Searching \ for '[OT] Why not nuclear? (Was Specific costs of trans' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+not+nuclear
Search entire site for: 'Why not nuclear? (Was Specific costs of trans'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Why not nuclear? (Was Specific costs of trans'
2007\12\08@223934 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:14:33PM -0500, Carl Denk wrote:
> And, I'm not taking a side, but, as I understand the opposition to the
> breeder and plutonium is the concern of terrorist getting control of the
> plutonium.

Dr. Cohan addressed a whole chapter of the book to that exact issue. In
summary it would exceedingly difficult to coopt someone on the inside to
steal plutonium, get it to the terrorists without it being noted as
missing, then to actually make a useful explosive device from it. Even then
the yield would not be that devestating even if you could pull it all off.

And unlike 9/11 which was pulled off because of relative surprise, everyone
knows that plutonium is a prime terrorist target. So such a reactor would
be under heavy security and heavy scrutiny.

It's all a matter of relative risk. Opponents always quote worst case
scenarios, but never couple them with the frequency of the occurance:

1) Radiation is deadly
2) Terrorists can strike
3) Nuclear plants can blow up or meltdown

Yes they can all happen. But what's the relative risk? I just rode home
with a 16 YO driving. I'm at a hell of a lot more risk in that situation
than I am getting radiation poisoning. Using that same reasoning no one
would ever drive, walk across the street, go outside (hit by lightning
anyone?), drink milk (could get mad cow), or do any of the hundreds or
thousands of orinary activities that we do every day. We take risks every
day.

Everything in the nuclear power game can be made to a low enough risk that
it's comprarble to our every day activities. I like the example that Dr.
Cohen posited about comparing the potential of getting a dose of radiation
from nuclear waste properly buried to walking across the street. When
compared apples to apples, the relative risk was the same a waking across
the street 5 times. I think we've all done that.

But the benefits of a breeder are that between breeding and reprocessing,
the fuel needed to power a country full of nuclear plants indefinitely
becomes possible. Uranium is found everywhere. Breeding converts it into
useful fuel for nuclear power plants. Reprocessing reuses useful fuel and
lowers the amount of waste product to process.

We humans deal with hazardous deadly materials on a daily basis. Why are
properly handled and processed radiation sources treated so much
differently?  Truthfully if you want to be concerned with radiation, then
radon is far far far far (I think one more) far more hazardous to the
average lay person than any spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel. Do you have
a radon detector in your home?

I just think that it's idiotic to continue to dump millions of tons of
hydrocarbon burning waste that we can already see the effects upon the
planet instead of considering implementing an alternative that works
because of frankly irrational fear.

Snipping the rest. I don't think it's pertinent here.

Also changing to OT as EE flew the coop about 3 or 4 days ago.

BAJ

2007\12\08@225709 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 11:38 AM, Byron Jeff <spam_OUTbyronjeffTakeThisOuTspamclayton.edu> wrote:
>
> And unlike 9/11 which was pulled off because of relative surprise, everyone
> knows that plutonium is a prime terrorist target. So such a reactor would
> be under heavy security and heavy scrutiny.

Not necessary true. Take a look at the situations related to nuclear
material smuggle situation, especially from the previous soviet
union countries.

{Quote hidden}

Ture. But that is in the known territory. Nuclear safety is kind of in the
unknown territory. Just like Genetically modified food. Just like
human clone.

{Quote hidden}

When there is a nuclear power station nearby, I will have one. Maybe
I will even leave the place for good.

> I just think that it's idiotic to continue to dump millions of tons of
> hydrocarbon burning waste that we can already see the effects upon the
> planet instead of considering implementing an alternative that works
> because of frankly irrational fear.
>

I do not think it is irrational.

Xiaofan

2007\12\08@230232 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Why nuclear is not the answer?
www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/climate-change/solutions/no-nuclear-no-geosequestration/not-nuclear
www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/why_nuclear_power_is_not_t_28092005.html
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/index.php
www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm

2007\12\09@001212 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 10:57:08PM -0500, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2007 11:38 AM, Byron Jeff <.....byronjeffKILLspamspam@spam@clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> > And unlike 9/11 which was pulled off because of relative surprise, everyone
> > knows that plutonium is a prime terrorist target. So such a reactor would
> > be under heavy security and heavy scrutiny.
>
> Not necessary true. Take a look at the situations related to nuclear
> material smuggle situation, especially from the previous soviet
> union countries.

Nations are sovereign. I'm tackling this as a US centric issue. The US has
regulated the nuclear power business out of existance. The US has abandoned
reprocessing. The US pulled the rug from the proposed breeder reactor in
South Carolina.

But back on point. What was smuggled? Where from? What was the security at
the time. Was the countries involved in unstable flux?

As I keep saying...

{Quote hidden}

Actually as the Wikipedia article on Yucca Montain points out, it's the
most studied piece of real estate on the planet. They have a site where the
stability and storage of the material has been projected out 1 million
years.

Everything about nuclear except for storage is well known. No one has died,
gotten sick, gotten irradiated, gotten cancer, or been contaminated in the
40+ years that the nuclear power business has been functioning. This
article on nuclear waste storage:

http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm

discusses natural nuclear formations in Africa that stayed put for 2
billion years without any forethought or protection at all.

The known quantities have a ton of deaths attached to them. Cars,
lightning, coal mining, pollution all have documented adverse effects. In
the case of nuclear waste storage all we have is "something bad may
happen". That's all. Sooner than later we need to pull the trigger on a
reasonable long term storage solution for nuclear wastes. It's got to be
better than the know quanitity of the tons of CO2 dumped into the air and
tons of coal ash that are known byproducts of burning coal.

{Quote hidden}

You missed the point. Radon occurs from natural radiation sources. As a gas
it percoloates up from the ground and gets trapped in houses, given
sometimes concentrated doses or radiation to the inhabitants.

My point is that the same opponents to storing nuclear waste in a
deliberately overengineered system to minimize radiation exposure may not
be real concerned about a true radiation hazard.

Since no person has ever been harmed by a properly designed and functioning
nuclear plant (and don't bring up Chernobyl which was neither) why would a
nearby nuclear power station be of any concern? Again it's the fear of what
may happen. I feel it's the same kind of irrational fear that some folks
have of flying. Once again I'd feel much safer on a plane than riding
around in my car, which I do daily.

>
> > I just think that it's idiotic to continue to dump millions of tons of
> > hydrocarbon burning waste that we can already see the effects upon the
> > planet instead of considering implementing an alternative that works
> > because of frankly irrational fear.
> >
>
> I do not think it is irrational.

It is. You have an industry that has never harmed anyone, is meticulously
over regulated, and therefore has been priced out of compteitiveness
compared to alternatives which are either insufficient or environmentally
damaging (or in the case of solar PVs, both). Yet the industry that has
harmed no one is the one that everyone fears. It makes no sense. Therefore
it is irrational.

BAJ

2007\12\09@004758 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:02:30PM -0500, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Why nuclear is not the answer?

> http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/climate-change/solutions/no-nuclear-no-geosequestration/not-nuclear

Sorry to bring religion into it, but asking GreenPeace acout nuclear power
is like asking a minister why devil worship is unwise. There's simply no
rationality to their discussion.

I'd like to see just one actual reference in this article. Dr. Cohen
probably has upwards of 300 scientific references in his book.

This article is propaganda. Their final paragraph says it all:

-------------------------------------------
Nuclear power is never safe

Accidents can and do occur. Every part of the nuclear industry has
unacceptable risks, from uranium mining to energy production to the
unsolved problem of safely transporting and storing radioactive waste.

In 50 years, no solution to the nuclear waste problem has ever been found.
The only logical solution is to close down the nuclear industry and stop
creating the waste.
-------------------------------------------

Point me to one known death in any part of nuclear power producing
industry and maybe I'll take a look.


> http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/why_nuclear_power_is_not_t_28092005.html

Another propaganda piece without one documentable reference. Looked very
much like the first one.


> http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/index.php

Ditto.

> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm

Hits all of the standard propaganda high points: where will we put the
waste? Terrorism. Lack of fuel. Cancer causing.

And again only vague references to undocumented reports. Shoddy work at
best.

So I guess I'm supposed to take the word on nuclear fearmongerors over the
research and documentation of a highly respected academic.

Not very bloody likely. I don't fall into the trap of listening to a lie
yelled at you long enough somehow makes it the truth.

Your last link quoted 442 nuclear plants running worldwide. Any exploded?
Terrorized?  Killed anyone? Don't you think your fearmongerors would be
crowing about how the nuclear industry is killing people if they could?

Just about the only thing they got right is the expensive nature of nuclear
power. But that's specifically because the fearmongerors prod governments
into make stricter and stricter controls for new plants. That's why there
haven't been any new nuclear plants commissioned in the US in nearly 30
years.

Read Dr. Cohen's book. Read his references. Look at the data. Nuclear isn't
the boogyman designed to scare small children. It could be a viable
solution to some of our truely pressing energy and environmental problems.

BAJ

2007\12\09@012949 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Byron Jeff wrote:
> I've just spend a good part of the last couple of days reading Bernard
> Cohen's book, The Nuclear Energy Option. As pointed out elsewhere you can
> find it here:
>
> http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
>
> [..] After reading it I'm as fired up as a supercritical nuclear reactor
> on the
> subject. Cohen treatise on the subject is absolutely brilliant. If I were
> the guy in charge I'd implement completely what I call the "Cohen plan."

Byron, I'm curious -- what was your opinion on nuclear energy, prior to
reading the book?

2007\12\09@031742 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Sorry to bring religion into it, but asking GreenPeace
> acout nuclear power
> is like asking a minister why devil worship is unwise.
> There's simply no
> rationality to their discussion.


He's just maintaining balance - Vitaliy used France as an
example of how nuclear power made sense.



       Russell


2007\12\09@032008 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 1:10 PM, Byron Jeff <byronjeffspamKILLspamclayton.edu> wrote:
> Nations are sovereign. I'm tackling this as a US centric issue. The US has
> regulated the nuclear power business out of existence. The US has abandoned
> reprocessing. The US pulled the rug from the proposed breeder reactor in
> South Carolina.
>

Global warming is partially because of US (which has the highest carbon
emission as a country, and US has not yet even approved the Kyoto protocol.
If the emission of US per capita drops significantly and other countries
to follow, we would not have a global warming issue actually
and we do not need a solution like nuclear power generation.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@033630 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
> http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

Back to the book, I just read a bit on the chapter. Now we
need the data.

