Military vs Science

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[jeremyrh]

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 ?

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[LesPalenik]

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.   

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[jeremyrh]

  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.

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[LesPalenik]

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.

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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!

[Rob C]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[Rob C]

Apparently, a man after my own heart:

:-)