Hi, I'd love to hear if you have any papers on the economics of Gen-4 reprocessing plants? Surely some in Greenpeace would have to support Gen-4 (if they are economical enough) because they're supposed to "burn" all that waste we'll have to store for 10 thousand years or more and process it into highly radioactive waste that we only have to store for 300 years.
Any recent papers on the energy economics of Gen-4? I love nuclear power for the space race, and for burning old waste, but not necessarily if it is not economically competitive with baseload solar thermal plants and the 'mixed' decentralised diverse green grid of the future. However, Gen-4 is appealing even to a greenie like me for the one fact that it provides power while 'burning' the old waste of other reactors so we don't have to store it for as long.
I'm not totally against nuclear, in that it probably has its place in the space race and setting up bases on the Moon & Mars. But earth? Surely solar thermal with liquid salt / graphite cube heat storage is cheaper? Isn't nuclear one of the most expensive forms of electricity possible, when ALL the costs are counted?
"Lovins said the reason for the decline is cost: on an even playing field with no hidden subsidies, nuclear is simply more expensive than other options, especially co-generation."
"Nuclear is dying of incurable attack of market forces despite what the industry wants you to believe," he remarked, adding that micropower offer more climate solution per dollar spent than nuclear."
Hi all,
What about attaching underwater buoys that bob up and down and operate a pump that pushes high pressure seawater onto land. A few hundred buoys and you've got some serious water pressure that can push the turbine on land. This was developed by one of Australia's oil exploration men, who took advantage of the oil industry engineer's experience of pumping fluids in the marine environment. So instead of expensive electronics out at sea, it's just underwater buoys (that don't interfere with shipping) and pipes pumping water in to the mainland.
Hmmm, gee, intelligent response there, I mean mind blowing. Wow, so you're point is your mad as hell that the scientific community has finally agreed against your worldview... and therefore anyone that happens to read the debate from both sides and sides with the more rational, credible sounding scientific CONSENSUS then they're obviously an idiot?
Wow, does that make me an idiot for going to the doctor to find out about my health, going to a mechanic to service my car, or going to a brain-surgeon to do your brain? (Ooops, some hostility might have come out there but I guess the sheer overwhelming quality of your previous post called for it.)
Gee, maybe I should go to my plumber to do your brain, and the mechanic to do your health and... heck, do you go to any of these people or just figure it all out yourself because you're such a genius and being "wise" enough to know when to seek expert advice is just admitting one is a moron. Must be fun in your world.
See, there's thinking for oneself, and then there's being wise enough to admit when one needs some expert advice. Why is it that the whole world's PEER REVIEWED climate science is against you troll boy? See, I think you've earned that from your sheer hostility, lack of substance, and lack of response to the links I've replied with. Grow up. Oh, here's something better. Turn off the computer, go outside, meet one of those naked-ape like things that's walking around, that's called a person, and say hello. You'll have to learn how to respond to them and, like, interact without calling them an idiot, but eventually you'll get the hang of it. It's called a conversation... and you'll feel better when you learn how to do it.
Goodbye troll boy, I'm too busy to waste the 60 seconds it takes to read your posts and think "Wow, nothing to see here, move along!"
Oooo diddums, who's the one doing the name calling and coming across all aggro and insecure? "Idiot, idiot" (You use it like punctuation).
As far as I can tell you're the one with the burden of proof. Care to explain why the Royal Society, IPCC, gee, and I don't know, EVERY other *peer reviewed* scientific organisation in the world agrees with the basic premise that global warming is attributed to the demonstrable physics of Co2 interacting with various wavelengths of energy (in a lab, with guys in white coats and everything!?) Care to explain why THEY'VE all fallen for the Radiative Forcing Equation?
If it isn't Co2, what has been driving temperatures up? Care to propose an alternative theory? Is it all down to the SUN! as The "Great Global Warming Swindle" would have us believe, where Martin Durkin was just Jerkin' his Gherkin!? (As if all the world's climatologists forgot to account for solar forcings! Der! And people believe that crap!) Why did the last decade contain so many record breaking years, even though we were in a La Nina event and MEANT to be cooler?
If the heat energy from the candle couldn't get through that little tube of Co2, and yet we could all still see it (because the Co2 is invisible) but the thermal energy couldn't make it to the infra-red scanner, what does that MEAN BOY, I say BOY?
