not sure if that's the case, but if it is, it might have something to do with the early retirement of Nuclear energy plants. And Germany still has a huge amount of Coal-based power plants that also need to be written off faster than anticipated.
And I'm not so sure they are building more new coal plants either:
https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/german-electricity-giant-says-it-wont-invest-in-new-coal-power-plants/
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, the phase out of nuclear is certainly adding to the issue. However, this still does not take away from the fact that wind/solar are incredibly dilute and intermittent, making them extremely expensive just due to the increase in the infrastructure needed.
Due to this, primarily their intermittency, they will never be base load power sources, which means until Germany recognizes nuclear is in fact safe (the safest power source actually) and starts implementing them again, they will only continue to increase their coal usage.
BTW, saying they wont, is a lot different then actually not. Let's see what happens in 10 years. I am sure if they don't adopt nuclear, we will see more coal plants in Germany.
-
Yes, the phase out of nuclear is certainly adding to the issue. However, this still does not take away from the fact that wind/solar are incredibly dilute and intermittent, making them extremely expensive just due to the increase in the infrastructure needed.
Sure, it's only part of the solution. But due to their intermittent character, they can also be used to buffer energy, e.g. with Hydro-pumped storage (using old mines filled with water, pumped to a higher level during surplus production, and by use of gravity drive turbines as the water drops to a lower level, and so on). Besides, Germany is part of the European grid system, which increases the likelihood that somewhere the sun will shine or the wind will blow.
And, while currently not very efficient, excess solar-power during sunny summer-days can be converted to Hydrogen gas as a storage medium that will provide Carbon emission-free power when burned again when needed. Hydrogen gas can use the current existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure with relatively small modifications.
Cheers,
Bart
-
BTW, saying they wont, is a lot different then actually not. Let's see what happens in 10 years. I am sure if they don't adopt nuclear, we will see more coal plants in Germany.
Unlikely, since Carbon taxes are being introduced in European countries. That would place polluters at a competitive disadvantage and it stimulates them to increase the percentage of alternative sources of energy and everybody to use less energy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sure, it's only part of the solution. But due to their intermittent character, they can also be used to buffer energy, e.g. with Hydro-pumped storage (using old mines filled with water, pumped to a higher level during surplus production, and by use of gravity drive turbines as the water drops to a lower level, and so on). Besides, Germany is part of the European grid system, which increases the likelihood that somewhere the sun will shine or the wind will blow.
And, while currently not very efficient, excess solar-power during sunny summer-days can be converted to Hydrogen gas as a storage medium that will provide Carbon emission-free power when burned again when needed. Hydrogen gas can use the current existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure with relatively small modifications.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, first off, it is not the case that if the sun does not shine then the wind must be blowing and vis versa. So to assume that their will be sun shining and wind blowing always to produce energy is a fallacy. This was shown to be the case in 2016, which was a much less windy and sunny year in Europe. Actually the total amount of electricity produced in Germany from wind/solar that year was less then the previous even though they increased their potential production by over 20%.
So what do you do in less windy/sunny years?
Second, it cost money to transport power, and in many cases, when the distances are great, more then what you can actually charge for it. This too has been shown to be the case. The odd thing about wind and solar is that it produces a lot of energy when we typically don't need it. Problem though is that an overcharged power grid can damage the grid from blow outs. So when this happens, states/countries need to effectively pay their neighbors to take the excess energy because the cost of transport is higher then the price of it. So Germany being part of the EU grid does not solve anything.
Third, neither of the energy storage options you listed would actually work. In the case of the water storage, it turns out you need a very specific storage vessel, not just some abandoned mine. On top of this, even if abandon mines could work, they are not water tight, so a certain amount of construction will be needed. Third, since salt water is so corrosive, fresh water will have to be used in these cases and their are much more important things to use fresh water for, such as irrigation or making sure the population does not go thirsty. Remember, fresh water only constitutes 1% of all water on the planet; it is a more valuable resource then what we think it is.
Insofar as the hydrogen suggestion, it takes a lot of energy to split water into hydrogen, so much so that nearly all commercially available hydrogen comes from other sources then water, like fossil fuels. This is not to say you could not build a hydrogen production plant using electricity, but the fact remains you will loose a lot of energy in the process of splitting water. On top of this, of all the flammable gases, hydrogen has the lowest energy potential.
This is similarly the case with batteries. You loose about 20% to 40% of your energy when you charge a battery and retrieve it later. Compared to a electric grid, batteries are incredibly energy inefficient as well.
-
Unlikely, since Carbon taxes are being introduced in European countries. That would place polluters at a competitive disadvantage and it stimulates them to increase the percentage of alternative sources of energy and everybody to use less energy.
Cheers,
Bart
You say that now, but political unrest could certainly arise if the cost of electricity in Germany continues to rise. Considering how the EU is turning against immigration currently (which I did foresee), I would not say repealing carbon taxes, especially if nuclear is continued to be ignored, is outside the realm of possibilities.
