I didn't want to derail the Japan Nuke Thread.

Based on this quote, I wonder if we are approaching energy creation/gathering and consumption all wrong.

The best indicator about seriousness is media coverage. Just about every global news station almost stopped reporting about the accident. They need to cover stuff that people will watch. This is why CNN sent 400 people to cover the royal marriage in London while they have only 50 people covering entire Japan.

[quote name='Krohm' timestamp='1300526579' post='4787866']
I'll repeat again. You guys are not serious but, if money is "not a factor" then pretty much everything will do.
Obviously enough, if you need this amout of power right now, the only possible way is to import it (supposing you still have a power grid to start with).

Anyway, my country is worse... way worse than Japan economically speaking. Since 19th Feb 2007 they managed to get about 3.8GW of peak power installed by private citizen (the government will pay those plants in the next 6-10 years based on effective output... quite handy). I don't know the power output as the fleet is huge and distributed but I estimate it to be at least 4TWh/year (but it's probably at least about 5 TWh/year).

That's fine. Numbers in isolation are great. I don't worry about running out of power.

Towards the end of last year I had to take a hard look at bills. I realized that my yearly power bill was bigger than my monthly salary. Or, I work one month per year just to pay for electricity.

The effect of these decisions on one's life are different. Power will always be there. But I remember back when I got my driver's license. The first time I went to gas station almost 15 years ago the cost per liter was 0.3 EUR/liter (equivalent). Today it's 1.3. The incomes however did not increase four times. Not even twice. And commute costs go straight from income.

With oil prices going up, pressures on power markets increase. With power shortage and nuclear being put on hold, pressure on electric markets drives oil prices up. By the end of the year, power prices will go up by some 20% at least, the oil also isn't coming down.


I don't really care which power will be used. Over time, there will be ever more of nuclear, coal, hydro, solar, wind, tidal, microwave-from-space, fusion, algae, .....

What I do know is that in 15 years, I will remember this day. I'll sigh and remember how back then I could afford to have air conditioning. And a server running at home 24/7. And porch light turned on during the night. I'll remember the time of cheap and abundant energy.

And obviously, by that time I'll have solar collectors installed, covering most of the cost. But rather than treating electricity as something ubiquitous coming out of the socket, I'll always have to keep in mind of how much charge is left in batteries and arrange my lifestyle around.

So will everyone else. And this tiny little bit of friction is what affects economy growth. Not much, just by one percent. Enough to go from prosperity to recession.
[/quote]

Having all of those different ways to produce energy, especially solar, wind, and hydro, and still believing that electricity or gas will still be priced to a point that can lead one to poverty is amazing to me. Not that I think Antheus is wrong. I guess I'm just too optimistic about humanity and the free market.

There's nothing to be optimistic about when you have a free market. Corporations are legally bound to put money before human life. Here's one example, there are more.

Another issue is the BP oil spill caused no where near as much damage as on-going oil spills elsewhere in the world, but the moment that happened people were boycotting BP. Why is there not outrage about spills in general? Why are people not very aware of advances in alternative energy?

I believe the problem is that news that is watched by millions of people watching, like Fox and CNN, are basically utter crap. Condensed and simplified, news and opinion in can form. Some issues and opinions cannot be discussed in half an hour. They tell us one issue is important and we buy it because we don't know of the other issues. I just don't think people are being informed.

A great documentary on the media's affect on public and political action is "Manufacturing Consent". It correlates media coverage and quality of coverage to both social and political action, also suggesting that absence of coverage or poor coverage can detour, or marginalize efforts. I'd speak more of the material in it, but it's off-topic.

Having all of those different ways to produce energy, especially solar, wind, and hydro, and still believing that electricity or gas will still be priced to a point that can lead one to poverty is amazing to me

Not poverty.

The change is tiny. Before, I never looked at power bill, it wasn't relevant. But now, doing some number crunching I came to conclusion that investment into solar cells will likely be not only viable but almost necessary in next couple of years.

Ah - going green. That's good, right?