Many economists believe that a large part of the reason for America's
economic success has been low-cost energy. Historically, energy in general
and electricity in particular have been considerably cheaper here than in other
countries. But, as a result of the cost increases under discussion here, that
situation is changing. If we don't get our nuclear power program back on track,
electricity will soon be much more expensive in the United States than in
Western Europe or Japan. This could easily have serious effects on our standard
of living and, more importantly, on our unemployment problems. It is surely not
difficult to believe that this loss of our competitive advantage could
result in a 1%
increase in unemployment, which is estimated to cause 33,000 deaths per year.

The failure of the American public to understand and quantify risk must rate as
one of the most serious and tragic problems for our nation. This
chapter represents
my attempt to contribute to its resolution."

No data at all. What is the price comparison of US electricity and France?

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@035930 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 4:36 PM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
>
> Back to the book, I just read a bit on the chapter. Now we
> need the data.
>
>

Chapter 2:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter2.html

I have studied a bit on the power engineering side (I do not
like to study them but it was a pre-requisite) and from what
I learned, the US power generation capacity is actually quite
good (only some places have problems). The main problem
is the power distribution network.

In fact, I believe US does not need more power plants.
Solution:
1) to use less power by practicing a bit of constraints,
do not waste that much of energy
2) to improve the power distribution network, to replace
50s/60s/70s equipment with modern ones.
3) to outsource some heavy industry
4) to approve Kyoto protocol and future protocols, to
reduce per capita carbon emission
5) to pay more for things, including electricity, many
things are too cheap in US compared to similarly
wealthy countries, the result is the waste of resources,
including energy
...

With all these, there is no need to build more power
plants in US, at least not many more are needed,
and no nuclear power stations are needed.

The annual economic growth of US does not
justify rapid ramp up of power generation. The portion
of global warming issues caused US should be
solved by other means, not nuclear power.


Xiaofan

2007\12\09@040812 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 4:36 PM, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
>
> Back to the book, I just read a bit on the chapter. Now we
> need the data.
>

So I read more, and my overall viewpoint of the book is not
high at all. It wants to discuss the technical part, but I
find it more political and propaganda rather than technical.

www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html
"The validity of their views depends on social, political, demographic,
and psychological considerations on which I have no claim to expertise.
I only want it to be clearly understood that their ideas are driven by
political
considerations rather than by scientific, technical, or economic analyses.
Their attempts at the latter have been shallow and heavily biased and have
generally received rebuttal rather than acceptance by experts."

The above is highly inappropriate if the author claims to address the
issues on technical merits. The words like "shallow and heavily biased"
may be use by the other side as well. And then the whole discussion
becomes useless.

I do not need this Christmas present after all.


Xiaofan

2007\12\09@042055 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> In summary it would exceedingly difficult to coopt
> someone on the inside to steal plutonium,

If that is too difficult, get it with force

> get it to the
> terrorists without it being noted as missing

why cares if it is noticed or not? being noticed might be part of the
scheme.

> then to
> actually make a useful explosive device from it.

from a terrorist point of view even a conventional explosive what
spreads plutonium is very 'useful'.

> Even then
> the yield would not be that devestating even if you could
> pull it all off.

I don't care whether the yield it let's say 1/10 of a conventional bom.
Especially not after it exploded near me.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\12\09@053625 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

> I don't care whether the yield it let's say 1/10 of a conventional bom.
> Especially not after it exploded near me.
>
> Wouter van Ooijen

Would you rather stopping the Atlantic conveyor and turning most of
Europe into something that more closely resembles the climate of
Siberia? Nuclear power or global warming those are the only two viable
options that anybody has actually presented.
Solar is nice but its rather hard to run your aluminum smelter off one.
(solar photovoltaics seem especially silly for large scale power)

Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to spend any
money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific and
engineering establishments around the world. The world needs a goal of
producing commercial scale fusion power before 2015. It really is the
most important thing in the world. Think, with access to fusion power
china would not be opening 2 new coal fired power stations every week.
You want to stop emissions start with that.

2007\12\09@055900 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Would you rather stopping the Atlantic conveyor and turning most of
> Europe into something that more closely resembles the climate of
> Siberia?

No, I'd rather put a hughe cost on using energy.

> Nuclear power or global warming those are the only
> two viable
> options that anybody has actually presented.

Apparently your value of viable does not match mine.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\12\09@060445 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Den 2007-12-09 06:46:38 skrev Byron Jeff <byronjeffspamspam_OUTclayton.edu>:

> Point me to one known death in any part of nuclear power producing
> industry and maybe I'll take a look.

What planet are you living on?

Tjernobyl is a very known place with a reactor that exploded not terriby far from me.
Cancer deaths are still counting on large scale

On TV here it was recently a program on how large areas are used for mining, radioactive leaks from mistakes and accidents etc.

Large old salt mies in Germany that are used for very large scale radioactive waste are fohnd unsafem and wil cost xxx billion to excavate and put in safe place, wherever that would be is still not decided AFAIK.

Depending on how you calculate uraium supply do not last more than a couple hundred years, about double of oil, still a negligible source of energy in light of whther we want anking do live on it for even a thousand of time we have lived so far.

It is just stupidity tu use it at the curent rate, with the crappy inefficient, unsafe and environmetnal danger as we do today.



--
Morgan Olsson

2007\12\09@070839 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to spend any
>money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific and
>engineering establishments around the world. The world needs a goal of
>producing commercial scale fusion power before 2015. It really is the
>most important thing in the world. Think, with access to fusion power
>china would not be opening 2 new coal fired power stations every week.
>You want to stop emissions start with that.

Actually we spend huge amounts (tens of billions of dollars)  every
year on fusion research. And we've not gotten anywhere. My own
opinion is that fusion energy is either a long way off, or more
likely impossible. Why? Because it doesn't scale down well. Stars can
do fusion on a large scale, where gravity does a lot of work for
free. We can't do fusion on such a scale here on Earth. The losses
from scaling down move you too far from the break-even point.

If we took the money spent on fusion research, and had used it to
build nuclear fission plants (which do work), we wouldn't have an
energy crisis in the US.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\12\09@072729 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 8:08 PM, Chris Smolinski <@spam@csmolinskiKILLspamspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
>
> Actually we spend huge amounts (tens of billions of dollars)  every
> year on fusion research. And we've not gotten anywhere. My own
> opinion is that fusion energy is either a long way off, or more
> likely impossible. Why? Because it doesn't scale down well. Stars can
> do fusion on a large scale, where gravity does a lot of work for
> free. We can't do fusion on such a scale here on Earth. The losses
> from scaling down move you too far from the break-even point.

I may agree with this. Fusion is a long way off.

> If we took the money spent on fusion research, and had used it to
> build nuclear fission plants (which do work), we wouldn't have an
> energy crisis in the US.
>

Do we really have an energy crisis in the US? I do not think so.
Oil is still cheap so people still drive. Electricity is still cheap
so people still leave their computer on the whole day downloading
MP3s or displaying useless screensavers. Most of the power
of data centers are actually powering P2P download of MP3
and films or online gaming, not critical business data.

Xiaofan

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@073928 by Jinx

face picon face
> Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to
> spend any money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific
> and engineering establishments around the world. The world needs
> a goal of producing commercial scale fusion power before 2015

The race is on to mine lunar helium3 for fusion. I saw an item on
60 Minutes the other night about it. Google for nasa helium3

2007\12\09@095553 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 9, 2007 6:36 PM, Jake Anderson <KILLspamjakeKILLspamspamvapourforge.com> wrote:
>  Nuclear power or global warming those are the only two viable
> options that anybody has actually presented.

Apparently you have a strange definition of  the word "viable
options". ;-)

> Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to spend any
> money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific and
> engineering establishments around the world.

It has been a focal point of scientific research for quite some
time but the result is still not promising. I am not sure how
soon it will be viable. By the way, I believe my use of "viable"
is at least grammatically correct. ;-)

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@102644 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
I am a free thinker but the following does strike a cord with me.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/pct08.htm

"Therefore, we need to change our present human-centred behaviour,
allow nature to be self sustaining, and so insure the ongoing welfare
of succeeding generations."

"Looking at our Taiwan homeland, we see the environment being
destroyed by people's greed and selfishness, and with the addition
of mistaken political policies, all of this leads to a loss of harmony
between people and nature. This is all the more critical when we
see people in every country of the world gradually recognizing the
inherent destructive qualities of nuclear power and, in mass, halting
construction of future nuclear plants and abandoning present ones;
at the same time, however, our own authorities stubbornly push
through with the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Station,
ignoring the great threat to Taiwan's survival and development, and
ignoring the people's wishes and the warnings of scholars and
experts."

Read a bit more and I think it does have quite some points.

And the nuclear power plant project is now on hold in Taiwan.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@103941 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 04:22:23AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > In summary it would exceedingly difficult to coopt
> > someone on the inside to steal plutonium,
>
> If that is too difficult, get it with force

There only needs to be a limited number of these type plants. Use heavy
force to protect them.

>
> > get it to the
> > terrorists without it being noted as missing
>
> why cares if it is noticed or not? being noticed might be part of the
> scheme.

Again it's not impossible to secure such facilities. If they have a 15 km
patrolled border and sufficient surveillance, how is someone going to
actually pull off getting in and out of such a facility.

>
> > then to
> > actually make a useful explosive device from it.
>
> from a terrorist point of view even a conventional explosive what
> spreads plutonium is very 'useful'.

It would cause terror I agree. But in terms of actual damage it wouldn't be
as harmful as you think.

I again point you to Dr. Cohen's book where he outlines this exact scenario
and that expected impacts from them.

>
> > Even then
> > the yield would not be that devestating even if you could
> > pull it all off.
>
> I don't care whether the yield it let's say 1/10 of a conventional bom.
> Especially not after it exploded near me.

The point is that it's a Rube Goldberg type setup that has very little
chance of being pulled off. Truthfully if you really wanted to terroize
people, conventional explosives, chemical, biological, or other methods
are both more devestating and a lot easier to actually accomplish. So given
that these agents can be used to terrorize populations, should we simply
stop using chemicals and explosives too? Car bombs can happen. So we should outlaw
vehicles too?

