In the last couple of days petrol (gas) and diesel prices have reach record highs in the UK.
Currently gas costs £1.419 per litre and diesel £1.489, so the equivalent of a US gallon of gas would now cost 5c short of 10 bucks and diesel would be $10.40 !
I'm convinced there were less cars about on the roads today, perhaps due to the rocketing fuel cost or maybe I was imagining it ?
So given people of my age were brought up during a period of historically low and available energy prices, my question is when do you expect we'll next see a period of low energy prices and how might this come about ?
I'm assuming this is a possibility and we're not stuck with rising costs into the long run.
As long as we're dependent on oil derivatives, cost is just gonna keep going up.
When there's either a global economic collapse or a major engineering breakthrough in the energy field.
When the rich are made to pay for it.
I forgot to mention $5.70 and $5.80 of those notional gallons is made up of duty and VAT tax.
We'll probably transition to Natural gas in the next couple of decades. So maybe in 20-30 years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
We'll probably transition to Natural gas in the next couple of decades. So maybe in 20-30 years.
This is already happening and it's not 'cheap'.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 06:46:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
We'll probably transition to Natural gas in the next couple of decades. So maybe in 20-30 years.
This is already happening and it's not 'cheap'.
Because there's no economy of scale. If it was being used on the scale of gasoline it would be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 06:46:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
We'll probably transition to Natural gas in the next couple of decades. So maybe in 20-30 years.
This is already happening and it's not 'cheap'.
Because there's no economy of scale. If it was being used on the scale of gasoline it would be.
:blink:
It is, it probably account for 30% of world energy supplies and is nearly challenging oil's position in the US market.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 06:46:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
We'll probably transition to Natural gas in the next couple of decades. So maybe in 20-30 years.
This is already happening and it's not 'cheap'.
Because there's no economy of scale. If it was being used on the scale of gasoline it would be.
:blink:
It is, it probably account for 30% of world energy supplies and is nearly challenging oil's position in the US market.
It's about 25% or so in the US's energy mix, which is behind oil but increasing. It's about 40% in the UK, and I think we've been producing it for longer too. It's not so far behind oil that its got no economy of scale - like some renewables.
No, the US natural gas sector has been huge for more than 40 years.
Our own production of gas has slumped from it's high at the turn of the century, hence the need for ever more imported/Russian stuff.
Supposedly the cost of natural gas in the US is lower over all. The US is drilling for so much more gas, finding large new deposits, on top of the already large reserves here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2Fwaves%2520of%2520creative%2520destruction.png&hash=7ec9046748ac440ffaee81134b9a058a331e212f)
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2012, 08:20:46 PM
Supposedly the cost of natural gas in the US is lower over all. The US is drilling for so much more gas, finding large new deposits, on top of the already large reserves here.
Yes, I think that was what Tim was reference these rather speculative figures for enormous new deposits, which are as ye unproven.
Currently the US has about 4% of world natural gas reserves, Russia has six times that at 24% and both Iran and Qatar are about the 15% mark.
Incidentally, going back to US historical gas production, I looked up the figures and back in 1971 the US produced the exact same amount of 611 billion CU metres as the latest figures I have, those of 2010.
And the period in between saw pretty stable production, usually over 500 billion.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2012, 08:20:46 PM
Supposedly the cost of natural gas in the US is lower over all. The US is drilling for so much more gas, finding large new deposits, on top of the already large reserves here.
Yes, I think that was what Tim was reference these rather speculative figures for enormous new deposits, which are as ye unproven.
Currently the US has about 4% of world natural gas reserves, Russia has six times that at 24% and both Iran and Qatar are about the 15% mark.
Incidentally, going back to US historical gas production, I looked up the figures and back in 1971 the US produced the exact same amount of 611 billion CU metres as the latest figures I have, those of 2010.
And the period in between saw pretty stable production, usually over 500 billion.
Interesting that the production shows about the same in 1971 and 2010, no big diffrences. I would not have thought that. The US must have larger reserves that 4%. That doesn't seem to make sense, given how some big name people like T Boone-Pickens has wanted the US to convert over to gas. :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2012, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2012, 08:20:46 PM
Supposedly the cost of natural gas in the US is lower over all. The US is drilling for so much more gas, finding large new deposits, on top of the already large reserves here.
