• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
Today climate activists announced the world has only 7 years to transition from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy to hold global warming to 1.5C. Note, no mention of nuclear, and no mention of developing nations which are steadily ramping up coal fired electrical generation.
Actually that is a major part of the climate discussions. It is one of the most contentious reasons why countries can't seem to come to agreement on a framework.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,995
Likes
38,174
Actually that is a major part of the climate discussions. It is one of the most contentious reasons why countries can't seem to come to agreement on a framework.
Unless something changes in the regulation of nuclear it is basically impossible in the USA. Two plants were under construction in recent years, one has been stopped and the cost essentially bankrupted a company. The other is nearly complete, but the cost is so much it didn't make sense and will increase electrical costs. Regulations and EPA restrictions on this are irrational. Unless it is fixed I don't think the USA will be benefitting from nuclear.

Not trying to make any political statement just observing how things are.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,029
Today climate activists announced the world has only 7 years to transition from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy to hold global warming to 1.5C. Note, no mention of nuclear, and no mention of developing nations which are steadily ramping up coal fired electrical generation.
It’s total nonsense and not possible, when Third World countries are ramping up industrial production. Can only speak for the UK the majority of environmentalists are young, white and from what has been described as a privileged background. Described in fan article recently as Humanities Graduates who can’t find a job and realise they will never have the lifestyle enjoyed by their parents.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
Unless something changes in the regulation of nuclear it is basically impossible in the USA. Two plants were under construction in recent years, one has been stopped and the cost essentially bankrupted a company. The other is nearly complete, but the cost is so much it didn't make sense and will increase electrical costs. Regulations and EPA restrictions on this are irrational. Unless it is fixed I don't think the USA will be benefitting from nuclear.

Not trying to make any political statement just observing how things are.
My comment you quoted wasn't about nuclear power, but the biggest problem building new nuclear plants in the United States seems to be cost. When you work out the final cost, it doesn't seem to be competitive anymore. Wind and solar are simply cheaper per kilowatt hour and faster to put up. I don't know what regulation you could come up with to change that. It's probably just naturally how it is.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,995
Likes
38,174
My comment you quoted wasn't about nuclear power, but the biggest problem building new nuclear plants in the United States seems to be cost. When you work out the final cost, it doesn't seem to be competitive anymore. Wind and solar are simply cheaper per kilowatt hour and faster to put up. I don't know what regulation you could come up with to change that. It's probably just naturally how it is.
Some of the cost is how long it takes to satisfy some epa regs. Related to activists using this to drag things out in the court system.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
I understand that belief, but from reading articles on the subject by those knowledgeable about the industry, it's not the majority of the cost overruns. That goes to the capital cost of construction, including design changes and inefficiencies that stem from it. They are just technically complex.

If we wanted to get serious about it, we could produce standardized, smaller reactors like we do with tract homes, and the U.S. government could subsidize it like some others do.

Here is an article that discusses that to some degree:

 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,379
Likes
9,551
Actually that is a major part of the climate discussions. It is one of the most contentious reasons why countries can't seem to come to agreement on a framework.
I have to agree with you there. However, I believe there will never be an agreement because the sides are too far apart. Personally, I believe adaptation and resilience are the way to go and decarbonization will fail because of its cost.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
I have to agree with you there. However, I believe there will never be an agreement because the sides are too far apart. Personally, I believe adaptation and resilience are the way to go and decarbonization will fail because of its cost.
If you look at how developed countries see emissions tapering off due to technological progress, I would not agree that reducing carbon emissions costs more. In fact, this is one of the main misconceptions out there. Not reducing emissions costs more than reducing them.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,379
Likes
9,551
If you look at how developed countries see emissions tapering off due to technological progress, I would not agree that reducing carbon emissions costs more. In fact, this is one of the main misconceptions out there. Not reducing emissions costs more than reducing them.
That's a pretty broad statement. Going from Coal to Natural gas in the US was done by market forces but abandoning natural gas for wind and solar will cost much more. I don't accept your last statement for a pile of reasons which I will not go into here.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
That's fine. There's plenty of research that shows that the damages we're looking at cost more than the solutions for prevention. Just look at how expensive Sandy was, and how expensive the Hoover Dam situation is going to be. And that's only two events in one country. As these events become more common and more severe on a warmer planet, the cost of doing nothing becomes the biggest part of the equation. I'm not saying anything controversial - this is what the science has been showing for decades. I think we agree since you have stated we need to spend money on mitigation.
 
Last edited:

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,379
Likes
9,551
That's fine. There's plenty of research that shows that the damages we're looking at cost more than the solutions for prevention. Just look at how expensive Sandy was, and how expensive the Hoover Dam situation is going to be. And that's only two events in one country. As these events become more common and more severe on a warmer planet, the cost of doing nothing becomes the biggest part of the equation. I'm not saying anything controversial - this is what the science has been showing for decades. I think we agree since you have stated we need to spend money on mitigation.
Would you expound on the "Hoover Dam situation"? My understanding is a transformer blew up. That could be because it was worn out, or human error. You must think that high loads due to hot weather is the cause. That's conjecture. Can you prove Sandy was caused by climate change?
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,856
Likes
3,778
I'm talking about the drought. Lake Mead is at levels not seen since they were still filling it in the 1930's. Hoover may stop producing power if it goes too low.

