Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill

[UncannyGarlic]

on the micro level, conservation leads to net increase in energy usage.

Source? All that I've read and heard from people who work in the industry disagree. Most RCM programs save 10-15% in energy use.

on the macro level, conservation is very beneficial. the problem is conservation does not happen on the macro level yet.

Some states in the US have incentives for conservation (mostly replacing old equipment with new equipment which uses over a certain amount less net BTUs) so... no, your wrong there as well. It's not as big of a focus as it could and should be, but it is there.

 

[TheWesDude]

nice uncanny, so instead of trying to refute my statements that micro conservation leads to net increase in energy usage, all you do is point to programs that encourage micro conservation.

its called "non-sequitur"

again, conservation on the micro level leads to a net energy usage increase on the macro level. this has been known for over 100 years.

pointing at programs that encourage or reward micro conservation do not dispute my point.

there are only 2 ways to stop micro conservation from leading to a net increase of energy usage.

1) raise the cost of any energy used to be the same total cost before conservation so there is no monetary savings. ( you dont own a car? thats fine, you still have to pay for gas, car insurance, and taxes on it )

2) convert micro conservation to be the macro level. this would require everyone to conserve. ( so hows them SUV/Truck car sales going? )


currently conservation is only happening on the micro level. there is very little conservation on the macro level.

 

[Dead Guy]

You still haven't given any explanation of how that would work out. Just stating that it has been known for a hundred years doesn't do it. The burden of evidence is on you, not Garlic, since you're the one making the claim. You're not right just because no one can refute your seemingly directly contradictory claims.

 

[Sander]

nice uncanny, so instead of trying to refute my statements that micro conservation leads to net increase in energy usage, all you do is point to programs that encourage micro conservation.

its called "non-sequitur"

again, conservation on the micro level leads to a net energy usage increase on the macro level. this has been known for over 100 years.

You keep saying this but you offer no proof whatsoever. Excuse me while I continue to not believe anything people randomly spout without offering any supporting evidence.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

nice uncanny, so instead of trying to refute my statements that micro conservation leads to net increase in energy usage, all you do is point to programs that encourage micro conservation.

its called "non-sequitur"

Had you actually bothered to poke around a bit you would have seen two "case studies" of school districts which, through conservation, reduced their energy use by 32% and 15% respectively.

Gresham-Barlow School District case study (pdf)
Crook County School District case study (pdf)

Are they scientific studies? No, they are self-reported savings. Unless by micro you mean individual equipment rather than individual buildings or small areas, this is evidence that refutes your claim. That said, you've yet to provide any evidence to back your claims.

 

[TheWesDude]

every single damn time people bring up conservation, i always have to explain this.

conservation of resources/energy on the micro level leads to a net increase of resources/energy on the macro level.

again, its an economic model. micro scale is anything part of a larger picture. those school districts are part of the larger state districts which is a part of the national school districts.

for conservation efforts to mean anything, conservation cannot happen on the micro level, it must happen on the macro level.

Jevons paradox is the economic model that clearly explains it and as to why its true.

there are numerous examples of why its true. and no examples in which it fails without taking it into account and compensating.

 

[Sander]

Was it so hard to just name 'Jevons paradox' the first time around? Or the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate? You can't just assume that everyone knows what you're talking about even if you've explained it to other people before.

If I understand it correctly, the issue is that energy conversation is a form of increasing efficiency. And an increase in efficiency means that the cost is lower, and a lower cost stimulates consumption of the product. Moreover, the efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which also leads to an increase in power consumption. So to curb this, the government should make sure that the increase in efficiency doesn't lead to a decrease in cost.

 

[TheWesDude]

if you recall, there are 2 ways to stop it

1) if everyone conserves, then you lower the demand of it, and the resource will last longer. if you only conserve on the micro level, then others either on the micro level or else in other parts of the macro picture will take up your lower usage and increase their usage.

2) raise the cost of the energy/resource in direct correlation of the amount conserved, or more than is being conserved.

those are the only 2 ways to prevent an increase in consumption.

