Greens for Nukes!

Well, that has always been the key problem. We have *never* paid for the "true" cost of energy, or for that matter any product, as all the negative issues have been ignored or absorbed by the generous taxpayer.

Much like how the cigarette industry lied their a** off while they enjoyed enormous profit at the expense of millions of legally-addicted users. The taxes from cigarette sales never covered more than a token of the "real" health costs.

If you factored in the "true" costs of energy, we would be forced to dramatically change our consumption patterns. I imagine that Central America, South America, Africa, Russia, Indonesia, and China would be exempt from such Draconian price adjustments.

If you want to see just how badly nuclear power can be managed, look no further than the former Ontario Hydro with their CANDU nuclear plants in Southern Ontario. Rough estimates are hard to come by, as the Canadian government pursued a vigorous disinformation campaign and set up "crown corporations" to hide a lot of the cost: estimated $70 billion Cdn.

A "crown corporation" is an "arms length" government entity that is mostly exempt from auditing and Access To Information Act (Like FOIA in the U.S.) inquiry. They can slurp up general taxpayer funds and slap them Secret.

Examples: AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd), Industry Canada, BDC (Business Development Corp), and EDC (Export Development Corp). EDC was one of the major foreign funders of that giant dam in China.

 

thats right its expensive. estimated 5-10 TRILLION to replace the replaceable power plants. that is just start up. factor in the added security and added storage transportation costs of spent fuel, etc and we have a very spendy proposition. now in the long run, it would be a good investment. realize that the cost of the plants replaced would be about 2 Trillion so its expensive no matter what.

but i cant help but wonder how far 1 Trillion would go if used to outfit every roof with solar.

 

Indeed... though the cheapest option is still energy efficiency. Unfortunately, one of the failures of the free market is that most people don't bother with energy efficiency unless the price exceeds a certain level.

But hey, I'm preaching to the converted here.

 

The only way to have true energy conservation is to *force* energy conservation. If power and fuel costs were more closely aligned with their "true" costs, we would see a dramatic change in consumption patterns.

We also need strictly enforced standards for things like building construction. For example, up here when a heating contractor puts in a furnace, they just bang together some sheet metal for ductwork and never bother to seal and insulate the ductwork. DOE studies have estimated you will increase your energy use from 30% to 60% by having leaky, uninsulated ductwork.

We have a long way to go in this area. I suppose if a gallon of gas costs $6 and a KW of electricity costs 45 cents, folks would demand energy efficiency.

It's not a "failure" of the free market though. Can you show me any Communist country that looked after their environment or worried about how efficient the infrastructure is? Russia is littered with toxic chemicals and radioactive waste, ditto China.

 

You're going into a false dichotomy there. The failure of Communist systems to achieve goal X does not in any way mitigate that free markets may also fail to achieve goal X.

Fact is, an unfettered (laissez-faire) free market does not reward conservation enough to make it happen.

 

Well, you would think a brutal Communist government would *force* their slaves - um er I mean "citizens" hehe - to be energy efficient or expect a quick one-way trip to the Gulag.

I repeat my previous question: do you know of any Communist country that looked after their environment or worried about how efficient their infrastructure was?

Ironically, it was in the nasty 'ole brutal laissez faire system that the People demanded changes, and they got them. Much like if we now want increased fuel economy, we have to *demand* it.

We can do this on the open market quite simply: purchase a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight (I think it's very cute but too small for me). As usual, the Big Three have no clue how the market works, and they were literally caught with their pants down. TS, they'll have no sympathy from me.

Much like how in the 90's we were spoiled by the artificially low fuel prices - at least in North America - and used our pocketbooks to purchase giant SUV's and pickup trucks.

Nobody pointed a military rifle at your head to purchase such a vehicle, and nobody will fire up a heavily armoured tank and threaten to turn you into a human waffle (Eg China Tiananmen Square) to sell it.

If you can afford to purchase such a vehicle, then TS you had better not p*** and moan about what it costs to fill up the tank. That's my response when some soccer mom glares at my Prius as I carefully squeeze in $15 as she sails past $60.

 

As the auto and gas industies in the US were deregulated towards an unconstrained free market during the 90s, fuel economy went down. QED. And I repeat, anything that may or may not have happened under Communism is irrelevant to this discussion of what happens in free markets.

The only reason we're seeing any push for economy now is that the price of oil doubled--and that's one of the problems of the free market: The right thing to do for the long term isn't always the cheapest in the short term.

 

Yikes, I hit a raw nerve discussing Communism.

Yes, the oil and gas industries were deregulated in the 90's, in addition SEC rules were relaxed too.

