Clean power is a fucking joke

[K. A. Pital]

And it is a pipedream to believe that states will just voluntarily stop unfair practices once they reach a certain level of wealth. This is not some huge western anti-colonial issue here. It is competition and fairness.

Well let's remember the Western states not only did not 'stop' unfair practices once they reached a certain level of wealth but also kept the entire world under their colonial rule. I'm sure you will just say that it doesn't matter now and everyone has to play by the rules even if these rules are clearly benefitting the already-wealthy at the expense of the upstarts.

That being said, if China wants to be part of the first world, it needs to play by the same rules as any other member state of the WTO.

How the hell can you even say this with a straight face? I don't understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil%E2% ... on_dispute

[His Divine Shadow]

The whole industry is going to be dismantled in a few decades. How can that be anything else than a failure, especially given the good conditions at the start of nuclear energy? They failed in the PR war, they failed in keeping their plants secure, they even in one case failed to build a secure reactor which is why it never went online, they failed in solving the storage problem. You might say that at least some of that is due to the public but still, if I get fourty+ years of political support from all major parties and the end result is being dismantled then that is one hot failure.

I think it's too soon to say it's gonna be dismantled. They said that before too.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. However, 'clean power' advocates do not argue against fossil fuels - the collapse of nuclear energy in Germany just means more coal plants and more money for Russia, or shall I say Putinstan.

Maybe something gets lost in translation here, or perhaps there is something in there you consider implicit that I missed, but...what? Last I checked, the whole point of clean power is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Now, I will grant that dropping nuclear power means more fossil fuels in the short term, but saying that clean power advocates dont argue against fossil fuels is an inherent contradiction.

You don't need to do this. I know about this. I also know that whatever path is chosen, the poorer countries will suffer while the rich ones will reap all the benefits.

That depends on what time scale you are operating on. Five years? Probably. On the other hand, the poor countries are also going to suffer the most from climate change. By a considerable margin. By which I mean "hundreds of millions of sea-level-rise refugees and a collapse of the global food system that will hit them MUCH harder when food prices sky-rocket"

It is unfortunate. But if you can think of a way to change it (Again, one that is attainable. Telling the developed world not to outsource their pollution is not attainable. Enforcing regulation on international corporations might be. Maybe.) by all means. Bitching about the evils of colonialism solves precisely nothing.

Well how about repolluting the First World? What if Malaysia and others just ban putting waste in their backyard and leave the West and Japan with no choice but to take its own waste and destroy its own environment? That's very much feasible, just takes a little more spine from the poorer nations. I know Australia disallows to bring waste from rare earth processing on its territory. So why other countries shouldn't do something like this?

You act as if most rare earth metal deposits are in the developed world. They are not. Most are in the developing world, so the mining cannot exactly be shifted in a manner congruent with social justice. The refining MIGHT, but keep in mind, switching the developing world over to renewable energy sources is a medium term goal as well, so it is not as if they will not benefit from increased supply of the raw materials.

I am not sure Alyrium is perfectly fine with a manifold increase in rare earth mining just to make sure coal mining doesn't kill more entitled people from our industrial civilization. Coal also kills. The so-called 'clean energy' kills too.

Actually I am, but for different reasons.

Both kill. Climate change will kill more. The direct and indirect effects of climate change are going to add the prefix Giga to deaths, between sea level rise, weather events, and the collapse of global food production combined with a population that by that time will be around 9 billion.

Do you have ANY idea what we are going to have to do in order to feed 9 billion people? With current arable land and technology (keep in mind, that technology destroys the arability of land over time), at current global consumption rates (which will only get larger as the developing world...well...develops) we wont actually have enough Planet. That is before climate change.

Even if hundreds of thousands die from the side effects of mining and refining everything from rare earth minerals to uranium, it is better than the hundreds of millions, even billions climate change and food supply collapse will kill and displace. Almost Anything is preferable to that. Carpet nuking india would cause less (direct blast related) mortality.

Now, it would certainly be better if the developing world insisted on better safety standards and even basic environmental legislation. Hell, many western companies like Apple these days are insisting on some basic worker protection measures. But ultimately the governments of the developing world are sovereign powers, and because they control say, the supply of rare earth metals by way of being the place where the deposits exist, they have a certain amount of leverage. They can insist on better conditions. They dont. That is on them, not us. Different story in the textile industry of course, but that is not what we are discussing, now is it?