"Well, that there's a CONSPIRACY of the guv-ern-ment, by the GREEN-KNEES that just want to take my coal job away and force me to live in a dang tee-pee. It's time to get me my shot-gun Mary-Lou". In case you missed it the first time, it's about half way through this video and it is not your average Youtube piece... it's a scene from the documentary "The Carbon wars". DO check it out and get back to us with an explanation please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11
Well, hey, I'm no particle physicist -- or scientist for that matter --just a dude that reads a bit of what the peer reviewed guys say. (and occasionally the nutters, but just for entertainment). However, this looks like an experiment that's repeatable and illustrates what we are talking about. (I'll get back to you when I have your objection broken down to me in English, and some tech's response;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11
Hi Cross-threaded,
Electric Cars
I agree with your economic arguments increasing popularity of EV's, but disagree about the urgency. How many million cars does America have? How many million cars need to change over with say, an oil depletion rate of about 4% per annum, starting soon?
Assume (from memory) 280 million cars in the USA. For "everything to be equal" with driving, if the post-peak depletion rate is say about 4% per annum, that's around 11.2 MILLION ELECTRIC CARS that have to be purchased just in the first year, PLUS all the battery-swap stations across America. To me that sounds like "A Green New Deal" of IMMENSE proportions! We're not just talking about the cars, but about the infrastructure that supports those cars. It simply ain't gonna happen. Then take into account the fact that WORLD peak oil of 4% does not mean that there will be guaranteed supply, with just 4% decline each year.
Check out the "Export Land Model" for how various oil exporting nations might very quickly have their own domestic consumption eclipse their ability to produce oil.
Village towns
I agree with much of what you say about Village-Towns decreasing the need for cars, but I may have given you the wrong impression about how "big" the conversation in Australia really is. How many of them are going to be built how soon across Australia (or America?) How vast is the EXISTING landscape of McMansion McSuburbs living the McCar McLife? I think you'll find that while Australia is starting to debate this in some very specific circles, we'll be lucky to have ONE built before peak oil hits. So while this model may become more popular over the coming decades, I doubt YOU will have the opportunity to live in one soon, let alone be forced to live in one.
Rail (trains, trams, trolley buses)
97% of our goods are freighted by truck here in Australia, and I'm pretty sure America's in a similar boat. Now while I acknowledge your points about the convenience of trucking for certain businesses and the flexibility, I'm mainly talking about the interstate long distance hauling of goods and services. So sure, we might have some local trucking or freight of some sort, but the long distance freight is extremely exposed to fuel disruptions.
Rail is much more efficient with the energy required to move it per ton, so interstate rail is incredibly important. Dang, we can CYCLE certain goods the last 20 km's on various trailers, rickshaws or whatever if we have to in an emergency but it's the tons and tons of food supplies and "stuff" that we move interstate that is the concern. Also, once a rail system is built New Urbanism with business and residential densities can spring up around it, revitalising the city center. Land values go up, city taxes come pouring in, and everybody benefits from a reliable, post-oil mode of transport delivering people and goods Co2 free to their New Urbanist destination. Everyone wins.
Worrisome fud?
I class myself as an optimist. Unlike many peak oilers, I at least admit what I can see with my own eyes, that there ARE electric cars nearly ready to deploy, that there ARE smart people working on all these problems at multiple levels, that there IS emergency fuel rationing legislation that could make a huge difference.
However, it is all about how quickly these things can be deployed. I'm not talking about TEOTWAWKI but a truly MASSIVE economic crisis that seems inevitable because we hit the breaks on our oil dependency too little, too late. This is not the Y2K problem when we had to fix a bit of virtual code "just in time". (My dad worked for IBM and assured us years earlier that it was pretty much fixed). This is a real problem in the real world of physics and chemistry and gargantuan marketplace systems entirely addicted to oil. Where we live, what we buy, where our food comes from, how we grow our food in the first place... it ALL depends on oil.
And yet too often I'm told the "market solution" to peak oil will fix everything. All
(Sorry about double-posting some of these... I combined various answers into one post and forgot to address them to each specific poster. I'm used to other forum protocols and forgot how slashdot works).
WrathofOb,
the particular "random" example of conflict you're describing with your neighbours is not going to happen in this particular Village-Town concept because cars are not allowed inside the village (except for a few quiet electric delivery vehicles now and then).
Burn your leaves? This village composts everything and delivers it out to the local farmers.
Your analogy about Manhattan being an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks is a strawman. This Village-Town concept is based on solid anthropology. The walled Village is for 500 people only. Yep, just like Manhattan!;-) Then add some greenspace (farms, sporting fields, etc) and then you have the next village. Sociologically, we need to live in groups of 500 or so. Economically there are other formulaes. 7,500 people will support a local watchmaker. 10,000 people will create a largely viable local economy. But imagine inviting people to be a part of your very own village of 500 of your favourite people, with an arts guild, local rooms allocated for the school, all "mixed in" and together. Now that's cool!
Basically, the gist of what I'm saying is that you may have a wonderful solution for some people but don't try to force it on the rest of us because it's not well suited to us.
Problem is nature can't handle our suburban sprawl. It is the most resource intensive, land greedy way of designing things. We've locked up all these little surviving ecosystems into lonely islands of biodiversity, and now that global warming is arriving they can't "migrate" the way they used to. And the evidence is many people feel isolated by suburbia. There is no "there there". You sound like you live in a rural area? But for the vast majority of suburbanites there is no scenery as they drive to work, because they are surrounded by horrific faux McMansion boxes everywhere they look. There's no "soul" to the design!
Muad-Dave, that seems to be heading in the right direction... that *seems* to be heading in the direction of New Urbanism. You're lucky to have it near you. There might be some jobs there to plug into when the economy completely mutates after peak oil.
WrathofOb,
the particular "random" example of conflict you're describing with your neighbours is not going to happen in this particular Village-Town concept because cars are not allowed inside the village (except for a few quiet electric delivery vehicles now and then).
Burn your leaves? This village composts everything and delivers it out to the local farmers.
Your analogy about Manhattan being an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks is a strawman. This Village-Town concept is based on solid anthropology. The walled Village is for 500 people only. Yep, just like Manhattan!;-) Then add some greenspace (farms, sporting fields, etc) and then you have the next village. Sociologically, we need to live in groups of 500 or so. Economically there are other formulaes. 7,500 people will support a local watchmaker. 10,000 people will create a largely viable local economy. But imagine inviting people to be a part of your very own village of 500 of your favourite people, with an arts guild, local rooms allocated for the school, all "mixed in" and together. Now that's cool!
Basically, the gist of what I'm saying is that you may have a wonderful solution for some people but don't try to force it on the rest of us because it's not well suited to us.
Problem is nature can't handle our suburban sprawl. It is the most resource intensive, land greedy way of designing things. We've locked up all these little surviving ecosystems into lonely islands of biodiversity, and now that global warming is arriving they can't "migrate" the way they used to. And the evidence is many people feel isolated by suburbia. There is no "there there". You sound like you live in a rural area? But for the vast majority of suburbanites there is no scenery as they drive to work, because they are surrounded by horrific faux McMansion boxes everywhere they look. There's no "soul" to the design!
Muad-Dave, that seems to be heading in the right direction... that *seems* to be heading in the direction of New Urbanism. You're lucky to have it near you. There might be some jobs there to plug into when the economy completely transmutes after peak oil.
Cross-Threaded: You'd have your privacy. There's parks and farmlands to walk through. You can still go home and close your door. You're only living with 500 people. But the bit you really got wrong was this bit: "If I want to be around people, I'll go find them. If I need supplies, I'll go to a place where I can get them." That assumes a bit too much... we are only a few years away from peak oil, and if we don't introduce electric cars in their 10's of millions and move trucks onto tracks (trucks to trains) in a BIG way soon, life could be very different. It might not be a question of how to get to the grocery store for your supplies. It might be will there be anything there when you get there?
"City dwellers"? Don't you mean quaint country-town dwellers? 500 people / village, and then 20 independent villages / town. What city?
Right, so spectrometry doesn't tell us anything about how particular models behave with certain wavelengths of energy? In other words, what Co2 DOES cannot be tested time and again with a spectrometer? Fascinating answer!;-) And then we can't do a bit of math to calculate how much extra energy would be trapped by adding a certain % of extra Co2? Fascinating indeed! Does the internet disappear now, or just microwave ovens, in that puff of logic?
No no no... just your own quaint European village. (Think old Rome or Venice, with a modern tinge).
But if you want to see something REALLY funky, imagine the most boring Central Business District complete with Department store, parking lot, and other boring "big box" shops.
Now imagine what it would take to give it 50% Chewbacca's homework and 50% Anakin's slave quarters. Check out these before and after illustrations by a building code that wants to help modern cities run on 10%! of today's energy requirements. Unlike the European "Village Town" concept above, these ARE branded as "Eco-cities" and check out why!
Bingo! This guy factors in a 10 square mile area for 10 thousand people, 20 villages, and contracts to local farmers that pretty much feed the local town. It prevents the middle man (Coles & Woolworths here in Australia) ripping off the farmers, prevents food security being dependent on a thousand km's of truck supplies, and uses the land so efficiently that there's just more room for agriculture.
Imagine where the world could be today if we'd adopted this plan decades ago? We'd be practically oil free, have solved global warming, and live less stressed, happier lives. Not to mention the LIVES that could be saved (in the many thousands of pointless car accidents. Russia has something like 33 thousand car deaths a year!)
In Australia the debate in some quarters is moving beyond energy efficient cars to energy efficient cities. Some proponents do not even mention peak oil or global warming in their talk, and are NOT proposing "ecocities" even though cars are banned within some of these village-town developments. They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence. Each dollar coming into a Village-Town circulates through the economy numerous times, and the economy of such simple mechanisms of GOOD TOWN PLANNING also generates 80% of its own economy, creating a more durable local economy during tough times. Existing suburbs can be slowly retrofitted to be car free, as is already happening in Germany. We CAN reclaim the streets, see what is happening in New York. We don't have to be stuck with the current town plan outside your door forever, there are ways to slowly retrofit the world to a post-car model. I'm not saying we totally ELIMINATE the car from all of life, but we can and must massively "discipline" the use of the car. Write to town planners, buy a bike, and... check out what your town's local plans are for peak oil when it hits in a few years.
Presented to the University of New South Wales by Claude Lewenz, I highly recommend the Village Towns movie (15 minutes) where the concept is explained further.
I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle. What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway? The goal should be MORE European than Europe (with Europeans using half the oil of the average American) and further... 20 villages of 500 people each, walled villages with no cars allowed inside, and a local town centre that has the movies, town hall, other facilities. Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty: and now GOING MAINSTREAM: not just for eco-village types! (blarrrgh, no thanks!) Yes, this solves global warming and peak oil but you won't hear that from the developer! This is just a better way to live that is MORE fulfilling.
Have fun in your SUV as peak oil hits, or worse, the "uber-expensive" hydrogen economy. I hope it's real fun for you sitting in your high performance vehicle as you speed up to the next traffic jams. Just think: that 10 hours you wasted commuting could have been spent reading a good book, talking to friends as you walk to the local tram stop, or better: arguing with me!;-)
Um, spectrometry tells us WHAT the molecules do (whether Co2, methane, PFC, or other) and the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us by HOW MUCH. But if you don't like physics equations, maybe you've also just disproved space flight, the internet, microwave ovens and all manner of other "theories" which are about to disappear in a puff of logic? This basic aspect of the science is settled, and the so called 'sceptics' rarely debate it. They just recite one of the 26 top myths about climate change that New Scientist debunks here, one of which you recite in your answer (about physics models, see the first 2 myths here.) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Thing is mate, doesn't the very sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable science of spectrometry also tell us things like how various molecules refract certain wavelengths of energy? So we have Co2 at one level, methane 21 times Co2, and some PFC's at 9000 times Co2!
I mean, wavelengths of energy interacting with molecules... this isn't science we've used anywhere ELSE is it?;-) (Woops, there goes the internet). And YES Co2 is a small part of the atmopshere, but the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us how much extra energy Co2 traps, and so.... what next? Are you about to disprove spectrometry and have the internet disappear in a puff of logic?
Ooo! Ooo! I saw this movie on the "historical documents"! But disaster was prevented, because the studly young Captain Kirk parachutes in and kicks some butt, and then his mate pulls out a sword, and then something happened involving rifles that somehow destroyed industrial strength, planet mining, planet destroying hardware... didn't quite get that bit... but the good news is STUDLY YOUNG KIRK SAVES THE DAY AGAIN!
If only he'd show up at Cophenhagen?
In an excellent recent analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion," Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14 per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7 per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Given this huge gap, the so-called nuclear revival can succeed only by unloading these costs onto taxpayers. If all the costs of generating nuclear electricity are included in the price to consumers, nuclear power is dead in the water.
Personally, I like the podcasts.... they are teleconferences and cover a lot of information, all while on my morning walk!
Of course, "Better Place" have this technology in mind for their fast battery swap system. It's kind of like driving into a car wash but much faster, 40 seconds max. The secret? WW2 bomber bay clips that inspired the quick-release capability of a large heavy battery canister.
Coming to Israel real soon.
http://www.betterplace.com/
The worst that could happen?
Let's see, they're making "goodies" in your blood? Could it be like the sports car the "badies" stole, only they are putting "goodies" in it?
Hang on... sports cars, "goodies" and "badies" and Emma Thompson playing a scientist claiming she'd cured cancer.... oh no!
It's I AM LEGEND!
While I'm glad that people are thinking outside of the box for solutions to global warming, if world powers became REALLY serious and adopted all the "Radical R's" on this site then, as Al Gore stated, we could have a serious shot at getting OFF the fossil fuels in 10 years. We would of course probably need 20 or so to become truly carbon neutral but at least society would be heading in the right direction, living "light and local".
Then with Biochar sequestering 6 gigatons of Co2 a year (according to Tim Flannery's estimates as stated to BeyondZeroEmissions) we'd gradually REVERSE global warming. Not only that, we could have rebuilt our cities, be living with far less traffic and far less cars, be independent of world oil markets, have a healthier, slimmer population, have richer community lives, trendier cities, energy security, healthy local ecosystems and farming, and be enjoying a "Cradle to Cradle" or "Waste = food" society where all "waste" (outdated concept) becomes an input into the next product.
Burning through energy to spray water for a 1 degree lower temperature seems trite by comparision.
Agreed -- and what's the environmental impact of an 8 lane highway burning oil, let alone the energy security challenges of peak oil. The future of transport is electric, and the sooner electric trains, trams, and trolley buses are moving goods and people between our cities and around in them, the sooner all nations can look forward to renewable energy independence.
People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.
Exactly. It is the cool, collected ones you have to worry about.
Then I need you all to know that I'm anxious right now... so anxious I jumped when my wife just handed me a Caramello Koala, so anxious that I in fact ATE the Caramello Koala OK!!??!
There are plenty of other reasons people are anxious you know! Like, is my tinfoil hat working, are the Nargals going to steal my Caramello Koala... oh, I forgot, I already ate that.
One more thing: stop looking at me like that!
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I'd love to hear if you have any papers on the economics of Gen-4 reprocessing plants? Surely some in Greenpeace would have to support Gen-4 (if they are economical enough) because they're supposed to "burn" all that waste we'll have to store for 10 thousand years or more and process it into highly radioactive waste that we only have to store for 300 years.
Any recent papers on the energy economics of Gen-4? I love nuclear power for the space race, and for burning old waste, but not necessarily if it is not economically competitive with baseload solar thermal plants and the 'mixed' decentralised diverse green grid of the future. However, Gen-4 is appealing even to a greenie like me for the one fact that it provides power while 'burning' the old waste of other reactors so we don't have to store it for as long.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/keeny.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html
And my favourite: the Nuclear Wonderland! (Now a tourist attraction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300
Why not call it "Mars Association for Roving and Study"?
Hi all,
What about attaching underwater buoys that bob up and down and operate a pump that pushes high pressure seawater onto land. A few hundred buoys and you've got some serious water pressure that can push the turbine on land. This was developed by one of Australia's oil exploration men, who took advantage of the oil industry engineer's experience of pumping fluids in the marine environment. So instead of expensive electronics out at sea, it's just underwater buoys (that don't interfere with shipping) and pipes pumping water in to the mainland.
Apparently the cost advantages of doing it this way with only plumbing at sea and all the generators and electronics on land are significant. http://www.ceto.com.au/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETO_Wave_Power
ABC news video illustrates bobbing / pumping action of CETO wave power buoys (no sexual puns intended)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27ZBODcv0c
Hmmm, gee, intelligent response there, I mean mind blowing. Wow, so you're point is your mad as hell that the scientific community has finally agreed against your worldview... and therefore anyone that happens to read the debate from both sides and sides with the more rational, credible sounding scientific CONSENSUS then they're obviously an idiot? Wow, does that make me an idiot for going to the doctor to find out about my health, going to a mechanic to service my car, or going to a brain-surgeon to do your brain? (Ooops, some hostility might have come out there but I guess the sheer overwhelming quality of your previous post called for it.) Gee, maybe I should go to my plumber to do your brain, and the mechanic to do your health and... heck, do you go to any of these people or just figure it all out yourself because you're such a genius and being "wise" enough to know when to seek expert advice is just admitting one is a moron. Must be fun in your world. See, there's thinking for oneself, and then there's being wise enough to admit when one needs some expert advice. Why is it that the whole world's PEER REVIEWED climate science is against you troll boy? See, I think you've earned that from your sheer hostility, lack of substance, and lack of response to the links I've replied with. Grow up. Oh, here's something better. Turn off the computer, go outside, meet one of those naked-ape like things that's walking around, that's called a person, and say hello. You'll have to learn how to respond to them and, like, interact without calling them an idiot, but eventually you'll get the hang of it. It's called a conversation... and you'll feel better when you learn how to do it. Goodbye troll boy, I'm too busy to waste the 60 seconds it takes to read your posts and think "Wow, nothing to see here, move along!"
Oooo diddums, who's the one doing the name calling and coming across all aggro and insecure? "Idiot, idiot" (You use it like punctuation).
As far as I can tell you're the one with the burden of proof. Care to explain why the Royal Society, IPCC, gee, and I don't know, EVERY other *peer reviewed* scientific organisation in the world agrees with the basic premise that global warming is attributed to the demonstrable physics of Co2 interacting with various wavelengths of energy (in a lab, with guys in white coats and everything!?) Care to explain why THEY'VE all fallen for the Radiative Forcing Equation?
If it isn't Co2, what has been driving temperatures up? Care to propose an alternative theory? Is it all down to the SUN! as The "Great Global Warming Swindle" would have us believe, where Martin Durkin was just Jerkin' his Gherkin!? (As if all the world's climatologists forgot to account for solar forcings! Der! And people believe that crap!) Why did the last decade contain so many record breaking years, even though we were in a La Nina event and MEANT to be cooler?
If the heat energy from the candle couldn't get through that little tube of Co2, and yet we could all still see it (because the Co2 is invisible) but the thermal energy couldn't make it to the infra-red scanner, what does that MEAN BOY, I say BOY?
"Well, that there's a CONSPIRACY of the guv-ern-ment, by the GREEN-KNEES that just want to take my coal job away and force me to live in a dang tee-pee. It's time to get me my shot-gun Mary-Lou". In case you missed it the first time, it's about half way through this video and it is not your average Youtube piece... it's a scene from the documentary "The Carbon wars". DO check it out and get back to us with an explanation please!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11
Well, hey, I'm no particle physicist -- or scientist for that matter --just a dude that reads a bit of what the peer reviewed guys say. (and occasionally the nutters, but just for entertainment). However, this looks like an experiment that's repeatable and illustrates what we are talking about. (I'll get back to you when I have your objection broken down to me in English, and some tech's response ;-)
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11
Assume (from memory) 280 million cars in the USA. For "everything to be equal" with driving, if the post-peak depletion rate is say about 4% per annum, that's around 11.2 MILLION ELECTRIC CARS that have to be purchased just in the first year, PLUS all the battery-swap stations across America. To me that sounds like "A Green New Deal" of IMMENSE proportions! We're not just talking about the cars, but about the infrastructure that supports those cars. It simply ain't gonna happen. Then take into account the fact that WORLD peak oil of 4% does not mean that there will be guaranteed supply, with just 4% decline each year.
Check out the "Export Land Model" for how various oil exporting nations might very quickly have their own domestic consumption eclipse their ability to produce oil.
Village towns
I agree with much of what you say about Village-Towns decreasing the need for cars, but I may have given you the wrong impression about how "big" the conversation in Australia really is. How many of them are going to be built how soon across Australia (or America?) How vast is the EXISTING landscape of McMansion McSuburbs living the McCar McLife? I think you'll find that while Australia is starting to debate this in some very specific circles, we'll be lucky to have ONE built before peak oil hits. So while this model may become more popular over the coming decades, I doubt YOU will have the opportunity to live in one soon, let alone be forced to live in one.
Rail (trains, trams, trolley buses)
97% of our goods are freighted by truck here in Australia, and I'm pretty sure America's in a similar boat. Now while I acknowledge your points about the convenience of trucking for certain businesses and the flexibility, I'm mainly talking about the interstate long distance hauling of goods and services. So sure, we might have some local trucking or freight of some sort, but the long distance freight is extremely exposed to fuel disruptions.
Rail is much more efficient with the energy required to move it per ton, so interstate rail is incredibly important. Dang, we can CYCLE certain goods the last 20 km's on various trailers, rickshaws or whatever if we have to in an emergency but it's the tons and tons of food supplies and "stuff" that we move interstate that is the concern. Also, once a rail system is built New Urbanism with business and residential densities can spring up around it, revitalising the city center. Land values go up, city taxes come pouring in, and everybody benefits from a reliable, post-oil mode of transport delivering people and goods Co2 free to their New Urbanist destination. Everyone wins.
Worrisome fud?
I class myself as an optimist. Unlike many peak oilers, I at least admit what I can see with my own eyes, that there ARE electric cars nearly ready to deploy, that there ARE smart people working on all these problems at multiple levels, that there IS emergency fuel rationing legislation that could make a huge difference.
However, it is all about how quickly these things can be deployed. I'm not talking about TEOTWAWKI but a truly MASSIVE economic crisis that seems inevitable because we hit the breaks on our oil dependency too little, too late. This is not the Y2K problem when we had to fix a bit of virtual code "just in time". (My dad worked for IBM and assured us years earlier that it was pretty much fixed). This is a real problem in the real world of physics and chemistry and gargantuan marketplace systems entirely addicted to oil. Where we live, what we buy, where our food comes from, how we grow our food in the first place... it ALL depends on oil.
And yet too often I'm told the "market solution" to peak oil will fix everything. All
Burn your leaves? This village composts everything and delivers it out to the local farmers.
Your analogy about Manhattan being an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks is a strawman. This Village-Town concept is based on solid anthropology. The walled Village is for 500 people only. Yep, just like Manhattan! ;-) Then add some greenspace (farms, sporting fields, etc) and then you have the next village. Sociologically, we need to live in groups of 500 or so. Economically there are other formulaes. 7,500 people will support a local watchmaker. 10,000 people will create a largely viable local economy. But imagine inviting people to be a part of your very own village of 500 of your favourite people, with an arts guild, local rooms allocated for the school, all "mixed in" and together. Now that's cool!
Problem is nature can't handle our suburban sprawl. It is the most resource intensive, land greedy way of designing things. We've locked up all these little surviving ecosystems into lonely islands of biodiversity, and now that global warming is arriving they can't "migrate" the way they used to. And the evidence is many people feel isolated by suburbia. There is no "there there". You sound like you live in a rural area? But for the vast majority of suburbanites there is no scenery as they drive to work, because they are surrounded by horrific faux McMansion boxes everywhere they look. There's no "soul" to the design!
Muad-Dave, that seems to be heading in the right direction... that *seems* to be heading in the direction of New Urbanism. You're lucky to have it near you. There might be some jobs there to plug into when the economy completely mutates after peak oil.
Burn your leaves? This village composts everything and delivers it out to the local farmers.
Your analogy about Manhattan being an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks is a strawman. This Village-Town concept is based on solid anthropology. The walled Village is for 500 people only. Yep, just like Manhattan! ;-) Then add some greenspace (farms, sporting fields, etc) and then you have the next village. Sociologically, we need to live in groups of 500 or so. Economically there are other formulaes. 7,500 people will support a local watchmaker. 10,000 people will create a largely viable local economy. But imagine inviting people to be a part of your very own village of 500 of your favourite people, with an arts guild, local rooms allocated for the school, all "mixed in" and together. Now that's cool!
Problem is nature can't handle our suburban sprawl. It is the most resource intensive, land greedy way of designing things. We've locked up all these little surviving ecosystems into lonely islands of biodiversity, and now that global warming is arriving they can't "migrate" the way they used to. And the evidence is many people feel isolated by suburbia. There is no "there there". You sound like you live in a rural area? But for the vast majority of suburbanites there is no scenery as they drive to work, because they are surrounded by horrific faux McMansion boxes everywhere they look. There's no "soul" to the design!
Muad-Dave, that seems to be heading in the right direction... that *seems* to be heading in the direction of New Urbanism. You're lucky to have it near you. There might be some jobs there to plug into when the economy completely transmutes after peak oil.
Cross-Threaded: You'd have your privacy. There's parks and farmlands to walk through. You can still go home and close your door. You're only living with 500 people. But the bit you really got wrong was this bit: "If I want to be around people, I'll go find them. If I need supplies, I'll go to a place where I can get them." That assumes a bit too much... we are only a few years away from peak oil, and if we don't introduce electric cars in their 10's of millions and move trucks onto tracks (trucks to trains) in a BIG way soon, life could be very different. It might not be a question of how to get to the grocery store for your supplies. It might be will there be anything there when you get there?
"City dwellers"? Don't you mean quaint country-town dwellers? 500 people / village, and then 20 independent villages / town. What city?
Right, so spectrometry doesn't tell us anything about how particular models behave with certain wavelengths of energy? In other words, what Co2 DOES cannot be tested time and again with a spectrometer? Fascinating answer! ;-) And then we can't do a bit of math to calculate how much extra energy would be trapped by adding a certain % of extra Co2? Fascinating indeed! Does the internet disappear now, or just microwave ovens, in that puff of logic?
No no no... just your own quaint European village. (Think old Rome or Venice, with a modern tinge).
But if you want to see something REALLY funky, imagine the most boring Central Business District complete with Department store, parking lot, and other boring "big box" shops.
Now imagine what it would take to give it 50% Chewbacca's homework and 50% Anakin's slave quarters. Check out these before and after illustrations by a building code that wants to help modern cities run on 10%! of today's energy requirements. Unlike the European "Village Town" concept above, these ARE branded as "Eco-cities" and check out why!
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/downtown.html
Bingo! This guy factors in a 10 square mile area for 10 thousand people, 20 villages, and contracts to local farmers that pretty much feed the local town. It prevents the middle man (Coles & Woolworths here in Australia) ripping off the farmers, prevents food security being dependent on a thousand km's of truck supplies, and uses the land so efficiently that there's just more room for agriculture.
Imagine where the world could be today if we'd adopted this plan decades ago? We'd be practically oil free, have solved global warming, and live less stressed, happier lives. Not to mention the LIVES that could be saved (in the many thousands of pointless car accidents. Russia has something like 33 thousand car deaths a year!)
In Australia the debate in some quarters is moving beyond energy efficient cars to energy efficient cities. Some proponents do not even mention peak oil or global warming in their talk, and are NOT proposing "ecocities" even though cars are banned within some of these village-town developments. They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence. Each dollar coming into a Village-Town circulates through the economy numerous times, and the economy of such simple mechanisms of GOOD TOWN PLANNING also generates 80% of its own economy, creating a more durable local economy during tough times. Existing suburbs can be slowly retrofitted to be car free, as is already happening in Germany. We CAN reclaim the streets, see what is happening in New York. We don't have to be stuck with the current town plan outside your door forever, there are ways to slowly retrofit the world to a post-car model. I'm not saying we totally ELIMINATE the car from all of life, but we can and must massively "discipline" the use of the car. Write to town planners, buy a bike, and... check out what your town's local plans are for peak oil when it hits in a few years.