(Damn, I feel like my typing has taken a hit recently or I relying on auto-correct too much.)
-
You say that now, but political unrest could certainly arise if the cost of electricity in Germany continues to rise. Considering how the EU is turning against immigration currently (which I did foresee), I would not say repelling carbon taxes, especially if nuclear is continued to be ignored, is outside the realm of possibilities.
I'm not saying that nuclear will be ignored, but it takes a long time to plan and build the new generation plants, and by that time a better type of generator (Thorium based) is probably available. There also technology keeps improving, and investors will be reluctant to invest in old technology.
Anyway, Carbon emissions have to be reduced, because the cost of postponement will be higher than of taking action right now.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not saying that nuclear will be ignored, but it takes a long time to plan and build the new generation plants, and by that time a better type of generator (Thorium based) is probably available. There also technology keeps improving, and investors will be reluctant to invest in old technology.
Anyway, Carbon emissions have to be reduced, because the cost of postponement will be higher than of taking action right now.
Cheers,
Bart
I agree. I just feel we are going done a rabbit hole with wind and solar. All the evidence shows this. We should be concentrating on nuclear.
Also, the only reason nuclear takes so long to build is because of the government red tape. Take that away and they would be built much faster.
Of all of the countries that are trying to reduce their carbon emissions, only France is succeeding, and they generate 90%+ of their electricity from nuclear.
-
The cost of solar and wind does not include the need to upkeep traditional gas and oil electric producing plants. You need them when there is no sun or wind. So these old plants must be ready to operate and at full peak power. It's not like you can shut them down. Also, private installation of solar may reduce that person';s cost for electricity. But it shifts it to those who didn;t convert as they still must pay for the upkeep of the carbon plants with less customers to pay for their upkeep. I'm not aware of any locality charging solar users for that issue.
Also, government is paying subsidies for people to install solar. That's just shifting the costs to others.
More workers in renewables is terrible economics. Maybe we should get rid of tractors and force farmers to hire more workers to produce the same amount of food per acre as they did with tractors and less workers.
Nuclear is the way to go. But there is so much political opposition, I don't see it happening in America, at least with new plants.
-
The cost of solar and wind does not include the need to upkeep traditional gas and oil electric producing plants. You need them when there is no sun or wind. So these old plants must be ready to operate and at full peak power. It's not like you can shut them down. Also, private installation of solar may reduce that person';s cost for electricity. But it shifts it to those who didn;t convert as they still must pay for the upkeep of the carbon plants with less customers to pay for their upkeep. I'm not aware of any locality charging solar users for that issue.
Also, government is paying subsidies for people to install solar. That's just shifting the costs to others.
I hear this a lot, that we have to keep some fossil fuel plants online in case the wind stops. But while the wind is blowing, you're not using any fuel, are you? At the present time, natural gas and whatever else they burn in those places is cheap, but you have to plan out these utilities 25-50 years, the fact that today's price is low is utterly irrelevant. There may come a time, and probably will, when the savings on not burning the gas when the wind is blowing will be worth keeping those plants online.
It is always the same, people calculate how much it costs to do things, but they never calculate what it will cost NOT to do them.
As for governments subsidizing solar and wind, please stop repeating this. They've been subsidizing Big Oil since before we were born, it's just that no one ever adds that up. A few months ago, the Cdn federal government announced support dollars for the downturned Alberta oil industry, which is going through one of its semi-regular down cycles, and that which for some reason has surprised everyone again. And current day taxpayers have to pay for the clean-up of abandoned oil and gas wells because the companies that ran them are gone. There are probably a thousand other examples. How come no one ever adds up what THAT costs?
The Alberta tar sands companies use lots (up to a third, I've read) of the available fresh water in the watershed up there and spits it back out into polluted ponds. How much are they paying for that water? Sounds like a subsidy to me.
Please stop analyzing things as if we're distorting the free market. The corporations are the FIRST to line up at the taxpayer trough. There's not a single one of them that believes in the free market. They're scared to death of the free market.
-
The oil folks are not likely to be investing in alternative energy sources for fun, and certainly not to play PR games they don't have to play; being big businesses, they take long-term looks at what they are going to be doing in a couple of decades. Especially if electric cars are to become the norm. Providing that huge, added need for electricity is going to be some challenge - there are already black-outs now and again. And remember, those companies don't want to stop being money spinners when all the coal and oil have gone.
Rob
-
Especially if electric cars are to become the norm.
Hang on - surely electric cars only work when it's sunny. Or windy. Or something?
Or have I been misled ?
-
I hear this a lot, that we have to keep some fossil fuel plants online in case the wind stops. But while the wind is blowing, you're not using any fuel, are you? At the present time, natural gas and whatever else they burn in those places is cheap, but you have to plan out these utilities 25-50 years, the fact that today's price is low is utterly irrelevant. There may come a time, and probably will, when the savings on not burning the gas when the wind is blowing will be worth keeping those plants online.