Refresh my memory please: who was President for two terms in the 90's?

 

Stan Ovshinsky has been working with noncrystaline photovoltaic panels since the 1950s. These PV panels can be made into any shape and do not suffer the shortcomings of rigid crystaline panels. He operates a plant that produces noncrystaline PV panels longer than a football field (> 100 meters). Ovshinsky and his wife were featured on Scientific American Frontiers the evening of Wednesday, 23 February (PBS):

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/features/ovshinsky.htm

The Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) clearly identifies the "soft path" as safer, cheaper and more cost effective through conservation and renewable energy vs. the "hard path" of centralized power plants that require government subsidies and insurance liability limits with long-lived waste problems.

 

No, you just attempted to introduce a completely irrelevant topic into the discussion, and nobody was interested. Or was that a rather pathetic attempt at baiting people into discussing Communism?

Like your obsession with trying to drag Communism into the discussion, this has absolutely no relevance to the topic that was being discussed. If you want to discuss US party politics or Communism, there are plenty of other forums for that, even other threads on this board. I don't see anyone here who is interested in doing so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"67125)</div>

Not to slight Stan Ovshinsky - he is a smart guy - but if his “longer than a football field†noncrystaline photovoltaic panels were an unquestioned economic success - i.e. like printing money - why doesn’t he just print out a few million miles and take over the world? Why doesn’t he have investors throwing money at him faster than he can count?

 

People and coporations tend to protect their own turf and go with what is already known. The excess of hyperbole makes anything that is new and different suspect. "If it is too good to be true, it must be . . ."

I model what I teach and live in a 2300 sq ft home where our utilities average < $30 per month year round. While the neighbors may admire the simple things we have done, they don't run and improve their own homes, because of unknowns. Contractors, corporations and government agencies continue with the "tried and true" no matter how more efficient or cost effective alternatives are.

A major reason we as a society have not yet made the shift to solar is that the oil companies are still trying to figure out how to control the sun.

The old myths have not yet fully died and the new myths are not yet fully accepted . . . .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(metamatic\";p=\"67144)</div>

May I quote you?

"Unfortunately, one of the failures of the free market is that most people don't bother with energy efficiency unless the price exceeds a certain level. "

So I examined the alternative to the Free Market - Communism - and discovered their environmental record was FAR worse. It could be this is coincidental, but more than likely it is not.

I even tried to agree with you on something. May I quote?

"When you amortize decommissioning costs over the lifetime of the reactor and its expected power output"

I agree 100% that nobody bothers to fully account for all the costs and properly amortize them over the projected lifespan of the system. I even used the example of AECL and Ontario Hydro to illustrate just how far incompetence and fiscal daydreaming can take you - it will take you around $70 billion in the red to provide power to 15 million people.

"Fact is, an unfettered (laissez-faire) free market does not reward conservation enough to make it happen"

So what system does? What do you suggest? I'm willing to listen ...

I thought the whole point of a forum like this was to explore alternatives?

Which is why I stated that I'm not afraid of dramatically higher consumption taxes, to more closely align Price with the "true" costs, as Price is the only principle that most folks appear to respect. In a Free Market system, if you make a bad choice, then *you* pay for it. I don't believe in "rewarding" mistakes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"67153)</div>

Patrick:

That is odd. There is a huge demand out there for energy efficiency. For my hobby farm I've tried to figure out a way to go as much off-grid as possible without living like a Neanderthal.

If his system works as advertised, I would absolutely consider it for my hobby farm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"67154)</div>

Me too.

My hobby farm house is under 1,600 sq ft. The walls are a little over a foot thick made of ICF (Insulated Concrete Form). The roof is SIP (Structural Insulated Panel) 6 inches with R-30 fiberglass insulation on top in the attic.

Extremely tiny windows facing North, larger tri-pane windows facing South, proper overhangs on South facing windows to reduce solar gain in summer. The house faces directly South to get maximum advantage from brief winter sun.

My electric bills are about the same as yours, so Manitoba Hydro only bills me every 2 months. I've never had a summer gas bill more than $14, or a winter gas bill higher than $80, so when you consider a winter with -40 nights ...

I looked at the pro's and con's of geothermal vs a "traditional" super efficient gas furnace. There have been reported problems around here with geothermal, more than likely due to crappy installation, so I went with a Bryant Evolution Plus 90i . I'm very pleased with it.

I have the Bryant Evolution HVAC control network, which also monitors the Bryant Puron central A/C and the Bryant HRV. You can program the system for very nice energy savings and home comfort, I just love the variable speed furnace fan.