[mr friendly guy]

Alyrium, RE deposits aren't mainly found in the developing world. IIRC the US has similar amounts to China. Its just that China produced it really cheap at a time when RE weren't in that high demand allowing them to dominate the market.

[Simon_Jester]

Let's face it; most of the physical landmass in the world is located within the borders of countries that are either undeveloped, developing (like China) or are in a condition of economic disadvantage at present (arguably like Russia, though I imagine Stas would agree with me to a large extent if I blamed the oligarchs).

It stands to reason that most of the world's mineral resources are going to be located in those countries, because Mother Nature didn't care which landmasses would grow up to have rich apes on them when she laid down those deposits of lanthanide ores.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium, RE deposits aren't mainly found in the developing world. IIRC the US has similar amounts to China. Its just that China produced it really cheap at a time when RE weren't in that high demand allowing them to dominate the market.

I have a map of deposits. There is a difference between having deposits, and having deposits that are currently being exploited. Either way, the point stands. China is a sovereign power. They COULD institute better worker safety and environmental standards, and they can do so relatively cheaply compared to the US due to differences in purchasing power, labor costs, and the marginal value of any reforms (to use a humorous example of concept, it is much easier to design and build a vehicle, the steering wheel of which does not rise up and break the neck of its capitalist oppressor during a head on collision in china, than it is to design and build a car with crumple zones that decrease head on collision mortality by 1% in the US or Europe)

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe something gets lost in translation here, or perhaps there is something in there you consider implicit that I missed, but...what? Last I checked, the whole point of clean power is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Now, I will grant that dropping nuclear power means more fossil fuels in the short term, but saying that clean power advocates dont argue against fossil fuels is an inherent contradiction.

Clean power advocates focus on opposing nuclear (which is the cleanest of all conventional power sources) and in many countries they have achieved significant milestones in preventing nuclear power from becoming as widespread in at least electricity generation, as it is in France. In some nations they have either curtailed or downright destroyed the nuclear power programs. It means more fossil fuels period (not 'in the short term'), because even the most ambitious clean power goals for larger countries include 25-30% of the renewable-generated power. Correct me if I am wrong.

That depends on what time scale you are operating on. Five years? Probably. On the other hand, the poor countries are also going to suffer the most from climate change. By a considerable margin. By which I mean "hundreds of millions of sea-level-rise refugees and a collapse of the global food system that will hit them MUCH harder when food prices sky-rocket"

But you aren't getting even close to stopping climate change by dropping nuclear and spreading the nonsense ideas about clean power reducing fossil fuel consumption. If anything, you are accelerating it and also masking it behind a facade of 'cleanliness', under which bad things happen:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 288-3.html

It is unfortunate. But if you can think of a way to change it (Again, one that is attainable. Telling the developed world not to outsource their pollution is not attainable. Enforcing regulation on international corporations might be. Maybe.) by all means. Bitching about the evils of colonialism solves precisely nothing.

Well first of all when other countries place restrictions on Western companies that want to pollute, it creates a huge problem for the West since they are not prepared to dump their own shit in their own backyard. This then leads to accelerated lobbying on part of the West to dump industrial refuse elsewhere. That lobbying succeeds in part because the Third World elites are mostly too corrupt to stop this shit and cannot resist the enormous kickbacks they get for turning their countries into gigantic junkyards...

You act as if most rare earth metal deposits are in the developed world. They are not. Most are in the developing world, so the mining cannot exactly be shifted in a manner congruent with social justice. The refining MIGHT, but keep in mind, switching the developing world over to renewable energy sources is a medium term goal as well, so it is not as if they will not benefit from increased supply of the raw materials.

The developing world cannot fully 'switch to renewables', at best we are talking about goals even more modest than the goals for the First World which I outlined above. RE mining perhaps cannot be stopped, but social justice at least demands that the extracting country get more for it or some other form of increased compensation. You have Thanas arguing against that in this very thread.

Even if hundreds of thousands die from the side effects of mining and refining everything from rare earth minerals to uranium, it is better than the hundreds of millions, even billions climate change and food supply collapse will kill and displace. Almost Anything is preferable to that. Carpet nuking india would cause less (direct blast related) mortality.

You would have a point if the energy switch policy touted by the greens (which includes phase-out of nuclear power since political greens are mostly idiots) would decrease emissions. As practice shows, it does not. So what's the point? GW is pretty much unstoppable either way (unless we carpet-nuke the First World).