It is always the same, people calculate how much it costs to do things, but they never calculate what it will cost NOT to do them.
As for governments subsidizing solar and wind, please stop repeating this. They've been subsidizing Big Oil since before we were born, it's just that no one ever adds that up. A few months ago, the Cdn federal government announced support dollars for the downturned Alberta oil industry, which is going through one of its semi-regular down cycles, and that which for some reason has surprised everyone again. And current day taxpayers have to pay for the clean-up of abandoned oil and gas wells because the companies that ran them are gone. There are probably a thousand other examples. How come no one ever adds up what THAT costs?
The Alberta tar sands companies use lots (up to a third, I've read) of the available fresh water in the watershed up there and spits it back out into polluted ponds. How much are they paying for that water? Sounds like a subsidy to me.
Please stop analyzing things as if we're distorting the free market. The corporations are the FIRST to line up at the taxpayer trough. There's not a single one of them that believes in the free market. They're scared to death of the free market.
FIrst, I have no incentive to protect oil or solar, or wind energy. If someone could figure out how to burn H2O, I'd be in favor.
Having said that, because the government did stupid things with oil subsidies, doesn;t mean we should have stupid subsidies for solar and wind. Subsidies distort the marketplace and get companies to do things that have no business rationale to do. This raises prices, lowers standards of living and misallocates money that could be better spent on cancer research.
-
Hang on - surely electric cars only work when it's sunny. Or windy. Or something?
Or have I been misled ?
In Cuba, many short-haul commuters use horse drawn wagons for the local transportation. One horse can carry 10-12 slim passengers. Totally independent from oil, coal, sun and wind. On the front of the wagon there is a poop catcher for the valuable fertilizer, and some horses are equipped also with a backpack to capture the methane which can be compressed and used for cooking. Quite an efficient and environmentally friendly setup.
-
In Cuba, many short-haul commuters use horse drawn wagons for the local transportation. One horse can carry 10-12 slim passengers. Totally independent from oil, coal, sun and wind. On the front of the wagon there is a poop catcher for the valuable fertilizer, and some horses are equipped also with a backpack to capture the methane which can be compressed and used for cooking. Quite an efficient and environmentally friendly setup.
Not according to AOC; remember flatulence is a serious climate issue.
-
Subsidies distort the marketplace and get companies to do things that have no business rationale to do.
On another point - which I'm sure you don't understand - this is exactly the purpose of subsidies - to compensate for inefficiencies in the market, and to push the economy closer to a globally optimum position by giving companies an incentive to do things which are beneficial in the long term but not in the short term.
-
FIrst, I have no incentive to protect oil or solar, or wind energy. If someone could figure out how to burn H2O, I'd be in favor.
Having said that, because the government did stupid things with oil subsidies, doesn;t mean we should have stupid subsidies for solar and wind. Subsidies distort the marketplace and get companies to do things that have no business rationale to do. This raises prices, lowers standards of living and misallocates money that could be better spent on cancer research.
We also have to remember oil/coal/gas companies get only tax breaks. Wind/solar companies get tax breaks and rebates to customers, which is even worse. If we took away the tax breaks of fossil fuel, they would continue to sell with no problems.
Take away just the rebate and the wind/solar market would dry up pretty quickly, especially considering wind/solar farms only produce energy 10% to, at most, 30% of the time. Not a reliable source of power.
FYI, the 10% to 30% figure surprised the hell out of me; before reading this I thought it would be around 50%. Real life data shows 30% is the absolute best that can be hoped for.
We need to start investing in nuclear full speed.
-
Not according to AOC; remember flatulence is a serious climate issue.
Yeah, but the main culprit for the methane production (and it is indeed serious and frightening matter) are livestock farms for production of meat.
-
Yeah, but the main culprit for the methane production (and it is indeed serious and frightening matter) are livestock farms for production of meat.
Good thing I'm not a big red meat eater then. I have a steak maybe once every other year.
See, I'm doing my part.
-
In Cuba, many short-haul commuters use horse drawn wagons for the local transportation...
Cuba lives to its communist ideal: "Proletarians of the world, unite!" Here we see, left to right: an American car, Cuban eco-friendly transport, Polski Fiat (Polish-Italian), and a Russian Lada (Russian-Italian). Pure bliss!
-
Cuba lives to its communist ideal: "Proletarians of the world, unite!" Here we see, left to right: an American car, Cuban eco-friendly transport, Polski Fiat (Polish-Italian), and a Russian Lada. Pure bliss!
But look at the road, Slobodan: the daily loaf is laid out neatly for free access; clearly a culture deeply influenced by the romantic teachings of Omar Khayyám. The wine has been finished, though. Always pays to be an early riser. Well, almost always.
-
... influenced by the romantic teachings of Omar Khayyám...
Apparently, a man after my own heart:
... his philosophic attitude toward life as a combination of pessimism, nihilism, Epicureanism, fatalism, and agnosticism.
-
Apparently, a man after my own heart:
:-)