No. First, I need to be able to afford the investment. Perhaps take a loan. We all know why debt is problematic. But more than that, cost of power has entered my mind. Next time I'll be buying an appliance, I'll glance at power consumption as well. And maybe decide that I'll take the smaller and less hungry model Or that instead of a desktop I'll buy a laptop. My consumer behavior has changed and it will affect every action I take. Do I drive to the store or do I order online? I'm irrelevant, but as significant portion of population gets affected this way, the consequences are dire (see SUVs).


"when I could afford an air conditioner". This one is actually true. What if, in 15 years, the cost of power needed will be prohibitive? It's not that I'll be either hot or cold.

Already, some regions are mandating that all new construction must be passive. Those simply don't need air conditioning. Which is again great and green - but what about everyone who lives in non-passive hosing? Will you move?

The effect will again be at scale of entire economy. Today, prices of power are kept in check with growing needs. But what if these needs flatline? Old buildings consume the same, but new ones are self-sufficient. Normally, this should push prices down.

But our societies live on debt. Prices are not determined by needs today by what will be needed years in the future. This debt covers the cost of construction of new sources, the research, the lobbying. If future need were suddenly predicted to drop, the prices would surge - the existing users would need to be milked to cover for the now dying investment. So better hope that you are able to bail before your ship sinks, after that you'll be stuck. See housing crisis and people stuck with lifetime of debt on worthless property.

It sounds like you blame larger economical forces for our energy problems. If so, then i'd think this discussion would have to cover everything from military spending to health care to education and unions to get a full picture.

It sounds like you blame larger economical forces for our energy problems.

Huh?

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm not even mentioning energy problems.

If so, then i'd think this discussion would have to cover everything from military spending to health care to education and unions to get a full picture.[/quote]

What big picture?

A few months ago I looked and energy bill and became sad. It was enough for me to cut usage in half without sacrificing anything. The price of gas is something that is another personal observation. Just two number points, I sometimes chuckle when I fill up.


The rest is also purely personal observation. I haven't seen any of these prices go down during this time. And drawing a simple chart over a period of 10 to 15 years may or may not matter, but it's enough for me to start thinking about them as major factors in the future when drawing income over it.

It's like weather. I don't really care why water condenses, even though it can be explained and analyzed. But when I go out for the third time in a row and get surprised by rain, I'll start carrying an umbrella with me. It's about practical day-to-day implications to one's own life, not about big socio-economical something or another.

Nevermind my post. It seems this discussion started elsewhere and i have no idea what you guys are trying to talk about.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1300553229' post='4787966']
Having all of those different ways to produce energy, especially solar, wind, and hydro, and still believing that electricity or gas will still be priced to a point that can lead one to poverty is amazing to me

Not poverty. The change is tiny.[/quote]Not necessarily. It greatly depends where you live. For example, in Germany where the green lunatics have a very significant lobby, you can expect an explosion of energy costs in the near future. The reason being that now that there has been a nuclear incident in a country at the opposite side of the planet after the 5th largest earthquake in history, this necessarily means that every nuclear power plant in Germany will explode within the next 2 weeks, so we must shut them all down immediately, before it is too late. Electricity magically comes out of the plug in the wall, so no worries.

We've had a similar situation a decade ago when the nutters managed to get the government to shutdown some power plants over night (the next government had that undone, another typical German thing). The net result was just that instead of producing our own, we bought nuclear energy from our neighbours who built new power plants close to the border to fill the gap. So, we traded German standard for Polish and Czech standard (which, admittedly I know nothing about, this standard might be none worse or possibly even better. But in the case of nuclear powerplants, "I don't know" bears the disadvantage of doubt). The net effect of that was that electricity got about 4 cents more expensive to private customers, which is about 25%.

Well I misunderstood Antheus point. And you may have misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say was: if we have various sources of energy, then the cost of energy consumption should go down. The technology that goes with solar, hydro, wind, etc is expensive now. But as with computers more advance the tech, the lower the cost of that tech becomes. So while Antheus has noticed that the cost of consumption has gone up in the last 10 to 15 years, sooner or later (not much later, I hope) the cost of energy production and therefore energy consumption will lower. Between competing markets (oil, gas, solar, hydro, wind, algae, grass, ethanol, etc) and advancement in tech, the overall cost of all this should go down. That's why I mentioned free markets earlier.

hydro power from waterfalls produces approximately 20% of the electricity. That's certainly a vital source of energy. Solar cells and windmills may be the future, but I think nuclear power is very likely to be the most dominant. If we can make thorium reactors, then that would be able to sustain our needs for atleast a few thousand years (with current consumption).