Yes, I think that was what Tim was reference these rather speculative figures for enormous new deposits, which are as ye unproven.
Currently the US has about 4% of world natural gas reserves, Russia has six times that at 24% and both Iran and Qatar are about the 15% mark.
Incidentally, going back to US historical gas production, I looked up the figures and back in 1971 the US produced the exact same amount of 611 billion CU metres as the latest figures I have, those of 2010.
And the period in between saw pretty stable production, usually over 500 billion.
Interesting that the production shows about the same in 1971 and 2010, no big diffrences. I would not have thought that. The US must have larger reserves that 4%. That doesn't seem to make sense, given how some big name people like T Boone-Pickens has wanted the US to convert over to gas. :hmm:
I think the devils is in the detail, perhaps the methodology for US reserves is relatively conservative. And even 4% represents a lot of gas as there a hell of a lot of proven stuff out there.
Looking it up the US has enough reserves to sustain production at current rates for 12-13 years.
Incidentally about a 6th of US gas consumption comes from imports, the vast majority of which come from you know who. :Canuck:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 07:42:34 PM
It's about 25% or so in the US's energy mix, which is behind oil but increasing. It's about 40% in the UK, and I think we've been producing it for longer too. It's not so far behind oil that its got no economy of scale - like some renewables.
Are you saying renewables do or do not enjoy scale economies?
As to monger's original question, I imagine the real price of gasoline is pretty low by historical standards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2012, 09:02:11 PM
Are you saying renewables do or do not enjoy scale economies?
They do but they haven't (except in places like Germany) because they're not at that level yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:05:19 PM
They do but they haven't (except in places like Germany) because they're not at that level yet.
Where do you see the scale economies coming from?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2012, 09:08:05 PM
Where do you see the scale economies coming from?
What are you meaning by scale economies? I want to make sure we're talking the same thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:11:17 PM
What are you meaning by scale economies? I want to make sure we're talking the same thing.
Unit costs decrease as you expand production.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2012, 09:12:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:11:17 PM
What are you meaning by scale economies? I want to make sure we're talking the same thing.
Unit costs decrease as you expand production.
Well I think the initial capital costs - which were huge - for renewables declines, which makes it more affordable way of producing energy. The other effect of that is that it allows a far more decentralised energy system. If it's reasonably affordable and there's a feed-in tariff system then you open up the market to a far wider number of potential energy suppliers. I think that's happened in Germany which is now 20% renewables and growing.
Whether that's passed onto the consumer's another issue I think because of the nature of the market. I still think the biggest thing we could do to help lower the cost of energy is to have a European Grid. But that's not happening.
You amortize the fixed capital costs through depreciation Shelf.
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:28:26 PM
Well I think the initial capital costs - which were huge - for renewables declines, which makes it more affordable way of producing energy. The other effect of that is that it allows a far more decentralised energy system. If it's reasonably affordable and there's a feed-in tariff system then you open up the market to a far wider number of potential energy suppliers. I think that's happened in Germany which is now 20% renewables and growing.
That sounds pretty good for Germany. In the US we keep hearing about the failed solar and wind companies that received government subsidies. But my bigger question is why aren't they able to find a way to compete with other companies, other nations that are doing it? I know some nations had trouble too, like Spain and a few others which had troubles building green energy systems. But China and some other countries are doing it. I'm sure part of the problem is the costs in the US compared to China.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2012, 09:31:54 PM
You amortize the fixed capital costs through depreciation Shelf.
Yeah, I'm not sure how that affects what I've said though?
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2012, 09:38:12 PMI'm sure part of the problem is the costs in the US compared to China.
That's unlikely, since most of the cost is buying the panels themselves, usually made in China.
Solar is not really anywhere near close to be cost-effective, simply due to the primitive technology involved, which hasn't really changed that much in decades*. Wind is much closer, especially once you account for externalities like health, security and environmental costs for other sources. The problem of wind generators is they disrupt the grid's waveform. There are ways to ameliorate this, but it's costly. You also need backup gas-fired plants, for obvious reasons. And there are not that many prime sites for them. IIRC in Spain we've used up most of the best already.
