While I agree with you generally that this government developed V2V system is a bad idea I will disagree on a point you made. While this V2V system does in fact provide information that cannot be trusted it does give more information than if it wasn't there. The information would have to be verified but the mere presence of the signal gives more information for the driver to work with.
Imagine a foggy day and you are having difficulty seeing cars on the road. With this V2V system one might have a heads up display that can highlight cars on the road ahead. It's quite likely to be much cheaper than a radar system to implement since the radio source would not have to be swept, it needs only to be a beacon for other similarly equipped vehicles to detect. A well behaved transmitter would give good information that should be easy to verify by the computer and the driver. This well behaved actor gives an "I'm over here" signal, the computer can do a shortcut verification routine and/or the driver can see on the HUD if the other vehicle is where it says it is by looking for the vehicle's corner lights in the fog. This reduces driver mental load and gives some confidence in driving.
A poorly behaved transmitter will give bad information but the bad information can be verified relatively quickly in most cases since bad location or speed data will not match things like where the signal is coming from, Doppler effects, and so forth. The shortcut verification used for a good actor would fail and so a longer bad actor system would come in to give as best of an estimate of vehicle speed, location, etc. as it could from the signal it has. The receiving system can indicate potentially bad data with a different color on the HUD or some other indicator. Even a very poorly behaved system, like one designed with an overly strong and noisy signal intended to jam would still give an indication of it's presence. This jamming signal will, with the use of an inexpensive phased antenna array on the receiver, potentially give location and speed. This might mask the presence of other vehicles but again the HUD can indicate a problem and perhaps even offer solutions, such as slowing down, taking an alternate route, or simply shutting down and not causing distraction until the poorly behaved vehicle is out of range.
A vehicle with no V2V system would not offer helpful information but then this is no worse than not having the V2V system at all. Such vehicles could be lost in the fog but a careful driver should still be aware of the surroundings since other potential obstacles on the road, like animals or downed tree branches, would not have this V2V system either.
My main opposition to such a system is the imposition of it by government. If a private company offered something similar on the market then I'd have much less of a problem with it's use. A privately developed system could offer levels of features to match the driver's preferences and budget. For example a privacy conscious person might want only a receiver, they'd see others on the road with these systems but give no indication of their presence on the road except, of course, they'd be seen by other drivers. A person that is safety and cost conscious might want a transmit only version, the car would announce itself so that other drivers with V2V receivers can get an extra notice of the vehicle's location. A fully decked out version could make use of all the features and add in things like an actual short range radar to make non-V2V cars more visible.
I'm skeptical of it's utility like you but I have some optimism that it could add to traffic safety. My main problem is the potential imposition by the government for its use. This system would no doubt be abused by bad actors in the government to do things like make stalking easier, mission creep where the claim of no personally identifiable information being transmitted is gone in a future version, and be a means to create more revenue for the government by fees, fines, and traffic enforcement that is merely another means to tax drivers than actually keep us safer.
Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting?
Never. We start doing this never. This is an intrusion into people's lives and the cost is imposed upon them at gunpoint.
And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?
The down side of imposing technology like this on people is that it raises the costs of vehicles, making it more difficult for the poor to buy a new vehicle. We've already seen mandates like this in the US DOT mandate that all vehicles must have a backup camera by 2018. Here's the thing though, people already see the value in these and half of the cars sold in 2012 include these cameras. For those that don't see the value they should not be compelled to buy them.
I know a lot of people will point out that there are a lot of safety mandates imposed by the DOT and that they save lives. Yes they do, but individual choice should remain supreme. It's this idea that the government needs to protect us from our own poor choices that brought so many bad laws.
One example, there is a mandate for children of a certain size or age to have a riser seat in the vehicle. Sounds good, right? The problem is that no one had actually done any kind of study that it would make it safer for the children. Someone did finally do a study and found out it did nothing to improve child safety. No harm no foul, right? Wrong. A lot of people were harmed by this because these seats are not free. A lot of poor people had to make the hard choice of a child seat or feed their children. These people were fined for not having their children in a proper seat because they chose food over the seat and decided to roll the dice on getting caught.
How does this apply to V2V transmitters? People will see the increased price in cars and then decide to drive their old car longer. The old car might have a broken emission control, bad brakes, leaking oil, a busted seat belt, and so on. Now one might say this has nothing to do with someone junking an old car and buying a used one to replace it. Tell me, do you remember "Cash for Clunkers"? I do.
When "Cash for Clunkers" came about was about the same time I was looking for a new-to-me vehicle. My car was getting worn out and I felt it had become unsafe. It leaked fuel and oil, the shocks were bad, and (most important to me) it performed poorly in the snow. I talked to my brother about buying his SUV since he was looking to upgrade too, but the dealer gave him an offer I could not beat. I looked at other vehicles but all the sudden anything with four wheels and a seat had taken a jump in price. You see if the government mandates anything that raises the price of a new vehicle then the market reacts and all vehicles suddenly become more valuable. Even a $400 Ford Escort will become a $450 Ford Escort practically over night. Perhaps not a big deal for you since saving $50 means staying home on a Friday night. On the aggregate though this just made a huge dent in the economy.
But don't these mandates save lives? Perhaps but at what cost? If it means that people cannot afford to buy a newer safer vehicle because of a mandate like this then we just made the world a more dangerous place.
That was a post much longer than I intended but this hit a nerve with me.
A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information?
Given enough processing power and/or a kind of challenge/response the receiver can do some sanity checking on the data. Directional antennas would be quite helpful in this too.
If operated much like aircraft radar the car could transmit a simple code, such as it's own location and speed with a randomly generated number. A similar system in another car could then respond with it's own position, speed, random number, and the random number it received. The time delay between transmit and reply sets limits on how far away the responder is from the challenger. The use of directional antennas gives some verification of the location as well. If sensitive enough the challenger might even be able to detect it's own transmission as it's bounced off large objects, like another vehicle, and any Doppler shift that would indicate speed of these objects.
I don't know how difficult it would be to build such a system but this is not that far from what aircraft use but also technology in WiFi and cellular phones. If I can buy a cell phone with stuff like this for $50 then adapting it for a car shouldn't cost much more.
B) What would prevent data collection by third parties?
Nothing. Seriously, this system by its very nature cannot prevent someone from putting up a receiver along a roadside and logging all kinds of information on the vehicles passing. This would not be much different than a license plate reader but at least a license plate reader needs line of sight and, you know, license plates. They claim the system does not transmit anything that would identify the vehicle but I have my doubts. First, there would be a large push to extend this to include identifying information. Just give it time for people to get used to the idea and then wait for some scum to kidnap a child and then the demand for identifying information will begin... for the children. Second, the fact that the system is transmitting will give some information on the transmitter. Variations in the signal will give identifying information, such as Ford transmits the data formatted slightly differently than GM.
I'll believe that they don't allow for personally identifying information being transmitted when we get rid of license plates.
From everything I've read, there are no intrinsic defenses that ensure accuracy or privacy.
True. Certain aspects of the accuracy can be verified with careful analysis of the transmission, other aspects of the accuracy would require a "handshake" of sorts to happen. This would quickly make it very complex. Privacy goes out the window with accuracy. If you want to assure the data is accurate then you need to know who it was that sent it. You may not need a name but you'd need each encounter with another vehicle to be reasonably unique or a car might appear to "vibrate" between two positions as two cars in close proximity are giving nearly identical information.
If kept real simple for the reasons of cost and privacy then it won't take long for people to play with this. People will program transmitters to indicate that they are always going under the speed limit, which is the first thing I expect people to do. Pranksters will very likely put spoof devices at stop lights to give false traffic light readings, a "phantom" car doing a panic stop, simply jam the signals with RF noise, or other mayhem causing pranks.
The system will therefore have to become very complex or become worthless.
We see things like this already in aircraft. They are very expensive, quite delicate, and not something I expect to see in the common passenger vehicle any time soon. Expense is one reason why people might not like it, the potential for government abuse is another.
It seem that whenever I turn on local talk radio there is almost always a mention of red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, and other ways the government wants to turn traffic enforcement into a revenue system. The government wants people to put electronics into their cars that transmits location, speed, brake light status, and perhaps other information so that government owned and controlled traffic signals can pick them up. I expect a lot of resistance to this.
The article claims the information would not be personally identifiable. My immediate response was, "bullshit!" Even if the V2V communication did not identify the vehicle over the air we still have license plates on cars and license plate reader technology, this will be abused.
What if a person that disables the transmitter? Is this in itself going to be considered "suspicious" behavior? You have nothing to hide, citizen, therefore you have nothing to fear, right?
I am fully expecting at some point a widespread level of civil disobedience on this, and soon. If taken too far people will rip the license plates off their cars and keep driving. What are the police going to do, arrest us all? The government governs with the permission of the people. People have license plates on their cars only because they permit it. This permission can be revoked.
It's how the economy initially became a large one.
I've heard this before but it's a lie. Whatever the slaves built in the USA was destroyed in the Civil War. I'm sure someone can find something that wasn't burned down in the Civil War and also built by slave labor but with the burning of Atlanta I'm sure the net loss was much greater.