;-)
Presented to the University of New South Wales by Claude Lewenz, I highly recommend the Village Towns movie (15 minutes) where the concept is explained further.
http://villageforum.com/
Sometimes less is more.
I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle. What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway? The goal should be MORE European than Europe (with Europeans using half the oil of the average American) and further... 20 villages of 500 people each, walled villages with no cars allowed inside, and a local town centre that has the movies, town hall, other facilities. Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty: and now GOING MAINSTREAM: not just for eco-village types! (blarrrgh, no thanks!) Yes, this solves global warming and peak oil but you won't hear that from the developer! This is just a better way to live that is MORE fulfilling. Have fun in your SUV as peak oil hits, or worse, the "uber-expensive" hydrogen economy. I hope it's real fun for you sitting in your high performance vehicle as you speed up to the next traffic jams. Just think: that 10 hours you wasted commuting could have been spent reading a good book, talking to friends as you walk to the local tram stop, or better: arguing with me!
Um, spectrometry tells us WHAT the molecules do (whether Co2, methane, PFC, or other) and the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us by HOW MUCH. But if you don't like physics equations, maybe you've also just disproved space flight, the internet, microwave ovens and all manner of other "theories" which are about to disappear in a puff of logic? This basic aspect of the science is settled, and the so called 'sceptics' rarely debate it. They just recite one of the 26 top myths about climate change that New Scientist debunks here, one of which you recite in your answer (about physics models, see the first 2 myths here.) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Thing is mate, doesn't the very sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable science of spectrometry also tell us things like how various molecules refract certain wavelengths of energy? So we have Co2 at one level, methane 21 times Co2, and some PFC's at 9000 times Co2!
;-) (Woops, there goes the internet). And YES Co2 is a small part of the atmopshere, but the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us how much extra energy Co2 traps, and so.... what next? Are you about to disprove spectrometry and have the internet disappear in a puff of logic?
I mean, wavelengths of energy interacting with molecules... this isn't science we've used anywhere ELSE is it?
Ooo! Ooo! I saw this movie on the "historical documents"! But disaster was prevented, because the studly young Captain Kirk parachutes in and kicks some butt, and then his mate pulls out a sword, and then something happened involving rifles that somehow destroyed industrial strength, planet mining, planet destroying hardware... didn't quite get that bit... but the good news is STUDLY YOUNG KIRK SAVES THE DAY AGAIN! If only he'd show up at Cophenhagen?
Personally, I like the podcasts.... they are teleconferences and cover a lot of information, all while on my morning walk!
Of course, "Better Place" have this technology in mind for their fast battery swap system. It's kind of like driving into a car wash but much faster, 40 seconds max. The secret? WW2 bomber bay clips that inspired the quick-release capability of a large heavy battery canister. Coming to Israel real soon. http://www.betterplace.com/
The worst that could happen? Let's see, they're making "goodies" in your blood? Could it be like the sports car the "badies" stole, only they are putting "goodies" in it? Hang on... sports cars, "goodies" and "badies" and Emma Thompson playing a scientist claiming she'd cured cancer.... oh no! It's I AM LEGEND!
30 years to achieve 1 degree cooling?
While I'm glad that people are thinking outside of the box for solutions to global warming, if world powers became REALLY serious and adopted all the "Radical R's" on this site then, as Al Gore stated, we could have a serious shot at getting OFF the fossil fuels in 10 years. We would of course probably need 20 or so to become truly carbon neutral but at least society would be heading in the right direction, living "light and local".
Then with Biochar sequestering 6 gigatons of Co2 a year (according to Tim Flannery's estimates as stated to BeyondZeroEmissions) we'd gradually REVERSE global warming. Not only that, we could have rebuilt our cities, be living with far less traffic and far less cars, be independent of world oil markets, have a healthier, slimmer population, have richer community lives, trendier cities, energy security, healthy local ecosystems and farming, and be enjoying a "Cradle to Cradle" or "Waste = food" society where all "waste" (outdated concept) becomes an input into the next product.
Burning through energy to spray water for a 1 degree lower temperature seems trite by comparision.
Agreed -- and what's the environmental impact of an 8 lane highway burning oil, let alone the energy security challenges of peak oil. The future of transport is electric, and the sooner electric trains, trams, and trolley buses are moving goods and people between our cities and around in them, the sooner all nations can look forward to renewable energy independence.
"They show intelligence: Problem solving intelligence!"
People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.
Exactly. It is the cool, collected ones you have to worry about.
Then I need you all to know that I'm anxious right now... so anxious I jumped when my wife just handed me a Caramello Koala, so anxious that I in fact ATE the Caramello Koala OK!!??!
There are plenty of other reasons people are anxious you know! Like, is my tinfoil hat working, are the Nargals going to steal my Caramello Koala... oh, I forgot, I already ate that. One more thing: stop looking at me like that!