* It is however ideal when dealing with places far away from the grid.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?
This is my source:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,783314,00.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?
One might be talking about installed capacity, the other about actual generated energy. In Spain, for example, as a general rule of thumb you can expect 6 hours' worth of nominal production a day from a given solar plant.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?
You could always look it up yourself and decide ? :hmm:
Alternative just for a member of the demanding it on a plate generation here's all the figures you'll ever need:
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481 (http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481)
Click on the link to historical data, but NB this is quite a large XLS spreadsheet.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 24, 2012, 09:53:22 PM
Solar is not really anywhere near close to be cost-effective, simply due to the primitive technology involved, which hasn't really changed that much in decades*. Wind is much closer, especially once you account for externalities like health, security and environmental costs for other sources.
There's a number of problems with wind but it's by far the best so far and probably the most cost-effective. But you need a good mix with hydro, biomass and all the rest.
Solar, from what I understand, isn't very cost-effective. I read one paper that basically suggested that solar does very well because it's a bit sexy so politicians and the public are far more likely to support it. Geo-thermal, hydro and wind power may be more effective but they're less well sold.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Shelf says 20%, you say 6%, which is it?
This is my source:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,783314,00.html
That article appears to be somewhat poor, it seems to assume electric generation is the same as total energy use.
Solar has one saving grace: it produces when it's most needed. Other than that and 'unplugged' applications, it's fairly crappy.
Geothermal is very situational. So is hydro (which is also environmentally damaging). Wind is, at least here, very popular. But then we've got some of the leading producers in the world like Gamesa.
Ideally what you want is a baseload of nuclear. Peak covered with wind and other renewables, plus whatever hydro you can get away with without farmers shooting your ass for robbing them of their precious water. Finally gas as backup.
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 10:04:34 PM
That article appears to be somewhat poor, it seems to assume electric generation is the same as total energy use.
Here's a bit more from a blog on German energy policy, mainly because it's in English:
QuoteBDEW: German Renewable Electricity Supply Exceeds 20% in First Half of 2011
Published on August 29, 2011 in Biomass, Renewable, Solar, Water and Wind. 0 Comments
Tags: bdew, statistics.
According to preliminary estimates by the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry (BDEW), renewable electricity supply in Germany exceeded 20% for the first time in the first six month of the year.
Electricity from renewable sources delivered some 57.3 billion kWh and covered 20.8% of the German electricity demand, compared with 50.4 billion kWh or 18.3% in the first half of 2010.
With a share of 7.5% (2010: 6,6%) wind power remains the most important renewable energy source in Germany, followed by biomass, which accounts for 5.6% (2010: 5.4%). Due to strong growth and the sunny spring months, PV was able to almost double its share from 2.0% to 3.5%, overtaking hydro power and coming in third. Hydro power contributed 3.3% after 3.6% in the same period last year. The change was due to the weather conditions, BDEW said. The share of 0.8% for renewable energy from waste power plants and other renewable energy sources remained unchanged.
The strong contribution of PV power reflects the tremendous capacity increase of 2010. A comparison with Q1 figures by BDEW, which showed PV still in fourth place with a share of 1.9%, demonstrates the possible contribution of solar in Germany if weather conditions are favourable. On the whole, the results fit in well with the governments aim of reaching a 35% renewable energy share by 2020, as recently put down in Section 1 para. 2 of the amended Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2012).
Source: BDEW
But on consumption the German Ministry of Energy ( http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/Energie/Statistik-und-Prognosen/Energiedaten/energiegewinnung-energieverbrauch.html ) both have energy consumption from renewables at just under 10% and just over for 2010 and 2011 respectively. They seem to account for imported electricity too. Eurostat seem a bit more generous, but I don't know if I'm reading them right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure how that affects what I've said though?
You don't achieve scale economies by paying for your fixed capital costs up front, you achieve them by having a given amount of fixed capital investment generate more output.
I remember back when I lived in San Antonio, thinking that the roofs of all the cheap-ass houses they build there would be a great platform for solar.
Of course, probably one good Texas hail storm would wipe that all out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2012, 09:02:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2012, 07:42:34 PM
It's about 25% or so in the US's energy mix, which is behind oil but increasing. It's about 40% in the UK, and I think we've been producing it for longer too. It's not so far behind oil that its got no economy of scale - like some renewables.
Are you saying renewables do or do not enjoy scale economies?
As to monger's original question, I imagine the real price of gasoline is pretty low by historical standards.
Well, a gallon of gas today is far cheaper than the first gallon pumped out of Texas or the last gallon to come out of Ploesti, I suppose.
Quote from: IormSo is hydro (which is also environmentally damaging).
What? Well, maybe if you're in Egypt or Arizona or something. Our (southeastern U.S.) dams have limited environmental impact.
If someone wants to live in a desert and use their water supplies to generate electricity instead of stay alive, that seems like a personal problem.
Anyway, the answer is still solar (or "off-site fusion"). There's no reason we should not invest billions into it, either in terrestrial or spaceborne solar collectors. It works. It's already there, being wasted by being reflected or reradiated into outer space.
I would say fission, but afaik usable fission materials have the same finite nature as oil, and in any event there are better uses for them than electricity generation, like genocide or space arks. I suppose it might be useful in the short term while solar infrastructure is developed.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 24, 2012, 11:10:02 PM
I remember back when I lived in San Antonio, thinking that the roofs of all the cheap-ass houses they build there would be a great platform for solar.
This is an aspect of the German system - and one that's beginning to be encouraged elsewhere in Europe. If you install a solar panel, or windmill on your property (tax deductible) then you can sign a long-term deal with energy providers that gives a guaranteed price per kw. That way you power your house/property and get paid for any excess which is pumped into the mains.
So I think a lot of the reason Germany's got so much solar capacity is because individual homes, farms and businesses have installed solar panels in the hope of producing enough power to cover themselves and a little excess. Possibly a poor investment on their part.
QuoteAnyway, the answer is still solar (or "off-site fusion"). There's no reason we should not invest billions into it, either in terrestrial or spaceborne solar collectors. It works. It's already there, being wasted by being reflected or reradiated into outer space.
I prefer the offshore wind farms.
We could start putting the homeless/criminals/etc onto giant hamster wheels to generate power.
Or Wheels of Pain, like in Conan.
Solar in Germany is a massive misinvestment. The power consumers, i.e. the average citizens (because industrial power consumers get other rates), will have to pay for that shit for the next two decades. Something like 80 billion Euro or so IIRC. It's completely pointless and only motivated by the ideology of the Green Party.
Wind power on land is so-so, but at least the subsidies there aren't as high.
Wind power at sea in big offshore parks seems to be a competitive source of power and we currently invest billions in that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siemens.com%2Fpress%2Fpool%2Fde%2Fpressebilder%2Fphotonews%2Fpn200826%2Fpn200826-03_072dpi.jpg&hash=a1cdda96a27985c2635c3de52f32e72947fe82d0)
I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2012, 02:52:45 AM
I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.
Presumably you could also be hosed down the road if they lowered the rates.
Sunshine belongs to everyone. Trapping it for your own use seems a tad selfish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2012, 02:58:54 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2012, 02:52:45 AM
I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.
Presumably you could also be hosed down the road if they lowered the rates.
That would be illegal, though I daresay that might not count for much. The period of the feed-in is 25 years btw and the rates halve in April for new installations; the idea being that such installations will be much cheaper due to a economies of scale in the solar sector.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2012, 02:52:45 AM
I can't recall what the feed-in tariff for solar was in Germany, but it was 41p/kWh here in the UK. To be paid by increasing the bills of your fellow electricity consumers. In the UK that would give a return of something like 8-10% (more if you installed in the past few months as panel prices fell). I contemplated fitting solar panels when we had our roof renewed but decided not to on the grounds that it would be an immoral move.
I remember a Spectator editorial which was pretty upset by that "tax the poor to benefit the rich" scheme, which I guess it is indeed so.
An other thing it frowned upon and I very much tend to agree, is "biomass" which in practice entails demolishing forests and burning them.