Again, if slavery is so great for building an economy then the USA would be far from first.
I started another point by point rebuttal but thought better of it. If you believe that nuclear power is not part of the answer then I gave to wonder what you believe the question to be. I thought the goal was to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that you fear nuclear power more than global warming. All that tells me is that global warming is nothing to fear. In that case I say we keep digging up the coal because it seems global warming is not an issue any more. It's either global warming is an issue and therefore we must make nuclear part of our energy future or, global warming is a myth and we can keep burning coal. This middle of the road of needing to stop burning coal but we cannot even try nuclear is nonsense.
I'm in the camp that global warming is a hoax largely because of people like you. If nuclear power is not part of the solution, that nuclear power is a greater threat than global warming, then global warming is not a real threat.
All your claims of nuclear being too expensive, unsafe, and taking too long to build was all demonstrated to be false in the 1950s. The USS Nautilus was just an idea in 1951, was laid down in 1952, and was out to sea in 1954. We've learned a lot since then, but also forgot many things. Just like you seem to have forgot that we've been building nuclear power plants on such short time scales for decades.
No. Just no. Slavery did not create the American economy. Slavery existed long before the USA and continued to exist around the world long after the USA abolished it. Slavery is far from unique to the USA. Slavery was also not practiced widely in the USA as few people in America were slave owners.
If slavery creates economic growth then the USA would be far from being the largest economy. Try again.
Better to ask how it stays a large economy in recent times especially since you have a thing about freedom.
I already know why the USA continues to have such a strong economy, personal property rights, freedom of information, freedom of movement, free and open elections, etc.
I agree that hydro and natural gas will play a big role in future energy production. Where I disagree is that nuclear is only good for base load power. There are nuclear power designs in the works right now that are able to load follow, they are based off of nuclear reactor designs from the 1950s so this it not new technology.
What limits current nuclear power from load following is that they are water cooled. The reactor itself is very capable of following load but the steam generators prevent them from doing so. A rapid increase in power is certainly possible with a nuclear reactor but if actually done you'd get something like what happened in Chernobyl. A rapid decrease in output and the reactor will not damage itself, at least I don't believe it will, but it could damage the turbines.
What people are working on is an air cooled system that runs much like a natural gas turbine. Throttling it up and down would also be much like a natural gas turbine.
Look up things like brayton cycle, LFTR or liquid fluoride thorium reactors, molten salt reactors, or just load following nuclear.
You mean, like a peer-reviewed article in Nature? Like the one I linked, making precise case I did?
You mean the one behind a pay wall? I'm not willing to pay for something that I believe has no real value.
So relying on gas pipelines from Russia is a-okay but relying on power lines to other countries is terrible?
No, it's not. Relying on another nation for something as vital to your survival as food, energy, clothing, and shelter is a very bad idea. Any nation that lacks the resources to feed, shelter, and clothe itself is not a free nation.
If you'd actually read the Nature article you would have seen that they analyzed various natural gas price scenarios. Furthermore, when the fuel is only used for peaking, its cost becomes relatively minor compared to the cost of the plant. It's NG baseload that suffers from expensive NG, not peaking.
Again, pay wall. Also, "cheap" is relative. There are some nations that lack sufficient domestic supply of natural gas to provide heating and electricity. Those that rely on imports to keep it "cheap" are now at the mercy of a foreign nation. Those that don't have access to "cheap" natural gas will then have to rely on more expensive fuel oil for peak power. Natural gas is inherently expensive to ship and so oil tends to be the backup if a pipe cannot be run.
You have a strange definition of "dependent", given that I listed multiple different technologies, and pointed out multiple times that as per the Nature study, it's not needed as all. And then to top it off you added the word "nearby" into there, in a discuss in entirely premised on a high power long distance HVDC grid.
Again, pay wall. Hydro is the only technology that exists right now for grid level storage, the others you list are still too expensive to deploy. Like the "cheap" comment above the comment on "nearby" is relative. Across a large land mass means one could run a relatively inexpensive high voltage line. If the hydro dam or other storage is across a body of water then the costs to link the storage to the demand becomes prohibitive.
Which was, as was mentioned many times, the premise of the Nature article.
Pay wall, didn't read.
Then perhaps you should leave the energy policy analysis to people who pass peer review in Nature, don't you think?
What? People can't speak their mind here? Are all posts supposed to parrot peer reviewed articles now? No one told me. Also, I am giving my understanding of energy policy analysis by people that have published peer reviewed articles. I simply chose not to cite everything out of a desire to be brief and because I've figured out that any claim I make can be easily verified by any one that reads my posts by doing an internet search on their own.
The answer is demonstrably "No".
Interesting. You say that it is impossible for nuclear to become cheaper than wind and solar. A bold statement. So, since you claim it is impossible for nuclear power to ever get cheaper then I guess I'll just call up future Secretary of Energy Perry and tell him to disband the Department he will head up and send all those nuclear engineers home. Yep, nuclear will never get cheaper, because you said so. Wait, have you published a peer reviewed article in Nature?
The first program commercial scale wind turbine prototype was started in 1975. The first commercial-scale polysilicon panel was introduced in 1982. If you want to start with the first work on the photovoltaic effect in 1839, then you need to start nuclear at the first theories of the atom from the ancient Greek scientist Democritus
That's fine, we can go back to 400 BC for the theory of nuclear power. People have been using wind to propel ships and pump water for much longer. If you want to bring up windmills
I cannot imagine China surpassing the USA in any real way unless the people are able to topple the oppressive government. People that lack the ability to speak freely, move freely, and retain the benefits of their efforts will both be unable to innovate and lack the motivation to innovate. The people that are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to bring any real gains to the Chinese economy will also be knowledgeable and intelligent enough to leave for someplace more free.
Now I know that not all of such people will leave, some will feel bound by family ties, patriotism, etc. but we do know that many people in China with any wealth tend to leave. If the powers that be allow the people the freedoms needed to develop a prosperous economy then they will find themselves out of power. I expect they know this. I also expect that they believe that they can compete with nations like the USA due to their large population and natural resources. But this again can only go so far without losing their power over the nation.
Their economy is hobbled by the lack of a meritocracy. People move up by their loyalty to the party, not necessarily their abilities. Again, the people with enough knowledge and intelligence to do anything to bring China to a first world nation are quite likely to leave. Those that are smart enough to leave but choose to stay regardless will know that speaking out against the economy killing policies of the government could get them killed. So they choose to be silent as well.
Tell me something, how do you think that the USA got to be such a large economy even though it has less land mass than China and fewer people than China? Could it be because the people in the USA are free to have a protest without the threat of being run over by tanks? I think that might have something to do with it.
So, yes, I can imagine a China that can be the world's greatest power by adopting freedoms much like that in the USA. Alternatively China could surpass the USA if the USA adopts economy killing policies like those in China.
The Chinese have nukes, and a bigger population, but a pathetic navy. They have one active aircraft carrier which by US Navy standards would be considered an amphibious assault ship, because of it's displacement and aircraft carrying capacity. This one aircraft carrier is not even nuclear powered. By comparison the US Navy has 10 ships of similar displacement, aircraft carrying capability, etc. In addition to this the US Navy has 10 operational nuclear powered aircraft carriers with more than twice the displacement and twice the aircraft carrying capacity. As these US Navy carriers are CATOBAR capable the aircraft launched are able to carry much larger fuel and weapon loads.
The US Navy also has something like 15 operational nuclear powered submarines, each one capable of carrying a lot (I didn't bother to look up how many exactly, Google it yourself) of nuclear weapons which they can launch without even coming to the surface.
China doesn't even have enough of a military to prevent Taiwan from declaring effective independence.
If the US and China ever did get into a shooting war I don't expect China to just roll over, they'd get a few shots in because of their numbers and such as you point out. However, they lack any ability to do much more than defend their own territory, they can't bring the war to us. We can bring the war to them, I just gave an overview of how the US could do so with the short list of some of the assets the US Navy holds.
I heard it put another way in a rather humorous and succinct way... Do you know who has the largest air force in the world? The US Air Force. Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world? The US Navy. Do you know who has the third largest air force in the world? The US Marine Corps.
I have my doubts that the drone had any data gathering equipment on it other than what was stated publicly. There is little to obtain from such distances while underwater as far as anything of value to military intelligence.
If these people were gathering information other than the stated weather and water conditions then I'd expect the equipment to do so was on the boat that deployed the drone.
Again, this is if they were doing any information gathering for the military in the first place.
I once worked on designing some sensitive electronics for the military. One part of the design was a light to indicate that all sensitive information was properly cleared from the device if the clear command was given. I asked one of the other engineers what would be the protocol if the light did not come on in the time needed to clear the data. All I got was a shrug. I then asked if it was possible the protocol involved used of the M9 pistol that officers on such airplanes were issued. I got a smile.
I have no idea on what the actual protocol would be if there was a failure to clear the data on such a device. My speculation on the use of a sidearm was partly out of humor and partly serious. I do not recall ever hearing of a target mark on the case of such a device, or of any actual protocol that would involve shooting the equipment.