The risk is minimal and can be mitigated in a number of ways. If we
continue to pull out the worst case scenario with a trillion to 1 shot of
actually happening and using it as a bully pulpit as to why to not
implement something so useful due to undue fear, then we as a species are
destined to fail.

BTW in the scenario you outline above you really don't need a breeder
reactor. Uranium, radium, and radon can be found naturally in and on the
ground. Simply scoop some up and disperse it.

We all perform risky activities on a daily basis. But somehow radiation has
gotten some special chair of honor when it comes to spreading fear in
populations of humans. I really don't understand it.

BAJ

2007\12\09@104316 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 05:36:14AM -0500, Jake Anderson wrote:
>
> > I don't care whether the yield it let's say 1/10 of a conventional bom.
> > Especially not after it exploded near me.
> >
> > Wouter van Ooijen
>
> Would you rather stopping the Atlantic conveyor and turning most of
> Europe into something that more closely resembles the climate of
> Siberia? Nuclear power or global warming those are the only two viable
> options that anybody has actually presented.
> Solar is nice but its rather hard to run your aluminum smelter off one.
> (solar photovoltaics seem especially silly for large scale power)

And half the time (like nighttime) solar is pretty useless. And there are
several envinronmentally unfriendly processes that occurs in the production
of PV panels.

> Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to spend any
> money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific and
> engineering establishments around the world. The world needs a goal of
> producing commercial scale fusion power before 2015. It really is the
> most important thing in the world. Think, with access to fusion power
> china would not be opening 2 new coal fired power stations every week.
> You want to stop emissions start with that.

Fusion is technilogically unfeasible at this time. Fission is mature
technology with all of the technological issues solved. Fission only fails
when human fears (many irrational) and politics gets involved.

BAJ

2007\12\09@104438 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 07:08:09AM -0500, Chris Smolinski wrote:
> >Fusion is the only real answer to all this but nobody wants to spend any
> >money on it. It should be the prime goal of the scientific and
> >engineering establishments around the world. The world needs a goal of
> >producing commercial scale fusion power before 2015. It really is the
> >most important thing in the world. Think, with access to fusion power
> >china would not be opening 2 new coal fired power stations every week.
> >You want to stop emissions start with that.
>
> Actually we spend huge amounts (tens of billions of dollars)  every
> year on fusion research. And we've not gotten anywhere. My own
> opinion is that fusion energy is either a long way off, or more
> likely impossible. Why? Because it doesn't scale down well. Stars can
> do fusion on a large scale, where gravity does a lot of work for
> free. We can't do fusion on such a scale here on Earth. The losses
> from scaling down move you too far from the break-even point.
>
> If we took the money spent on fusion research, and had used it to
> build nuclear fission plants (which do work), we wouldn't have an
> energy crisis in the US.

Or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Thanks for your thoughts.

BAJ

2007\12\09@110351 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 07:27:21AM -0500, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2007 8:08 PM, Chris Smolinski <RemoveMEcsmolinskiTakeThisOuTspamblackcatsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually we spend huge amounts (tens of billions of dollars)  every
> > year on fusion research. And we've not gotten anywhere. My own
> > opinion is that fusion energy is either a long way off, or more
> > likely impossible. Why? Because it doesn't scale down well. Stars can
> > do fusion on a large scale, where gravity does a lot of work for
> > free. We can't do fusion on such a scale here on Earth. The losses
> > from scaling down move you too far from the break-even point.
>
> I may agree with this. Fusion is a long way off.
>
> > If we took the money spent on fusion research, and had used it to
> > build nuclear fission plants (which do work), we wouldn't have an
> > energy crisis in the US.
> >
>
> Do we really have an energy crisis in the US?

We do. There are wide ranging ramifications environmentally, economically,
and politically with the current energy mix.

> I do not think so.  Oil is still cheap so people still drive.

Oil prices are at record highs. Oil reserves will be tapped in a
realitively short amount of time. Burning oil contributes millions of kg of
particulates and gases into the atmosphere.

> Electricity is still cheap

Again at the expense of burning coal which is also generating millions of
metric tons of waste products.

We're in a pick your poison and stop sticking your head in the sand
situation here.Thinking otherwise is a road towards a really awful future
result.

BAJ

2007\12\09@112727 by 556RECON

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>><SNIP.
>>
>>We humans deal with hazardous deadly materials on a daily basis. Why are
>>properly handled and processed radiation sources treated so much
>>differently?  Truthfully if you want to be concerned with radiation, then
>>radon is far far far far (I think one more) far more hazardous to the
>>average lay person than any spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel. Do you have
>>a radon detector in your home?
>>    
>>
>When there is a nuclear power station nearby, I will have one. Maybe
>I will even leave the place for good.
>
>  
>
<SNIP>

>
>Xiaofan
>  
>
We have RADON GAS problems here in central Wisconsin, US.  We have a
nuclear power plant in eastern part of the state but we were told that
the RADON GAS is natural occurance and not related to the nuclear power
plant.

RECON

2007\12\09@113914 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>>><SNIP.
>>>
>>>We humans deal with hazardous deadly materials on a daily basis. Why are
>>>properly handled and processed radiation sources treated so much
>>>differently?  Truthfully if you want to be concerned with radiation, then
>>>radon is far far far far (I think one more) far more hazardous to the
>>>average lay person than any spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel. Do you have
>>>a radon detector in your home?
>>>   
>>>
>>When there is a nuclear power station nearby, I will have one. Maybe
>  >I will even leave the place for good.

Radon is produced by uranium in the soil. Radon
in your home is not caused by nuclear power
plants.

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\12\09@114800 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Den 2007-12-09 13:27:21 skrev Xiaofan Chen <spamBeGonexiaofancspamBeGonespamgmail.com>:

> Do we really have an energy crisis in the US?

For some reason US is using about twice as much energy per capita as EU, and producig twice as much pollutant of all kinds.

As technology, climate and living standard is approcimate the same, it seems to be cultural.

Maybe enegry have been regarded cheap, and sitting in cars many hours regardes as fun... I dont understand why...?

Still calculaitons show EU could halve comsumption pretty easily.
Just puttign in correctly dimensioned pumps and frequency control would save a whole nuclear plant here in an land of only 9 million.  Add to that the savings of lower initial construction and service.

Then we go to other parts of industries, process optimizations.
Then on to Homes, transports...  You get the idea.

And why the ***! did we only recently start to install heat pumps?

And why are solar panels not mass produced to replace old dead roof?
I read a large clean-roomplant that automated the whole line from glass to panels inside a large clean room would produce panels as cheap as the normal roofing!

Problem is of course that bulding that plant would be immensely expensive, tha tonly giants like oil   companies could afford it (and they donot want), and the government is of the idea it do not want to interfere with the market.  Hey, crap!

The old view of "civilisation" (rape we say today) that we can just dam up another river to get cheap electricity, dig mines to get minerals, pump up oil forever at lower cost - is one of the biggest mistakes in history.

--
Morgan Olsson

2007\12\09@123251 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 01:28:20AM -0500, Vitaliy wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > I've just spend a good part of the last couple of days reading Bernard
> > Cohen's book, The Nuclear Energy Option. As pointed out elsewhere you can
> > find it here:
> >
> > http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
> >
> > [..] After reading it I'm as fired up as a supercritical nuclear reactor
> > on the
> > subject. Cohen treatise on the subject is absolutely brilliant. If I were
> > the guy in charge I'd implement completely what I call the "Cohen plan."
>
> Byron, I'm curious -- what was your opinion on nuclear energy, prior to
> reading the book?

I was for it. A bit concerned about plant disasters until I started reading
about Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors (PBNR) a few years ago. Dr. Cohen doesn't
refer to them in his book because they were still in the design and
research stage at the time of the book's writing. Fundamentally they are
small reactors (155 MW IIRC) that use fuel encased in graphite layered
pebbles. The upshot is that plants are constructed in such a way that even
if there is no coolant, it's not possible for the bed to reach meltdown
temps. To quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:

------------------------------------------
A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail,
and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It
simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that
state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres
remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can
be removed.
------------------------------------------

And the fuel is virtually useless for making bombs. It has issues:

1) For safety the modules need to be low power. Often they are 1/6 to 1/10
the power of typical light water reactors.

2) The pebble waste occupies a larger volume than light water fuel rods.

3) Reprocessing pebbles isn't an easy task.

Like all things there are tradeoffs. But inherently safe systems may be
worth the issues that come along with it.

What Dr. Cohen's book enlightened me to is the clear fanning of the FUD
flame that the public holds for nuclear power by the media, environmental
groups, and politicians. No new nuclear plan has been commissioned in the
US in nearly 30 years. The number of hoops the NRC makes utilities jump
through to build a plant makes it cost prohibitive. So instead we continue
to build coal burning plants that clearly damage the planet and human
populations because they are cost effective.

All the current legislation needs to be torn down and the US needs to start
it's nuclear power program all over again to create a safe, cost effective,
sustainable infrastructure. Don't lie to the public, but don't let others
shout worse case scenarios without explaining the relative risks. Let's try
a few here as examples:

Q. Can I be exposed to radiation from nuclear power or nuclear waste?
A. Yes. However, you are exposed to radiation from natural and other
sources continually throughout your life. The questions are how much
radiation could you be exposed to and what is the likelyhood of it
happening. In the nearly 50 year history of nuclear power plants in the US
There has been one major nuclear accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979.
According to reports only minimal radiation gases were released and none of
the surrounding population was exposed to radiation levels above normal.

Q. Can nuclear fuel be used for terrorists attacks?
A. Yes. However only certain nuclear fuels (plutonium)  are useful in making
nuclear bombs and ordinary nuclear plants do not produce significant
amounts of this type of fuel. A speicial type of reactor (a breeder
reactor) is used to convert Uranium to plutonium. Such a reactor would be
valuable becase it creates a virutally unlimited supply of fuel for nuclear
power plants. Therefore it would need to be heavily secured to limit
opportunities for misuse.

Point is not to entertain what could happen. My house could expode today.
Instead work with the likelihood and risk of the action.

