The *official* complain about XemaSab thread

[XemaSab]

Last edited Fri May 25, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

We all know that I am a terrible person who has totally crushed the morale of E/E by banning people I don't like, locking threads I don't agree with, and generally throwing around my dictatorial might.

My latest outrage is petitioning to have a group started so that all the people who are opposed to nukes can have their own group where they don't have to live under the yoke of my oppressive regime.

But how evil am I really?

I used to be against nuclear energy under any circumstances, but after a few years here it became clear that renewable energy has significant problems that will keep us from going 100% renewable any time in the foreseeable future.

According to the wikipedia, this is where energy in the US came from in 2009:



Note well that solar, wind, and geothermal together were 3.6% of our electrical generation, and nuclear was 20.3%. Conventional hydro was 6.9%.

I think we should make it a priority to get off that 44.9% from coal ASAP, and right after that we should try to cut way, way, way down on that 23.4% from natural gas. (And I'm not even talking about oil, just electrical generation.)

Between coal and natural gas, we would have to replace up to 68.3% of our existing generation. If we throw nuclear out of the mix, that number goes up to 88.6%. No amount of light-bulb changing or window-replacing is going to get us there.

Meanwhile, although there have been many significant advances made in renewable technology, there are serious limitations to the existing technologies.

Wind energy is very irregular, and needs to be buffered out with hydro power or natural gas. I think there are many places that are great for wind energy, but I am very uncomfortable with the thought of putting heavy machinery in our forests and other wild places. Of the wind farms that I have seen in California (Altamont, Hatchet Ridge, Bird Landing, Tehachapi, that one up above San Luis, and that one south of Joshua Tree, the one south of Joshua Tree is the only one that isn't smack in the middle of a wide area of good open habitat. The others are in the middle of grasslands, woodlands, and forests that don't currently have a large human footprint.

Similarly, solar energy does not provide a steady source of power either. That being said, I am a huge fan of solar panels, and I think we should put panels on houses, municipal buildings, parking lots, and brownfields as quickly as possible. It costs money, yes, but it creates jobs, saves the planet, provides shade, and generates energy right where it is needed.

I don't think huge solar farms out in the desert make any sense other than from a capitalist standpoint. These solar farms are built out there because it's public land. I think there's a lot of sleaziness that goes along with these projects, and the point of a lot of the projects isn't to generate clean energy but rather to generate venture capital. Because it's supposedly "clean" and because nobody gives a shit about the desert, there isn't a lot of scrutiny of these projects, but again, why are we so willing to put industrial equipment out in wild areas? Even the supporters of these projects say that we would need 10,000 square miles of desert covered in solar panels to power the US (though I don't remember whether this is for 24 hours of energy or for just peak usage). Why is it acceptable to take 10,000 square miles of open space and pave it over so that we can run our flat screen TVs and keep our McMansions at 68 degrees all summer? If we were talking about paving over ONE square mile of ANWR or Yellowstone or the Everglades or the Amazon rainforest there would be riots in the streets, but because it's the desert it's ok to trash it.

Geothermal is great. I can see two massive active volcanoes from my house, so why should I get any of my energy from fossil fuels at all? It's good for baseload, it's totally clean, and it never runs out.

I don't see our large dams all going away any time soon, so we may as well get as much energy from them as possible for now.

In summary, I think the future looks good for renewable energy, but I am worried that we will destroy more of our open space in the name of saving the planet. I think we need to keep our nuclear plants running while we are figuring out how to scale up our renewables. Right now if we got rid of nuclear energy, it would just mean burning more fossil fuels, and that is a step backwards.

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	This is a well-reasoned position
	13 (81%)
	I respectfully disagree with your thinking
	2 (13%)
	You are a cancerous tumor on the ass of humanity and you deserve to die horribly
	1 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[kristopher]

1. You fail to address the "how" of an energy transition

Oops. Lost the text:
Your position is based on magic hand waving enabled by a complete lack of understanding of the problems involved in the transition. It is a compilation of antirenewable FUD talking points that the opponents of renewable energy have targeted at those who are concerned about local environmental issues but lack the requisite knowledge to know the fallacy of the positions they espouse.
It is like saying you support building a house as long as we don't have to use a pesky foundation of any sort and there are no walls or roof, but those windows, hey they're great.

You've seen the legitimate information yet you cling to the invalid.

What kind of person do YOU think that makes you?

[joshcryer]

39. The magic hand waving is done by those championing a "renewable transition."

There is no tangible "renewable transition" as I have explained to you before.

[mike_c]

2. I must vehemently disagree....

A Faustian bargain is always a bad bargain, even when it appears to be the only way out. No amount of necessity will ever make nuclear fission a safe technology, especially in a market environment that seeks to maximize profits by minimizing costs. In that environment, nuclear power will ALWAYS be a ticking time bomb. Fossil fuel and nuclear power generation are both bad for the planet, and it's an equally terrible bet to espouse one over the other. Would you like the bullet, or the other bullet? To suggest that that's the only realistic choice is to admit defeat from the beginning.