I did have minimal training on the use of thermite grenades, I have no recollection of them being mentioned as a means to destroy sensitive information. Putting thermite grenades on an airplane would be potentially dangerous for the crew. Also, not having them on the plane could be dangerous for the crew. If such grenades were to be used they'd potentially render the airframe unsafe to fly. Then again, rendering the plane unable to fly might be the point.
In other words, claims of having thermite grenades on a military airplane for the purpose of destroying equipment has enough plausibility that I might believe it. However, I have some knowledge on what the military has for protocols to destroy data on devices that hold sensitive information and I have my doubts that they extend to the use of firearms or thermite.
"Denmark had an average of 42% of it's power from wind alone in 2015"
Which is nice but also meaningless as an example for other nations to use as an example. Here's a few reasons why: - Denmark is not an island. They take advantage of large electrical connections to other nations to use them as a "battery" for their wind power. The claim of 42% from wind power is creative bookkeeping.
- Location, location, location. Denmark has a geography that is beneficial for wind and hydro storage of their wind. This also gets back to my earlier point that they can easily buy and sell to nations that have not invested so heavily in wind.
- What problem has this solved? While wind power might seem great at first it has resulted in very expensive electricity prices, reliance on foreign nations for electricity, and heavy reliance on natural gas backup for when the wind doesn't blow. This investment in wind, and increases in fossil fuels, has allowed for Denmark to be a net exporter of fossil fuels. If they export fossil fuels and buy electricity from their fossil fuel burning neighbors then have they really made any real gains?
This makes me wonder just how much Denmark is an example to follow. They sell fossil fuels so that they can buy windmills. If other nations follow their example and build out their wind capacity then will Denmark still be able to afford their wind? Would they not turn to their domestic fossil fuels for energy? I expect they would.
Another point is that while Denmark was able to, if perhaps only with bookkeeping, exceed the 20% maximum power from wind estimated by some people that study this sort of thing but that only proves that the estimate was perhaps too low, not that a limit does not exist. Denmark is in a cold climate and a large number of the coal fired plants produce heat and electricity for their communities. Wind does not produce heat like a coal plant. This is true for a lot of locations, they burn coal not just for electricity but also for heat. This is not just for residences and businesses but also for industry. We won't see a cement factory powered by wind any time soon.
You talk about nuclear reactors that can burn spent nuclear fuel and then mention fusion? I don't follow.
Fusion is an energy source that is 20 years away and always will be. What we do have are molten salt reactors, especially the liquid fluoride thorium reactor or LFTR. LFTR is a technology that is derived from a series of experiments with molten salts run from the 1950s to the 1970s. As you point out the politics got in the way since a few prominent Senators could not use molten salt reactors to buy them votes, but others from states where solid fuel reactors were being built could.
I'm curious on where this full size prototype you mention is being built. I'd like to think I'm well informed on developments in nuclear power but I have seen nothing of this. Perhaps such a prototype is being built in China, they've been funding this kind of research for years now, but I have not heard of any such thing in the West.
Wow, that's a lot to read. It also looks a lot like one of the "negawatts" talks from Amory Lovins. I've read and heard a lot of explanations like this one, where it sounds so detailed and researched at first that it just must be true. The problem is that while there is a lot of truth in what you say the plan you spell out will not work. Explaining why it will not work would require a post much longer than yours to address the many many small details that were hand waved over. I'll try to explain this in a paragraph or three.
A big problem with wind and solar is that the energy production curves do not match well with demand curves. Claiming diversity in location and source, through the use of long power lines, will fix this is overly optimistic. To obtain this diversity requires large land masses that many nations do not have. If there is an international grid then this brings in politics that many people in Europe which rely on Russian natural gas would be familiar with. Using natural gas, or other fossil fuel back up, to maintain stability on the electricity grid means relying on cheap natural gas, a potential for no net reduction of CO2 output, and with the strong link between natural gas and electricity this means an actual reduction in energy diversity. In the USA this is not such a problem since natural gas is plentiful, domestic, and cheap, but the rest of the world is not as fortunate.
As you admit storage of energy is dependent on having a hydro electric dam nearby, if that is not available then storage gets expensive. If storage cost more than natural gas, which is almost always the case, then people will burn natural gas. Grid level battery storage, compressed gas, flywheels, or whatever, are just too expensive. This claim of using storage to solve this problem either violates the claim of being available now, or the claim of being available for cheap.
I'm no expert in energy policy but I have an education in electrical engineering and I've followed this for a very long time. What I've found is that any future energy plan that does not include nuclear power is always going to be lacking in some way. Had you made even a single mention of nuclear power in your post I would have had no complaints. Nuclear power is as "carbon free" as any other energy source that makes that claim. Nuclear power is reliable and plentiful. Nuclear power is also safer than any energy source we know. People will dispute my claims on nuclear power being cheap but then I must ask, how much is this "smart" grid, energy storage, HVDC transmission, and so forth going to cost? Nuclear power is only expensive now because we forgot how to do it. People will claim that wind and solar will get cheaper if only we invest in development, does this not also apply to nuclear power? So many people will claim that the problems with wind and solar can be solved with future technology advancements, I will agree so long as we can agree that any problems with nuclear power can also be solved with future technology.
We've been developing nuclear power for 70 years and it produces 20% of the electricity in the USA. We've been developing wind and solar power for much longer and it barely registers on the grid. I say that rather than continuing the insanity of throwing good money after bad on wind and solar that we put some money in nuclear and see that grow. We'd be much better off for it.
I've seen this "skyrocketing" in solar and wind investments and it is impressive. That is until you compare it to investments in coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The world is seeing considerable growth in energy production but very little of that growth comes from wind and solar.
I haven't checked lately but as I recall the growth of wind in the USA has been big in the recent past, big subsidies will do that. With the economy stagnating for the last five years or so the demand for energy is also stagnant. The growth in wind has been overshadowed by natural gas. The growth in wind and natural gas has primarily only made up for the loss in capacity from closing coal and nuclear plants. Taxes and regulation on coal and nuclear will tend to kill them off, just as subsidies in wind made it grow.
What is perhaps ironic is that the shift to wind has not shown a reduction in CO2 output in many nations. People like to bring up Germany as a nation that in on the path to being "carbon free" but the reduction in German CO2 output is largely from buying French nuclear power.
Reduction of CO2 output in the USA is largely from replacing coal with natural gas and an economic recession, meaning people are using less energy because they buy less stuff and travel less.
Growth in solar and wind don't necessarily mean a reduction in CO2 output because these unreliable energy sources require a backup energy source or the people risk brownouts and blackouts. As of today this means fossil fuels. Idling a coal plant means it is burning coal but not producing energy. Running natural gas turbines means burning twice as much energy per kwh produced than if that same fuel was burned in a boiler.
We now have real world data that show that wind and solar do not always reduce CO2 output. Many will show that there is a limit to how much wind and solar can be added to the grid before problems arise, depending on who you ask this can be between 10% and 30%. The only energy source we have right now that is carbon free (at least as "carbon free" as wind or solar are carbon free), reliable, and safe is nuclear power.
I've brought up before that nuclear power is cheaper than wind and solar too but people will inevitably dispute it. Fine, whatever, I'll concede that point. What cannot be disputed is that nuclear power is more reliable, just as plentiful, lower carbon footprint, and safer than wind or solar. If it is the cost that is holding people back then I must ask, is a few pennies more on your electric bill worth saving the planet?
Is that like how coal fired electricity plants don't have to meet new emission standards? You know like how they keep them running long past when they would have normally been replaced because no one can afford the fees, taxes, etc. that a more efficient but new plant could have achieved?
It's laws like this that keep us from having nice things.
Why is it that the global warming alarmists keep coming up with more regulations? I think I know the answer, because making new laws is easy but making more efficient devices is hard. They'd do much more in "saving the planet" by going into business and making more efficient computer power supplies than by imposing new laws on people. There is already an inherent incentive to save energy, energy costs money. Any business that wants to stay in business will already choose to buy the computers that cost an extra $13 to save $30 over the life of the computer, we don't need a government bureaucrat to tell MBAs how to save money.
By imposing a cost on getting new equipment, by doing things like requiring businesses to show compliance with energy saving regulations, means that businesses will be more reluctant to buy new stuff. This keeps the old inefficient stuff in use longer. MBAs know how to add up a balance sheet, they can figure out on their own that more regulation costs them money.
I think the government should be in the business of building roads and not much more. Keep them out of how to run a business. If these people were so smart they'd be running their own business instead of trying to run mine.
Right, let's fix this with more taxes. Because poor people with barely enough money to pay the rent can just save up to buy a new refrigerator... or else they pay the higher tax... after which they don't have enough money to save anything for a new refrigerator.
There is already an inherent incentive to save energy, the cost of the energy itself. Adding a tax does little to nothing to encourage more energy savings. We (as a society, nation, species, etc.) have been trying to save energy for decades now. Just how much more efficiency does anyone think is left any more?
