Text 1449, 163 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 16:26:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1895.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <jq2282dn8pm8mdo8tm4rt87lprr7iqaoo8@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <4e4tu7F1bfpnnU2@individual.net>
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
>news:sb6u72tntlonhln5qj501mb42jr8vksuph@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:23:46 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm curious where you draw the line as to what is "Enough?"  I'm not 
>>>trying
>>>to be flippant, I'm curious as to what you envision as living "properly" 
>>>and
>>>what the consequences of these choices are.
>>
>> An easy way to think of it that works for me is for us to live up to
>> our own self-defined ideas of wealth.
>>
>> One example if what I mean by that is that there are many different
>> ways of generating power. We're living in industrialised nations - we
>> need power to continue that.
>>
>> There are cheap ways of generating power that as a by-product pollute
>> the place and generate gasses that cause and increase climate change.
>> Oil and coal-burning are two examples.
>>
>> There are also more expensive ways of generating power, but they
>> produce a lot less (in some cases none at all) of the pollution and as
>> such have a very much reduced climactic impact.
>>
>> Question: Are we so poor that we cannot afford the more expensive, but
>> environmentally better power generation methods? I don't believe so.
>
>I suppose it depends on who you mean by "We."  Increase home heating costs 
>by 20-30% and some people will significantly suffer.  It's not the power 
>companies that absorb the cost.

But why would we have to do that? Wind power is dirt cheap and adds
nothing to the power bill up to about 20% penetration, which is the
point at which you need energy storage. If it made up /all/ of our
power, it would probably still be cheaper than what we pay today if
you take into account the indirect costs of other power sources -- $25
billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, days lost to
sickness, the strategic petroleum reserve, forests killed and
monuments damaged by acid rain, the cost of dealing with oil-financed
countries like of Iran, what have you. But even without that, the
extra costs could easily be made up by helping people identify and pay
for energy saving measures. For example, it's cheaper to heat a house
with an electrically powered ground source heat pump than oil and gas.

>There are a number of technologies that can be used to help...and they 
>should be...but none of them are a universal panacea.  How many solar panels 
>or windmills would be needed to power NYC?

The US has enough wind to power the country five times over. We're the
Saudi Arabia of wind.

>  How many birds would be killed 
>by the windmills (apparently a significant problem in areas they are 
>deployed).

Few. It isn't really a problem with current turbines, which rotate
slowly.

>  Most of the technologoes that can help work on smaller scales.

The prime candidates now are nuclear energy and wind, and both can
work at any scale.

>It's fine and correct to say that we should do more. We should....but 
>specifically ... who should do what? At a national or international level, 
>what technologies are you saying should be used?  At a private level, what 
>should be used? Are people to be compelled to use them and how much does it 
>cost each person?
>
>Do we know how much energy can really be produced by <pick whichever 
>trechnology you wish>? Not just estimates by proponents, but hard numbers. 
>What are the trade-offs (there are always trade-offs)?  Specifically how 
>much more will it cost and who will pay?  It's great to talk in abstract...I 
>was asking for something more concrete.

Five times.

No additional cost at up to 20% penetration, maybe 1-1/2 cents per
kW-hr additional above that -- IOW, about what we're paying today, and
not subject to the fluctuations that have recently driven up the cost
of electricity.

And having dropped in 20 years from about 35 cents a kilowatt hour to
3-5 cents, wind is becoming even cheaper as we speak. When you add
indirect costs and subsidies, it's probably the cheapest source of
power around.

>Until someone proposes a *specific* plan and does the analyisis...it's just 
>good intentions.  I'm not aware of anyone that's done this.  I may have 
>missed it, but if it were as simple as you suggest I would think a specific 
>plan would have been proposed and touted.

Try searching -- you'll find lots of analyses and estimates, though if
you're looking for a perfect analysis, you'll be disappointed -- there
never is one in this area because its too complicated to allow
rigorous analysis and there are /always/ assumptions -- forex, does
your power plant last 25 or 35 or 50 years? That makes a huge
difference in a capital intensive, low fuel cost power plant such as
wind or nuclear.

(Note, though, that this is always the case -- energy companies have
to make a guess every time they choose the technology for a new plant,
whether it be wind or coal or any other power source. Will the price
of oil stay low or go up over the fifty-year life of a plant, and if
so, how high will it go? Will carbon limits be imposed thirty years
from now, and if so, will it be economically feasible to sequester the
CO2 emitted by a coal fired plant?)

That being said, the problem isn't that we don't have alternatives,
it's that other power sources receive huge direct and indirect
subsidies and that the Bush Administration has failed to take the
actions that would encourage the adoption of alternative power
sources. For example, the direct cost of coal is a bit lower than that
of wind and natural gas has gotten expensive, so they're currently
building a lot of coal plants -- more than 160 -- despite the fact
that coal is a filthy fuel and quite possibly more expensive when one
considers ancillary costs such as sickness and pollution damage. And
many utilities are no longer allowed to own their own power plants --
they buy their power from independent operators. But the interest
rates utilities pay on long-term loans are significantly lower. Since
wind is capital intensive -- the wind itself is free, after all --
that has the effect of driving up the cost of wind.

Also, investors would be more likely to invest in wind, a long payback
investment given that a turbine lasts something like 25 years, if they
had some kind of guarantee.

>If someone were to do the science and a real feasability and cost/benefit 
>analysis and came up with something tangable that could be debated ... then 
>I think there'd be a real chance for public debate and some kind of action.

I find it infinitely frustrating that more people don't know this. It
took me several years of poking around to learn what I have. People
think the whole alternative energy business is much harder than it is.

The only thing I can think of doing is writing the occasional letter,
which is inevitably rejected, since it seems editors aren't interested
in the salient facts, just airy pontificatory generalities. Or an
Op-Ed piece, but I'm not an expert -- the best I can do is quote
figures from others. And this should really be done by someone who is
an expert in the field.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)