I do agree that renewable energy has a long way to go before it can make even statistically meaningful dents in human energy demand, let alone any real promise for independence from planetary scale polluters such as fossil fuels and nuclear power. Nonetheless, those existing technologies are BOTH planetary scale polluters and we have to acknowledge that-- and ask ourselves whether we want to go down that path.

I'm personally cynical enough to believe the answer to that question is foregone-- few will voluntarily give up the convenience, entertainment, and ease of technology rich, energy dense modern life. But continuing that lifestyle will pollute the entire planet. We have to face up to that. There is no easy way out of this mess.

[XemaSab]

3. I totally hear what you're saying, and I respect it

I am right here with you on this:

I'm personally cynical enough to believe the answer to that question is foregone-- few will voluntarily give up the convenience, entertainment, and ease of technology rich, energy dense modern life. But continuing that lifestyle will pollute the entire planet. We have to face up to that. There is no easy way out of this mess.

The problem is that you can't not play the game. The beast must be fed.

The question is whether we get off fossil fuels on our timeline or on Nature's timeline.

[kristopher]

4. On what do you base your assessment of renewable energy?

It is already making a "statistically meaningful dents in human energy demand" so perhaps you want to re-examine the foundations of your beliefs.

It is possible you are accepting the characterization of renewables that has been cultivated by those entities it is poised to replace. And that hasn't been too difficult since it is only improvements to the supply chain and market in the last 10 years that have resulted in the cost reductions making large scale rapid deployment a real economic and technical possibility.

[mike_c]

7. if we accept the graphic in the OP...

...then < 4% of U.S. electricity generating demand is met with renewables (excepting hydropower, which is basically a form of solar power that depends upon the planetary water cycle for energy storage, but is often quite damaging to riverine ecology).

I'm aware that calling this statistically insignificant is borderline hyperbole, but only just. And bear in mind that while domestic electricity production is only one facet of energy demand, it is the one in which renewable resources have made the greatest inroads. Just to be clear though, I don't mean to suggest that renewable energy sources are themselves insignificant. Rather, I mean that-- I believe-- growth in human energy demand CANNOT be met with existing renewable energy technologies. Given our current technology, we might have been able to do it with 19th century population levels, but frankly I'm skeptical even of that. There is no current renewable energy technology that can deliver anything close to the energy density of fossil fuels, at least that's my understanding.

I'm not here to debate that, however. First and foremost, it's only tangential to my expertise, so I'm not the most qualified person to have that discussion. I responded in this thread primarily to tell the OP that I don't accept the argument that if nothing better will do the job, that makes nuclear fission tolerable. As I said above, both fossil fuels and nuclear fission are planetary scale polluters. They are equally unsustainable and environmentally irresponsible at the scales we need to exploit in order to maintain current global energy expenditures. There are a host of other discussions to have-- for example, how far current global per capita energy expenditure can be reduced-- but I'll leave that for another thread.

[kristopher]

10. See post 8

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. See the graph in Post #5

Keep in mind that the graph in the OP shows figures for 2009.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=15483

[NYC_SKP]

63. Pssst. Wind is also Solar.

As you indicate with hydro, so is wind power a transformation of solar heat energy into motion energy.

All sources except geothermal and uranium are, essentially, solar energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. What constitutes "statistically meaningful dents"

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5170

[font face=Serif]February 28, 2012
[font size=5]EIA projects U.S. non-hydro renewable power generation increases, led by wind and biomass[/font]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release Reference case.
Note: Data from the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) Early Release Reference case are subject to change with the release of the full AEO in spring 2012.
Download CSV Data

[font size=3]Wind and biomass dominate projected increases in U.S. renewable electricity generation, excluding hydropower, in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) Early Release Reference case. Increased generation from non-hydro renewable energy resources in the electric power sector accounts for 33 percent of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2010 to 2035. The non-hydro renewable share of total generation in the projection increases from 4% in 2010 to 9% in 2035.

Biomass generation increases nearly 4-fold, driven by two main factors: Federal requirements to use more biomass-based transportation fuels (see Renewable Fuels Standard), which leads to increased electricity generation as a co-product from liquid fuel facilities such as cellulosic ethanol refineries. Also, co-firing of biomass with coal increases over the projection period, induced partially by State-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) as well as favorable economics in regions with significant forestry residues. Traditional Industrial combined-heat-and-power generation in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry continue to contribute to overall biomass generation.

The AEO2012 Reference case assumes implementation of current laws and regulations as specified, including the scheduled expiration of some tax credits at the end of 2012. Wind generation nearly doubles between 2010 and 2035, but the growth slows following the expiration of the production tax credit. The full Annual Energy Outlook, to be released in spring 2012, will analyze a number of sensitivities, including one assuming that incentives such as the production tax credit do not expire.