I remember talking to a building contractor on insulation. I asked why not have 8 inches of insulation on the house instead of the commonly used 6 inches. He said that with that much more insulation the extra cost would never be paid back in a time anyone would care about. Had we been talking about a house built in a place a bit further north then the insulation might be worth it. We've already reached the limits of diminishing returns. Adding taxes to make the cost of the insulation worth the tax savings only makes everyone but the government poorer.
Here's the big question though, why do we care about energy efficiency? As I stated before there is an inherent desire for efficiency in that energy costs money but why do we go to such extremes? I know the answer, global warming. The idea is that by reducing energy consumption that we'd be reducing global warming. By imposing these energy saving measures by law are we actually reducing energy consumption though? I mean that if I have a 15MPG vehicle and trade it in for one that gets 30MPG, but then drive twice as much because I still bought the same amount of fuel, have I "saved" the planet?
The problem is not that we are using energy. The problem is that our energy comes from carbon based sources. Fix the problem at the source. Use nuclear power.
California though is one big "nuclear free zone" because they think that there is only one way to do nuclear power. We know how to do nuclear power now that does not run the risk of Three Mile Island or Fukushima. We know how to do nuclear power that does not produce long lived waste. We know how to do nuclear power with less carbon output than wind or solar. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, more reliable, and more plentiful than any other energy source we know of. The powers that be in California though seem to have lost sight of what problem they are actually trying to solve.
Do you know what physicians call "alternative medicine" that works? It's called "medicine". "Alternative energy" is energy that doesn't work. You want to prove me wrong? Go right ahead. Nuclear power is not "alternative" as it right now provides 1/5th of the electricity consumed in the USA.
Nuclear power is here, it's now, it's working. All we need is more of it.
Since they're already vastly cheaper than nuclear, your argument is shit. Get a real one. We're all tired of yours.
Then the subsidies can stop then, right? That was the point of subsidizing wind and solar, no? To get wind and solar cheaper than coal and nuclear? Now that we've reached that then we can now spend our money on the next technology that has the possibility of being cheaper, just a plentiful, and with a lower carbon footprint than even wind and solar. That would be nuclear power.
Once we get nuclear power to the point that it is cheaper than wind and solar we can stop subsidizing that. Then we can focus on something even better. An energy source that can promise potentially lower costs yet, as well as being able to store the energy from wind, solar, and nuclear. We'll invest in hydroelectric power.
Once we've gone as far as we can on hydro power then we can focus our development funds and efforts to something else. What might that be? Fusion power? Zero point energy? What ever it is we'll need the technologies we've developed along the way to help us out. We can't just jump ahead on this technology curve hear. This is physics beyond fission. This is control theory beyond control rods and windmill angle of attack. This is scale of energy needs high voltages, heavy equipment, and unheard of precision. Planning research beyond this is impossible. Getting to this would likely require decades of research and development.
If you believe that energy research stops at wind and solar then you have a very limited imagination. Have you seen "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"? Do these worlds look like they are powered by wind and sun? If we are going to see exploration beyond Earth orbit then we need energy that can work in the vacuum of space. We will need energy that can work beyond the asteroid belt. Even getting solar power on Mars is hard. The sun is so dim that it takes a lot of solar panel area to get enough energy to just scoop up some dirt and look at what it is made of. This dirt blows around and can cover the solar panels. If the electronics get too cold then they can get damaged. NASA solved this problem and the answer is nuclear power.
Wind and solar might be great ideas on Earth, but to go beyond it we need nuclear power. If it works so well on Mars then perhaps we can try it here too.
We can keep burning coal and natural gas, reduce our standard of living, or build more nuclear power plants. Those are our choices as of right now. We can wait for wind, solar, and battery technology to get cheaper but that does nothing for the carbon we'd be producing while we wait.
Reducing energy use, by personal choice or by imposing it on others with taxation, is a reduction of our standard of living. That might seem acceptable by many given the potential benefits for society in the future but you are going to get push back from people that are disbelievers in global warming and those that already take cold showers, ride the bus to work, eat little meat, and so forth because of poverty. Imposing expensive energy sources on people with regulation, like wind and solar, is just as detrimental to the poor as a direct tax on energy. Subsidizing these higher cost energy sources with taxation only means reducing the wealth available to society, causing reductions in wages to those that have jobs, and reducing the chances of getting a job for those that can't find work now. Taxing the fossil fuel industry means nothing to them, they just pass that cost onto the poor people that have to buy their products to heat their homes, cook their food, and travel.
If we are to assume that burning methane is bad because of leakage to the environment and the CO2 contribution it has when burned then we'd want to find an alternative that both reduces these emissions and is just as inexpensive. If it costs more then we are again imposing poverty on people. If it does not reduce these global warming gasses then we're just making things worse. Nuclear power is both inexpensive and has a carbon footprint even lower than wind and solar.
So, if we assume global warming is bad and is caused by people burning methane and other fossil fuels, then we need to turn to nuclear power or make a lot of people very angry over their reduced standard of living. Or rather those that survive will be angry, the people that die of hunger, exposure, or being unable to purchase proper medical care will still be dead. Waiting for solar and wind energy to get cheaper is foolish. We've been giving all kinds of money to the wind and solar industry for decades, through taxation and subsidies, in the hope it would be cheaper than coal someday. How much longer do we have to do this before it meets the definition of insanity?
I think we blew past the line of insanity with ludicrous speed a decade or three ago, so fast that few people even saw it go by. We can argue about when that line was crossed exactly or we can stop the insanity and change course.
I worked on a solar powered race car in college so I know just how hard it is to turn sunlight into usable energy. You might be able to "spray" solar panels on a surface but to turn that into something that can power a light, run a motor, or do anything else useful requires a lot of hardware besides the solar panels themselves. You can't "spray" a power point tracker into existence, or the wires to connect it all.
Wind and solar are now both under the cost of coal and will continue to drop as technology already in the pipeline matures and volume keeps increasing.
You are so wrong on that. Solar power might be cheap when the sun is shining but it's real expensive at night. The wind might pick up in the evening but we can't count on that. Batteries might make storing the electricity possible but that comes at a cost.
We don't use coal just because it is cheap. We don't burn coal just to be a dick to the environment. We burn coal because we have a lot of it, hundreds of years worth by many estimations. We burn coal because we can rely on it day or night, rain or shine. If you want to see wind and sun to replace coal then you need to fix the problems not just of cost, but of reliability.
Here's another option, nuclear power. If you want to see a promising energy source that is available now then look to nuclear power. If you want to wait for solar and wind to mature then go ahead. We can start building a nuclear power plant now and have it operating by next winter if we wanted, it's been done many times before. We can start developing those new solar panels now too, but what do you propose we do to keep warm next winter? Do we keep burning coal or do we fire up a new nuclear power plant?
While you develop those solar panels that we can "spray" on things I suggest we build more nuclear power... or keep burning coal, I don't care much either way. If you really cared about the environment then you'd get behind nuclear power right now. If you care more about your solar panels in a spray can than getting off of coal then you are just fool with your head in the clouds... or up your ass.
Your comment could be used to call for a diversion from fossil fuels or for a "drill baby drill" domestic oil policy. If the goal is to reduce reliance on foreign oil then there is more than one way to do that. One way is to develop electric vehicles, nuclear power, and other means to remove fossil fuels from the economy. Another way is to pull out all the stops on fossil fuel exploration within the borders of the USA.
I believe you are correct that we should fear an Iran that can disrupt world oil supplies. What has happened though is people fear Iran more than global warming. Personally I don't have a problem with that so long as it means energy independence for the USA is a goal, and that nuclear power is included in that plan to get there.
Tell me something. If this new battery technology is so great for solar power then what happens if this battery technology is paired up with nuclear power? You think that batteries only help out solar panels, electric vehicles, and cell phones? I believe that if such an electric storage technology is developed then nuclear power looks to be much safer, cheaper, and generally more desirable than it already is.
As of right now, today, with current technology, solar power is more expensive, less reliable, and with a larger carbon footprint than nuclear. If we see a leap in electricity storage then solar power gains but nuclear power gains twice over.
Here's a big problem with grid level electricity storage, it doesn't make money. It's a cost. It might be a cost saver in the long run but it doesn't make more energy. Nuclear power makes energy, and it can do so all night while solar panels produce nothing. Solar panels are good in many ways. Batteries would be great for so many things. But the way out of foreign energy dependence will be through domestic nuclear power or fossil fuels.
Take your pick, nuclear power or "drill baby drill". I don't care much which you choose. If you want to wait for solar panels and batteries to save humanity then you are waiting for a train that may never come to the station.
Maybe if someone came up with a way to dramatically cut the cost it might be worth investing in.
You mean like how if we could figure out how to make wind cheaper it might be worth investing in? I thought the investment in wind was to figure out how to make it cheaper. Along the same lines we should be investing in LFTR to find a way to make it cheaper.
Also, if you ask any nuclear engineer about what makes a nuclear reactor so expensive they will tell you it's the government fees and licensing costs. No technology development will fix that, those costs are a political problem. We can fix those at any time, and it doesn't take billions of dollars of R&D to do.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with you generally that this government developed V2V system is a bad idea I will disagree on a point you made. While this V2V system does in fact provide information that cannot be trusted it does give more information than if it wasn't there. The information would have to be verified but the mere presence of the signal gives more information for the driver to work with.