It is very annoying that due to superstitions we are not depending more on nuclear energy. It is clean and cheap. Altough I guess the latter makes it less appealing for politicans
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 25, 2012, 03:30:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2012, 02:58:54 AM
Presumably you could also be hosed down the road if they lowered the rates.
That would be illegal, though I daresay that might not count for much.
It's what happened here. Faced with the need to cut everywhere, the government put a limit on annual production you could sell last year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 24, 2012, 11:14:01 PM
What?
Dams are an obstacle for both lifeforms (like salmon) and nutrients and thus significantly alter the ecosystem. The best example is the Nasser reservoir in Egypt, which not only has ended the natural cycle of fertilization of the Nile valley fields, but has also had a severe impact on marine populations beyond the delta that depended on its nutrientes to survive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2012, 07:38:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
I wouldn't say necessarily cheap, but the technology exists, can't be un-invented and we have the plants, industry and raw material so why not use it and develop it ?
Actually that's what annoys me about many in the green party and the environmental movement, they have got so wedded to anti-nuclear as an article of faith that anyone question this received wisdom will in short order be cast out as a heretic.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2012, 02:06:11 AM
Solar in Germany is a massive misinvestment. The power consumers, i.e. the average citizens (because industrial power consumers get other rates), will have to pay for that shit for the next two decades. Something like 80 billion Euro or so IIRC. It's completely pointless and only motivated by the ideology of the Green Party.
......
Yes call me niece but you'd think in a rare policy area where inputs and outputs can be relatively easily measured, that some degree of rationalism would be used to determine national energy policy; instead the political process seems as 'corrupted', non-scientific, politicised as in any other part of government. :hmm:
Yes the whole German solar policy seems a classic example of jesture politics.
Besides, if they'd changed all of those installations to solar thermal, they could have seen a 2 or 3 times greater energy efficiency.
Why should it be un-invented? Because of the bomb? You can get right back to learning to lighting a fire with that reasoning.
But yeah I agree, this is the single issue that could keep me away from green movements if all the other idiocy couldn't. They cannot be taken seriously, if they don't prefer nuclear power over anything else. In efficiency and cleanness it just owns everything, and what we need is more of them, so we can shut down all the coal and hydro plants, and make Gaia smile.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2012, 02:06:11 AM
Solar in Germany is a massive misinvestment. The power consumers, i.e. the average citizens (because industrial power consumers get other rates), will have to pay for that shit for the next two decades. Something like 80 billion Euro or so IIRC. It's completely pointless and only motivated by the ideology of the Green Party.
......
Yes call me niece but you'd think in a rare policy area where inputs and outputs can be relatively easily measured, that some degree of rationalism would be used to determine national energy policy; instead the political process seems as 'corrupted', non-scientific, politicised as in any other part of government. :hmm:
Please. I would start my usual ramblings here, but they would be cast aside as libertarian foolishness anyway, so I won't bother. You want government telling people what's good for the economy and what's not, and you get exactly what you can expect from that. Embrace your choice. :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2012, 04:39:37 AM
It is very annoying that due to superstitions we are not depending more on nuclear energy. It is clean and cheap. Altough I guess the latter makes it less appealing for politicans
Nuclear isn't cheap. It needs huge multi-billion commitment at the start. There's a reason the world leaders in nuclear power are the French and the leading company is 50% owned by the French state. Nuclear is to energy what the TGV is to transport. It may make sense and turn a profit in the long-run but the initial investment and the required commitment is so massive that it's a grand projet.
If you add in waste disposal and decommissioning then the costs are even higher and the companies involved (and governments) need to commit for 50 years or so. There's a reason nuclear has driven utilities companies bust.
There's been a lot of studies done that all indicate that nuclear's about as expensive, if not moreso, than gas.
I've family involved in the new nuclear plants being built over here and it's not cheap on any level.
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2012, 08:37:34 AM
Why should it be un-invented? Because of the bomb? You can get right back to learning to lighting a fire with that reasoning.
But yeah I agree, this is the single issue that could keep me away from green movements if all the other idiocy couldn't. They cannot be taken seriously, if they don't prefer nuclear power over anything else. In efficiency and cleanness it just owns everything, and what we need is more of them, so we can shut down all the coal and hydro plants, and make Gaia smile.