Solar grows rapidly, increasing nearly 7-fold by 2035, as near-term market growth is projected to result in lower system costs. The majority of the growth in solar is with photovoltaics, a significant portion of which comes from the end-use sector (i.e., rooftop solar). However, even with this strong growth, solar still accounts for a relatively small amount of total electricity generation in 2035. The projection reflects the expiration of the 30% solar investment tax credit in 2016, as provided by current law, continuing at 10% thereafter.

…[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

21. It had better be lots more than that.

Growth from 4% to 9% over 25 years (even assuming extremely limited demand growth and increased use of nuclear), is not enough.

That translates to much more coal/gas than we currently use. Renewables really need to be at least double that amount by 2035.

I for one would like to know why they project rapid growth in wind power over the next handful of years and then almost no additional expansion over the following couple decades? It looks like they project almost 15 years of virtually zero new wind.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. "rapid growth in wind power over the next handful of years"

Check the X axis again. Much of that “rapid growth” happens by 2012. No doubt this projection is due, at least in part, to short term government incentives.

However, as I’ve suggested before, this is rather what I expect from the wind growth curve. It makes sense to me that the easiest, most profitable sites will be used first. Then, less attractive sites will be used (e.g. off-shore sites) these will take longer to build, and will require more of an up-front investment (compare it to “peak oil” if you will.)

I tend to think of wind as primarily a bridge technology to solar and solar as at least partially a bridge to nuclear fusion.
Wind is the most financially attractive right now, with solar coming up fast.
Fusion, as always, seems to be just over the horizon (however, I really think it may be true this time.)

[FBaggins]

24. You're right.

So they're saying that the growth in wind ends now?

I'm not buying it.

However, as I’ve suggested before, this is rather what I expect from the wind growth curve. It makes sense to me that the easiest, most profitable sites will be used first. Then, less attractive sites will be used (e.g. off-shore sites) these will take longer to build, and will require more of an up-front investment (compare it to “peak oil” if you will.)

Right... and I've seen that "peak"-ish analogy before. It's certainly true over the long-haul, but things are just getting started. We've seen almost nothing offshore (some of the most attractive sites) because the costs are still too high... but that will certainly change.

I tend to think of wind as primarily a bridge technology to solar

I can't agree with that absent some really cheap large-scale storage options. Solar has a big role to play, but it's permanently a niche role (sunny areas with significant daytime peak loads) absent much more storage. Solar thermal with storage expands the niche significantly... but never to the point where it's the key energy source internationally.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Storage solutions aren’t that hard to find

We have a number of storage solutions. (See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/112714328 )

FWIW: There is a kind of solar which needs no energy storage (orbital solar.)

[FBaggins]

27. We're talking 2035 here...

Orbital solar is a bit pie-in-the-sky (pun intended) for that timeframe.

And, of course, we'll later discover that the power transmission technology is itself dangerous. Have you not read Heinlein's Waldo?


Lastly, I'm afraid that your statement on storage solutions is overly optomistic. The amount of storage necessary for solar to be the primary generation source (i.e., something that even wind is a "bridge" to), is orders of magnitude beyond what you've linked to.

Take a look at the world's largest chemical battery. It's reportedly enough to supply one hour of power to 12,000 homes (presumably american homes even though it's in China). Even if the batteries in the story you link are ten times as efficient (or a hundred times), imagine how much is necessary to get... say... New Hamshire through a cloudy winter week.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/china-builds-worlds-largest-battery-36-megawatt-hour-behemoth

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. As I said, we have a number of technologies

For example, concentrating solar thermal plants can store thermal energy, collected during the daylight hours, for use at night. Although others may disagree, I believe hydrogen is a useful storage technology.

While I'm not exactly a fan of storage batteries, we don’t need to have monolithic grid-scale storage facilities. Think of hot water tanks, do we build them to store all of the hot water for a city? No, we build them to store the water used by a building. Storage batteries can be built at the same scale (and already are used in “off-grid” households.)

As for Waldo, remember, that was broadcast power, and not a point-to-point transmission.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. Another analogy

Manhattan has two great underground rivers of water flowing into it, yet most large buildings have water towers on their roofs to maintain water pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rooftop_water_towers_on_New_York_apartment_buildings.jpg

[font face=Serif]…
[font size=3]

Rooftop water towers on apartment buildings on East 57th Street in New York City. The structures seen here illustrate three architectural approaches to incorporating these tanks in the design of a building. From left to right, a fully enclosed and ornately decorated brick structure, a simple unadorned roofless brick structure hiding most of the tank but revealing the top of the tank, and a simple utilitarian structure that makes no effort to hide the tanks or otherwise incorporate them into the design of the building.

[/font][/font]

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/water-towers-nyc-s-misunderstood-icons-1.1143133

OK, so, now imagine that instead of water, a flow of electricity is coming into the city, and being stored in every building.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. Space-based Solar Power

http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/sg311_finalreport_solarpower.pdf

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Space Solar Power[/font]

[font size=4]THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF SPACE SOLAR POWER: OPPORTUNITIES, ISSUES AND POTENTIAL PATHWAYS FORWARD[/font]

John C. Mankins, Editor
International Academy of Astronautics[font size=3]

…

© International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) August 2011. This publication is protected by copyright. The Information it contains cannot be reproduced without authorization.