Imagine a foggy day and you are having difficulty seeing cars on the road. With this V2V system one might have a heads up display that can highlight cars on the road ahead. It's quite likely to be much cheaper than a radar system to implement since the radio source would not have to be swept, it needs only to be a beacon for other similarly equipped vehicles to detect. A well behaved transmitter would give good information that should be easy to verify by the computer and the driver. This well behaved actor gives an "I'm over here" signal, the computer can do a shortcut verification routine and/or the driver can see on the HUD if the other vehicle is where it says it is by looking for the vehicle's corner lights in the fog. This reduces driver mental load and gives some confidence in driving.
A poorly behaved transmitter will give bad information but the bad information can be verified relatively quickly in most cases since bad location or speed data will not match things like where the signal is coming from, Doppler effects, and so forth. The shortcut verification used for a good actor would fail and so a longer bad actor system would come in to give as best of an estimate of vehicle speed, location, etc. as it could from the signal it has. The receiving system can indicate potentially bad data with a different color on the HUD or some other indicator. Even a very poorly behaved system, like one designed with an overly strong and noisy signal intended to jam would still give an indication of it's presence. This jamming signal will, with the use of an inexpensive phased antenna array on the receiver, potentially give location and speed. This might mask the presence of other vehicles but again the HUD can indicate a problem and perhaps even offer solutions, such as slowing down, taking an alternate route, or simply shutting down and not causing distraction until the poorly behaved vehicle is out of range.
A vehicle with no V2V system would not offer helpful information but then this is no worse than not having the V2V system at all. Such vehicles could be lost in the fog but a careful driver should still be aware of the surroundings since other potential obstacles on the road, like animals or downed tree branches, would not have this V2V system either.
My main opposition to such a system is the imposition of it by government. If a private company offered something similar on the market then I'd have much less of a problem with it's use. A privately developed system could offer levels of features to match the driver's preferences and budget. For example a privacy conscious person might want only a receiver, they'd see others on the road with these systems but give no indication of their presence on the road except, of course, they'd be seen by other drivers. A person that is safety and cost conscious might want a transmit only version, the car would announce itself so that other drivers with V2V receivers can get an extra notice of the vehicle's location. A fully decked out version could make use of all the features and add in things like an actual short range radar to make non-V2V cars more visible.
I'm skeptical of it's utility like you but I have some optimism that it could add to traffic safety. My main problem is the potential imposition by the government for its use. This system would no doubt be abused by bad actors in the government to do things like make stalking easier, mission creep where the claim of no personally identifiable information being transmitted is gone in a future version, and be a means to create more revenue for the government by fees, fines, and traffic enforcement that is merely another means to tax drivers than actually keep us safer.
Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting?
Never. We start doing this never. This is an intrusion into people's lives and the cost is imposed upon them at gunpoint.
And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?
The down side of imposing technology like this on people is that it raises the costs of vehicles, making it more difficult for the poor to buy a new vehicle. We've already seen mandates like this in the US DOT mandate that all vehicles must have a backup camera by 2018. Here's the thing though, people already see the value in these and half of the cars sold in 2012 include these cameras. For those that don't see the value they should not be compelled to buy them.
I know a lot of people will point out that there are a lot of safety mandates imposed by the DOT and that they save lives. Yes they do, but individual choice should remain supreme. It's this idea that the government needs to protect us from our own poor choices that brought so many bad laws.
One example, there is a mandate for children of a certain size or age to have a riser seat in the vehicle. Sounds good, right? The problem is that no one had actually done any kind of study that it would make it safer for the children. Someone did finally do a study and found out it did nothing to improve child safety. No harm no foul, right? Wrong. A lot of people were harmed by this because these seats are not free. A lot of poor people had to make the hard choice of a child seat or feed their children. These people were fined for not having their children in a proper seat because they chose food over the seat and decided to roll the dice on getting caught.
How does this apply to V2V transmitters? People will see the increased price in cars and then decide to drive their old car longer. The old car might have a broken emission control, bad brakes, leaking oil, a busted seat belt, and so on. Now one might say this has nothing to do with someone junking an old car and buying a used one to replace it. Tell me, do you remember "Cash for Clunkers"? I do.
When "Cash for Clunkers" came about was about the same time I was looking for a new-to-me vehicle. My car was getting worn out and I felt it had become unsafe. It leaked fuel and oil, the shocks were bad, and (most important to me) it performed poorly in the snow. I talked to my brother about buying his SUV since he was looking to upgrade too, but the dealer gave him an offer I could not beat. I looked at other vehicles but all the sudden anything with four wheels and a seat had taken a jump in price. You see if the government mandates anything that raises the price of a new vehicle then the market reacts and all vehicles suddenly become more valuable. Even a $400 Ford Escort will become a $450 Ford Escort practically over night. Perhaps not a big deal for you since saving $50 means staying home on a Friday night. On the aggregate though this just made a huge dent in the economy.
But don't these mandates save lives? Perhaps but at what cost? If it means that people cannot afford to buy a newer safer vehicle because of a mandate like this then we just made the world a more dangerous place.
That was a post much longer than I intended but this hit a nerve with me.
A) What kind of measures does this system take to mitigate the propagation of false information?
Given enough processing power and/or a kind of challenge/response the receiver can do some sanity checking on the data. Directional antennas would be quite helpful in this too.
If operated much like aircraft radar the car could transmit a simple code, such as it's own location and speed with a randomly generated number. A similar system in another car could then respond with it's own position, speed, random number, and the random number it received. The time delay between transmit and reply sets limits on how far away the responder is from the challenger. The use of directional antennas gives some verification of the location as well. If sensitive enough the challenger might even be able to detect it's own transmission as it's bounced off large objects, like another vehicle, and any Doppler shift that would indicate speed of these objects.
I don't know how difficult it would be to build such a system but this is not that far from what aircraft use but also technology in WiFi and cellular phones. If I can buy a cell phone with stuff like this for $50 then adapting it for a car shouldn't cost much more.
B) What would prevent data collection by third parties?
Nothing. Seriously, this system by its very nature cannot prevent someone from putting up a receiver along a roadside and logging all kinds of information on the vehicles passing. This would not be much different than a license plate reader but at least a license plate reader needs line of sight and, you know, license plates. They claim the system does not transmit anything that would identify the vehicle but I have my doubts. First, there would be a large push to extend this to include identifying information. Just give it time for people to get used to the idea and then wait for some scum to kidnap a child and then the demand for identifying information will begin... for the children. Second, the fact that the system is transmitting will give some information on the transmitter. Variations in the signal will give identifying information, such as Ford transmits the data formatted slightly differently than GM.
I'll believe that they don't allow for personally identifying information being transmitted when we get rid of license plates.
From everything I've read, there are no intrinsic defenses that ensure accuracy or privacy.
True. Certain aspects of the accuracy can be verified with careful analysis of the transmission, other aspects of the accuracy would require a "handshake" of sorts to happen. This would quickly make it very complex. Privacy goes out the window with accuracy. If you want to assure the data is accurate then you need to know who it was that sent it. You may not need a name but you'd need each encounter with another vehicle to be reasonably unique or a car might appear to "vibrate" between two positions as two cars in close proximity are giving nearly identical information.
If kept real simple for the reasons of cost and privacy then it won't take long for people to play with this. People will program transmitters to indicate that they are always going under the speed limit, which is the first thing I expect people to do. Pranksters will very likely put spoof devices at stop lights to give false traffic light readings, a "phantom" car doing a panic stop, simply jam the signals with RF noise, or other mayhem causing pranks.
The system will therefore have to become very complex or become worthless.
We see things like this already in aircraft. They are very expensive, quite delicate, and not something I expect to see in the common passenger vehicle any time soon. Expense is one reason why people might not like it, the potential for government abuse is another.
It seem that whenever I turn on local talk radio there is almost always a mention of red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, and other ways the government wants to turn traffic enforcement into a revenue system. The government wants people to put electronics into their cars that transmits location, speed, brake light status, and perhaps other information so that government owned and controlled traffic signals can pick them up. I expect a lot of resistance to this.
The article claims the information would not be personally identifiable. My immediate response was, "bullshit!" Even if the V2V communication did not identify the vehicle over the air we still have license plates on cars and license plate reader technology, this will be abused.
What if a person that disables the transmitter? Is this in itself going to be considered "suspicious" behavior? You have nothing to hide, citizen, therefore you have nothing to fear, right?
I am fully expecting at some point a widespread level of civil disobedience on this, and soon. If taken too far people will rip the license plates off their cars and keep driving. What are the police going to do, arrest us all? The government governs with the permission of the people. People have license plates on their cars only because they permit it. This permission can be revoked.
It's how the economy initially became a large one.
I've heard this before but it's a lie. Whatever the slaves built in the USA was destroyed in the Civil War. I'm sure someone can find something that wasn't burned down in the Civil War and also built by slave labor but with the burning of Atlanta I'm sure the net loss was much greater.
Again, if slavery is so great for building an economy then the USA would be far from first.