BAJ

2007\12\09@135243 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:04:19AM -0500, Morgan Olsson wrote:
> Den 2007-12-09 06:46:38 skrev Byron Jeff <TakeThisOuTbyronjeffEraseMEspamspam_OUTclayton.edu>:
>
> > Point me to one known death in any part of nuclear power producing
> > industry and maybe I'll take a look.
>
> What planet are you living on?

Earth. Same as you.

>
> Tjernobyl is a very known place with a reactor that exploded not terriby far from me.
> Cancer deaths are still counting on large scale

That's a different spelling. I had excluded Chernobyl in another post
because it was an episode of "How to blow up a nuclear power plant." bad
design. Poor training. Lack of communication. A total train wreck.

Same question but limited to highly overengineered US plant technology
please.

> Large old salt mies in Germany that are used for very large scale
> radioactive waste are fohnd unsafem and wil cost xxx billion to excavate
> and put in safe place, wherever that would be is still not decided AFAIK.

Poor sight choice does not mitigate the fact that the problem is solvable.
Embed in geologically stable rock split evenly at least 300m below the
surface and 300m above the water table, preferably in an arid region.

> Depending on how you calculate uraium supply do not last more than a
> couple hundred years, about double of oil, still a negligible source of
> energy in light of whther we want anking do live on it for even a
> thousand of time we have lived so far.

For widescale use breeding and reprocessing are essential. U238 and
Thorium-232 cannot be used directly for power generation. These two types
are the vast majority of uranium and thorium reserves in the world. But you
can take each, irradiate them in a breeder reactor, and produce fuels such
as plutonium and U233 that are fissile. Couple this with reprocessing of
existing spent fuels (which also reduces the waste that needs to be stored)
and a vast supply of nuclear fuel becomes available. Remember the 99% of
uranium is in U238 form.

> It is just stupidity tu use it at the curent rate, with the crappy
> inefficient, unsafe and environmetnal danger as we do today.

Solutions exist to solve the problems outlined. Everyone has to find the
guts to swallow their fear and commit to making it work.

BAJ

2007\12\09@145856 by Peter Todd

picon face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 05:08:03PM +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

If you're not interested, I'd be glad to take it. I can think of a lot
of students at my school who'd get some good value out of it and I'll do
my best to get it in the hands of those who would be receptive.

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHXEjM3bMhDbI9xWQRArskAJ0bzZziUcfd71GVmL592HP5CdzhtACeIa+K
1EHCG2llSJbvtrrvWy9fQ4c=
=WvIw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2007\12\09@155641 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Den 2007-12-09 19:51:23 skrev Byron Jeff <byronjeffEraseMEspam.....clayton.edu>:

>> Tjernobyl is a very known place with a reactor that exploded not terriby far from me.
>> Cancer deaths are still counting on large scale
>
> That's a different spelling.

(sorry, used local spelling)

> I had excluded Chernobyl in another post
> because it was an episode of "How to blow up a nuclear power plant." bad
> design. Poor training. Lack of communication. A total train wreck.

Shit happens.
Now think of an infiltrator, like the pilots on 9/11 planes, inside a nuclear plant or equipment contractor.  (except for trying to land a planin one)

But also oil industry poses risks.  I was working on the combustion controller on a 125.000 tonnes LNG tanker, following onboard up to lake charles.  I was stunned by the ease at whichi culd have blown op a large area of your country ahd i been a terririst wehn we came to the end station.

Those fat US government guys the was satisfied with me crossing boxes on a paper... i did not know if i should laugh or cry at that "security"...


It all adds up to that samll scale distrubuted power supply is safer.
Same for transports.


> Same question but limited to highly overengineered US plant technology
> please.

The first non-trivial disater happened in US

>> Large old salt mies in Germany that are used for very large scale
>> radioactive waste are fohnd unsafem and wil cost xxx billion to excavate
>> and put in safe place, wherever that would be is still not decided AFAIK.
>
> Poor sight choice does not mitigate the fact that the problem is solvable.
> Embed in geologically stable rock split evenly at least 300m below the
> surface and 300m above the water table, preferably in an arid region.

I is not the first time the "store forever" solutions have ben decided, then later need change.


> Solutions exist to solve the problems outlined.

Absolutely.
Largest win is so build a civilisaiton that is not wasteful, and that use both power and materials wisely.

But parallell to that the so-called altertnative power sources will probably be both more reliable, dependable, secure, and cheaper than fossil/mineral alternatives (uranium etc included) given investment of same scale the iol and fusion and fission have got.

2007\12\09@170546 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Morgan Olsson wrote:

> Largest win is so build a civilisaiton that is not wasteful,
> and that use both power and materials wisely.

Too late, unless you've got a "viable" solution for achieving
negative population growth.  The scary part is the developing
world, where we're looking at "you can't afford this, shouldn't
do that, and must not do the other thing because of security
issues."  (Scary news on the radio the other day about pools
of crude oil sludge dotting the rain forest in Ecuador, for
instance.)

BillW

2007\12\09@180756 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Morgan Olsson wrote:
>> Point me to one known death in any part of nuclear power producing
>> industry and maybe I'll take a look.
>
> What planet are you living on?
>
> Tjernobyl is a very known place with a reactor that exploded not terriby
> far from me.
> Cancer deaths are still counting on large scale

Watched a Russian documentary a couple of days ago ("20th anniversary of
Chernobyl").

http://russianremote.com/2999.html

It's in Russian only (with no subtitles), but among other things they
show/talk about:

- The fact that out of 180,000 liquidators, only 134 were diagnosed with
acute radiation sickness. Out of those, 28 died.
- There are people who still live in the "forbidden zone" -- 30 km radius.
The 80-year old guy says he feels no ill effects (remember, 20 years
passed). His grandkids live there, too -- by law, they have to spend a few
weeks each year in the "clean zone" -- apparently they're healthy, too.
- Today Chernobyl is a popular tourist destination.
- Interview with Oleg Genrikh, one of two reactor operators at the time the
explosion occurred. He's been treated for acute radiation sickness, and
according to his testimony has fully recovered (after nine plastic
surgeries). Oleg says that a traffic cap asked him whether radiation
sickness leads to impotence. His reply was, "go ask my wife, I don't like to
brag". According to him, it took him a longer time (9 years) to recover
psychologically.
- Animal-mutants (two-headed hares, etc) are a myth.
- There is no indication that exposure to radiation leads to
-  Most cancer deaths (thyroid), are due to the criminal actions of the
government. They could have been avoided, if only people downwind from
Chernobyl would have been advised to stay at home (radioactive isotope of
iodine, which causes this specific form of cancer, has a half-life of 8
days).

Of course, to keep it balanced, they had to find a guy (the angry one with
the beard) who said that the IAEA report was paid for by the Russian
government, and that any dose of radiation is harmful ("even as far as India
1,000,000 were affected!"). "People who live within the zone, have broken
chromosomes".

>From another source, a story of what happened to Oleg:

"Operators of the CH-4 (Central Hall) Anatoly Kurguz and Oleg Genrikh after
a check of the central hall went into the operator's room wait for
Perevozchenko (their supervisor), to get the task list for the shift. About
six minutes prior to explosion, Oleg told Anatoly that he's tired and will
go get some sleep. He went into a separate room with a bunk. Oleg shut and
locked the door, and went to sleep. Meanwhile, Anatoly made an entry in the
operating journal. He was separated from the central hall by three wide open
doors. When the explosion happened, radioactive steam went into the
operator's room. Anatoly's skin was torn, and went in blisters. Anatoly
yelled to Oleg: "It really burns! It really burns!" Oleg tried to open the
door, but the heat was so intense, that he postponed the attempt, and
instinctively lay on the floor. Oleg yelled: "Anatoly! Get down, it's
cooler!". When the heat began to subside, Oleg and Anatoly went down the
"clean stairs" [...] Dyatlov (assistant chief engineer) ran to them: "Quick,
to the hospital!""

According to a forum post by Oleg, Anatoly received 3-4 times the amount of
radiation considered "incompatible with life". Officially, it is considered
that Anatoly died not from radiation sickness, but from the burns he
received.

Vitaliy

PS "Centrall Hall" is the area directly above the reactor.

2007\12\09@183427 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

> Absolutely.
> Largest win is so build a civilisaiton that is not wasteful, and that use both power and materials wisely.
>  
OK assume a society with 0 waste. In 20 odd years there are going to be
12 billion people on the planet. They all use CCFL lights and front
loader washing machines. Is the global energy use going to be higher or
lower than what it is now?

Personally I think the global population should be 2-3 billion, that
would start solving allot of problems, mainly with regards to renewable
resources like water, timber etc.

2007\12\09@183820 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 10, 2007 12:47 AM, Morgan Olsson <EraseMEost011spamosterlen.tv> wrote:
> Den 2007-12-09 13:27:21 skrev Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com>:
>
> > Do we really have an energy crisis in the US?
>
> For some reason US is using about twice as much energy per capita as
> EU, and producig twice as much pollutant of all kinds.
>
> As technology, climate and living standard is approcimate the same, it
> seems to be cultural.
>
> Maybe enegry have been regarded cheap, and sitting in cars many hours
> regardes as fun... I dont understand why...?

That is the point!
US does not need more nuclear power plants, but need a bit of lifestyle change
and a bit of restraint in wasting power.
Just learn a bit from EU.

2007\12\09@184051 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 10, 2007 3:58 AM, Peter Todd <RemoveMEpetespam_OUTspamKILLspampetertodd.ca> wrote:
> > I do not need this Christmas present after all.
>
> If you're not interested, I'd be glad to take it. I can think of a lot
> of students at my school who'd get some good value out of it and I'll do
> my best to get it in the hands of those who would be receptive.
>

I am not interested to have the book. You can ask Vitality for it.

I will read more the online version.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@185401 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 10, 2007 7:34 AM, Jake Anderson <RemoveMEjakeTakeThisOuTspamspamvapourforge.com> wrote:

> Personally I think the global population should be 2-3 billion, that
> would start solving allot of problems, mainly with regards to renewable
> resources like water, timber etc.
>

A nice solution if it is possible. Is it viable? No.

I also think most of the issues with China can be solved by reducing
the population by half. Is it viable? No. Unless US want to let in
half of the Chinese population...

2007\12\09@190002 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
Summary of my views:
1. US does not have an energy crisis. Just need to waste less energy.
Contrary to many people's thinking, a bit of lifestyle change can be done
and actually can achieve a lot.