I followed the DOE guidelines and sealed the ductwork, then insulated the ducts with R-12 fiberglass before finishing the basement. Even at -30 the furnace can heat the house on low-fire and the slowest fan speed. I'm so used to the quiet system that a few times at -40 with a strong wind, the furnace did have to stage to high-fire and a faster fan speed and it woke me up.

My washer and dryer are the Kenmore Elite front loading, which is very easy on water. My Kenmore electronic demand water softener is very easy on salt, as it only recharges when it really has to.

My submersible well pump is starting to act up on me. I'm thinking of replacing it with that new Grundfos variable speed well pump control system: supposed to be much more energy efficient and also last much longer.

I've replaced most of my lights with LED where practical, the rest are florescent with electronic ballasts. I have to confess I do have a 60w table lamp for reading, I'm very near-sighted so I'm sensitive to florescent lights.

So like you I absolutely practice what I preach.

However, my neighbors have already started copying some of the things they have seen in my home. I don't expect them to rush out and build a new house, but easy and cheap things like sealing and insulating the ductwork. An extra layer of insulation in the attic. Instead of new windows, which are $$$, they took my advice and used plastic window film.

As I often tell my neighbors, all it takes is a bit of research and a willingness to get your fingernails a tad dirty. Nobody has ever been punished for hard work. A lot of people think you have to hire an "expert" to do something.

I take the long-term view to things, which is the way I was raised. This way I can secure myself from long term price shocks too. Not this short-term spendthrift Plastic Money bulls***.

 

Sound like quite the place you have there jayman.

After we pay off the mortgage on this place in 4-5 years, a Straw Bale house will be in our futue.

In Sacramento we are blessed with a good electric company - Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). Quite progressive with environmental programs. Large scale Photovoltaic, Concentrating Solar, wind farms, biomass, geothermal, small hydro, free shade trees, and rebates for whole house fans, energy star upgrade rebates, residential photovoltaic incentives, and even trade-in gas for electric lawn mowers.

http://www.smud.org/green/solar/index.html
http://www.smud.org/green/index.html

I would do the residential Photovoltaic, but we have 90% coverage with large deciduous shade trees, and together with the Whole House Fan, we very rarely turn on the A/C in the summer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"67294)</div>

Well, it isn't fancy. It's very plain, some would say lowly. However, it's what out of sight that is important. As far as construction cost, entirely within reason for similar sized homes.

What I like best about the ICF walls is the entire house feels *solid.* During a thunderstorm, you'll see the flash but rarely hear the thunder inside.

As I'm sure you've noticed, you don't have to make dramatic lifestyle changes or live like a Neanderthal either. Just a little common sense.

Trees for example provide natural shade from sun. I don't trust them though as they can also blow over in strong winds or fall on the house after an ice storm.

There are quite a few straw bale homes here in Rural Manitoba. I've been in them and like them too. Construction cost is their biggest advantage. As I'm sure you've noticed, the walls will be considerably thicker than my ICF walls.

Straw homes also have impressive energy savings if properly constructed.

As far as electric utility co's, it's too bad more of them didn't "reward" the consumer for purchasing the most energy efficient appliance. It's cheaper for a utility to replace all the old appliances than to build a new power plant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"66725)</div>

And there I think you have it. One has to include the costs for the lifetime of the energy source -- cleaning up after it, so to speak.

This is the only major caveat to nuclear fission: are we including the costs of keeping the radioactive waste isolated and contained?

If it can be done, and we include the costs, great; but this is something that I understand will be lethally radioactive for 1,000 years or more. (Know any governments that have lasted 1,000 years?)

As someone who lives near the Columbia river, where nuclear waste is stored near the mouth of that river -- this is an issue that is a major concern to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"67315)</div>

Good show! BTW, we renovated our 1908 house about 6 years ago, adding energy-efficient technology and using "green" materials. We managed to keep the "look" of the house, too -- you'd be hard-pressed to know the changes to the house unless you looked down in the furnace room.

I'm pleased that Seattle's done that -- particularly for front-loading washers. We use one of those, and it's a win-win situation -- uses less water, and cleans clothes better (at least compared to the washer we used before).

 

That's what's called a false dichotomy.

One alternative to an unfettered free market is to have a regulated market, where market conditions are set up to reward behavior you want to encourage. That is, in fact, far more common than either laissez-faire capitalism or Communism.

In this instance, we can envision rigging the market to encourage conservation of resources. For example, vehicles could be taxed by weight, as larger vehicles cause more damage to roads and nearby buildings; and flat taxes could be replaced by taxes on fuel, as vehicles which consume more pollute more and hence cause more illness and pollution that everyone else needs to pay to clear up.