 

[Sander]

I wouldn't be too certain that it works that way. If people do consume less energy and increase efficiency for themselves (and at the same time don't increase their own consumption), that should have no bearing on the efficiency of others.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

The Khazzom-Brookes postulate is a postulate, not a theory, thus has not been proven. I couldn't find whether or not Jevons paradox has been proven but regardless, the model fails to take into account other costs associated with using more energy (labor, equipment, facilities, etc.) as well as energy use increasing due to population growth. I'd also note that the paradox was created in 1865 and had to do with industrialization of England, when electricity was really starting to become widely used, thus I question whether or not it can be applied to modern society (I'd need to see some evidence that it's true). Those flaws make its accuracy questionable at best to the current market.

 

[Sephis]

One of our most efficient forms of energy is fairly clean and very misunderstood. (Nuclear Energy)
We would reduce things like oil consumption and wouldn't need as many highly polluting oil and coal burning reactors.

Why do we not use things we already have at our disposal instead of spending tons of money on less efficient forms of energy.

Instead we look at alternate energy like wind and solar. Wind energy being disruptive to the eco system in it's own way. As well as costly to put up.

 

[TheWesDude]

the Jevons Paradox is an economic model that he came up with to explain what actually happened.

eg: they observed that as they increased effeciancy ( found ways to do more work with less resources [ conservation of resources ] ) they observed that resource usage did not go down as you would expect, but rather it went up.

its called Jevons Paradox, or the khazzooms postulate...

the khazoooms is just a modern re-stating of the Jevons Paradox. they are the same thing.

and yes, it is still applicable today.

ill go into an example as to why its applicable later with an example

 

[Crni Vuk]

One of our most efficient forms of energy is fairly clean and very misunderstood. (Nuclear Energy).

We had that point already. Its neither clean nor efficient (compared to other sources of energy).

 

[Sephis]

One of our most efficient forms of energy is fairly clean and very misunderstood. (Nuclear Energy).

We had that point already. Its neither clean nor efficient (compared to other sources of energy).

Nuclear fuel is more efficient then what powers most of our reactors.

IT IS clean. Radioactive material is stored so radiation does not leak outward. Compared to what sources is nuclear energy actually dirtier?
(I don't see a single mention of nuclear energy in this thread by the way)

Nuclear waste becomes less dangerous overtime, unlike oil and coal.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

IT IS clean. Radioactive material is stored so radiation does not leak outward.

No, it's extremely toxic and radioactive, hence why it has to be stored in special containers designed to last thousands of years.

Nuclear waste becomes less dangerous overtime, unlike oil and coal.

...what? Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years and the US government has gone through great pains to try to make signage that will last and will be legible in case somehow it is forgotten. Waste from burning oil and coal can be dealt with by organisms on the planet while nuclear waste cannot be, in what way is nuclear waste less dangerous? Sure, nuclear waste doesn't emit any greenhouse gases or toxic chemicals but that's because all of the waste is captured and stored because of the massive amounts of damage it would do if it wasn't. It would be possible to do the same on coal fired plants, it's just cost prohibitive, like nuclear power tends to be. Of course no power generation has zero environmental impact but nuclear power is neither clean nor renewable, though it doesn't accelerate global warming (once the plant is built, of course).

 

[Sephis]

IT IS clean. Radioactive material is stored so radiation does not leak outward.

No, it's extremely toxic and radioactive, hence why it has to be stored in special containers designed to last thousands of years.

Nuclear waste becomes less dangerous overtime, unlike oil and coal.

...what? Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years and the US government has gone through great pains to try to make signage that will last and will be legible in case somehow it is forgotten. Waste from burning oil and coal can be dealt with by organisms on the planet while nuclear waste cannot be, in what way is nuclear waste less dangerous? Sure, nuclear waste doesn't emit any greenhouse gases or toxic chemicals but that's because all of the waste is captured and stored because of the massive amounts of damage it would do if it wasn't. It would be possible to do the same on coal fired plants, it's just cost prohibitive, like nuclear power tends to be. Of course no power generation has zero environmental impact but nuclear power is neither clean nor renewable, though it doesn't accelerate global warming (once the plant is built, of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power


http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm

"The truth of the matter is that radioactive waste from nuclear energy may be dangerous for thousands of years, while wastes resulting from the burning of coal, remains dangerous forever. The reason for this is because the toxicity of these stable elements does not decrease over time as does the toxicity of radioactive materials."