…

Finding 2: Solar Power Satellites appear to be technically feasible as soon as the coming 10-20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory (at low- to moderate- TRL) that could be developed / demonstrated (depending on the systems concept details).

• Finding 2a: There are several important technical challenges that must be resolved for each of the three SPS systems types examined by the IAA study.
• Finding 2b: The mature (high-TRL) technologies and systems required to deploy economically viable SPS immediately do not currently exist; however, no fundamental breakthroughs appear necessary and the degree of difficulty in projected R&D appears tractable.
• Finding 2c: Very low cost Earth to orbit transportation is a critically needed supporting infrastructure in which new technologies and systems must be developed to establish economic viability for commercial markets.

…[/font][/font]

Space-X may be one step toward that, "very low cost Earth to orbit transportation."

[joshcryer]

46. If SpaceX can get grasshopper working with Falcon 9H then SBSP becomes somewhat viable.

I do think, however, that for it to be truly viable you'd want a remotely operated moon factory that allows you to make the panels there, then launch them into GEO with rail launchers. Such a concept is not too far out there (see: Advanced Automation for Space Missions).

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. U.S. wind generation increased 27% in 2011

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5350

[font face=Serif]March 12, 2012
[font size=5]U.S. wind generation increased 27% in 2011[/font]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly.
Download CSV Data

[font size=3]Generation from wind turbines in the United States increased 27% in 2011 compared to 2010, continuing a trend of rapid growth. During the past five years capacity additions of wind turbines were the main driver of the growth in wind power output. As the amount of wind generation increases, electric power system operators have faced challenges with integrating increasing amounts of this intermittent generation source into their systems.

Federal production tax credits and grants for electricity from certain renewable sources as well as State-level renewable portfolio standards have encouraged both capacity additions and increased generation from wind and other renewable sources.

Although increasing, electricity from wind contributed to less than 3% of total generation in 2011. Wind energy is the largest source of non-hydroelectric renewable electricity in the United States, contributing 61% of the nearly 200 terawatthours of non-hydroelectric renewable generation in 2011. EIA recently released preliminary data through December 2011 on generation, fuel consumption, and other statistics for the electric power industry in the Electric Power Monthly and Electricity Monthly Update.[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

28. Yep...

...which is why I question any projection that thinks the run is close to an end.

At worst we'll see significant (if short-term) declines in the rate of growth.

[kristopher]

30. The industry is expecting 8-10GW/yr of new capacity for the next several years. nt

[FBaggins]

32. "The industry"?

Do we accept industry expectations as unbiased fact now?

[kristopher]

35. Was it presented as unbiased fact?

It is a data point, and it is relevant.

[kristopher]

31. The reason? Because it is the EIA, they ALWAYS sandbag renewables.

All across the last decade they kept predicting 2%/yr growth rate when the actual numbers were consistently between 25-50%.

We can only speculate about their motives, but the fact of the pattern is part of the historical record.

[FBaggins]

33. Except that that doesn't describe the graph.

They predict rapid growth in renewables over the 25-year period...

...just not in wind for some reason.

[kristopher]

36. It provides a starting point where EIA projections have a defacto lack of validity.

When you are year by year by year off by a factor of 12 - 25X in short term projections, then it is hard to take the long term projections seriously at all.

[joshcryer]

40. WEO's growth predictions have been spot on, and they're not much better.

[kristopher]

42. Perhaps...

From the IEA's 1998 World Energy Outlook





I only bothered to dig up some numbers for wind per the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) 'Global Wind 2011 Report'. They don't add up the global amount generated but we can compare the WEO projection against the numbers we have for the EU.

The global wind power market recovered somewhat in 2011, thanks to a strong year in a number of national markets The market grew by about 6% compared to 2010, and the 405 GW of new wind power brought on line last year ...

...The new global total at the end of 2011 is just shy of 238 GW, representing cumulative market growth of more than 20%, which is certainly a respectable figure for any industry in this economic climate, even though it is lower than the average over the last 10 years, which is about 28%.

The total wind power capacity installed in (just) the EU by the end of 2011 will, in a normal wind year, produce 204 TWh of electricity, enough to meet 63% of overall EU electricity consumption (up from 53% in 2010)

(Just) The EU achieved the 21% target set in the 2001 EU directive 77/2002/EC for the end of 2010 by generating between 665-673 TWh from renewable resources

IEA's WEO projection:
Aggregate Global Renewable Capacity 2010 = 43GW
Amount generated by all renewables that year = 154TWh

Aggregate Global Renewable Capacity 2020 = 73GW
Amount generated by all renewables that year = 239TWh

Still think they are accurate?



More detail:

[joshcryer]

43. Yes, I do consider them accurate.

This using 1998 stats is right out of a pro-nuke play book. "Solar won't work because in the 1970s people predicted it would but it didn't!"