I started another point by point rebuttal but thought better of it. If you believe that nuclear power is not part of the answer then I gave to wonder what you believe the question to be. I thought the goal was to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that you fear nuclear power more than global warming. All that tells me is that global warming is nothing to fear. In that case I say we keep digging up the coal because it seems global warming is not an issue any more. It's either global warming is an issue and therefore we must make nuclear part of our energy future or, global warming is a myth and we can keep burning coal. This middle of the road of needing to stop burning coal but we cannot even try nuclear is nonsense.
I'm in the camp that global warming is a hoax largely because of people like you. If nuclear power is not part of the solution, that nuclear power is a greater threat than global warming, then global warming is not a real threat.
All your claims of nuclear being too expensive, unsafe, and taking too long to build was all demonstrated to be false in the 1950s. The USS Nautilus was just an idea in 1951, was laid down in 1952, and was out to sea in 1954. We've learned a lot since then, but also forgot many things. Just like you seem to have forgot that we've been building nuclear power plants on such short time scales for decades.
It's nuclear power or global warming is a hoax.
Slaves.
No. Just no. Slavery did not create the American economy. Slavery existed long before the USA and continued to exist around the world long after the USA abolished it. Slavery is far from unique to the USA. Slavery was also not practiced widely in the USA as few people in America were slave owners.
If slavery creates economic growth then the USA would be far from being the largest economy. Try again.
Better to ask how it stays a large economy in recent times especially since you have a thing about freedom.
I already know why the USA continues to have such a strong economy, personal property rights, freedom of information, freedom of movement, free and open elections, etc.
I agree that hydro and natural gas will play a big role in future energy production. Where I disagree is that nuclear is only good for base load power. There are nuclear power designs in the works right now that are able to load follow, they are based off of nuclear reactor designs from the 1950s so this it not new technology.
What limits current nuclear power from load following is that they are water cooled. The reactor itself is very capable of following load but the steam generators prevent them from doing so. A rapid increase in power is certainly possible with a nuclear reactor but if actually done you'd get something like what happened in Chernobyl. A rapid decrease in output and the reactor will not damage itself, at least I don't believe it will, but it could damage the turbines.
What people are working on is an air cooled system that runs much like a natural gas turbine. Throttling it up and down would also be much like a natural gas turbine.
Look up things like brayton cycle, LFTR or liquid fluoride thorium reactors, molten salt reactors, or just load following nuclear.
You mean, like a peer-reviewed article in Nature? Like the one I linked, making precise case I did?
You mean the one behind a pay wall? I'm not willing to pay for something that I believe has no real value.
So relying on gas pipelines from Russia is a-okay but relying on power lines to other countries is terrible?
No, it's not. Relying on another nation for something as vital to your survival as food, energy, clothing, and shelter is a very bad idea. Any nation that lacks the resources to feed, shelter, and clothe itself is not a free nation.
If you'd actually read the Nature article you would have seen that they analyzed various natural gas price scenarios. Furthermore, when the fuel is only used for peaking, its cost becomes relatively minor compared to the cost of the plant. It's NG baseload that suffers from expensive NG, not peaking.
Again, pay wall.
Also, "cheap" is relative. There are some nations that lack sufficient domestic supply of natural gas to provide heating and electricity. Those that rely on imports to keep it "cheap" are now at the mercy of a foreign nation. Those that don't have access to "cheap" natural gas will then have to rely on more expensive fuel oil for peak power. Natural gas is inherently expensive to ship and so oil tends to be the backup if a pipe cannot be run.
You have a strange definition of "dependent", given that I listed multiple different technologies, and pointed out multiple times that as per the Nature study, it's not needed as all. And then to top it off you added the word "nearby" into there, in a discuss in entirely premised on a high power long distance HVDC grid.
Again, pay wall.
Hydro is the only technology that exists right now for grid level storage, the others you list are still too expensive to deploy. Like the "cheap" comment above the comment on "nearby" is relative. Across a large land mass means one could run a relatively inexpensive high voltage line. If the hydro dam or other storage is across a body of water then the costs to link the storage to the demand becomes prohibitive.
Which was, as was mentioned many times, the premise of the Nature article.
Pay wall, didn't read.
Then perhaps you should leave the energy policy analysis to people who pass peer review in Nature, don't you think?
What? People can't speak their mind here? Are all posts supposed to parrot peer reviewed articles now? No one told me.
Also, I am giving my understanding of energy policy analysis by people that have published peer reviewed articles. I simply chose not to cite everything out of a desire to be brief and because I've figured out that any claim I make can be easily verified by any one that reads my posts by doing an internet search on their own.
The answer is demonstrably "No".
Interesting. You say that it is impossible for nuclear to become cheaper than wind and solar. A bold statement. So, since you claim it is impossible for nuclear power to ever get cheaper then I guess I'll just call up future Secretary of Energy Perry and tell him to disband the Department he will head up and send all those nuclear engineers home.
Yep, nuclear will never get cheaper, because you said so. Wait, have you published a peer reviewed article in Nature?
The first program commercial scale wind turbine prototype was started in 1975. The first commercial-scale polysilicon panel was introduced in 1982. If you want to start with the first work on the photovoltaic effect in 1839, then you need to start nuclear at the first theories of the atom from the ancient Greek scientist Democritus
That's fine, we can go back to 400 BC for the theory of nuclear power. People have been using wind to propel ships and pump water for much longer. If you want to bring up windmills
I cannot imagine China surpassing the USA in any real way unless the people are able to topple the oppressive government. People that lack the ability to speak freely, move freely, and retain the benefits of their efforts will both be unable to innovate and lack the motivation to innovate. The people that are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to bring any real gains to the Chinese economy will also be knowledgeable and intelligent enough to leave for someplace more free.
Now I know that not all of such people will leave, some will feel bound by family ties, patriotism, etc. but we do know that many people in China with any wealth tend to leave. If the powers that be allow the people the freedoms needed to develop a prosperous economy then they will find themselves out of power. I expect they know this. I also expect that they believe that they can compete with nations like the USA due to their large population and natural resources. But this again can only go so far without losing their power over the nation.
Their economy is hobbled by the lack of a meritocracy. People move up by their loyalty to the party, not necessarily their abilities. Again, the people with enough knowledge and intelligence to do anything to bring China to a first world nation are quite likely to leave. Those that are smart enough to leave but choose to stay regardless will know that speaking out against the economy killing policies of the government could get them killed. So they choose to be silent as well.
Tell me something, how do you think that the USA got to be such a large economy even though it has less land mass than China and fewer people than China? Could it be because the people in the USA are free to have a protest without the threat of being run over by tanks? I think that might have something to do with it.
So, yes, I can imagine a China that can be the world's greatest power by adopting freedoms much like that in the USA. Alternatively China could surpass the USA if the USA adopts economy killing policies like those in China.
The Chinese have nukes, and a bigger population, but a pathetic navy. They have one active aircraft carrier which by US Navy standards would be considered an amphibious assault ship, because of it's displacement and aircraft carrying capacity. This one aircraft carrier is not even nuclear powered. By comparison the US Navy has 10 ships of similar displacement, aircraft carrying capability, etc. In addition to this the US Navy has 10 operational nuclear powered aircraft carriers with more than twice the displacement and twice the aircraft carrying capacity. As these US Navy carriers are CATOBAR capable the aircraft launched are able to carry much larger fuel and weapon loads.
The US Navy also has something like 15 operational nuclear powered submarines, each one capable of carrying a lot (I didn't bother to look up how many exactly, Google it yourself) of nuclear weapons which they can launch without even coming to the surface.
China doesn't even have enough of a military to prevent Taiwan from declaring effective independence.
If the US and China ever did get into a shooting war I don't expect China to just roll over, they'd get a few shots in because of their numbers and such as you point out. However, they lack any ability to do much more than defend their own territory, they can't bring the war to us. We can bring the war to them, I just gave an overview of how the US could do so with the short list of some of the assets the US Navy holds.
I heard it put another way in a rather humorous and succinct way...
Do you know who has the largest air force in the world? The US Air Force.
Do you know who has the second largest air force in the world? The US Navy.
Do you know who has the third largest air force in the world? The US Marine Corps.
I have my doubts that the drone had any data gathering equipment on it other than what was stated publicly. There is little to obtain from such distances while underwater as far as anything of value to military intelligence.
If these people were gathering information other than the stated weather and water conditions then I'd expect the equipment to do so was on the boat that deployed the drone.
Again, this is if they were doing any information gathering for the military in the first place.
I once worked on designing some sensitive electronics for the military. One part of the design was a light to indicate that all sensitive information was properly cleared from the device if the clear command was given. I asked one of the other engineers what would be the protocol if the light did not come on in the time needed to clear the data. All I got was a shrug. I then asked if it was possible the protocol involved used of the M9 pistol that officers on such airplanes were issued. I got a smile.
I have no idea on what the actual protocol would be if there was a failure to clear the data on such a device. My speculation on the use of a sidearm was partly out of humor and partly serious. I do not recall ever hearing of a target mark on the case of such a device, or of any actual protocol that would involve shooting the equipment.