2. To solve the global warming issues, US need to reduce per capita
carbon emission. It can be done, just learn from EU.

3. I am not totally again nuclear power station. It can be used in certain
part of the world as a temporary solution. However I am against the
idea of touting it as THE solution to global warming and energy crisis.

4. Green energy is the way to go. Wind, solar, fuel cell, etc. We do need
to study more about the environmental impact. There is no single
universal solution to the problem. We need multiple technological,
social and political solutions.

5. Put more research money into power engineering in US. Power
Engineering is quite popular in other parts of the world but a declining
field in US. More education to the public about the power issue and
global warming issue should be done.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@190339 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 10, 2007 6:05 AM, William Chops Westfield <EraseMEwestfwspamspamspamBeGonemac.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Morgan Olsson wrote:
>
> > Largest win is so build a civilisaiton that is not wasteful,
> > and that use both power and materials wisely.
>
> Too late, unless you've got a "viable" solution for achieving
> negative population growth.

No too late. Everyone can start to do his own part. Collectively
the world will be a better place.

> The scary part is the developing
> world, where we're looking at "you can't afford this, shouldn't
> do that, and must not do the other thing because of security
> issues."

As the world's largest Economy, US should do more on its
own part in terms of wastefulness.

2007\12\09@192440 by 556RECON

picon face
Morgan Olsson wrote:

> <><SNIP>
> But also oil industry poses risks. I was working on the combustion
> controller on a 125.000 tonnes LNG tanker, following onboard up to
> lake charles. I was stunned by the ease at whichi culd have blown op a
> large area of your country ahd i been a terririst wehn we came to the
> end station.
>
> Those fat US government guys the was satisfied with me crossing boxes
> on a paper... i did not know if i should laugh or cry at that
> "security"...

So you do not think that nobody did the least little security check on
you before you were given these freedoms?

Some of the best security systems in the world are the ones where
somebody thinks they are not being watched.  A friend of mine has a son
who had a promising future with a government job.  He would joke about
the lack of security.  So to prove it he took some item out work with
him.  As soon as he was home inside his apartment federal agents entered
with a search warrent, his apartment was torn apart and after 10 hours  
of questioning he was released with no job and never a chance of getting
a federal or state job.

RECON

2007\12\09@192816 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 7:34 AM, Jake Anderson <RemoveMEjakeKILLspamspamvapourforge.com> wrote:
>
>  
>> Personally I think the global population should be 2-3 billion, that
>> would start solving allot of problems, mainly with regards to renewable
>> resources like water, timber etc.
>>
>>    
>
> A nice solution if it is possible. Is it viable? No.
>
> I also think most of the issues with China can be solved by reducing
> the population by half. Is it viable? No. Unless US want to let in
> half of the Chinese population...
>  
It seems viable to me, most of the developed world has negative
population growth.
"Have fewer children" its actually easier to do than having them ;->

2007\12\09@193122 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

> Fusion is technilogically unfeasible at this time. Fission is mature
> technology with all of the technological issues solved. Fission only fails
> when human fears (many irrational) and politics gets involved.
>
> BAJ
>  

Check out http://www.iter.org/ fusion is "feasible" its just not easy.
There are many alternate fusion mechanisms that aren't being
investigated to any significant degree, many of them seem to have a
decent chance of working to boot. EG bussards device
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=bussard+fusion I think he is after
something like $20 million or so to do full scale testing. To my mind
this endeavor should be on par with the space race. The difference i
spose is getting to the moon was solving lots of "simple" problems, this
is solving one large one.


I'm all for solar power (heck i want to implement a solar thermal plant
for my home) but I just don't see it being enough regardless of how
"efficient" we are. There is a certain minimum amount of energy needed
to live the way we do now, and I don't see order of magnitude reductions
in that. I use about 25 liters of fuel a week in my car, my missus does
the same in her motorbike (she travels allot further than I do). We use
fans for "cooling" (ceiling or desk fans) and the electric heater (no
gas here) a few times in winter. Haven't put CFL lights into this new
place but I'm thinking of going LEDs instead to get more versatile
lighting. (IE spots, background lighting whilst watching TV etc.)
Probably the most energy consuming devices here are the computers, one
of which is on while I'm awake which probably pulls around 150W and the
other 24/7 which pulls 250-300W (Dual Xeon 3.06, its an old one but it
runs the tv, its getting replaced with a new core-2 which should pull
around 50W soon).

I don't see where I can cut that consumption down to 10% of what I'm
using now which is what everybody seems to be saying I need to do.

The biggest area of improvement seems like it would be solar hot water
and I plan on doing that when we get rid of the asbestos roof.

2007\12\09@193243 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face

>> The scary part is the developing
>> world, where we're looking at "you can't afford this, shouldn't
>> do that, and must not do the other thing because of security
>> issues."
>>    
>
> As the world's largest Economy, US should do more on its
> own part in terms of wastefulness.
>  

You haven't mentioned chinas 2 new coal fired power stations per week
and how that fits your solar will save the day thing yet.

2007\12\09@194426 by 556RECON

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>Summary of my views:
>1. US does not have an energy crisis. Just need to waste less energy.
>Contrary to many people's thinking, a bit of lifestyle change can be done
>and actually can achieve a lot.
>
>  
>
A good example of wasted energy is the amount of electricity used at
night to light streets and parking lots.

About 12 years ago A couple of friends and I were out in Lake Michigan
about 28 miles. the moon was not up but we could see the glow in the sky
of large cities that were almost 60 miles away.  I have seen shuttle
pictures of the eastern seaboard and it is amazing athe amount of light
you see.  I know that one car dealer ship pays over $30,000 a month to
light the parking lot.  They could hire 2 guards with good flash lights
for about 20 % of that.

RECON

2007\12\09@195515 by James Newton

face picon face
I agree that changing human behavior would help with any potential energy
caused issues (global warming, peak oil, etc...)

BUT

History shows us that humans just don't change in that way. Easter Island
(if you haven't read about what happened there, please google it or ask and
I'll track down the info) is probably the best example, but there are many
others. Human nature is to want more, use more, take more. Period. Those who
are willing to have less, use less, take less end up in the minority and
find it hard to keep even their own children on their path. Google Amish
children.

There will be "crazy eddie cycles" (google that) and they are only delayed
by expansion of resources.

In our position, Nukes are the best, in my opinion, hope for that expansion
at this point. And that includes the solar type of nuke power.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2007\12\09@200315 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 9, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> US does not need more nuclear power plants, but need
> a bit of lifestyle change and a bit of restraint in
> wasting power. Just learn a bit from EU.

Ok, pick a per-capita (or maybe per-GNP) energy
consumption that you think is reasonable.  Perhaps
75% of the current average for the European Union.
Now bring all the population of the world up or down
till it matches that number.  Is that total amount
of energy consumption more or less than the current
amount?

In general, I don't think the rest of the world
would be terribly happy to have US energy consumption
go down 75%.  Too much of that energy usage benefits
the rest of the world.  ("We decided a good step to
reducing energy consumption was stop raising an
exportable surplus of food...")

The US energy consumption per land area seems to be
significantly lower than Europe; are you sure you're
using fair metrics?  Everything is more complicated
than it seems...

BillW

2007\12\09@202210 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 12/10/07, Jake Anderson <jakeSTOPspamspamspam_OUTvapourforge.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

You should be a role model for many of the people here. We do not
need to sacrifice our lifestyle too much by cutting down 90% of the
energy consumption after all. If we try to reduce the energy consumption
step by step (say 10% first and then by 20%), we will have a better
planet.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@202635 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 12/10/07, William Chops Westfield <spamBeGonewestfwSTOPspamspamEraseMEmac.com> wrote:
>
> In general, I don't think the rest of the world
> would be terribly happy to have US energy consumption
> go down 75%.  Too much of that energy usage benefits
> the rest of the world.  ("We decided a good step to
> reducing energy consumption was stop raising an
> exportable surplus of food...")

This is debatable. As far as I think, to cut down the
subsidy to agriculture (EU and US) will benefit more
third world party countries than to export surplus food.
But I know this is again a complicated problem.

> The US energy consumption per land area seems to be
> significantly lower than Europe; are you sure you're
> using fair metrics?  Everything is more complicated
> than it seems...

That is true. As I said, I am not totally against Nuclear
Power. But I think it is not a solution US needs. There are
better and easier solution in US. Maybe China needs more
nuclear power stations and build less coal powerd
power stations.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@202902 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 12/10/07, Jake Anderson <KILLspamjakespamBeGonespamvapourforge.com> wrote:
>
> >> The scary part is the developing
> >> world, where we're looking at "you can't afford this, shouldn't
> >> do that, and must not do the other thing because of security
> >> issues."
> >>
> > As the world's largest Economy, US should do more on its
> > own part in terms of wastefulness.
> >
> You haven't mentioned chinas 2 new coal fired power
> stations per week and how that fits your solar will save
> the day thing yet.

I agree that China/India need to do more. As I said,
I am not totally against Nuclear Power. Maybe China
needs more nuclear power stations and build less
coal powerd power stations.

That being said, US needs to do more first as the only
superpower now in the world.

Xiaofan

2007\12\09@204212 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 12/10/07, James Newton <EraseMEjamesnewtonspamEraseMEmassmind.org> wrote:
> I agree that changing human behavior would help with any potential energy
> caused issues (global warming, peak oil, etc...)
>
> BUT
>
> History shows us that humans just don't change in that way. Easter Island
> (if you haven't read about what happened there, please google it or ask and
> I'll track down the info) is probably the best example, but there are many
> others. Human nature is to want more, use more, take more. Period.
> Those who are willing to have less, use less, take less end up in the
> minority and find it hard to keep even their own children on their path.
> Google Amish children.
>

I see your point. And yes human nature is to  want more, use more,
take more. But sometimes this more does not necessary means
resources. We human beings are very adaptive (due to nature selection).
If some nature resources are agreed as not viable, people will change.
We need a *MORE* sustainable planet after all. Even in China where
things are much more difficult, the leadership starts to talk about
sustainable development now. And Australia has approved Kyoto
protocol. US should follow.

And the desire to have more is good in that we will come out of better
solutions. Nuclear can be a partial solution for certain countries
(Eg: China). But it should not be touted to be THE SOLUTION or
the only viable solution now.

Xiaofan

2007\12\10@015422 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> In general, I don't think the rest of the world
> would be terribly happy to have US energy consumption
> go down 75%.

If you mean 'reduced to 75% of the current value' you are correct, that
is not nearly enough. If you mean 'reduced by 75% of its current value'
I would sure be happy with that. And I am part of thar 'rest of the
world'.

> The US energy consumption per land area seems to be
> significantly lower than Europe; are you sure you're using
> fair metrics?  Everything is more complicated than it seems...

I don't dispute that our (European) power consumption should be reduced
a lot too.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\12\10@030630 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Den 2007-12-09 23:05:16 skrev William "Chops" Westfield <@spam@westfw@spam@spamspam_OUTmac.com>:

>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Morgan Olsson wrote:
>
>> Largest win is so build a civilisaiton that is not wasteful,
>> and that use both power and materials wisely.
>
> Too late, unless you've got a "viable" solution for achieving
> negative population growth.  The scary part is the developing
> world,

The big difference from when western started to build cities and industry, it that nowadays we have both knowledge and technology to both how and why it should be built better.

ANd then, why should we do worse when rebuilding / building anew.

--
Morgan Olsson

2007\12\10@053918 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
Den 2007-12-10 01:24:16 skrev 556RECON <spamBeGone556reconspamKILLspamcharter.net>:

> Morgan Olsson wrote:
>
>> <><SNIP>
>> But also oil industry poses risks. I was working on the combustion
>> controller on a 125.000 tonnes LNG tanker, following onboard up to
>> lake charles. I was stunned by the ease at whichi culd have blown op a
>> large area of your country ahd i been a terririst wehn we came to the
>> end station.
>>
>> Those fat US government guys the was satisfied with me crossing boxes
>> on a paper... i did not know if i should laugh or cry at that
>> "security"...
>
> So you do not think that nobody did the least little security check on
> you before you were given these freedoms?

Yes i could have blown the ship and harbour storage with up a millon tonnes methane before any US officer knew i was aboard.
The methane is liquid so it would probably flood large area with cold gas close grund, and...  oops what town?

History:

The captain of the ship wanted some personell from the combustion controller company to be with him during the first journey.
The company did not have that personel available.
Their director spoke about it to the mechanic who served his sports car, and he knew me and recommended me.
A week later I entered the ship in Spain bya msal boat.  No police or othe rofficer in long sight.  I followed th enormal personel going on and off ship.
11 days later US agents checked me when *leaving* the ship at the harbour in Lake Charles, some miles up in US.
Probably noone in US knew i was on that ship, as i before the journey just applied for a tourist visa or what it was called, I also of course never bought a ticket for travelling to US and hardly none except the captain knew i was supposed to enter.  I hope captains of all ships he have a duty to report to the destination country who is aboard, but even if so if i wanted i could even have made a fraud passport and shown him.

But the disgusting thing is that the agents demanded all us to put our name on a piece of paper that satted a lot och checks have been made and questions asked, byt they had only performed a fraction of it.  It is theese kind of cheating security officers that are a real danger, as the people trust them, but they do not do their job.  I have never seen a more ignorant officer in any country.

It is the same for any security person, watchingpeople or equipment.
There are always some rotten eggs amongst them.

> Some of the best security systems in the world are the ones where
> somebody thinks they are not being watched.

And the most dangerous is when you think security is cared for, but is not.


--
Morgan Olsson

2007\12\10@072937 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 10, 2007 9:22 AM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancspam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> You should be a role model for many of the people here. We do not
> need to sacrifice our lifestyle too much by cutting down 90% of the
> energy consumption after all. If we try to reduce the energy consumption
> step by step (say 10% first and then by 20%), we will have a better
> planet.
>

Some of the claims of "green" is counterproductive.
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9831245-54.html?tag=nefd.top

Interesting reading anyway. ;-)

2007\12\10@080403 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> It is the same for any security person, watchingpeople or
> equipment.
> There are always some rotten eggs amongst them.
>
>> Some of the best security systems in the world are the
>> ones where
>> somebody thinks they are not being watched.
>
> And the most dangerous is when you think security is cared
> for, but is not.

Edinburgh Castle towers majestically over its city. They
tell me that it was never taken by assault, but that it was
taken by betrayal on a number of occasions when people
within the castle let the attackers in.

St Andrews Castle, now a magnificent ruin in the town that
shares its name, and the home of golf (the town, not the
castle) was once occupied by a force which just walked in
the open front gate and took it over. One person who joined
them during the siege was John Knox, later founder of the
Presbyterian Church. During the siege they were bombarded by
a French man-of-war in the bay and fought an underground
fight against tunnelers attempting to dig a min under their
foundations. They dug a counter-mine and came down from on
top of the miners and drove them off. If you manage to get
your mine under the castle foundations you dig it out over a
large area while shoring it up with wooden "pit props". You
then bring in lots of wood and rendered down pigs fat and
prepare for a merry fire. Fire lit, you retreat while the
fire burns out the pit props. Down comes the wall and ... .
Push ///
               Nasty King Edward of Braveheart fame knew
all about this and sieges and built his castles - especially
those in places he was subduing like Wales, on rock and by
water. If the rock and water were not proximate enough he
brought the water to the castle so that a Frigate could sail
up to its wall. cf eg Conway Castle in Wales for this.
Pop ///

For his troubles John Knox ended up in a galley. All grist
to the mill for any church founder I imagine.

The point is (need there be a point to such fascinating
tales? :-) ) the bad security guards and high risk security
loopholes have been with us for a long while.

Shouldn't this be WOT ... :-)

May be going back to China next week. If so you all get a
rest for a few days.



       Russell




2007\12\13@154721 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Byron Jeff wrote:

> Sorry to bring religion into it, but asking GreenPeace acout nuclear
> power is like asking a minister why devil worship is unwise. There's
> simply no rationality to their discussion.
>
> I'd like to see just one actual reference in this article. Dr. Cohen
> probably has upwards of 300 scientific references in his book.

And asking nuclear scientists about nuclear power (==money in their
pockets, in the long run) is like what? Of course they want their field to
prosper (not every individual, but the group as a whole). Science is not
value-free; it's very much set into a context.

Gerhard

2007\12\13@161109 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Chris Smolinski wrote:

> [...] we wouldn't have an energy crisis in the US.

What energy crisis?

>From <http://earthtrends.wri.org/>

Energy Consumption: Total energy consumption per capita
Units: Kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person

China        CHN        1,138.3
Germany        DEU        4,203.1
New Zealand        NZL        4,378.6
United Kingdom        GBR        3,918.1
United States        USA        7,794.8

Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?

Gerhard

2007\12\13@163359 by David VanHorn

picon face
> China   CHN     1,138.3
> Germany DEU     4,203.1
> New Zealand     NZL     4,378.6
> United Kingdom  GBR     3,918.1
> United States   USA     7,794.8
>
> Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?


Is this why the brits drink warm beer?

2007\12\13@185443 by peter green

flavicon
face

> China        CHN        1,138.3
> Germany        DEU        4,203.1
> New Zealand        NZL        4,378.6
> United Kingdom        GBR        3,918.1
> United States        USA        7,794.8
>
> Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?
>
>  
As i understand it US society has a tendancy of doing everything bigger.
Bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger gardens (meaning people travel
further to work) and so on. Theese things were driven by the
availibility of both cheap energy and lots of space.

energy is getting more expensive but the vast sprawling suburbs are
already built. The big cars are already built (how long is it typically
between a cars initial purpose and it's ending up on the scrapheap after
being sold a couple of times?). The buisness arrangements that require
long distance transportation or travel are already made and so on.


2007\12\13@203243 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 12/14/07, peter green <TakeThisOuTplugwash.....spamTakeThisOuTp10link.net> wrote:
>
> > China CHN     1,138.3
> > Germany       DEU     4,203.1
> > New Zealand   NZL     4,378.6
> > United Kingdom        GBR     3,918.1
> > United States USA     7,794.8
> >
> > Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?
> >
> As i understand it US society has a tendancy of doing everything bigger.
> Bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger gardens (meaning people travel
> further to work) and so on. Theese things were driven by the
> availibility of both cheap energy and lots of space.

I agree with you. But US energy is mostly considered to be "cheap"
only by outsiders, especially Europeans.

US does have lots of space in most places (with the exception
of some states like California which is not that USA anyway). So
US is really gifted with nature resources.

Most of my US colleagues' weekend activity includes continuous
improvement of their homes.

> energy is getting more expensive but the vast sprawling suburbs are
> already built. The big cars are already built (how long is it typically
> between a cars initial purpose and it's ending up on the scrapheap after
> being sold a couple of times?). The buisness arrangements that require
> long distance transportation or travel are already made and so on.
>

I agree with you and this can not be solved in a short time or with a
simple solution. It takes time to solve issues in large countries.

Xiaofan

2007\12\14@020659 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 13, 2007, at 3:54 PM, peter green wrote:

>> United Kingdom        GBR        3,918.1
>> United States        USA        7,794.8
>>
>> Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?

Like I've said before; what make you think that the units (kgoe/person)
for that number make sense?  How about kgoe per square kilometer,
kgoe per million dollars GNP, kgoe per ton of crops raised, kgoe per
ton of crops exported?

BillW

2007\12\14@020857 by Justin Richards

face picon face
Okay, I am still undecided on the Nuclear or not debate.  I need
access to FACTS which I dont think are available yet, lots of
guessing, biased reports perhaps.  I just dont know.  Perhaps I need
to go and measure some of these quoted figures for myself.

I am still not sure if releasing tonnes of CO2 is such a bad thing.  I
thought when the earth was still young (and habitable)  that volcanoes
produced lots of the stuff that was eventually locked away by
photosynthesis which we are now releasing.

Dont get me wrong, I think it is best to keep nasty toxic pollutiony
stuff to a minimum (or however much it takes to produce all those
black and white goods that I am so addicted to) but CO2 I am guessing
the oceans will take care of.  So it gets a little warmer and dryer
for some and cooler and wetter for others, is this right. Where I am I
think it has become cooler and for the last 5 years a little dryer.
Every alternate year is very wet, and the other is dry.

If it is all doom and gloom, then a good start would be for me to
simply turn off this computer.  That is simply not going to happen
until the costs become prohibitive.

Two statements I think are true:-

1. Energy demand will increase, supply will decrease.

2. The sun will one day go nova and burn our mistakes away. (No
shortage of energy then !).

Cheers Justin




On Dec 14, 2007 11:57 AM, Xiaofan Chen <TakeThisOuTxiaofancKILLspamspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\12\14@021313 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> And asking nuclear scientists about nuclear power (==money
> in their pockets, in the long run) is like what?

Probably about like asking actors.  I'd think that the
average "nuclear scientist" knows about as much about the
safety of nuclear power plants (all factors considered) as
the average electrical engineer knows about the health
effects of cell phone usage or EMF from high tension power
lines.  They get to make educated guesses based on firm
scientific principals ("half life", "inverse square law")
that are probably insufficient to cover the complexities
of the question.

That's part of the problem.  By the time you start talking
about public safety issues of large scale deployment of a
technology, you've multiplied your variables to the point
where quantitative answers are HARD.  Especially if the
public is going to insist on data on "increased incidence
of cancer after 30 years of exposure", as opposed to mere
"acute radiation poisoning"...

BillW

2007\12\14@023219 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> Like I've said before; what make you think that the units
> (kgoe/person) for that number make sense?

Because the 'amount of earth' is a figure we can't change, so it is an
upper limit for us all. There might be other similar limits, which would
apply too.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2007\12\14@070531 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I am still not sure if releasing tonnes of CO2 is such a
> bad thing.  I
> thought when the earth was still young (and habitable)
> that volcanoes
> produced lots of the stuff that was eventually locked away
> by
> photosynthesis which we are now releasing.

It's very likely that it is a bad thing.

However, the IPPC has now, as of its latest summary report,
taken out a crucial data step and redefined "very likely" as
meaning "anywhere from statistically significant down rather
less than statistically significant such as the sort of
thing that happens without much more than an eye blink in a
normally distributed population"*. So, alas, well never
know, as the basis of science reporting (if not, just
perhaps, the science itself, has thus been destroyed. Which
is a shame, I'd really like to know and now we can't ever
know as the science may in fact be good but the results have
all been munged together and their meaning removed. I don't
know why they don't stop doing the science and just plot
graphs to suit what they think may happen. Maybe that's for
next year's report.

If you want chapter and verse on that read my "... the death
of science ..." post a few weeks ago (27 November) which,
AFAIK NOBODY at all commented on at all. THE most
significant thing anyone has (un) done in science in the
last ever slid in under the radar and stole a home run
unnoticed and unwept.

Ha. Gmane does have its uses after all ... :-)

      http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.microcontrollers.pic/130104



           Russell

*  "Very likely" now  = 0.90 -  0.99.

The prior and never reached 0.95 has been taken out as an
embarrassment and "very likely" has now been extended
downwards to acquire the multitude of data that could never
manage to reach up to it. So, at last, the vast host of "not
statistically significant" data they have been reporting for
years under a populist label has been done away with and the
policy makers have finally freed themselves of this
embarrassing shortcoming.
Whereas "very likely" meant "statistically significant at
the lowest level that hard science uses for that term" it
now is

           Very likely = "Statistically significant or not
statistically significant".



2007\12\14@111907 by John Gardner

picon face
> If you want chapter and verse on that read my "... the death
> of science ..." post a few weeks ago (27 November) which,
> AFAIK NOBODY at all commented on at all...

What's to comment about? You're right.

If James was'nt such a grouch I'd propose a [THEOLOGY]
tag, for those  inclined to pursue the global warming matter
absent evidence.

best regards, Jack

p.s. Merry Christmas everyone

On Dec 14, 2007 4:05 AM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechspamspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\12\14@180220 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2007, at 3:54 PM, peter green wrote:
>
>>> United Kingdom        GBR        3,918.1
>>> United States        USA        7,794.8
>>>
>>> Where's the crisis of falling back to, say, UK or even NZ levels?
>
> Like I've said before; what make you think that the units (kgoe/person)
> for that number make sense?  

My concern are people and their (sometimes collective) decisions. That's
why relating the used energy to people seems to make the most sense.

> How about kgoe per square kilometer,

I'm not sure it makes sense to assign kgoe to the empty square kilometers
in the Nevada desert. Besides, this relationship is not what I'm interested
in.

> kgoe per million dollars GNP,

I'm not interested in the GNP at all. The GNP is a figure that doesn't make
any sense for almost any purpose I could imagine having.

> kgoe per ton of crops raised,

I'm also not interested in the energy used for crop raising only, and I
don't know whether it makes sense to assign energy used for other purposes
to the raised crop. I'm also not that interested in the amount of crops
raised (for this purpose).

> kgoe per ton of crops exported

Same as above.

I'll try to crunch some numbers and come up with an explanation that may
make sense... :)  In the meantime, you could try to come up with reasons
why those other measures may make sense, when the objective is to describe
collective, cultural lifestyle choices WRT energy use.

For me, the energy used per person is a (one) reflection of how people
live, their decisions. Of course, there are factors that influence that,
and I'll try to address some of them with additional figures, but in
essence that's it.

For example, you need more energy when it's colder, but OTOH I've never
seen so many air conditioning units as when I lived in CA -- and it's not
that hot in CA. It's a matter of lifestyle choice to either use them or
not, made by people. Also, outside of the USA I've never heard of a place
where it's forbidden to put up clothes lines in your own backyard, while
very few people have dryers outside the USA. Again, a lifestyle choice made
by people. I guess I don't need to elaborate on the recent arms race on US
roads (ever bigger SUVs). Again, a lifestyle choice made by people. These
are examples why it seems to make the most sense (not the only sense) to
relate energy use to the number of people this energy needs to make happy.

Gerhard

2007\12\14@190336 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Dec 14, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>> kgoe per million dollars GNP,
>
> I'm not interested in the GNP at all. The GNP is a
> figure that doesn't make any sense for almost any
> purpose I could imagine having.

Really?  My claim is that a lot of the energy charged
"per person" goes into creating goods, rather than being
"wasted" by an excessively consumptive society.

(This does assume that your kgoe/person number is national  
consumption divided by population, and not just an average of US  
"home" or personal energy consumption.  That's not clear; it wouldn't  
be beyond believable that the typical US home uses twice the energy  
of the typical UK home.  But I want to be sure that that's what we're  
measuring...)

BillW

2007\12\14@204019 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Dec 15, 2007 8:03 AM, William Chops Westfield <spamBeGonewestfw@spam@spamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> >> kgoe per million dollars GNP,
> >
> > I'm not interested in the GNP at all. The GNP is a
> > figure that doesn't make any sense for almost any
> > purpose I could imagine having.
>
> Really?  My claim is that a lot of the energy charged
> "per person" goes into creating goods, rather than being
> "wasted" by an excessively consumptive society.

You argument makes sense. Still you need to remember that
US is also the number one consuming country.
A lot of the goods China produces (CO2 emitted) actually
end up in the hand of US consumers.

All in all, all the figures are not 100% accurate, but it
does give you quite some good indicators. And since
the per capita GNP is quite comparable between
the OECD countries, I think per capita energy
consumption comparison between US/UK/Germany
is a good indicator that there is a lot of improvement
US can do.

I understand that it is difficult to change the lifestyle
in one day. And it is very difficult to fix problems
in large countries like US/China. So we can only do it
step by step. But the first positive step is to recognize the
problem and then set a target to fix the problem. From the
recent report in the Bali meeting, US still does not
learn to do this yet from Europe...

Xiaofan

2007\12\14@230304 by James Newton

face picon face
Bah! Humbug!

--
James.

:)

-----Original Message-----
From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesspamspammit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
John Gardner
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 08:18
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Why not nuclear? (Was Specific costs of transport...)

> If you want chapter and verse on that read my "... the death
> of science ..." post a few weeks ago (27 November) which,
> AFAIK NOBODY at all commented on at all...

What's to comment about? You're right.

If James was'nt such a grouch I'd propose a [THEOLOGY]
tag, for those  inclined to pursue the global warming matter
absent evidence.

best regards, Jack

p.s. Merry Christmas everyone


2007\12\17@195759 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>>> kgoe per million dollars GNP,
>>
>> I'm not interested in the GNP at all. The GNP is a figure that doesn't
>> make any sense for almost any purpose I could imagine having.
>
> Really?  My claim is that a lot of the energy charged "per person" goes
> into creating goods, rather than being "wasted" by an excessively
> consumptive society.

What's the difference between "[excessively] creating goods" and
"excessively consumptive society"? :)

If there is so much energy going into products that people buy in one
society, and half of that in another, we're back to square one: the
(collective) decisions in one society lead to twice the energy consumption
than in the other. Whether the energy consumption happens in the factory
creating the goods that people carry into their homes or whether that's the
energy that these products then consume in their homes is secondary for
this argument.

Besides, the GNP is (IMO) a useless figure. IMO it has no meaning for any
meaningful purpose. If -- hypothetically -- in one year road accidents rise
sharply and people are forced to shell out all kinds of savings (or better,
take up credits to shell out, given the current savings rate) to fix their
cars, buy new cars, pay their hospital bills, you'll see a rise in the GNP.
Meaning... what exactly? That the economy boomed? Yeah, right...

So whenever the GNP rises or falls either can be a good thing or a bad
thing, depending on why it rose or fell. That's why I think that the number
in itself isn't very useful for most purposes (at least the ones I'm
interested in).

> (This does assume that your kgoe/person number is national consumption
> divided by population, and not just an average of US "home" or personal
> energy consumption.  That's not clear; it wouldn't be beyond believable
> that the typical US home uses twice the energy of the typical UK home.
> But I want to be sure that that's what we're measuring...)

We're on the same page here. And I think that the relationship for both
figures is similar.