Except you're saying "WEO predicted wrong in 1998 therefore their predictions now are off base."

[kristopher]

44. In a long list of meaningless rationalizations,

...that one is as good as any you've ever produced.

There is no record of any organization such as IEA or the EIA that predicted what you claim. The discussion is the validity of the mid and long term projections of the US Energy Information Agency. You chimed in saying that the predictions of the International Energy Agency have been "spot on". You made that statement to vouch for the renewable-critical premise being promoted by the infamously pronuclear Fbaggins.

The post above showing that the IEA's 12 and 22 year predictions are not only wrong, but wildly wrong is pretty solid proof that your claim is not accurate.

Please stop being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

[joshcryer]

45. We're talking about whether or not renewable production is putting a dent in CO2 production.

Not whether or not renewables are growing at a nice rate.

IEA didn't predict that we would be at the high end of the IPCC CO2 scenario, either.

WEO has been spot on as far as CO2 is concerned, and they've been far better than EIA as far as energy production is concerned. They could not have predicted, in 1998, that EU countries would build out renewables with subsidies or that China would come on as a big player. But even in the 1998 report they said that wind had great growth potential. They just didn't know how good it could be. That proves nothing. Show me the flaws in their analysis.

Meanwhile:

Wind turbine growth to slow as market looks east
The world's top wind turbine maker Vestas shed market share in 2011 in a global sector forecast to grow much more weakly in the next five years.

Vestas's Chinese rivals again grabbed four spots among the world's top 10 players, according to Danish consultancy BTM Consult which blamed government austerity measures for the cut in its industry growth rate outlook by one third compared with 2011.

BTM also said Europe lost out to Asia as the largest wind power continent last year.

It said Europe had 24.5 percent of all new installations, its lowest level and down from 51 percent five years ago, while Asia accounted for 52.1 percent.

[kristopher]

47. Whatever dud.

The discussion is in print right here. You're wrong and for anyone concerned about AGW it is a very, very good thing that you are.

Of course, it very pretty bad news for people who are really, really intent on shoving nuclear down the world's throat though.

[joshcryer]

48. It is a very bad thing that AGW is being white washed by people saying we're doing enough.

We're not.

Fossil production is not abating any time soon.

[GliderGuider]

6. The world situation is just as bad

Fossil+nuclear is 81% of the mix. Half the renewable slice is biomass There is more hydro, but less nuclear than in the USA.

Given that CO2 and radioactive contamination (air and water-borne) are global commons problems coming from sovereign national sources, I'd say we're all equally screwed.

[kristopher]

8. IPCC review of 160 scientific studies

"With consistent climate and energy policy support, renewable energy sources can contribute substantially to human well-being by sustainably supplying energy and stabilizing the climate," said Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III at the report launch. "However, the substantial increase of renewables is technically and politically very challenging" he added.

Youba Sokona, Co-Chair of the Working Group III, said:

"The potential role of renewable energy technologies in meeting the needs of the poor and in powering the sustainable growth of developing and developed economies can trigger sharply polarized views. This IPCC report has brought some much needed clarity to this debate in order to inform governments on the options and decisions that will needed if the world is to collectively realize a low carbon, far more resource efficient and equitable development path".

Ramon Pichs, Co-Chair of the Working Group III, added:

"The report shows that it is not the availability of the resource, but the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades. Developing countries have an important stake in this future—this is where most of the 1.4 billion people without access to electricity live yet also where some of the best conditions exist for renewable energy deployment".

Also speaking at the launch, Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, said:

"The IPCC brought together the most relevant and best available information to provide the world with this scientific assessment of the potential of renewable energy sources to mitigate climate change. The Special Report can serve as a sound knowledge basis for policymakers to take on this major challenge of the 21st century."

Details here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112715489

[GliderGuider]

9. "technically and politically very challenging"

That's IPCC-speak for "it's a hard problem", which is in turn computer-speak for "Can't be solved in the time available."

[kristopher]

11. Classic...

http://images.amplified.com/FLVStream/Catalog/1a3908d2-7295-4613-9092-679b5162962c/Product/5d3b81a8-fdab-49bb-a958-7a885faccbab/075678142123_005_128_0001_102.mp3

[GliderGuider]

12. Cheer up, have some flowers.

[joshcryer]

41. That's code language for "we ain't doing shit."

[Nihil]

16. Most people agree with "renewable energy sources can contribute substantially to human well-being".

I'd be very surprised indeed if anyone who posts on E/E thinks otherwise.

Similarly with the other extracts, e.g.,
> Developing countries have an important stake in this future—this is where
> most of the 1.4 billion people without access to electricity live yet also where
> some of the best conditions exist for renewable energy deployment

(I've been supporting this aspect since before this forum existed.)


The big snag is with the interpretation of the bracketing and qualifying text:
> "With consistent climate and energy policy support, renewable energy sources
> can contribute substantially to human well-being by sustainably supplying energy
> and stabilizing the climate" ... "However, the substantial increase of renewables
> is technically and politically very challenging" he added.