I did have minimal training on the use of thermite grenades, I have no recollection of them being mentioned as a means to destroy sensitive information. Putting thermite grenades on an airplane would be potentially dangerous for the crew. Also, not having them on the plane could be dangerous for the crew. If such grenades were to be used they'd potentially render the airframe unsafe to fly. Then again, rendering the plane unable to fly might be the point.
In other words, claims of having thermite grenades on a military airplane for the purpose of destroying equipment has enough plausibility that I might believe it. However, I have some knowledge on what the military has for protocols to destroy data on devices that hold sensitive information and I have my doubts that they extend to the use of firearms or thermite.
"Denmark had an average of 42% of it's power from wind alone in 2015"
Which is nice but also meaningless as an example for other nations to use as an example. Here's a few reasons why:
- Denmark is not an island. They take advantage of large electrical connections to other nations to use them as a "battery" for their wind power. The claim of 42% from wind power is creative bookkeeping.
- Location, location, location. Denmark has a geography that is beneficial for wind and hydro storage of their wind. This also gets back to my earlier point that they can easily buy and sell to nations that have not invested so heavily in wind.
- What problem has this solved? While wind power might seem great at first it has resulted in very expensive electricity prices, reliance on foreign nations for electricity, and heavy reliance on natural gas backup for when the wind doesn't blow. This investment in wind, and increases in fossil fuels, has allowed for Denmark to be a net exporter of fossil fuels. If they export fossil fuels and buy electricity from their fossil fuel burning neighbors then have they really made any real gains?
This makes me wonder just how much Denmark is an example to follow. They sell fossil fuels so that they can buy windmills. If other nations follow their example and build out their wind capacity then will Denmark still be able to afford their wind? Would they not turn to their domestic fossil fuels for energy? I expect they would.
Another point is that while Denmark was able to, if perhaps only with bookkeeping, exceed the 20% maximum power from wind estimated by some people that study this sort of thing but that only proves that the estimate was perhaps too low, not that a limit does not exist. Denmark is in a cold climate and a large number of the coal fired plants produce heat and electricity for their communities. Wind does not produce heat like a coal plant. This is true for a lot of locations, they burn coal not just for electricity but also for heat. This is not just for residences and businesses but also for industry. We won't see a cement factory powered by wind any time soon.
Mr. Fusion FTW!
You talk about nuclear reactors that can burn spent nuclear fuel and then mention fusion? I don't follow.
Fusion is an energy source that is 20 years away and always will be. What we do have are molten salt reactors, especially the liquid fluoride thorium reactor or LFTR. LFTR is a technology that is derived from a series of experiments with molten salts run from the 1950s to the 1970s. As you point out the politics got in the way since a few prominent Senators could not use molten salt reactors to buy them votes, but others from states where solid fuel reactors were being built could.
I'm curious on where this full size prototype you mention is being built. I'd like to think I'm well informed on developments in nuclear power but I have seen nothing of this. Perhaps such a prototype is being built in China, they've been funding this kind of research for years now, but I have not heard of any such thing in the West.
Wow, that's a lot to read. It also looks a lot like one of the "negawatts" talks from Amory Lovins. I've read and heard a lot of explanations like this one, where it sounds so detailed and researched at first that it just must be true. The problem is that while there is a lot of truth in what you say the plan you spell out will not work. Explaining why it will not work would require a post much longer than yours to address the many many small details that were hand waved over. I'll try to explain this in a paragraph or three.
A big problem with wind and solar is that the energy production curves do not match well with demand curves. Claiming diversity in location and source, through the use of long power lines, will fix this is overly optimistic. To obtain this diversity requires large land masses that many nations do not have. If there is an international grid then this brings in politics that many people in Europe which rely on Russian natural gas would be familiar with. Using natural gas, or other fossil fuel back up, to maintain stability on the electricity grid means relying on cheap natural gas, a potential for no net reduction of CO2 output, and with the strong link between natural gas and electricity this means an actual reduction in energy diversity. In the USA this is not such a problem since natural gas is plentiful, domestic, and cheap, but the rest of the world is not as fortunate.
As you admit storage of energy is dependent on having a hydro electric dam nearby, if that is not available then storage gets expensive. If storage cost more than natural gas, which is almost always the case, then people will burn natural gas. Grid level battery storage, compressed gas, flywheels, or whatever, are just too expensive. This claim of using storage to solve this problem either violates the claim of being available now, or the claim of being available for cheap.
I'm no expert in energy policy but I have an education in electrical engineering and I've followed this for a very long time. What I've found is that any future energy plan that does not include nuclear power is always going to be lacking in some way. Had you made even a single mention of nuclear power in your post I would have had no complaints. Nuclear power is as "carbon free" as any other energy source that makes that claim. Nuclear power is reliable and plentiful. Nuclear power is also safer than any energy source we know. People will dispute my claims on nuclear power being cheap but then I must ask, how much is this "smart" grid, energy storage, HVDC transmission, and so forth going to cost? Nuclear power is only expensive now because we forgot how to do it. People will claim that wind and solar will get cheaper if only we invest in development, does this not also apply to nuclear power? So many people will claim that the problems with wind and solar can be solved with future technology advancements, I will agree so long as we can agree that any problems with nuclear power can also be solved with future technology.
We've been developing nuclear power for 70 years and it produces 20% of the electricity in the USA. We've been developing wind and solar power for much longer and it barely registers on the grid. I say that rather than continuing the insanity of throwing good money after bad on wind and solar that we put some money in nuclear and see that grow. We'd be much better off for it.
I've seen this "skyrocketing" in solar and wind investments and it is impressive. That is until you compare it to investments in coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The world is seeing considerable growth in energy production but very little of that growth comes from wind and solar.
I haven't checked lately but as I recall the growth of wind in the USA has been big in the recent past, big subsidies will do that. With the economy stagnating for the last five years or so the demand for energy is also stagnant. The growth in wind has been overshadowed by natural gas. The growth in wind and natural gas has primarily only made up for the loss in capacity from closing coal and nuclear plants. Taxes and regulation on coal and nuclear will tend to kill them off, just as subsidies in wind made it grow.
What is perhaps ironic is that the shift to wind has not shown a reduction in CO2 output in many nations. People like to bring up Germany as a nation that in on the path to being "carbon free" but the reduction in German CO2 output is largely from buying French nuclear power.
Reduction of CO2 output in the USA is largely from replacing coal with natural gas and an economic recession, meaning people are using less energy because they buy less stuff and travel less.
Growth in solar and wind don't necessarily mean a reduction in CO2 output because these unreliable energy sources require a backup energy source or the people risk brownouts and blackouts. As of today this means fossil fuels. Idling a coal plant means it is burning coal but not producing energy. Running natural gas turbines means burning twice as much energy per kwh produced than if that same fuel was burned in a boiler.
We now have real world data that show that wind and solar do not always reduce CO2 output. Many will show that there is a limit to how much wind and solar can be added to the grid before problems arise, depending on who you ask this can be between 10% and 30%. The only energy source we have right now that is carbon free (at least as "carbon free" as wind or solar are carbon free), reliable, and safe is nuclear power.
I've brought up before that nuclear power is cheaper than wind and solar too but people will inevitably dispute it. Fine, whatever, I'll concede that point. What cannot be disputed is that nuclear power is more reliable, just as plentiful, lower carbon footprint, and safer than wind or solar. If it is the cost that is holding people back then I must ask, is a few pennies more on your electric bill worth saving the planet?
Is that like how coal fired electricity plants don't have to meet new emission standards? You know like how they keep them running long past when they would have normally been replaced because no one can afford the fees, taxes, etc. that a more efficient but new plant could have achieved?
It's laws like this that keep us from having nice things.
Why is it that the global warming alarmists keep coming up with more regulations? I think I know the answer, because making new laws is easy but making more efficient devices is hard. They'd do much more in "saving the planet" by going into business and making more efficient computer power supplies than by imposing new laws on people. There is already an inherent incentive to save energy, energy costs money. Any business that wants to stay in business will already choose to buy the computers that cost an extra $13 to save $30 over the life of the computer, we don't need a government bureaucrat to tell MBAs how to save money.
By imposing a cost on getting new equipment, by doing things like requiring businesses to show compliance with energy saving regulations, means that businesses will be more reluctant to buy new stuff. This keeps the old inefficient stuff in use longer. MBAs know how to add up a balance sheet, they can figure out on their own that more regulation costs them money.
I think the government should be in the business of building roads and not much more. Keep them out of how to run a business. If these people were so smart they'd be running their own business instead of trying to run mine.
Right, let's fix this with more taxes. Because poor people with barely enough money to pay the rent can just save up to buy a new refrigerator... or else they pay the higher tax... after which they don't have enough money to save anything for a new refrigerator.
There is already an inherent incentive to save energy, the cost of the energy itself. Adding a tax does little to nothing to encourage more energy savings. We (as a society, nation, species, etc.) have been trying to save energy for decades now. Just how much more efficiency does anyone think is left any more?
