The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

And having to cut corners and cut back on safety to do it. And that was 2 years ago.

 

The article you posted does not support that claim. If they were cutting those corners and cutting safety, the project wouldn't be delayed to fix the earlier mistakes.

 

I'm still waiting for something, anything that justifies even the $10b cost you're throwing around as a minimum.

 

And a proposal for what large-scale carbon-free systems we can have installed and operating by 2030 for similar or less costs than new nuclear.

[StrangeSox]

The Finnish reactor is being built for a fixed cost of $4.1b, though there is currently arbitration lawsuits filed by both sides to contest an additional $1-2b. That's still well below your $10b+.

[StrangeSox]

Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

 

IN THE wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors and China, which is building more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, has suspended approval for all new facilities. But this reaction may be more motivated by politics than by fear of a catastrophic death toll. It may be little consolation to those living around Fukushima, but nuclear power kills far fewer people than other energy sources, according to a review by the International Energy Agency (IAE).

 

"There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people."

 

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

 

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

 

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources.

 

So why do people fixate on nuclear power? "From coal we have a steady progression of deaths year after year that are invisible to us, things like heart attacks, whereas a large-scale nuclear release is a catastrophic event that we are rightly scared about," says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

 

Yet again, popular perceptions are wrong. When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.

Edited March 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The Finnish reactor is being built for a fixed cost of $4.1b, though there is currently arbitration lawsuits filed by both sides to contest an additional $1-2b. That's still well below your $10b+.

Because they started it in the early 2000's. The price has soared since.

Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns.

"Today" there being 2009, with prices doubling every couple years.

[StrangeSox]

That hasn't happened and the Finnish government utility isn't paying $8b. Like I said, the original contract was fixed-price and there's currently legal disputes over an additional $2b or so. It isn't to $8b, which was an estimate two years ago. It isn't doubling every couple of years.

 

eta: Finland also approved the construction of two more nuclear reactors last year that will make them completely energy self-sufficient

Edited March 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

I know, let's all go live in a f***ing cave, sell everything you have that have any amounts of carbon footprints in it at all, and most importantly, get off the computer. That will solve all of the world's problems, since we're all either going to die from CO2 or nuclear or bulls*** overload.

[Balta1701]

I know, let's all go live in a f***ing cave, sell everything you have that have any amounts of carbon footprints in it at all, and most importantly, get off the computer. That will solve all of the world's problems, since we're all either going to die from CO2 or nuclear or bulls*** overload.

Kap, I think LF's sig is the appropriate reply.

[kapkomet]

Kap, I think LF's sig is the appropriate reply.

 

 

You live in such a perfect utopia that nothing has to effect you, huh? Just only those evil energy using people must suffer, right?

[Balta1701]

You live in such a perfect utopia that nothing has to effect you, huh? Just only those evil energy using people must suffer, right?

You clearly have no interest in any discussion, just insults.

[Balta1701]

As of 2011, the United States will have scientifically based, manageable catch-limits in place and being enforced for all 528 species of fish comprising U.S. fisheries. As a consequence, a number of species are recovering dramatically, improving the economics of the whole industry.

[StrangeSox]

Awesome, seriously.

[Balta1701]

Awesome, seriously.

Yeah, I had no idea they'd made that kind of progress.

[kapkomet]

You clearly have no interest in any discussion, just insults.

 

 

So are you, but you just link it to your own beliefs and mock everyone else. The whole point of your perceived "insult" is for all of the back and forth, unless we die, the answer's wrong for the "environment". Utopian beliefs and altruistic crap doesn't change that.

[Balta1701]

So are you, but you just link it to your own beliefs and mock everyone else. The whole point of your perceived "insult" is for all of the back and forth, unless we die, the answer's wrong for the "environment". Utopian beliefs and altruistic crap doesn't change that.

This is fundamentally untrue about everything I've said and you ought to know it. I can't tell if you do or if you just stopped caring.

[kapkomet]

This is fundamentally untrue about everything I've said and you ought to know it. I can't tell if you do or if you just stopped caring.

 

 

Okay, I'll turn the conversation a bit from the "insults". Are you against nuclear? Are you against CO2? What are you for for energy policy? And what does that do to you as an indivdual?

 

My brush was more broader (hugely so) of what you seemed to be driving at - I know you're against C02, and you seem to be against nuclear, yet, as "modern humanity", we pretty much have to go back pre industrial age to make a difference.

[Balta1701]

Okay, I'll turn the conversation a bit from the "insults". Are you against nuclear? Are you against CO2? What are you for for energy policy? And what does that do to you as an indivdual?

 

My brush was more broader (hugely so) of what you seemed to be driving at - I know you're against C02, and you seem to be against nuclear, yet, as "modern humanity", we pretty much have to go back pre industrial age to make a difference.