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced (in UK and USA) from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.

And with all the money spent into renewable energy. Why can't we put more money into recycling High level radioactives? Use a resource we already have and improve upon it.

We have already proven the planet can't cope with what is being put into the air and water so don't tell me it can.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Nuclear fuel is more efficient then what powers most of our reactors.

But it requires a lot more knowledge, expertise and care compared to other resources. Oil, Gas and Coal can be stored pretty much anywhere without much issues. You have with Oil and Gas to keep the enviroment in mind but its not directly harmful or dangerous to people no one will die from a drop of oil on his hand or clothes. Coal can be stored in your cellar without issues for example.

Try doing that with Uranium and Plutonium. It needs a lot of well worked out savety standarts and other kinds of complex measures which makes a transport and storage for example quite complicated. Remember radioctive material can many times cause other material to become radioctive as well. And the real danger is long time exposure to radiation which is causing a lot of issues to people.

To remove some power plant based on gas, oil or coal is actualy not much of an issue (not much more then with other chemical or industral fascilities). Doing the same with nuclear plants. Not so much. It takes literaly centuries before they can be removed completely and the area is as safe again like before. Hence why the German gouvernement decided to not build any new nuclear plants anymore. Its really difficult to get them away in the future ... and they are very expensive.

So you see. Efficieny is not simply more energy output. And even that is not THAT high with nuclear energy like one might think. You get from urnium ore eventualy more energy then from oil or coal in the same weight. But Uranium is also as said more complex in handling. Hence why its not the most used source of energy today. Nuclear energy can be usefull but its not THE most usefull energy source:
The Economics of Nuclear Power

It depends on many different factors. I am neither a friend of nuclear energy nor do I dismiss it. I just try to be objective about the subject. And hence why I didnt even mentioned Tschernobyl here since that is situation which would require a topic on its own and is NOT fair to bring up in a critical discussion about nuclear energy.

In the very long run though (aprox 100 years from now on) Its a dead end just like coal, oil and gas. If we really want to find a energy source in the future it has to be a lot more ecologically. Or we should at least try to aim for more diversity. A lot more. Including resources like Coal, Oil, Uranium ~ Plutonium (and other nuclear materials) but as well all other resources available like wood, most important the sun and wind. There is still a lot of room for improvements here. In both cities and individual households.

Nuclear waste becomes less dangerous overtime, unlike oil and coal.

Depending on the used radioctive material we are talking here about a timeframe that is pretty much negigible. With 10 000 years of half life for some isiotopes I doubt really matters that it becomes less dangerous over time. So that point is moot. It will stay dangerous for a very long period of time (usualy).

IT IS clean. Radioactive material is stored so radiation does not leak outward. Compared to what sources is nuclear energy actually dirtier?

The production of energy of course not and it will do less damage compared to Coal for example. Sometimes modern plants still prove to be some issue for the enviorment though depending on the cycle and technology they use. If the cooling water is used from a lake or river nearby and if it is again released in the nature. The heat of the water can cause the lake to colapse its not so good for a lake if the temperature suddenly is increasing a few degrees. But as said it depends much on the used system. The issue in the end is that you trade one problem with another one.

The waste is pretty much dirtier compared to oil, gas and most important coal. Otherwise I would have to ask you if you would feel fine with storing nuclear waste in the back of your garden. I mean it will become less dangerous after time

To be more serious the storage of nuclear waste is still an unsolved problem. Many do simply sell their waste (thats what Germany did in the past ...) and you know where it ends sometimes ? Russia. But thats actualy no solution for the future. Pretty much every solution we have now are short term solutions. Not for the long term.

And some people are worried what happens in 100, 1000 or 10 000 years with the waste when its STILL radioctive. I could prove a problem for generations in the future digging somewhere without any clue what is in the earth. Could be one of your descendant even (for the case you care).

And with all the money spent into renewable energy. Why can't we put more money into recycling High level radioactives? Use a resource we already have and improve upon it.

We have already proven the planet can't cope with what is being put into the air and water so don't tell me it can.