I remember talking to a building contractor on insulation. I asked why not have 8 inches of insulation on the house instead of the commonly used 6 inches. He said that with that much more insulation the extra cost would never be paid back in a time anyone would care about. Had we been talking about a house built in a place a bit further north then the insulation might be worth it. We've already reached the limits of diminishing returns. Adding taxes to make the cost of the insulation worth the tax savings only makes everyone but the government poorer.
Here's the big question though, why do we care about energy efficiency? As I stated before there is an inherent desire for efficiency in that energy costs money but why do we go to such extremes? I know the answer, global warming. The idea is that by reducing energy consumption that we'd be reducing global warming. By imposing these energy saving measures by law are we actually reducing energy consumption though? I mean that if I have a 15MPG vehicle and trade it in for one that gets 30MPG, but then drive twice as much because I still bought the same amount of fuel, have I "saved" the planet?
The problem is not that we are using energy. The problem is that our energy comes from carbon based sources. Fix the problem at the source. Use nuclear power.
California though is one big "nuclear free zone" because they think that there is only one way to do nuclear power. We know how to do nuclear power now that does not run the risk of Three Mile Island or Fukushima. We know how to do nuclear power that does not produce long lived waste. We know how to do nuclear power with less carbon output than wind or solar. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, more reliable, and more plentiful than any other energy source we know of. The powers that be in California though seem to have lost sight of what problem they are actually trying to solve.
Do you know what physicians call "alternative medicine" that works? It's called "medicine". "Alternative energy" is energy that doesn't work. You want to prove me wrong? Go right ahead. Nuclear power is not "alternative" as it right now provides 1/5th of the electricity consumed in the USA.
Nuclear power is here, it's now, it's working. All we need is more of it.
Since they're already vastly cheaper than nuclear, your argument is shit. Get a real one. We're all tired of yours.
Then the subsidies can stop then, right? That was the point of subsidizing wind and solar, no? To get wind and solar cheaper than coal and nuclear? Now that we've reached that then we can now spend our money on the next technology that has the possibility of being cheaper, just a plentiful, and with a lower carbon footprint than even wind and solar. That would be nuclear power.
Once we get nuclear power to the point that it is cheaper than wind and solar we can stop subsidizing that. Then we can focus on something even better. An energy source that can promise potentially lower costs yet, as well as being able to store the energy from wind, solar, and nuclear. We'll invest in hydroelectric power.
Once we've gone as far as we can on hydro power then we can focus our development funds and efforts to something else. What might that be? Fusion power? Zero point energy? What ever it is we'll need the technologies we've developed along the way to help us out. We can't just jump ahead on this technology curve hear. This is physics beyond fission. This is control theory beyond control rods and windmill angle of attack. This is scale of energy needs high voltages, heavy equipment, and unheard of precision. Planning research beyond this is impossible. Getting to this would likely require decades of research and development.
If you believe that energy research stops at wind and solar then you have a very limited imagination. Have you seen "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"? Do these worlds look like they are powered by wind and sun? If we are going to see exploration beyond Earth orbit then we need energy that can work in the vacuum of space. We will need energy that can work beyond the asteroid belt. Even getting solar power on Mars is hard. The sun is so dim that it takes a lot of solar panel area to get enough energy to just scoop up some dirt and look at what it is made of. This dirt blows around and can cover the solar panels. If the electronics get too cold then they can get damaged. NASA solved this problem and the answer is nuclear power.
Wind and solar might be great ideas on Earth, but to go beyond it we need nuclear power. If it works so well on Mars then perhaps we can try it here too.
Nuclear power. Nuclear power? Nuclear power!
We can keep burning coal and natural gas, reduce our standard of living, or build more nuclear power plants. Those are our choices as of right now. We can wait for wind, solar, and battery technology to get cheaper but that does nothing for the carbon we'd be producing while we wait.
Reducing energy use, by personal choice or by imposing it on others with taxation, is a reduction of our standard of living. That might seem acceptable by many given the potential benefits for society in the future but you are going to get push back from people that are disbelievers in global warming and those that already take cold showers, ride the bus to work, eat little meat, and so forth because of poverty. Imposing expensive energy sources on people with regulation, like wind and solar, is just as detrimental to the poor as a direct tax on energy. Subsidizing these higher cost energy sources with taxation only means reducing the wealth available to society, causing reductions in wages to those that have jobs, and reducing the chances of getting a job for those that can't find work now. Taxing the fossil fuel industry means nothing to them, they just pass that cost onto the poor people that have to buy their products to heat their homes, cook their food, and travel.
If we are to assume that burning methane is bad because of leakage to the environment and the CO2 contribution it has when burned then we'd want to find an alternative that both reduces these emissions and is just as inexpensive. If it costs more then we are again imposing poverty on people. If it does not reduce these global warming gasses then we're just making things worse. Nuclear power is both inexpensive and has a carbon footprint even lower than wind and solar.
So, if we assume global warming is bad and is caused by people burning methane and other fossil fuels, then we need to turn to nuclear power or make a lot of people very angry over their reduced standard of living. Or rather those that survive will be angry, the people that die of hunger, exposure, or being unable to purchase proper medical care will still be dead. Waiting for solar and wind energy to get cheaper is foolish. We've been giving all kinds of money to the wind and solar industry for decades, through taxation and subsidies, in the hope it would be cheaper than coal someday. How much longer do we have to do this before it meets the definition of insanity?
I think we blew past the line of insanity with ludicrous speed a decade or three ago, so fast that few people even saw it go by. We can argue about when that line was crossed exactly or we can stop the insanity and change course.
I worked on a solar powered race car in college so I know just how hard it is to turn sunlight into usable energy. You might be able to "spray" solar panels on a surface but to turn that into something that can power a light, run a motor, or do anything else useful requires a lot of hardware besides the solar panels themselves. You can't "spray" a power point tracker into existence, or the wires to connect it all.
Wind and solar are now both under the cost of coal and will continue to drop as technology already in the pipeline matures and volume keeps increasing.
You are so wrong on that. Solar power might be cheap when the sun is shining but it's real expensive at night. The wind might pick up in the evening but we can't count on that. Batteries might make storing the electricity possible but that comes at a cost.
We don't use coal just because it is cheap. We don't burn coal just to be a dick to the environment. We burn coal because we have a lot of it, hundreds of years worth by many estimations. We burn coal because we can rely on it day or night, rain or shine. If you want to see wind and sun to replace coal then you need to fix the problems not just of cost, but of reliability.
Here's another option, nuclear power. If you want to see a promising energy source that is available now then look to nuclear power. If you want to wait for solar and wind to mature then go ahead. We can start building a nuclear power plant now and have it operating by next winter if we wanted, it's been done many times before. We can start developing those new solar panels now too, but what do you propose we do to keep warm next winter? Do we keep burning coal or do we fire up a new nuclear power plant?
While you develop those solar panels that we can "spray" on things I suggest we build more nuclear power... or keep burning coal, I don't care much either way. If you really cared about the environment then you'd get behind nuclear power right now. If you care more about your solar panels in a spray can than getting off of coal then you are just fool with your head in the clouds... or up your ass.
Your comment could be used to call for a diversion from fossil fuels or for a "drill baby drill" domestic oil policy. If the goal is to reduce reliance on foreign oil then there is more than one way to do that. One way is to develop electric vehicles, nuclear power, and other means to remove fossil fuels from the economy. Another way is to pull out all the stops on fossil fuel exploration within the borders of the USA.
I believe you are correct that we should fear an Iran that can disrupt world oil supplies. What has happened though is people fear Iran more than global warming. Personally I don't have a problem with that so long as it means energy independence for the USA is a goal, and that nuclear power is included in that plan to get there.
Tell me something. If this new battery technology is so great for solar power then what happens if this battery technology is paired up with nuclear power? You think that batteries only help out solar panels, electric vehicles, and cell phones? I believe that if such an electric storage technology is developed then nuclear power looks to be much safer, cheaper, and generally more desirable than it already is.
As of right now, today, with current technology, solar power is more expensive, less reliable, and with a larger carbon footprint than nuclear. If we see a leap in electricity storage then solar power gains but nuclear power gains twice over.
Here's a big problem with grid level electricity storage, it doesn't make money. It's a cost. It might be a cost saver in the long run but it doesn't make more energy. Nuclear power makes energy, and it can do so all night while solar panels produce nothing. Solar panels are good in many ways. Batteries would be great for so many things. But the way out of foreign energy dependence will be through domestic nuclear power or fossil fuels.
Take your pick, nuclear power or "drill baby drill". I don't care much which you choose. If you want to wait for solar panels and batteries to save humanity then you are waiting for a train that may never come to the station.
Maybe if someone came up with a way to dramatically cut the cost it might be worth investing in.
You mean like how if we could figure out how to make wind cheaper it might be worth investing in? I thought the investment in wind was to figure out how to make it cheaper. Along the same lines we should be investing in LFTR to find a way to make it cheaper.
Also, if you ask any nuclear engineer about what makes a nuclear reactor so expensive they will tell you it's the government fees and licensing costs. No technology development will fix that, those costs are a political problem. We can fix those at any time, and it doesn't take billions of dollars of R&D to do.