Gerhard

2007\12\20@091851 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Byron Jeff wrote:
> We humans deal with hazardous deadly materials on a daily basis. Why are
> properly handled and processed radiation sources treated so much
> differently?  Truthfully if you want to be concerned with radiation, then
> radon is far far far far (I think one more) far more hazardous to the
> average lay person than any spent or reprocessed nuclear fuel. Do you have
> a radon detector in your home?
>
>  
It's true, radon kills many more people than any other form of
radiation. It's the second leading cause of lung cancer, with tobacco of
course being #1. It's coming out of the ground everywhere! You can't
hide! :-)
-
MK


'[OT] Why not nuclear? (Was Specific costs of trans'
2008\01\12@081857 by Howard Winter
face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:06:36 -0800, William \"Chops\" Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Because it's the people that use the energy - an area of land doesn't use any energy if you leave it alone!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\01\12@082154 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Dave,

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:33:58 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:

{Quote hidden}

We don't, we drink it at cellar temperature, usually about +10C (50F).  And the reason why, is so we can taste it!  I can't understand why anaesthetising your taste
buds with cold is seen to be a Good Thing, but maybe the taste of the stuff is awful otherwise?  :-)

Cheers,

Howard Winter, card-carrying member of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA)
St.Albans, England


2008\01\12@152054 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> We don't, we drink it at cellar temperature, usually about +10C (50F).
> And the reason why, is so we can taste it!  I can't understand why
> anaesthetising your taste buds with cold is seen to be a Good Thing, but
> maybe the taste of the stuff is awful otherwise?  :-)

The beers that are drunken with very low temperatures usually don't have a
taste that would make people drink them warmer :)

Gerhard

2008\01\16@231915 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Gerhard wrote:
> Besides, the GNP is (IMO) a useless figure. IMO it has no meaning for any
> meaningful purpose. If -- hypothetically -- in one year road accidents
> rise
> sharply and people are forced to shell out all kinds of savings (or
> better,
> take up credits to shell out, given the current savings rate) to fix their
> cars, buy new cars, pay their hospital bills, you'll see a rise in the
> GNP.
> Meaning... what exactly? That the economy boomed? Yeah, right...

Gerhad, sorry, but what you said above is absolute nonsense.

GDP (I'm pretty sure when you say "GNP", you mean "GDP") is in fact a very
useful number. In simple terms, it measures the economic output of a
country -- which in turn determines its effect on the global economy. GDP
per capita is a good indicator of the wealth of an average citizen of the
country. The CIA World Factbook is a great place to look up this
information, and see how the GDP corellates with what you know about a
country -- for example, everybody knows that US is a very rich country, and
Afghanistan is a very poor one:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

As far as your example goes, the hypothetical sharp increase in auto
accidents will NOT cause a rise in GDP (or GNP). If would cause people to
spend the money on the things you listed (fixing cars, hospital bills, etc)
instead of spending it on something else -- houses, vacations, big screen
TVs. $1000 spent on hospital bills versus a TV has no effect on GDP. If
anything, the accidents would cause the GDP to be lower because of the loss
of productivity.

Vitaliy

2008\01\16@233307 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
>> Like I've said before; what make you think that the units (kgoe/person)
>> for that number make sense?  How about kgoe per square kilometer,
>> kgoe per million dollars GNP, kgoe per ton of crops raised, kgoe per
>> ton of crops exported?
>
> Because it's the people that use the energy - an area of land doesn't use
> any energy if you leave it alone!

Not so.

I think what Bill is saying, is that if I'm a farmer or a car maker, of
course I have to use more energy than my neighbor, who happens to be a
tailor or a bookkeeper. And if my neighbor buys the crops I produce, he is
as much responsible for the extra energy I used, as I am.

2008\01\17@000053 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>> And asking nuclear scientists about nuclear power (==money
>> in their pockets, in the long run) is like what?
>
> Probably about like asking actors.  I'd think that the
> average "nuclear scientist" knows about as much about the
> safety of nuclear power plants (all factors considered) as
> the average electrical engineer knows about the health
> effects of cell phone usage or EMF from high tension power
> lines.

Not a fair comparison. You're mixing the concepts of "safety" and "health
effects", and using very generic, non-specific terms.

If you want a fair comparison, compare  what the average nuclear power plant
expert knows about the safety of nuclear power plants, to what the average
ECU expert (an EE) knows about the safety of ECUs (ECU is the computer box
in your car that controls the engine, transmission, etc).

Or, compare what the average radiation health expert knows about the effects
of nuclear radiation, to what an average expert on the health effects of
cell phone usage/EMF from high tension power lines knows about the health
effects of cell phone usage/EMF fom high tension power lines.

Of course, first you have to define what "average" means.

{Quote hidden}

Your concerns are addressed in Cohen's book. Even the last one, about how
you measure the long-term effects. Just like with everything else,
statistics and control groups. The numbers are all there. "Exposed group,
after 30 years X cancers compared to Y cancers expected in normal
population."

Below is an excerpt from Chapter 1 where Cohen talks about why he believes
he is impartial.

"When specialists present information to the public, they can easily convey
false impressions without falsifying facts by merely selecting the facts
they present. It is my pledge not to do this. I will do my utmost not only
to present correct information but to present it in a way that gives the
correct impression and perspective. To do otherwise would seriously damage
my credibility in the scientific community and thereby depreciate the value
of my research, which is largely what I live for.

Since your faith in this pledge may depend on what you know about the
author, I offer the following personal information. I am a 65-year-old,
long-tenured professor of physics and radiation health at the University of
Pittsburgh. I have never been employed by the nuclear industry except as a
very occasional consultant, and I discontinued those relationships several
years ago. My job security and salary are in no way dependent on the health
of the nuclear industry. I have no long-standing emotional ties to nuclear
power, not having participated in its development. My professional
involvement with nuclear energy began only when the 1973 oil embargo
stimulated me to look into our national energy problems. I have four
children and eight grandchildren; my principal concern in life is to
increase the chances for them and all of our younger citizens to live
healthy, prosperous lives in a peaceful world.

To those who question my selection of topics or my treatment of them in this
book, I invite personal correspondence or telephone calls to discuss these
questions. I feel confident that through such means I can convince any
reasonable person that the viewpoints expressed are correct and sufficiently
complete to give the proper impressions and perspective."

It seems to me that aguing *against* (not *for*) nuclear power is more
likely to line scientists' pockets.

2008\01\17@013645 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 16, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

>> Because it's the people that use the energy - an area of land  
>> doesn't use
>> any energy if you leave it alone!
>
> Not so.
>
> I think what Bill is saying, is that if I'm a farmer or a car  
> maker, of
> course I have to use more energy than my neighbor, who happens to be a
> tailor or a bookkeeper. And if my neighbor buys the crops I  
> produce, he is
> as much responsible for the extra energy I used, as I am.

It's more than that.  MOSTLY I meant land actually used for growing  
crops, which other people have said takes quite a lot of energy.  But  
also just from a transportation point of view; shipping ~8 million  
metric tons of wheat from the middle of nowhere (the dakotas, and  
montana, produce 69% of US wheat) to places like egypt, japan, and  
the philippines is going to use a significant amount of energy too (I  
don't know if it ALL gets "charged" to the US, but still...)

BillW

2008\01\17@064925 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:

> Gerhard wrote:
>> Besides, the GNP is (IMO) a useless figure. IMO it has no meaning for
>> any meaningful purpose. If -- hypothetically -- in one year road
>> accidents rise sharply and people are forced to shell out all kinds of
>> savings (or better, take up credits to shell out, given the current
>> savings rate) to fix their cars, buy new cars, pay their hospital
>> bills, you'll see a rise in the GNP. Meaning... what exactly? That the
>> economy boomed? Yeah, right...
>
> Gerhad, sorry, but what you said above is absolute nonsense.

Hm... a harsh judgement. Let's see if it holds up.

> GDP (I'm pretty sure when you say "GNP", you mean "GDP") ...

Yes, sorry. Cross-language pollination :)

> ... is in fact a very useful number. In simple terms, it measures the
> economic output of a country [...]

In /very/ simplified terms, yes. I don't argue that. I just think that the
simplifications simplify reality to a point where it becomes useless for
most purposes.

> The CIA World Factbook is a great place to look up this information, ...

Agreed. This and other info.

> ... and see how the GDP corellates with what you know about a country --
> for example, everybody knows that US is a very rich country, and
> Afghanistan is a very poor one:

Ok, in such big differences, the simplifications I'm talking about may not
be as significant. Yes, for some purposes it may be a sufficiently good
measuring stick to find out whether your country is economically in the
top, middle or bottom third, approximately. But that's not how it is mainly
used. And even if used this way... I don't think that the productivity in
Luxembourg is twice the productivity of the USA
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita>.
I'm not quite sure what the order in this list represents, other than the
order of GDP by PPP. The problem arises when one tries to go beyond this
and use this number to indicate whether the economy (not the GDP!) is doing
well :)

> As far as your example goes, the hypothetical sharp increase in auto
> accidents will NOT cause a rise in GDP (or GNP). If would cause people
> to spend the money on the things you listed (fixing cars, hospital
> bills, etc) instead of spending it on something else -- houses,
> vacations, big screen TVs. $1000 spent on hospital bills versus a TV has
> no effect on GDP. If anything, the accidents would cause the GDP to be
> lower because of the loss of productivity.

You completely lost my point. Did you read the part about spending savings
or taking out credit to pay the expenses? The point was about spending for
something non-productive that would otherwise not been spend.

It is obvious from the way the GDP works that it includes any (formal)
spending without concern about the effect of that spending. When the
government takes up credit to build munition, the GDP increases just the
same as when it does so to build power plants in your favorite
future-oriented technology. In both cases, the increase doesn't say
anything about future effects like having to pay back the credit or having
to buy crude at high prices because that's what the old power plants need.

An increasing savings rate decreases the GDP (in the short run, at least),
with everything else the same, just the same as taking out huge amount of
bad credit and spending it increases it (in the short term; not accounting
for the bank crashes ten years later).

The effects of Reagonomics are still parked in the public debt; nobody has
yet had the guts to start paying back the real cost of the GDP effect
created by taking out up to then unseen amounts of credit. Contrary to some
other things, this doesn't just go away by not looking at it (as long as
the economic system remains roughly the same).

So, while you can use the GDP to very roughly classify economies (as long
as you only want to compare the part that affects the GDP), it doesn't
serve well to track differences in single percents. The "dirt effects" can
easily be bigger than that. (With "dirt effects" I mean things that affect
the GDP contrary to the usual measuring stick where bigger==better. Most
would probably agree that a higher savings rate would be better in the USA,
but that would reduce the GDP now.)

I'm not alone with that opinion, though: see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp#Criticisms_and_limitations> for starters.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...