You seriously don't understand their concerns? The problem is NIMBY. Nobody wants the waste from the things nearby (or even being transported through their area), and few want the plants near their homes due to small but still very real possibility of a melt-down.
Our of curiosity, if the people of an area are forced to leave because of a meltdown, would you support government handouts to help them?
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2012, 07:38:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
I wouldn't say necessarily cheap, but the technology exists, can't be un-invented and we have the plants, industry and raw material so why not use it and develop it ?
Once NPP are up and running after the (granted) expensive construction process, they pay for themselves for years afterwards.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
Nobody wants the waste from the things nearby
In Sweden the local communities are happy to have the waste facilities.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Why did you feel the need to exclude nuclear from the 'other renewables' category? Nuclear energy is only renewable on timescales in the tens of billions of years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2012, 09:52:00 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 25, 2012, 07:38:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2012, 10:22:55 PM
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
We have cheap energy; it's called nuclear.
I wouldn't say necessarily cheap, but the technology exists, can't be un-invented and we have the plants, industry and raw material so why not use it and develop it ?
Once NPP are up and running after the (granted) expensive construction process, they pay for themselves for years afterwards.
I like the idea of burning nuclear waste in integral fast reactors (IFRs), more on the politics surrounding the idea there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution)
Quote from: Neil on March 25, 2012, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Germany's position is just strange, I think it's a throw money in the air and see what happens approach; they have 44% of total world installed solar panel capacity and 14% of the worlds wind turbines, yet those and other renewables (excluding hydro and nuclear) manage to produce just 6% of German energy needs.
Why did you feel the need to exclude nuclear from the 'other renewables' category? Nuclear energy is only renewable on timescales in the tens of billions of years.
Simply because thats what the figures I was using did.
It also makes sense as both nuclear and hydro greatly outperform* other renewables and are relatively mature technologies, so it's by excluding them we can have a more focused look at solar, wind, tidal etc.
* World energy use when converted to oil tonne equivalent breaks down like this:
Oil - 33.6%
Natural gas - 23.8%
Coal - 29.6%
Nuclear - 5.2%
Hydro - 6.5%
Renewables - 1.3%
So Hydro outperforms the total of all other renewables by a factor of 5.
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2012, 08:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2012, 02:06:11 AM
Solar in Germany is a massive misinvestment. The power consumers, i.e. the average citizens (because industrial power consumers get other rates), will have to pay for that shit for the next two decades. Something like 80 billion Euro or so IIRC. It's completely pointless and only motivated by the ideology of the Green Party.
......
Yes call me niece....
Hi neice.
Is this some sort of fetish?
Bill Gates on clean, cheap energy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577299343742435580.html
Quote from: Phillip V on March 26, 2012, 01:01:47 PM
Bill Gates on clean, cheap energy.
Fucker's got a lot of nerve, considering the sheer countless amount of megawattage wasted over the years from rebooting BSODs.
Still no mention in the thread of the dreaded C* word. :hmm:
*conservation. :gasp:
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2012, 01:13:48 PM
Still no mention in the thread of the dreaded C* word. :hmm:
*conservation. :gasp:
= Communism.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2012, 01:13:48 PM
Still no mention in the thread of the dreaded C* word. :hmm:
*conservation. :gasp:
You mean "China". The non-growing world is already all over the conservation thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 26, 2012, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2012, 01:13:48 PM
Still no mention in the thread of the dreaded C* word. :hmm:
*conservation. :gasp:
You mean "China". The non-growing world is already all over the conservation thing.
It's not due to that, for instance in the UK the modest energy use reductions of recent years have been almost exclusively gained by exporting industrial production abroad/China and by the shift from coal/oil to gas powered electricity generation, the same could be said of carbon use.
Take a look outside on the city streets, major roads and in the skies, notice any reduction in traffic/congestion and energy use there ?
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2012, 01:13:48 PM
Still no mention in the thread of the dreaded C* word. :hmm:
*conservation. :gasp:
Because that would be the end of civilization. Increasing energy needs are what drive civilization.
Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2012, 03:04:31 AM
Sunshine belongs to everyone. Trapping it for your own use seems a tad selfish.
+1