Because its a dead end. That simple. Spending more energy and time on improving it is like doing it with coal or oil.

 

[Sander]

The Khazzom-Brookes postulate is a postulate, not a theory, thus has not been proven. I couldn't find whether or not Jevons paradox has been proven but regardless, the model fails to take into account other costs associated with using more energy (labor, equipment, facilities, etc.) as well as energy use increasing due to population growth. I'd also note that the paradox was created in 1865 and had to do with industrialization of England, when electricity was really starting to become widely used, thus I question whether or not it can be applied to modern society (I'd need to see some evidence that it's true). Those flaws make its accuracy questionable at best to the current market.

This is a pretty lazy retort. You're not attacking the content, just the circumstances.

There are a few problems with the theory, though.
Most importantly, it relies on the idea that efficiency increases are population-wide. This is nonsense - if I increase my energy efficiency, that has no bearing on the energy efficiency of my neighbour or indeed anyone else. So there's no reason why increasing my energy efficiency would lead to an increase in energy consumption as long as I don't increase my energy consumption.

 

[TheWesDude]

ok now time to shatter uncanny's illusions.

lets say you forgo the car and get a bike. your average car is a 150-250$ a month expense until you pay it off. insurance is another 75-150$ a month. car maintenance is say another $75 a month for fuel and averaging oil changes and repairs and such. figuring the cheaper of all #s we end up with about $250 extra a month you save by not having a car. now you replace all your appliances and such in your home/apartment with new energy saving appliances windows and doors which save you say $25 a month in power and water bills and such.

now you have an extra $275 a month you did not have before. what do you do with that extra money?

1) you spend the money on luxury goods and entertainment.

by spending the money in this way, you increase demand for these services and products. when you increase demand for these products, you increase the revenue of the companies who produce those goods/services you now partake in that you didnt before. this allows them to go to their banks and apply for growth loans to upgrade their equipment or expand into new production/service facilities which.... increase their energy usage.

2) you chose NOT to spend the money and instead pay down debt or increase your savings.

banks rely on something called the "float" which is the actual liquid cash they have on hand. when you deposit your money at a bank, they dont hold your money separate, it all goes into 1 stack of money the bank has on-hand, and they use that to invest into money market funds and other means to garner profit. federal regulations for loans require banks to only lend out say $3 out of every $4-5 they have on hand. by paying off your debt, not only do you decrease the amount of money they have "on loan" which allows them to lend out more money and by increasing the amount they have in their "float" you allow them to lend out more money.

obviously paying your debt or putting it in the bank lets them create loans to other people who would use that money either for personal use or business use which would increase their energy usage through new machinery or facilities, lets say you INVEST!!!

the stock market works by the more people who own/buy stock in a company vs whats publicly available unpurchased, the more higher the value their stock goes as its a supply/demand thing. this has been exploited before by whats called "pump and dump" which is considered illegal manipulation of the stock market. so now you have increased the value of that companies stock. companies can also get loans for new facilities/machinery based on their stock prices. which they would use those loans to increase their production/service ability. which would increase usage.



if those 2 things you use your money for do not take into account what you would do with the extra $275 a month you have, list what you would do with it and i will tell you how it is ineffective.

the only option that would not encourage economic growth by you saving that money... burn it. which is illegal as you would be destroying currency. which is illegal for pretty much any country i know of.

 

[Sephis]

"Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity."

From the economics link you posted.

Thank you for being respectful enough not to pull the tschernobyl card by the way I think it's overplayed. There are fairly large uranium stores in the USA which seems to be where we are discussing the most. I had not thought of moving away from nuclear power plants and the problem. I do know when many of the nuclear plants in the US are supposed to be decommissioned the greenhouse gasses released is supposed to sky rocket.

I honestly don't see why it is a dead end. I'd rather use it in reactors then missiles. (It's an available natural resource humans are going to use it)
Burning things like coal releases deadly radon gas into the air among other things. The air pollution from current oil and coal generators is very real even in the western world with rising smog levels as well as acid rain.

Wind energy may have great potential, but it needs to be placed in places where it will disrupt the ecosystem. So it's not like it doesn't have it's own drawbacks.