> "The IPCC brought together the most relevant and best available information
> to provide the world with this scientific assessment of the potential of renewable
> energy sources to mitigate climate change. The Special Report can serve as a
> sound knowledge basis for policymakers to take on this major challenge of the
> 21st century."

Q: How long has the IPCC been around?
A: Since 1988.

Q: How long has the IPCC been providing the best & most relevant information
to assist policymakers?
A: Since 1990.

Their first report was in 1990 and stated (in 1990) that "they are certain that emissions
resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface."
(Quote from the IPCC wiki page)

The fact is that the IPCC can continue to churn out more & more statements of the
situation and the dangers of ignoring it but the policymakers will continue to ignore
every single one because they are purely concerned about money and the votes of
those who provide that money.

Hence the answer to

Q: When will the planey see any form of "consistent climate and energy policy support"?

is "Not until the seats of government & financial centres have been destroyed".

That is the only way to break the "technically and politically very challenging" barrier
to climate change awareness: with pain that is felt *BY* the decision makers rather
than "merely" by the poor and some foreign chappies in a far-off land.

[kristopher]

18. For that post to be meaningful

One would have to completely ignore the progress which has been made in technologies, the building of supply chains and establishment of competitive manufacturing infrastructure. This is progress positioning both technologies to be economically competitive with fossil fuels, a requisite step to true large scale deployment.

If anything we are far ahead of where we expected to be when this effort commenced in earnest in 1990.

As for you claim that "I'd be very surprised indeed if anyone who posts on E/E thinks otherwise", all you need do is read the thread above to see that the thrust of the IPCC report completely contradicts the beliefs of regular posters here. It is an unequivocal affirmation that renewable energy is the undisputed and expected route to a carbon free global culture.

Nuclear energy is part of the problem, not the solution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Well, let’s let the IPCC speak for themselves

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-2-3.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]4.3.2.3 Development of future nuclear-power systems[/font]

[font size=3]Present designs of reactors are classed as Generations I through III (Figure 4.9). Generation III+ advanced reactors are now being planned and could first become operational during the period 2010 –2020 (GIF, 2002) and state-of-the-art thereafter to meet anticipated growth in demand. These evolutionary reactor designs claim to have improved economics, simpler safety systems with the impacts of severe accidents limited to the close vicinity of the reactor site. Examples include the European design of a pressurized water reactor (EPR) scheduled to be operating in Finland around 2010 and the Flamanville 3 reactor planned in France.

[font size=2]Figure 4.9: Evolution of nuclear power systems from Generation I commercial reactors in the 1950s up to the future Generation IV systems which could be operational after about 2030.

Source: GIF, 2002.

Notes: LWR = light-water reactor; PWR = pressurized water reactor; BWR = boiling-water reactor; ABWR = advanced boiling-water reactor; CANDU = Canada Deuterium Uranium.[/font]

Generation IV nuclear-energy technologies that may become operational after about 2030 employ advanced closed-fuel cycle systems with more efficient use of uranium and thorium resources. Advanced designs are being pursued mainly by the Generation-IV International Forum (GIF, a group of ten nations plus the EU and coordinated by the US Department of Energy) as well as the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) coordinated by the IAEA. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (US DOE, 2006), proposed by the US, has similar objectives. These initiatives focus on the development of reactors and fuel cycles that provide economically competitive, safe and environmentally sound energy services based on technology designs that exclude severe accidents, involve proliferation-resistant fuel cycles decoupled from any fuel-resource constraints, and minimize HLW. Much additional technology development would be needed to meet these long-term goals so strategic public RD&D funding is required, since there is limited industrial/commercial interest at this early stage.

GIF has developed a framework to plan and conduct international cooperative research on advanced (breeder or burner) nuclear-energy systems (GIF, 2002) including three designs of fast-neutron reactor, (sodium-cooled, gas-cooled and lead-cooled) as well as high-temperature reactors. Reactor concepts capable of producing high-temperature nuclear heat are intended to be employed also for hydrogen generation, either by electrolysis or directly by special thermo-chemical water-splitting processes or steam reforming. There is also an ongoing development project by the South African utility ESKOM for an innovative high-temperature, pebble-bed modular reactor. Specific features include its smaller unit size, modularity, improved safety by use of passive features, lower power production costs and the direct gas-cycle design utilizing the Brayton cycle (Koster et al., 2003; NER, 2004). The supercritical light-water reactor is also one of the GIF concepts intended to be operated under supercritical water pressure and temperature conditions. Conceivably, some of these concepts may come into practical use and offer better prospects for future use of nuclear power.

Experience of the past three decades has shown that nuclear power can be beneficial if employed carefully, but can cause great problems if not. It has the potential for an expanded role as a cost-effective mitigation option, but the problems of potential reactor accidents, nuclear waste management and disposal and nuclear weapon proliferation will still be constraining factors.[/font][/font]

(Hardly a resounding endorsement, but not exactly outright rejection either.)

[kristopher]

29. Sure they've included nuclear in many of their studies.

Looking at your quoted passage it is evident that it predates both Fukushima and, more importantly, the economic failures of new build nuclear in Finland and Flamanville.

The forecasts for nuclear as a meaningful global contributor to the battle against AGW is that it will decline as a percentage of energy consumption.

And while the new nuclear sounds good, it is difficult to imagine it being able to compete against the probable costs of wind and solar in 2030 and the grip they will have of grid design by then. So it too seems set be a minor player rather than a game changing technology, the progression of which we should be riveted on.

What I was referring to with my earlier comment is the fact that in conversations about moving away from coal the primary case made for nuclear by nuclear proponents revolves around their claim that the scenarios in the OP are not possible. Once that claim is admitted to be false, then the case for nuclear power development simply vanishes - which is the conclusion that virtually all independent non-carbon energy analysts arrived at some time ago. You know how long it takes to arrive at a paper like the OP; papers like this from bodies like that are usually trailing indicators, by their nature they cannot be cutting edge.

But you are absolutely correct, the IPCC also looks at carbon capture and nuclear and in some of their forecast papers those are simply included as a defacto significant part of the solution.

[joshcryer]

49. Gen IV won't come online for another quarter century if that.

There's no nuclear solution to this problem.

[OKIsItJustMe]

50. "Generation IV nuclear-energy technologies that may become operational after about 2030…"

(Sounds like you’re essentially repeating what they wrote.)

I'm not a nuclear fan, but I do tire of the "if it cannot be done today, it cannot be done at all" attitude, toward any solution someone doesn't like. (i.e. If renewable technologies cannot satisfy 100% of our needs tomorrow, they're useless. If nuclear cannot provide 100% of our power tomorrow, it's useless. If fusion isn't available tomorrow, it's useless. If we're not carbon neutral, tomorrow, it's game over for our entire civilization.)

We cannot overhaul our entire society overnight. Any fundamental change we make will be gradual, and we need to start laying the groundwork for that change now. That means deploying renewable technologies today. That means researching future technologies, like fusion (and even Gen IV fission) today.

My hope is that we won't need Gen IV fission reactors, but it sure would be nice to have them in our back pockets if it turns out we do need them.

[kristopher]

51. I'll take that as an oblique criticism of my position.

Just for the record tt isn't accurate.

"If nuclear cannot provide 100% of our power tomorrow, it's useless" isn't the same as pointing out that nuclear technologies not yet developed cannot help today, nor can we be sure they will be a viable option in the time frame suggested.

[OKIsItJustMe]

52. The same tack is taken against Space Based Solar Power for example

(See Reply 27 for example.)

Would you argue that Space Based Solar Power cannot be part of a long-term solution?

[kristopher]

53. Where did I say that Gen IV *cannot* be part of a *long-term* solution?

"technologies not yet developed cannot help today, nor can we be sure they will be a viable option in the time frame suggested"

And yes, I would apply the same criticism to SBSP. I am not a fan.

Now, what do you say we both have another cup of coffee?

[OKIsItJustMe]

54. You were replying to my reply to Josh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=15759

joshcryer
49. Gen IV won't come online for another quarter century if that.

There's no nuclear solution to this problem.

If you choose to take my reply to him as a personal affront…

[kristopher]

55. You made a sweeping statement

And I chimed in.
As long as you understand my position, I'm fine.

Now, about that coffee...

[joshcryer]

58. I did not say "it could not be done at all." I said it won't solve the problem.

The problem being catastrophic climate change.

[OKIsItJustMe]

59. There is no short-term solution, only long-term solutions

Gen IV reactors may be part of a long-term solution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I do hate gratuitous 3-D, particularly when useful information is lost to it

What year is this data from? Seriously, don’t you think that’s important?

Here’s some data for 2011:
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/statistics/Stats_2011.pdf


Regarding new installations:

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

Wind power accounted for 21.4% of new installations in 2011, the third biggest share after solar PV (46.7%) and gas (21.6%).

Solar PV installed 21,000 MW (46.7% of total capacity), followed by gas with 9,718 MW (21.6%), and wind with 9,616 MW (21.4%).

No other technologies compare to wind, PV and gas in terms of new installations. Coal installed 2.2 GW (4.8% of total installations), fuel oil 700 MW (1.6%), large hydro 607 MW (1.3%) and CSP 472 MW (1.1%). Nuclear (331 MW), biomass (234 MW), waste (69 MW), geothermal (32 MW) and ocean technologies (4.5 MW), each represented less than 1% of new capacity installations.

Overall, 2011 was a record year in the EU, with 45 GW of new electricity generating capacity installed, a 3.9% increase compared to 2010.

…[/font][/font]

[bananas]

13. There are so many things wrong in what you wrote, I don't know where to start. nt

[XemaSab]

14. So you got nothin', then

[Scuba]

15. The inability to be 100% renewable in the foreseeable future does not equal....

.... more nukes.

Ask yourself why renewable is such a small piece of the chart. Is it because it's unfeasible? Or because Big Oil and the nuke industry have been doing everything in their power to kill any efforts to promote it?

[Nihil]

17. Not evil in the slightest ...

... and nothing in your OP would suggest otherwise to anyone who read it
rather than assuming that you were saying something other than the words
contained within it actually state.

If you had said that you wanted to increase the number of nuclear plants
then I would disagree with you (but you'd still not be evil).

If you had said that solar PV was rubbish or wind energy was a non-starter
then I would not only disagree with you but I would be also able to see why
people attacked your posts (but you'd still not be evil).

If you'd gone to the other extreme and said that plonking down mega PV
farms across the desert or wind farms in rare bird nesting sites then you're
damned right that I'd disagree and that would be just as close an approach
to "evil" as if you said that you wanted a nuclear power station in every
nature reserve or a line of drilling rigs along the Barrier Reef.

But you didn't. So you are not.

Your "problem" is analogous to that of Sarah Osborne back in 1692 ...

[XemaSab]

56. Update on my evilness:

Yesterday I went and bought more drought-tolerant, bee-friendly plants for the yard.

Today I stirred my vermicomposting bin. It was REALLY raunchy in there. I added some peat moss, so hopefully it will be fluffy enough to harvest tomorrow.

[XemaSab]

57. BREAKING:

The dogs got some snackage out of the worm bin, so I now have two evil dogs with evil breath.

[Nihil]

60. And several hours later ...

... it isn't going to be just the news that's "breaking" ... and you'll be wishing for merely bad breath from the dogs!

[XemaSab]

61. Somehow I got stuck sleeping with them

[XemaSab]

62. I spent the day birding

I saw bald eagle, golden eagle, *AND* northern goshawk.

It was pretty epic, but I am exhausted.

[XemaSab]

64. I think ticks should go extinct

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I went and birded some riparian along the Sacramento River today, and all I have to show for it is one little passenger... so far.

I also cleaned out the worm bin. The peat moss that I put in there the other day made it a lot less raunchy. I ran it through a 1/4 inch screen, then ran it through a 1/8 inch screen, and I wound up with about 5 pounds of black gold.

[NYC_SKP]

65. XemaSab's F350 CrewCab Dually Diesel, with Leather.... Excessive, IMO.

But, apparently, she has sold it:





`
`
`
`

[XemaSab]

66. I need it to carry the dogs around in

[XemaSab]

67. I made a dent in turning a weedy mess into a vegetable garden

and I am celebrating with a Sierra Nevada "Summerfest."

I think my next major green initiative should be to give up wine and other brands of beer and only drink Sierra.

They're very green with TONS of environmentally friendly technologies, plus they're local so it saves on the energy needed to ship beer a long ways. If I needed another reason, it's creating local jobs locally and supporting the economy of the North State.

http://www.sierranevada.com/

[XemaSab]

68. This morning I woke up and said to myself

"I am not going to take any shit today."

So far I am sticking to that plan.

Also: There is a checkout girl at Safeway who had never heard the word "sermon" before (!), and mimosas are a fine idea when it's 103 out.

[GliderGuider]

69. Being a host is a thankless task.

I prefer "taskless thanks", which I why I have never offered to become a host.
There's enough martyrdom in my life already...

[pscot]

70. Hosting is the perfect solution for those who feel

they aren't getting their fair share of abuse at home. A feeling I'll never know.

[XemaSab]

71. One of the things that's a hugh bummer about being a host

is that I feel like it's immoral to just put people on ignore.

And no, I'm not talking about any people or threads that are currently active here.

[stuntcat]

72. :thumbs:

It's embarrassing being this species but I come to DU for a little hope! but alas..
I've never ignored anyone but I guess we all have our first time.

[GreenPartyVoter]

73. Your name starts with an "X." I find this intolerable.

Well, no. Not really.

[wtmusic]

74. A very reasoned position, and welcome to the club.

We not only need to keep nuclear, but build a new plant every week if we want to hold the line on carbon by 2050. But baby steps.

The best part: you are no longer obligated to side with Arnie Gundersen on anything.

PM me for the secret handshake, and how to get your nuclear decoder ring (no launch codes).

[CRH]

75. Several thumbs down on your opening paragraphs, ...

I think you are a great moderator. Your allow the debate over often contentious issues to continue without interference, allow occasional bad manners from posters who otherwise are reasonable when their buttons aren't being pushed, and you do not sensor subjects or particular opinions. Though autocratic you are not dictatorial. More like a benevolent permissive dictator. Sort of like a mom with too many incorrigible children, none evil, but several often mischievous.

I give your reign at DU EE group several thumbs up.

Just an added aside: The insidious ants you un leached might need reinforcements. I saw a good thread in LBN today about the Prince Charles call to action, nearly decimated by our high tech no respect, savior. Other mods, need to salt his ass with ants, again,

[Speck Tater]

76. This is a well-reasoned position, AND I respectfully disagree. nt

[XemaSab]

77. If we all agreed with each other all the time

this would be a boring site.