News Should nuclear energy be phased out?

[alexandra]

What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?

I'm not sure, Russ - is anyone, though? I have just heard on news reports that it is a temporary solution, and very capital-intensive in the initial phases of setting up the facilities.

I voted "no" because of nuclear power's track record and cost: it is safe, clean, inexpensive (relative to "alternative" energy sources), and plentiful.

I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...

 

[Orefa]

But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...

Never think that your opinion is invalid unless you ARE an expert. When only experts in a field are consulted you generally see a bias in favour due to the group's vested interest (look at the health reports sponsored by tobacco companies for illustration purposes). In spite of what some experts may say, non-experts can still voice valid opinions.

 

[Astronuc]

I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...

I agree with Orefa. The opinion expressed is valid.

I am one of the experts in the field, and I voted 'maybe' for much the same reason as expressed. If there is a less invasive and more cost effective technology that can meet the needs of humanity, that is where the effort should be placed.

But I am, like my colleagues, committed to safe, peaceful and economical use of nuclear energy.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective. Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on? There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer. It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth.

 

[Astronuc]

Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective.

Not really! There are challenges in obtaining the optimal design for a wind turbine, and pushing the technical limits. Computational fluid dynamics is interesting and challenging whether its a wind turbine or the core of a nuclear reactor.

Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on?

I'd be happy to work on either one. There are engineering/intellectual challenges in both.

There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer.

I never think in those terms.

It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth.

Nuclear engineering is just what I do, not who I am. It's a mixed bag. I have done some really incredibly and unbelievably exciting things, I have had worries that most do not, and there is also a lot of mundane work. Actually, I look forward to mundane sometimes.

 

[vanesch]

Once the price gets much above $500 a pound, it's not worth it anymore. That's the problem with nuclear. Until the waste problem is fixed, we just do not know the true cost of a kWh of nuclear energy.

This is correct, but it is equally correct to state that concerning the consumption of fossil fuels. In a few hundred years, we will have used up a capital of 300 million years. I don't think that the price per barrel of crude is representing the true cost. If the predictions of climate change are true, then the true cost of fossil fuels is even much higher - in fact almost infinitely higher, if this turns out to be a global disaster.

It is the reason I voted for nuclear energy. With nuclear energy, the waste is "under control" in the sense that it is not potentially leading to a global disaster. At a certain point in time, it will have to be cleaned up, and we already (as you quoted) know a few techniques. Others are nuclear incineration, using accelerators.

Now, I'm also totally in favor for renewable sources, but the point is that they don't yet have the scale to replace entirely "classical" production. We're talking about installations, the size of large cities, and their ecological impact should also be studied. On the other hand, we KNOW right now how to build efficient and safe nuclear power plants. It is a mature technology. It is in my opinion THE FASTEST way to get away from the fossil-fuel trap. It can buy us a century or so to devellop enough renewal-energy sources to phase it out (and to get rid in a safe way, of the waste). EVEN if it is more expensive. We'll get out of the fuel trap faster.

You're talking about the proliferation risk. I would say that if the west (and mainly the US) would simply STOP putting its nose into the Oil-floating countries' business, say they can shove it with their oil, that we get independent from them, that they organize themselves politically and economically how they see fit, that the entire "terrorist threat" would fall down. You can even see Islamic terrorism as a consequence of the fossil-fuel business. And nuclear terrorism without state motivation has no chance.

 

[Astronuc]

There was a situation in the US about 10 years ago, when during a very cold period, natural gas was diverted to heating, the rivers were frozen so coal and oil deliveries were down so some fossil plants weren't operating, and the margins on several electrical grids were so tight that one plant down would have taken the entire NE down.

The nuclear plants keep the grid up.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well, the consensus seems to be that we expand nuclear energy production despite the fact that no one here can propose an adequate (i.e., permanent and failsafe) solution to the waste disposal problem. Even Astronuc is unwilling to endorse a particular waste disposal method.

If there is one good reason for nuclear power it is that its greenhouse emmissions are minimal (to the extent that mining and refining fissile materials emits greenhouse gases, nuclear is not CO₂ free).

Lithuania has about the lowest per capita greenhouse emmisions in the world--and it also generates over 80% of its electricity through nuclear.

This raises a new poll question: I see a lot of skepticism regarding global warming in these forums. Who among you pronuke folks do not believe that fossil fuel CO₂ causes global warming?

 

[Cyrus]

Your focus on "wasteful Americans" also seems painfully short-sighted. You seem to be concerned about conservation at home: turning off lights when you don't need them, not using air conditioning when a fan might work just as well, and so on. You're missing the much bigger picture: industry uses more energy that residential users. Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

You could try telling the industries to reduce their consumption, but most industries already operate as efficiently as is reasonably possible (they're out to make a profit, of course). Industry, of course, is what has made the US so wealthy and powerful in the first place. If you try to cut US industrial energy use in half, you're quickly going to find that the global economy will suffer dramatically.

Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi? Do you still think the "wasteful US lifestyle" is responsible for our worldwide energy crisis?

As you quite well say, care to back that up?

Ok, let's talk numbers, sir. Let's see what you are failing to see. I shall now give you strictly official reports published by the US government department of energy on US energy consumption for the year 2004.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

This link, scroll down specifically to: "Consumption in 1997 by sector: - United States"

What does it say, sir?

Transportation 25.04 quads 27%
Industrial 35.43 quads 38%
Residential & commercial 33.74 quads 36%
TOTAL 94.21 quads

So, what was that you said about industry being the main user of energy in the United States? It appears that Transportation and Residential & Commercial combined are nearly 63% of our countries power consumption. Perhaps, reading would do you some good as well.

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi?

Yes, you can find peoples erroneous arguments, I agree!

Now, let's further this argument with more recent data, shall we? Next, I present to you, a Fuel and Oil Sales Report for November 2004, by the US Department of Energy, office of oil and natural gas. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...il_and_kerosene_sales/current/pdf/foksall.pdf

I will now call your attention to the various charts presented:

Page 5, Table HL1: The industrial power consumption comes in at a share of 3.7% for 2004 distillate and 13.1% residual fuel oils. Residential: 10.7% distillate, ( residential does not use residual fuels.)

Page 13, Table 1: Industrial came in at a whopping, 2,326,604 thousand gallons, whereas, all other areas, mainly transportation and residential and commercial, came in at 59,931,330. Which shows us that industry is around 3.8% of the total use of fuel oils in this country out of all the other uses, in terms of distillate.
Residential: 6,644,939 10.6% of the total. 3 times as much as industry!


Page 14, table 2, residual fuel oils:

Industry, 1,539,830. Total, 11,794,362. Again, 13.055% of the total.

Page 15, Table 3, Kerosene Usage,

industrial: 192,588, total: 988,680 ~20% of total kerosene use.
residential: 627,842 ~ 63.50% a factor of 3 times a much as industry!


Nomenclature: According to the authors of this report:

Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.

Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.

Residential. An energy-consuming sector that consists of living quarters for private households. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and running a variety of other appliances. Sales to farmhouses are reported under “Farm” and sales to apartment buildings are reported under “Commercial.”

Residual Fuel Oils. A general classification for the heavier oils, know as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils that remain after the distillate fuel oils an lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery operations. It conforms to ASTM Specification D 396 and D 975 and Federal Specification VV-F-815C. No. 5, a residual fuel oil of medium viscosity, is also know as Navy Special anis defined in Military Specification MIL-F859E, including Amendment 2 (NATO Symbol F-77). It is used in steam-powered vessels in government service and inshore power plants. No. 6 fuel oil includes Bunker C fuel oil and is used for the production of electric power, space heating, vessel bunkering, and various industrial purposes. The United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Kerosene. A light petroleum distillate that is used in space heater, cook stoves, an water heaters and is suitable for use as a light source when burned in wick-fed lamps. Kerosene has a maximum distillation temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10-percent recovery point, a final boiling point of 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and a minimum flash point of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Included are No. 1-k and No. 2-k, the two grades of kerosene called range or stove oil, which have properties similar to those of No. 1 fuel oil.

Distillate Fuel Oil. A general classification for one of the petroleum fractions produced in conventional distillation operations. It includes diesel fuels and fuel oils. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 diesel fuel are used in on-highway diesel engines, such as those in trucks and automobiles, as well as off-highway engines, such as those in railroad locomotives and agricultural machinery. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils are used primarily for space heating and electric power generation.

As for wearing sweaters warren:

Weather was another factor that played a significant role in curtailing distillate demand in 2004 and its impact was more widespread than typical. 2004 was both considerably warmer than 2003 and also considerably warmer than normal. Although the overall difference in 2004 compared to 2003 as measured in heating degree days was just 3.8 percent for the nation as a whole, when examined on a regional basis the differences are more pronounced,particularly in the principal fuel oil consuming sections of the country (New England, the Middle Atlantic and East North Central) where heating oil demand for both residential and commercial consumers is the greatest. The winter of 2004 was warmer than the winter of 2003 in all three of the principal consuming regions and was also warmer than normal in both the Middle Atlantic and the East North Central regions. Overall, sales of heating oil to the residential sector decreased by 282 million gallons or 4.1 percent to 6.6 billion gallons. The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation. In addition, the summer was also cooler than the summer of 2003 in most regions of the U.S.; consequently, demand for distillate fuel to meet peak summer generation loads was not a great as it had been in 2003.9 Sales to the utility sector fell in every region of the country, dropping by 324.3 million gallons a decline of 28.3 percent.

What does this show us?

"The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation."

I.e, weather was a major factor. Thus, using less heating and air-condition does have a significant impact.

On to Kerosene,

Sales of kerosene jumped by more than 18 percent increasing by 151.2 million gallons. Sales increased to all sectors generally in all regions of the country. The largest increases occurred residential and industrial sectors where sales increased by 107.0 million gallons and 28.2 million gallons respectively. Residential sales increased in all three Subdistricts of PAD District 1. Sales increased the most in Subdistrict B of PAD District 1 where they grew by 40.9 million gallons or 25.2 percent. Sales to the commercial sector increased in all regions with the exception of Subdistrict C of PAD District 1, the South Atlantic region which suffered damage from a number of hurricanes, particularly from Hurricane Ivan.

So you can see, residential usage was MUCH higher than industry. Almost 4 times as much as industry in terms of increase that year.

If you combine residential and transportation uses, the numbers are staggering, around 60% in some cases. This makes industry INSIGNIFICANT!

This is why I keep saying for pete's sake, we have to change the amount of power we use, and the kind of cars we drive. They DO have a MAJOR impact on our energy situation. We are the number one consumer of power, if we reduced transportation and residential, ~50-60% of our power needs would be reduced as well ( WITHOUT LAYING A FINGER ON INDUSTRY MIND YOU!) . And that would clearly be a SIGNIFICANT reduction in power use overall. We MUST utilize fuel efficient cars and transportation systems, (i.e. trains, boats and freight trucks), and reduce residential power use.


The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.

 

[Cyrus]

Lets further shine light on this faulty argument you have, sir.

Lets move on to coal, which is the major area where our power comes from.

I now refer you to this paper by the Department of Energy, washington dc, Annual Coal Report 2004.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/05842004.pdf

Consumption
The continuing economic recovery in 2004 pushed total
U.S. coal consumption to another record level. Data
show that total coal consumption increased 10.5 million
short tons to reach a level of 1,105.4 million short tons,
an increase of 1.0 percent. The electric power sector
(electric utilities and independent power producers)
accounted for almost 92 percent of all coal consumed in
the United States in 2004. The other coal-consuming
sectors (other industrial, coking coal, and residential and
commercial sectors) had minor changes in their
consumption totals. The other industrial sector had
almost the same level of coal consumption in 2004 as in
2003, while the coking coal sector had a decrease of 2.4
percent. The residential and commercial sector, the
smallest of all coal consuming sectors, (accounting for
less than one half of one percent of total consumption),
remained at the same level in 2004.