Well I misunderstood Antheus point. And you may have misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say was: if we have various sources of energy, then the cost of energy consumption should go down.

For me, it has gone up.
Same with oil.

In both cases the cost of production has gone down, but over 10-15 years, the cost to me has gone up 4 times - despite consumption remaining the same!

The technology that goes with solar, hydro, wind, etc is expensive now.[/quote]I don't have any of those. Hydro has been around and stable, but its price has gone nothing but up. It didn't get more expensive yet I'm paying more.

the cost of energy production and therefore energy consumption will lower. Between competing markets (oil, gas, solar, hydro, wind, algae, grass, ethanol, etc) and advancement in tech, the overall cost of all this should go down. That's why I mentioned free markets earlier.[/quote]And I mentioned debt.

Let's say a country needs more power. It will cost $2 billion to provide it, regardless of source. Who will pay for it? Taxes? Unlikely. Government will likely pay for it, but not upfront.

Enter private investor. This week they are investing in power, last week it was tomatoes, next week it will be gold. They don't care, it's just money. They talk to the country, talk to factories and say: We will lend you $2 billion over 25 years at 5% interest rate. Operator does the math, calculates the inflation, power production, prices, etc... Production begins.

10 years later, consumption drops. Clean energy, green houses. Oops, the operator suddenly cannot earn enough anymore to pay back the loan and interest. The investor comes around: "Business going slow? Fuck you, pay me. Cheap power? Fuck you, pay me. Green tech? Fuck you, pay me". So they do. Because consumption went down, existing users who cannot migrate are gouged.

Germany is suffering from this problem. Green tech is subsidized. The subsidies come from dirty electricity. A farm in middle of nowhere has a wind generator and is happily supplied. It even earns money from subsidy and extra is sent back to grid. They are earning money. Meanwhile, the glass plant down the road needs megawatts, and wind cannot provide. They need to use the coal and nuclear. They pay for electricity, the subsidy that built the wind generator and the increased price of dirty electricity due to lower demand (of dirty power) and increased taxation of dirty power. To them, the price has gone up and they are going bankrupt. So the energy intensive production is moved elsewhere. Even if not, one has to compete with much cheaper production elsewhere.

Between competing markets (oil, gas, solar, hydro, wind, algae, grass, ethanol, etc) and advancement in tech, the overall cost of all this should go down.[/quote]
The cost for some of them will go down or is low already. But they are not equal. Electricity comes in different shapes and forms. And only the dirty one can universally fuel the industry. The only future tech to replace it is fusion. The smaller sources are good for residential, but not industry.

In electric grid, big consumers, such as factories need special arrangements. Electricity cannot be stockpiled.

When a factory comes online in the morning, the powerplants it has agreements with ramp up the production. The nuclear power plant retracts the rods slightly. Coal plant throws more coal in there. In the evening, they scale back. It doesn't work exactly this way, but if a large consumer had a hickup, they could bring down the entire grid in a cascading failure. Large consumers also have arrangements with stand-by backup plants, such as gas or oil plants which can jump in if there's an emergency.

And it gets worse. Power plants and their generators are not as decoupled as it seems. When one plant is brought up, others need to adjust. They need to be put into phase with the grid and power is balanced across all of them to prevent a surge. To start a nuclear powerplant one needs a coal or other nuclear plant (to start cooling and generators).

So you cannot have mostly clean, and when cloud covers the sky, you compensate with coal. It takes hours or even days to respond to increased needs and the surges occur during the course of the day. At which point might as well be running mostly coal and compensate surges with renewable.

This segregates the consumers into two groups, both of which have hard time co-existing within same grid. Already the volatile solar and wind power is stressing the grid in countries with mixed sources.

Despite conspiracy theories, there are considerable issues to overcome at scale of countries. Japan right now has the problem that grid isn't unified and uses both 50 and 60Hz, so existing plants cannot be connected directly to those without power. So even though they had the power, the generators and cables, they couldn't connect them since only power they had was of wrong type.