I think that renewables can cover the global energy needs within 50 years if governments commit to them, and I think it can happen at energy prices comparable with the levels we're paying now. I think we could be well on our way in 10 years if we ever got government policy out of the toilet. The technology exists right now, the only thing that isn't there is the manufacturing capacity.

 

I think if you're going for nuclear, with the amount of money it costs, you're much, much better off focusing on renewable development, and you avoid the likelihood of something like what's happening in Japan right now.

 

I think electric cars working with those systems can cover a huge fraction of transportation needs, especially with increased rail development (the hard part is freight hauling by trucks...because I struggle to see how you can cover long-distance trucking with batteries. Hence the need for improving rail). I think if you do those you see significant drops in health care costs. I also think that you can, without any loss in livelihood, cut ~30% from the per capita electricity consumption in this country (not counting electric car battery charging) just by eliminating wasted electricity.

 

I really don't care if you need a little bit of oil or a little bit of gas development as a backup/freight fuel or to provide better baseload capacity. That's why I'm such a fan of the Volt.

[kapkomet]

I think that renewables can cover the global energy needs within 50 years if governments commit to them, and I think it can happen at energy prices comparable with the levels we're paying now. I think we could be well on our way in 10 years if we ever got government policy out of the toilet. The technology exists right now, the only thing that isn't there is the manufacturing capacity.

 

I think if you're going for nuclear, with the amount of money it costs, you're much, much better off focusing on renewable development, and you avoid the likelihood of something like what's happening in Japan right now.

 

I think electric cars working with those systems can cover a huge fraction of transportation needs, especially with increased rail development (the hard part is freight hauling by trucks...because I struggle to see how you can cover long-distance trucking with batteries. Hence the need for improving rail). I think if you do those you see significant drops in health care costs. I also think that you can, without any loss in livelihood, cut ~30% from the per capita electricity consumption in this country (not counting electric car battery charging) just by eliminating wasted electricity.

 

I really don't care if you need a little bit of oil or a little bit of gas development as a backup/freight fuel or to provide better baseload capacity. That's why I'm such a fan of the Volt.

 

 

But, the Volt takes CO2... electricity generation. So you post that not counting electric car battery generation... that means you have a fallacy of logic there, IMO. You can't look at it that way. So what do you do?

 

And the point of tying this to health care costs? Because of what? That's a HUGE leap.

 

You know, I've always wondered why ... (oh snap... I think I just came up with a new freaking invention... I'm almost serious... ) okay, so I'll hold that thought a moment. But it's an idea of energy consumption in a standard house.

 

And the materials made for car batteries are AWFUL for the environment, and I'm not sure they last as long as people claim. We simply don't know yet despite all of the "tests" that say otherwise.

 

To me, it's a dream world of no CO2 and no nuclear. What's renewable? Solar? That is pretty much going by the wayside. And don't tell me wind energy, I've seen how that works (it doesn't, which is why it's starting to get abandoned).

[Balta1701]

But, the Volt takes CO2... electricity generation. So you post that not counting electric car battery generation... that means you have a fallacy of logic there, IMO. You can't look at it that way. So what do you do?

 

And the point of tying this to health care costs? Because of what? That's a HUGE leap.

 

You know, I've always wondered why ... (oh snap... I think I just came up with a new freaking invention... I'm almost serious... ) okay, so I'll hold that thought a moment. But it's an idea of energy consumption in a standard house.

 

And the materials made for car batteries are AWFUL for the environment, and I'm not sure they last as long as people claim. We simply don't know yet despite all of the "tests" that say otherwise.

 

To me, it's a dream world of no CO2 and no nuclear. What's renewable? Solar? That is pretty much going by the wayside. And don't tell me wind energy, I've seen how that works (it doesn't, which is why it's starting to get abandoned).

I didn't count electricity for battery filling because that is the 1 new electricity consumption we need, and I don't have the numbers for that. I have seen the numbers repeatedly for how much room there is for cuts just off of efficiency and energy recovery. Electricity in cars is so much more efficient than using oil that it will put some extra load on there, but probably not more than you'd save by increased efficiency.

 

And I know you don't buy it, but as an actual asthmatic, let me tell you, health care costs because of coal and oil use are huge. Let alone the water pollution from the mining that costs taxpayers billions per year, some of us spend a ton of money dealing with the stuff in the air. Pick your study, almost all of them estimate that the decrease in deaths per year if we could get the particles from fossil fuel use out of the air would be in the thousands to tens of thousands.

[kapkomet]

I have asthma now too. That's what happens when you get pneumonia more then once in your life. I hate it. But, I'm not blaming oil and coal companies for it... (I'm ribbing you on that... I've never really thought about it before).