92% went to making power.
All other went to residential, inustrial and commercial.

This means 92% of the coal is being burned in the power plants, not the industries.

Now I refer you to the bar graph on page 13, If you add the three areas, Nuclear, Hydro, Petroleum and natural gas, you get 48.6% of the power production for the united states, for all fuel sources not just coal. That seems like an awful lot of power that could be saved, as I said, *If we really wanted to.* Nuclear and Hydro are already nearly 100% savings by definition. Natural Gas and Petrol could be significantly reduced, the explination why is above in the previous post.

Next, let's look at natural gas: Natural Gas Outlook through 2025:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/presentation/natgasoutlook/natgasoutlook.html

I refer you to slide no. 10:

Now look at the chart for 2005.

Adding up residential and commercial natural gas usage: it totals 7.5 (trillion cubic feet), adding up industrial and electrical generators, you get 12.5 (trillion cubic feet). This means residential comprises 37.5% of all natural gas usage. Clearly not as much as indusrial and electrial combined, but still not insignificant!

A better paper, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/natgas/013103.pdf , Natural Gas Annual Report, 2004.

page 41, figure 10. It is clearly evident that residential and commercial together are not insignificant compared with industrial and electric power.

Furthermore, let's see what the DOE has to say about residential power usage:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/consumption/enduse2001.html

The largest use of electricity in the average U.S. household was for appliances (including refrigerators and lights), which consume approximately two thirds of all the electricity used in the residential sector...Air-conditioning accounted for an estimated 16 percent, space heating 10 percent, and water heating 9 percent

It seems all those sweaters would make 2/3, or 75% of an impact on the residential power category in the united states. hmmmmmm still sounds like enviro-babble warren?


Furthermore, coal seems to clearly be our BIGGEST fuel used for making electricity. So, I wonder where all that electricity goes? Well, let's find out...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/elecinfocard.html

Coal makes up 49.8% of what is used to produce electricity.

So what exactly is industries share, warren?

industrial: 29%

residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%

I now refer you to another DOE paper:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/electricity/034804.pdf

Page 13, table ES: ElectricPower report annual, 2004

Sales to Ultimate Customers (thousand megawatthours)
Residential ........... 1,293,587
Industrial .......... 1,018,522

So we clearly see the majority of usage of power by the major source of where we get our power goes to, yes, YOU AND ME, and NOT to a factory.


I rest my case.

 

[chroot]

As you quite well say, care to back that up?

Every number I used in my calculations were on the three links I provided on my previous post. Read them.

So, what was that you said about industry being the main user of energy in the United States? It appears that Transportation and Residential & Commercial combined are nearly 63% of our countries power consumption. Perhaps, reading would do you some good as well.

Most reports consider the term "industry" to include both "industrial" (i.e. motors and factory powerplants) and "commercial" (i.e. lighting and heat for office buildings). I don't see the utility in considering only the factories alone. If you compare (industrial + commercial) use to residential use, you'll see what I'm talking about. You apparently have recently read one report on energy use, yet think you know eveything.

Now, let's further this argument with more recent data, shall we? Next, I present to you, a Fuel and Oil Sales Report for November 2004, by the US Department of Energy, office of oil and natural gas.

Who gives a crap about fuel oil consumption rates? I never once mentioned anything about it. I was talking about total energy consumption, regardless of its generation. The rest of your post is therefore completely irrelevant as a rebuttal. I'm glad to see that, perhaps, it indicates you're learning to read, however.

The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.

Which of your views has been supported? That

a) The US is the largest user of energy per capita? (It's not.)
b) American residential users are as big a consumer of energy as commercial and industrial users? (They aren't.)
c) The Japanese have managed to do as much as we do with less energy? (They don't.)
d) The Japanese have managed to improve their standard of living continuously without increasing their energy expenditure? (They haven't.)

Which of these views, precisely, do your fuel oil consumption charts support?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Who gives a crap about fuel oil consumption rates? I never once mentioned anything about it. I was talking about total energy consumption, regardless of its generation. The rest of your post is therefore completely irrelevant as a rebuttal. I'm glad to see that, perhaps, it indicates you're learning to read, however.

I give a crap, becuase these are the major areas that we get our power from. I have already shown you the statistic for non coal based power consumption in the US, ~48%. It is 100% relevant, as it affects our total overall energy consumption.

Most reports consider the term "industry" to include both "industrial" (i.e. motors and factory powerplants) and "commercial" (i.e. lighting and heat for office buildings).

I have already provided the nomenclature on that issue.

If you compare (industrial + commercial) use to residential use, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Nope, I wont. Becuase you said it was industrial that was the major sink of power, and I have shown you that it is not. I am not going to argue with you about this issue, because I have given you reports by the US government that clearly show you are wrong. Industry is not the driving force of our energy use in this country. It is commercial, residential and transportation.

 

[chroot]

Lets move on to coal, which is the major area where our power comes from.

Why? I have no interest in the specific generation fuel, as I said in my previous post. I took argument to your claims about energy consumption, which were entirely erroneous.

Now I refer you to the bar graph on page 13, If you add the three areas, Nuclear, Hydro, Petroleum and natural gas, you get 48.6% of the power production for the united states, for all fuel sources not just coal. That seems like an awful lot of power that could be saved, as I said, *If we really wanted to.*

I have no idea how you can gain a sense of what we can save by looking at a chart that shows us how we produce energy.

Nuclear and Hydro are already nearly 100% savings by definition.

What are you, retarded? You think the billion-dollar costs of reactors and dams should somehow magically not be included in their business cases? You think they're "free?" Let's not even get into the problems with hydro, which include NIMBY, greatly increased evaporation, water table problems, downstream user disruption, vast areas of land made unusable, and the rest. You seem to have this fantasy-land notion that we can just throw hydro plants at our problem until it magically disappears.

Natural Gas and Petrol could be significantly reduced, the explination why is above in the previous post.

You didn't give any ways we could actually use less power; you are just trying to say that we should use hydro instead of fossil fuel. This really isn't a viable option in most places, and shows a deep misunderstanding of economics and environmental impact.

It seems all those sweaters would make 2/3, or 75% of an impact on the residential power category in the united states. hmmmmmm still sounds like enviro-babble warren?

Two-thirds is 66%. And you were the one insisting that wearing sweaters could cut residential energy costs in half, not me. I just said that was retarded, and your own evidence shows that it was, in fact, retarded.

industrial: 29%

residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%

And thus residential is only a third of our energy consumption; two thirds of it is business-related. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Perhaps my use of the term "industry" threw you off.

So we clearly see the majority of usage of power by the major source of where we get our power goes to, yes, YOU AND ME, and NOT to a factory.

No, a third of our energy goes to you and me. Two thirds of it goes to business (commerical + industrial), and a tiny amount goes to transportation. This is what I've been telling you the entire time. This is what your evidence illustrates.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I give a crap, becuase these are the major areas that we get our power from. I have already shown you the statistic for non coal based power consumption in the US, ~48%. It is 100% relevant, as it affects our total overall energy consumption.

I still don't see how this number is revelant to anything, as I wasn't discussing generation, but consumption. Good try, though, chap.

Nope, I wont. Becuase you said it was industrial that was the major sink of power, and I have shown you that it is not. I am not going to argue with you about this issue, because I have given you reports by the US government that clearly show you are wrong. Industry is not the driving force of our energy use in this country.

So you're instead going to sniggle over my use of the term "industry," meaning all business-related use? Business-related use accounts for two-thirds of our consumption. Residential use is only half as much. Good show. You're definitely the most effective debater around, cyrus.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

So you're instead going to sniggle over my use of the term "industry," meaning all business-related use?

You still do not understand what industry is, so again, I will give you the governments definition of industry, as opposed to commercial.

Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.

Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.

It is clear that commercial means more office type work. That is an area that is much easier to in increase efficiency. So your argument about shutting down industry in this country simply holds no weight. You can reduce power in more than 60% of the overall areas without doing a single change in industry

Business-related use accounts for two-thirds of our consumption.

Again, no. Stop giving me inaccurate numbers. It is more akin to ~30%.

 

[Cyrus]

What are you, retarded? You think the billion-dollar costs of reactors and dams should somehow magically not be included in their business cases? You think they're "free?" Let's not even get into the problems with hydro, which include NIMBY, greatly increased evaporation, water table problems, downstream user disruption, vast areas of land made unusable, and the rest. You seem to have this fantasy-land notion that we can just throw hydro plants at our problem until it magically disappears

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossil fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Two-thirds is 66%. And you were the one insisting that wearing sweaters could cut residential energy costs in half, not me. I just said that was retarded, and your own evidence shows that it was, in fact, retarded.

Again, I DID NOT SAY wearing sweaters would cut ANYTHING in half. You put, and still put those words in my mouth, STOP IT, PLEASE. And cut out the personal insults. I have not insulted you.

You didn't give any ways we could actually use less power; you are just trying to say that we should use hydro instead of fossil fuel. This really isn't a viable option in most places, and shows a deep misunderstanding of economics and environmental impact.

No, I did not say anything about putting up hydro-electric plants. You put that into my mouth as well. I said there is a large area that we could make a change, i.e. the commercial residential and transportation. Industrial would not have to be changed.

Now you are just throwing mud at me and not arguments worth debating.

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas. These areas are the majority, and if we can reduce power use in these areas, we will take a major step in the right direction. The numbers speak for themselves. And I did not read one report, I have provided you with an annual report from every major power area in the US for the year 2004 (electricity, distilled and residual oils, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro). You have only provided me with information on global power rates that happen to include the US per capita, so what? That does not reflect the power use numbers by area or category. That information is misleading. The true data is in the reports I have provided. Perhaps you should read them.

I have no idea how you can gain a sense of what we can save by looking at a chart that shows us how we produce energy.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

 

[chroot]

You still do not understand what industry is, so again, I will give you the governments definition of industry, as opposed to commercial.

I know exactly what "industrial" means. I used the word "industry," by which I was referring to all business-related use.

Again, no. Stop giving me inaccurate numbers. It is more akin to ~30%.

So, let me get this straight -- "industrial use" includes "facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining." Yet you claim that industrial use is not actually business-related.

I ask you, do you have any equipment for the production, processing, or assembling of goods in your home? Do you conduct any manufacturing or mining in your home?

Residential use is about 30% of our total energy consumption. Almost all the rest is consumed by business. There is no argument possible here.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all business related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean all types of business. Industrial is a subset of business.

 

[chroot]

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossile fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Who cares if they're free of fossil fuels? We were never talking about the sort of energy production. We were talking about total energy consumption. Why are you so bent on changing the subject?

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas.

I was using the word "industry" to include all business-related uses, which your reports split into two categories: industrial and commerical use. I was using the term "industry" to describe all business-related use, which accounts for 2/3 of our energy consumption.

Why do I continue to repeat myself, while you continue to use the same words over and over again?

Residential use is approximately 30% of our total worldwide energy consumption.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

What argument, exactly? You keep changing your mind about what you're arguing. First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false. Now you're arguing that coal is about half our generation. So what? I don't care about any of that. You seem to be changing the topic of discussion because you desperately want to be right about something, yes? Charming.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

The first reports I showed you did not, in fact, separate industrial and commercial use. They used the term "industry" to refer to all business-related use, as I have done.

If all you're going to do is argue the definition of a word, this discussion is completely pointless. Do you even have an argument anymore?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is a lot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part. And that making claims that changing industry is the only way to make change in this country is simply FALSE.

 

[chroot]

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all business related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean business. Industrial is a subset of business.

I understand the concept. I used the word "industry." Again, why are you so hung up on the definition of a word? Different reports use the words differently. You have to use context to determine the intended meaning. This is an example of reading comprehension.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption. There can be no argument about that statement, regardless of how you define "industry," because it is factually correct.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is a lot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part.

No kidding -- there's a lot we can do! This I have never disagreed with you about. We're probably never going to cut our consumption in half without some enormous leap in technology (or an enormous cut in standard of living), but indeed there's quite a lot that can be done.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption.

They out use industrial, and nearly tie with commercial. How is that a small portion?

Lets just play with a number here. Let's say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION. That, sir, is MASSIVE!

 

[chroot]

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

Residential users use 33% of the total. Business use accounts for about 66% of the total.

66% is double 33%. Correct?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Lets just play with a number here. Let's say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION.

Wow, 20 + 20 + 5 does equal 45! What a great argument!

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to each other. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

That is the job of smart EE's like you to figure out. And It requires a real plan set forth by the president, not just a cheerleading speech about it on the state of the union every 6 months.

 

[chroot]

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to each other. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

I don't care how you group it. You've provided no mechanisms by which we could save so much energy. Saying "20% is modest" is not really an argument.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

If we put our minds to it, we could do it warren. Just because you don’t have an answer now does not mean you can’t find one later. Is that your philosophy can’t think of a solution, so just give up all efforts and say it can’t be done?

 

[vanesch]

This raises a new poll question: I see a lot of skepticism regarding global warming in these forums. Who among you pronuke folks do not believe that fossil fuel CO₂ causes global warming?

Yes, I sometimes read Andre's posts, he seems to be an expert with scientific arguments against the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and global warming. But then, he seems to be pretty alone. As I'm no expert at all in the field, I would trust more the "consensus view" which is that there is a strong link. It's what's usually best when you can't judge for yourself: accept the consensus view in the field, over the "lone rider" view. But there is a more important reason: imagine that the consensus view is right (the arguments of Andre not withstanding). Wouldn't it be very stupid to continue the way we are, then ? Now, let's assume that Andre's right. Is it then such a big mistake to put fossil fuels aside and find other solutions, even if it wasn't necessary for the sake of global warming ?
I think that the potential danger of global warming being right, is far worse, than the potential disadvantage of having over-reacted and having shifted energy production to other areas. In any case, fossil fuels are a finite ressource, so sooner or later we'll have to tackle the issue.

My main reasons for leaving aside fossil fuels as soon as we can, are:
1) the potential danger of global warming
2) the political dependency and all the wars and conflicts that are related to this oil-pumping middle east
3) the fact that sooner or later, we'll run out of them
4) the fact that one should always diversify essential ressources

I think that the intermediate step of nuclear fission power is a good thing, but as I said, in the long run, we should look for other solutions, and surely make most of renewable sources. I don't see this as the one OR the OTHER. Re-devellopment of nuclear fission energy does not, in any way, put a brake on research and development of renewable sources. I would even say: on the contrary. In fact, both are very complementary. Renewable sources are usually best distributed, relatively small scale systems, opening the possibility of very competitive market. Nuclear power is much more "centralized", compact, and "strategic". I don't see, for instance, what would be a problem with some nuclear over-capacity and a distributed grid of renewable sources. In the case of problems, we "push the handle" of the nukes to deal with it. In normal times, the renewable sources deliver the bulk. Nuclear fuel is very compact, and strategic reserves for years can be stored in a small building.

And if we could keep the fossil "fuels" rather as ressources for the chemical industry, instead of as energy generator, that's probably a wiser use of the finite stock of them.