For Sandy, it's not correct to say it was *caused* by climate change. It is correct to say that the storm was more powerful because it was fueled by climate change. Warmer ocean waters, etc. For example, you could say that thousand year storms become hundred year storms.
 
Last edited:

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,749
Likes
5,408
The Netherlands are already planning what to do with rising sea levels during the next hundred years or more. It will be expensive.

Talking about the economics of moving away from fossil fuels, there are different situations and potential mechanisms dealing with the allocation of costs and benefits (this is economics textbook stuff).
1 if the the cost for the end user of sustainable energy is lower than the cost of fossil fuel, market forces will persuade end users to make the change. This is already happening with solar energy and wind energy in many locations. Similarly heat pump technology will soon have a competitive advantage.
2 if fossil fuel remains cheaper in particular applications, we have the free rider problem: individual end users are better off sticking with fossil fuel, but collectively we are better off if everyone makes the change. Within national states the free rider problem is usually dealt with on the one hand with legislation to ban or mandate particular behaviour, or, more flexibly, with taxes and subsidies to change the cost benefit equation for economic subjects. Auctions of pollution permits are another clever one. The precise format is something economists can get very excited about, to find just the most effectve mechanism.
3 if the benefits are only global, we have a problem, because we have no global government, thus allowing individual countries to be free riders: why would country X incur substantial costs if the benefits are not felt in that country, but only globally, even though we know we will all go down the drain?
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,164
Location
Singapore
The fundamental problem facing reaching meaningful agreement to lower emissions globally is reconciling the entirely reasonable demands of developing countries to continue developing with the imperative to reduce emissions. People in the developing world aren't stupid, they're perfectly aware of the need to reduce GHG emissions and of the implications of climate change. They're also aware it's a problem they didn't create and they have a reasonable expectation that those countries which created the problem and got rich from it should pay. If you look at per-capita emission it's very clear the problem isn't India or Brazil, and even China's per-capita emissions aren't that high, last time I looked still much lower than Canada and the US and similar to many EU countries despite 30 years of explosive economic growth (which again indicates they weren't the ones that created the problem).
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,029
Given that production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, calculating emissions per unit of production is nothing other than saying that the rich should be allowed to pollute more. Anyway, even if we use the metric proposed, comparing more or less similarly dveloped economies the outcome is interesting. US per capita income is about 15-30% higher than European per capita incomes, but per capita emissions are 2-3 times higher.
Being called productive used to be a compliment now it seems to infer something entirely different. If someone works hard in life should they be allowed to reap the benefits? Throughout history it has meant living a better lifestyle, this is how progress has happened. A nice home, material possessions to make you comfortable, travel for holidays etc. Without wealth creation we would lead much worse lifestyles. Blaming first World countries and people is naïve at best.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,224
Likes
2,029
Find me some data on that. Also, the US produces its own oil and refines oil and manufactures petrochemicals for export. That means some other country has outsourced its emissions to the US. The metric proposed is not per capita income, but total economic output. Europe is sitting on top of enormous shale oil deposits but would rather depend on Russia. See what that got them. Germany is recommissioning coal plants. Europe is not entitled to a halo.
The entire environmental lobby has become a venue for virtue signalling. It the idealists among us want to make a statement refuse to have their homes and workplaces connected to mains energy supplies, never ride in an energy consuming method of transport. Exist on a rudimentary vegan diet that doesn’t need to be heated or cooked. Get out of their upper middle class ghettoes and live among people with nothing. Seen it in living in the Third World out come the idealists full of brotherly love and understanding. Never seemed to last too long in any of them!
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,164
Location
Singapore
Being called productive used to be a compliment now it seems to infer something entirely different. If someone works hard in life should they be allowed to reap the benefits? Throughout history it has meant living a better lifestyle, this is how progress has happened. A nice home, material possessions to make you comfortable, travel for holidays etc. Without wealth creation we would lead much worse lifestyles. Blaming first World countries and people is naïve at best.

People in developing countries in many cases work longer hours in worse conditions to survive and to try and provide a better life for the next generation. Therefore to infer developed countries should be allowed to emit more because people work harder is somewhat flawed.
The reason many blame the developed world is because the accumulation of GHGs causing climate change is largely the result of the developed world. If climate change had only been discovered last year we might have an excuse, but the effects of GHG emissions have been widely accepted since the mid-80's. Which means that many parts of the developed world did little to change for almost four decades after the problem was understood.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,749
Likes
5,408
The entire environmental lobby has become a venue for virtue signalling. It the idealists among us want to make a statement refuse to have their homes and workplaces connected to mains energy supplies, never ride in an energy consuming method of transport. Exist on a rudimentary vegan diet that doesn’t need to be heated or cooked. Get out of their upper middle class ghettoes and live among people with nothing. Seen it in living in the Third World out come the idealists full of brotherly love and understanding. Never seemed to last too long in any of them!
I am not some naive idealist, although ideals are not a bad thing to have. I am a hard nosed economic historian with quantitative research on economic growth, standard of living, health, and the environment. I am glad to live now rather than in the past, but that is no reason to close my eyes for the problems we are now facing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom