Manipulation

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It's not just irrational greens who want electric cars,
But they do want them without building any new conventional or nuke plants.

BTW raising electrical costs by 3X cancels out the fuel savings.

http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/1490036349.html

http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post ... 1806982773
It all depends on what you pay for electricity and what you pay for gasoline. Today right this minute I am pretty confident $2.25 cents gasoline is a cheaper fuel than 22 cent a kwh electricity. And that is all I am trying to say— the electricity cost is not negligible, not even if you pay 7 cents a kwh. For me at this moment is more expensive to “fuel” an electric car but that is only my situation. As all the comments in last week’s blog pointed out— gasoline is sure to go back up to 3 or even 4 bucks soon, and most people don’t pay 22 cents for a kwh. True. Maybe one day gasoline will be 5 dollars a gallon and PG&E will let me buy off-peak electricity for 7 cents a kwh. If you look at a Volt and a 40 mpg car, that means it costs 5 bucks to go 40 miles in the gas car and $1.12 to go the same in the electric. That is great, but the dollar is still not negligible, it has to be accounted for just like all the other costs.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mike Holmes wrote:What... we can't have windmills and nuc plants both? They competing for space or something?
Sure you can do both. Who said you couldn't? I expressly said you can do that. Anyone who wants to build economical windmills, more power to them.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Seedload, MSimon, let me be more direct. You don't seem to be engaging anyone in the thread in debate, but simply ranting against some non-present green conspiracy.

But, hey, that's just my perspective.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike,

The trouble with the Green Conspiracy is that it is omnipresent.

Ever read "The Stars My Destination" by Bester and his description of a science cult? quant. suff.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

The paper I posted shows how nuke plants are uneconomical. What's the problem?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Josh,

There is no doubt that I could prove eating is uneconomical given the right assumptions.

So what are the assumptions?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mike Holmes wrote:Seedload, MSimon, let me be more direct. You don't seem to be engaging anyone in the thread in debate, but simply ranting against some non-present green conspiracy.

But, hey, that's just my perspective.

Mike
Mike,

I can't speak for MSimon, but I can respond myself.

My problem with debating this is that my position is based upon the simple proposition that THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

So, what am I supposed to debate. I can't debate how to fix a problem if I don't believe one to exist. I can simply keep stating that I believe there is no problem. My simple answer to most of these 'issues' is that there are not serious 'issues' and that creating the idea of 'issues' in the first place is what may be hindering progress.

Use my proposal to just build nuclear plants for example. I don't think there is a problem. But, people at one point made nuclear power into an issue. By doing so, they made it nearly impossible to build a nuclear plant. If for the last thirty years we had been building and improving nuclear power plants, we would be in a lot better position today because we would have more options. But we didn't. Because it became and issue. A problem. My proposal should probably be more clearly stated as ALLOW nuclear plants to be built.

Now coal and gas are 'problems'.

All of the 'solutions' to this new problem seem to involve centralized control and directed development of technologies that I don't feel are the 'solution' to the 'problem' that doesn't even exist. So, again, what am I supposed to debate. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. Centralized control to provide solutions to a problem that doesn't exist is ridiculous. I don't believe in centralized control of our economy. I don't believe in centralized control of technological development. I don't believe in the problem. And the point of this thread is that there is centralized control of the dissemination of information that suggests there is a problem in the first place. The IPCC calls the most important section a statement to 'policy makers'. Get it. What they say directs policy.

What I believe is that free markets and economic needs will find a new path to abundant energy if we just get out of the way... and the earth will be just fine.

regards

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Seedload & Simon,

Re green conspiracy omnipresent.

I am not sure it can be a conspiracy if it is omnipresent: more a mass delusion from which only a few enlightended individuals opt out?

Re no problem.

The debate about AGW is that some people believe, and propose evidence to support, the possibility that there is a serious problem which requires preventative action now. They have a case. If you don't agree with it, and wish to get involved, you can debate the issues, find the holes in the case that is made, etc.

Nuclear power plants are a similar issue. People worry about operating safety risks (with modern designs I do not) possible terrorist threat (I don't worry much about this) and how you deal with the nuclear waste afterwards. This, at least in UK, is more of a problem. But again as far as I can see a modern nuclear plant would produce so much less difficult waste than older plants that this does not much bother me. But I would not say "there is no problem". There are always problems, and often, but not always, there are viable solutions.

My approach to problems is that they need to be evaluated and I determine whether I think they exist based on the evidence - so it is only believe in the sense of informed opinion. And if I am not informed I admit it and don't claim I know.

Best wishes, Tom
Last edited by tomclarke on Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I just started reading the paper and came across this:
Air pollution and global warming are two of the greatest threats to human and animal health and political stability.
I would counter that clean drinking water and food availability rank above air pollution and global warming for political stability. With food availability ranking higher.

See what I mean about assumptions?

In China I might add availability of females re: political stability. Also economic growth seems to take priority over clean air (in general clean air doesn't become an interest until GDP per capita rises above $3K to $6K).

Clean air is a rich country's conceit.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The debate about AGW is that some people believe, and propose evidence to support, the possibility that there is a serious problem which requires preventative action now.


I think the evidence points to a much more serious problem. A coming ice age. We have had a 10,000 year unusually warm interglacial. We are due. Maybe even over due.

It is possible to grow food under water. Growing it under ice is much more difficult.

So the global climate authority must raise the global thermostat to 14.7 deg C or possibly 15.8 deg C ASAP to prevent ice accumulations from driving us into another 100,000 year ice age. The glaciers would push my home (if it survived) to Springfield, Illinois. I don't have near enough right now to buy a Senate seat. It would be a catastrophe. In fact my home could get crushed with me in it. I'm against it. At least until I can afford a Senate seat.

My evidence? The historical record. The AGW folks evidence? Dodgy computer codes.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:I just started reading the paper and came across this:
Air pollution and global warming are two of the greatest threats to human and animal health and political stability.
I would counter that clean drinking water and food availability rank above air pollution and global warming for political stability. With food availability ranking higher.
Take the statement at face value.

The First World has been making huge inroads since the '70s. Clean Air, Clean Water, Toxic Waste Clean Up, Endangered Species, etc. All good things; breathing smog is not fun. But we're also relatively far along the diminishing returns curve. Every further minor refinement requires progressively huge investments and sacrifices to our standards of living.

If environmentalists were serious about hydrocarbons emissions, the target must be the developing world which emits the vast majority of gasses. But the developing world does not have the wealth for luxuries like environmental correctness, and if it signs onto such measures it will be set back 50 years or more in its attempts to modernize. The developing world isn't going to do squat.

Thus the entire movement is an exercise in navel-gazing that can do nothing but tear down the prosperity of the First World for little to no gain.

Duane
Vae Victis

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Well, not that I believe it's proven, but the argument with AGW is that, in fact, it would lead to drouts, which mean less drinkable water, and less available food.

So I don't think you're really disagreeing with them there.

I'd agree on air pollution. But, well, I do live in an affluent country, and am willing to pay taxes to have better air. I guess I'm biased since ozone makes it hard for me to breathe.

If you want to make another priority argument that we should feed our poor first, I'll aceed to that. But I'm sure that your argument is that we ought to not spend taxpayer money until we're all really, really, really rich, at which point the problem will be taken care of by a marginal amount of the national wealth. As the current system of improvements has impoverished us so completely.

I dunno, I'm sure that all of the studies done by folks who point out that the cost of improving the air quality has been paid for by improvements in health (doing what it can to curb rising health care costs), are biased and bought by all of the folks making tons of money off of improving the air quality. Whoever they are.

Seedload, perhaps a paraphrasing of things from my perspective will help you see my problem:

MSimon: We're being manipulated into paying for changes that are unneccessary.

Mike: I think that we ought to study the problem further, because where I agree with you is that there are too many variables.

Seedload: but there is no problem, we should just build nukes!

Mike and Tom: That sounds like a good idea.

Seedload: But you don't get it, there is NO PROBLEM! They're going to centralize everything, and for no reason.


The argument seems to be that the debate has been ended by biased scientists, and that the sky is, therefore falling as we rush to fix a non-existent problem. When, in fact, the debate is going on here in spades, and elswhere (see MSimon's consensus is broken thread), and not much new policy has actually been enacted to "centralize" anything.

All Tom is saying is that we ought to debate the merit of the science as it occurs on scientific basis. If you guys get to disclude any scientific evidence based on a feeling that the side producing it is biased, and, therefore, it's all wrong... well that's not very scientific of you.

To the extent that MSimon and others are challenging the studies individually, that at least is evidence on the side that there is no problem. Maybe you should join them in going at some of the figures. If not, well I'm sorry if your viewpoint comes across as just as much "Faith" as the other sides'.

I guess Tom and I could be accused of having "Faith" that there are still some scientists out there who have not been corrupted by the filthy lucre of the AGW proponent side. Which, actually, has been a point that MSimon has made over and over. So, I guess the scientific community isn't entirely bunk? Debating the actual science might still have some merit?

If you're not saying that there's no reason to debate, then, again, I'm not sure who you're arguing with. Sorry for being so dense.

Mike

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

> I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM.

I don't think there is a problem either, but its probably sensible to be cautious and do things in a more green way anyhow, so agree with some of the measures being talked about, but others I reckon are taking things too far. (Eg. increase public transport option = good, ban all cars = bad..)

So I try and find a middle ground where we get good green things, which are good for us anyway, but not too radical that they really mess up everything else. (Eg. electric cars = good, no cars = bad..)

> I don't believe in centralized control of our economy.
> I don't believe in centralized control of technological development.

There we differ, I think we would do far better if we went along that road than the current one, but I'm not entirely sure, so I'd want to do some practical testing to find out.


> Nuclear power plants are a similar issue. People worry about operating > safety risks (with modern designs I do not)

I worry less about todays plants than yesterdays.

> possible terrorist threat (I don't worry much about this)

I worry about this less than the many other ways terrorists can cause more harm to us by easier means. (Though only the other week someone in the UK managed to get past security into a coal power station and turn it off, so our security is actually not that good..)

> and how you deal with the nuclear waste afterwards.
> This, at least in UK, is more of a problem.

For years we've been waiting for the go ahead to dig some deep holes to bury the stuff in, but the environmentalists don't want us to.. (But for some reason are quite happy for us to have it above ground in leaking tanks..)

It reminds me of my local council once coming around and telling me that all that slightly damp firewood in my garden was a fire hazard, but if I stored it all in a nice dry wooden shed, then it wouldn't be..


> A coming ice age.

I remember a few decades ago this was the big thing, I keep wondering, has the problem really gone away..


> If environmentalists were serious about hydrocarbons emissions,
> the target must be the developing world

I get the impression talking with some environmentalists that they are actually industrialists in disguise who simply don't want developing countries from being able to compete with us by developing their industry and putting us all out of work..

Or maybe they happy with them mass producing cheap food for us to import and don't want them to stop doing that..

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Josh, I missed your post above, sorry:

You mention a paper that shows somehow that nuke plants are not economical. That sounds interesting, and hard to believe. Especially given that there are so many potential designs and such. I'm sorry to be so lazy, but would you spell out the general argument made by the paper? I promise I won't argue against a synopsis of an argument.

I wonder if the paper takes into account the environmental savings (even if you don't believe that they're neccessary, if we're paying for them now, then part of the cost of nuke plants would be absorbed in ameliorating this other cost), and the benefits of national security to producing the energy at home. I'm guessing not, as these benefits are rather nebulous. But, very simply, if nuke plants aren't all that economical, I'm still willing to accept them for the other benefits they provide. Assuming that they're not grossly uneconomical, which would be hard to believe given that we've used them for so long.

If, on the other hand, the argument is that coal plants are more economical, I'm for building more of them to provide energy to replace cars burning petroleum products. Because this tends to move the pollution at least a little away from where I'm breathing. And is, in fact, more efficient.

Mike

P.S. On another topic: Since AGW has become a topic, I've been fond of pointing out (tongue in cheek, as a way to say that we don't know) that it might be good to have some warming to counteract the previously predicted ice age. But as it seems to have become a serious argument, I wanted to bring up a point about the nature of any cooling agents that may exist. My decades old understanding of ice-ages were that they were caused by the precession (right term?) or "wobble" of the Earth on it's axis, which changes the star we point at as the north star from Polaris to another on a 13,000 year cycle - 26,000 years all around. That this was the cause for the long-term historical relatively warm period that we're in, and which should be coming to an end... over the course of some centuries, of course. To be clear, though, the current theories on cooling are based on something else, right? Apparently solar conditions? Or are these just adjuncts to the old theory?

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mike Holmes wrote:Seedload, perhaps a paraphrasing of things from my perspective will help you see my problem:

MSimon: We're being manipulated into paying for changes that are unneccessary.

Mike: I think that we ought to study the problem further, because where I agree with you is that there are too many variables.

Seedload: but there is no problem, we should just build nukes!

Mike and Tom: That sounds like a good idea.

Seedload: But you don't get it, there is NO PROBLEM! They're going to centralize everything, and for no reason.
Mike

I will quote:

Seedload said:
Why is this so hard. Build nukes ... If solar or wind provide niche economically viable markets, then do that too.
Mike said:
What... we can't have windmills and nuc plants both? They competing for space or something?
Seedload said:
Sure you can do both. Who said you couldn't? I expressly said you can do that. Anyone who wants to build economical windmills, more power to them.
Mike said:
Seedload, MSimon, let me be more direct. You don't seem to be engaging anyone in the thread in debate, but simply ranting against some non-present green conspiracy.
Seedload is left confused.

Post Reply