 

I'm just not sure you'll get the efficiency gains that you think you will (you being pluralistic here).

 

[Balta1701]

I have asthma now too. That's what happens when you get pneumonia more then once in your life. I hate it. But, I'm not blaming oil and coal companies for it... (I'm ribbing you on that... I've never really thought about it before).

 

I'm just not sure you'll get the efficiency gains that you think you will (you being pluralistic here).

If government policy was lined up correctly, I think we'd beat those efficiency gains.

 

More realistic though...I think government policy will continue to stagnate, the private sector will make some moves in that direction but it'll flounder (just like you're saying wind is doing right now), and the end result will be repeated economic busts. Every time the global economy tries to grow, demand for fuel and energy is going to try to go up, and it's going to be overwhelmed with a price spike.

[iamshack]

If government policy was lined up correctly, I think we'd beat those efficiency gains.

 

More realistic though...I think government policy will continue to stagnate, the private sector will make some moves in that direction but it'll flounder (just like you're saying wind is doing right now), and the end result will be repeated economic busts. Every time the global economy tries to grow, demand for fuel and energy is going to try to go up, and it's going to be overwhelmed with a price spike.

I think there is a lot more momentum behind wind, solar, and geothermal than you guys are realizing. Maybe I have a different perspective than some of you because I am involved in the energy industry, but the momentum is real. A lot of the more progressive states out west have aggressive RPS's, and this is driving a lot of private investment. As more projects are developed, the processes get refined, and the costs drop. I think a real key will be when the public consumers, who are a real driving force for these renewables, start getting the bills for these projects. How consumers will react when they have to put their money where their mouths have been will be interesting to see.

 

There will certainly be some growing pains, and some steps backward at times, but I don't think renewables are going to stagnate like some seem to believe.

 

The failure rates on a typical renewable development project were in the 70% range for the past few years, but we're starting to see that drop down closer to 50% as companies and investors get better at anticipating pitfalls and other problems.

 

I interviewed for a management position last week in our renewables department, where I'd be managing a lot of the contracts for our projects while they are in the development stage. I doubt I will get the job, since it is a bit of a reach for me at this stage in my career, but from the research I did to prepare and the answers to my questions I asked, there is all the work we can handle over the next several years, and I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon.

[Balta1701]

I think there is a lot more momentum behind wind, solar, and geothermal than you guys are realizing. Maybe I have a different perspective than some of you because I am involved in the energy industry, but the momentum is real. A lot of the more progressive states out west have aggressive RPS's, and this is driving a lot of private investment. As more projects are developed, the processes get refined, and the costs drop. I think a real key will be when the public consumers, who are a real driving force for these renewables, start getting the bills for these projects. How consumers will react when they have to put their money where their mouths have been will be interesting to see.

 

There will certainly be some growing pains, and some steps backward at times, but I don't think renewables are going to stagnate like some seem to believe.

 

The failure rates on a typical renewable development project were in the 70% range for the past few years, but we're starting to see that drop down closer to 50% as companies and investors get better at anticipating pitfalls and other problems.

 

I interviewed for a management position last week in our renewables department, where I'd be managing a lot of the contracts for our projects while they are in the development stage. I doubt I will get the job, since it is a bit of a reach for me at this stage in my career, but from the research I did to prepare and the answers to my questions I asked, there is all the work we can handle over the next several years, and I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon.

While all of that is good...I think, especially with iffy government policy, we're playing catchup already.

 

Best example of that is the fact that we're already paying $3.50/gallon again, and we've barely caught up to the 2007 GDP level.

[iamshack]

While all of that is good...I think, especially with iffy government policy, we're playing catchup already.

 

Best example of that is the fact that we're already paying $3.50/gallon again, and we've barely caught up to the 2007 GDP level.

Well you know that we're not going to turn the fossil fuels and oil industry upside down barring some major technological breakthrough, so to me, the key is just to keep the momentum moving forward.

[Balta1701]

A state-level German Election dealt Chancellor Merkel's party a fairly large defeat, basically over the issue of nuclear power.

 

Of course, I'm posting this link not to make a political point, but entirely so I can post this image.

 

[StrangeSox]

I want to commend Hampton Inn & Suites for making what appears to be genuine efforts to increase efficiency, reduce energy usage and use recyclable or biodegradable materials where possible. I know the first two can simply make sense from a financial perspective (convince guests they don't need new towels & sheets everyday=less laundry costs), but it doesn't just stop there. The materials at their breakfast buffets are all biodegradable (made from corn starch I'm pretty sure). Messages around their hotels promoting conservation and environmental awareness. Building LEED-certified hotels with solar water heating.

 

Credit where credit is due. And the rooms are really nice for the price to boot!