Now, it would certainly be better if the developing world insisted on better safety standards and even basic environmental legislation. Hell, many western companies like Apple these days are insisting on some basic worker protection measures. But ultimately the governments of the developing world are sovereign powers, and because they control say, the supply of rare earth metals by way of being the place where the deposits exist, they have a certain amount of leverage. They can insist on better conditions. They dont. That is on them, not us. Different story in the textile industry of course, but that is not what we are discussing, now is it?

But in this very thread I brought up some examples of regulation. Contrary to Thanas' insinuations that the RE export quotas in China are not pointing to an environmental issue, the same measures were coupled with a crackdown on RE smuggling (which is funding the dirtiest illegal mining operations) and, unsurprisingly, RE mining regulations that prohibited severe pollution. The regulations from 2010 are being upgraded now. Since the implementation of these regulations leads to liquidation of a great number of illegal or outdated mines, the RE production quotas have to be maintained and exports have to be controlled - otherwise more illegal operations will spring up to fill the demand. But what does the West do? Accuse China of not playing fair. Which may be true, but it is nonetheless for their own good. Mining in Australia, the US and Greenland is already being considered. So if more countries force the West to dig their resources elsewhere, they could limit pollution in their own nations. The US, on the other hand, is the only developed nation not to have ratified the Basel and Stockholm conventions - and I don't expect them to do it any time soon. Canada, that poster boy of 'US, but more like Europe', wants to continue exporting asbestos, a known deadly danger. What are you talking about exactly? 'They can insist on better conditions', sure, and they do, more and more as they realize just what exactly the costs are. This draws only ire and lobbying from the West, not understanding and support:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/basel-cn.htm

So please, guys. I know that the Third World elites are corrupt and easily drawn into agreements that allow developed nations to pollute not only during production, but also dump their shit - literally! - on the shores and lands of other countries. What you ignore is that many First World nations actively desire this, and have deliberately sought to sabotage critical pieces of international legislation meant to protect the Third World from becoming a dump for the First World, like the Basel convention and subsequent legislation arising from the utter failure of Basel to stop the dumping of toxic shit.

Here's some typical First Worlder logic:

The motivation for exporting hazardous waste to developing countries is primarily economic. Lawrence Summers, the former vice president and chief economist of the World Bank, is reported to have encouraged these exports.[17] Summers' wrote in an internal memorandum: 'I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that'.[18] The rationale for this statement was that any 'health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages'.[19] Although Summers and the World Bank have since retracted these statements[20], the economic incentives for exports of hazardous waste to developing countries are indisputable.

Some important reminders from the BAN:

The United States is the world's largest generator of hazardous wastes, accounting for almost three quarters of the world's annual production.

Like I said, you guys do look like the proverbial speck-searchers in the eyes of another. I'm sorry to say but so as long as OECD is the largest sole hazardous waste producer in the world, all and any measures to combat their influence over trade, extraction, processing and waste disposal are welcome. But a lot of it has to come from inside OECD. However, the green advocates have adopted a NIMBY attitude towards a global problem and de-facto facilitated acceleration of global warming due to their antinuclear stance, and turning Third World into a giant dump due to their complete indifference towards other nations being polluted so as long as their own cities and villages stay safe.

[madd0ct0r]

Stas, don't lump all green advocates in with those idiots please.

[Thanas]

And it is a pipedream to believe that states will just voluntarily stop unfair practices once they reach a certain level of wealth. This is not some huge western anti-colonial issue here. It is competition and fairness.

Well let's remember the Western states not only did not 'stop' unfair practices once they reached a certain level of wealth but also kept the entire world under their colonial rule. I'm sure you will just say that it doesn't matter now and everyone has to play by the rules even if these rules are clearly benefitting the already-wealthy at the expense of the upstarts.

I don't say anything. China was in the wrong, they accepted that. End of story. The rest are just tu-quoque fallacies mixed in with anti-colonial rants. I don't believe that past wrongs justify current wrongdoing.

[Aharon]

Clean power advocates focus on opposing nuclear (which is the cleanest of all conventional power sources) and in many countries they have achieved significant milestones in preventing nuclear power from becoming as widespread in at least electricity generation, as it is in France. In some nations they have either curtailed or downright destroyed the nuclear power programs. It means more fossil fuels period (not 'in the short term'), because even the most ambitious clean power goals for larger countries include 25-30% of the renewable-generated power. Correct me if I am wrong.

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

[Sky Captain]

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

Are those goals realistic or just some talk from politicians? Unless there are some real advances in storage systems it is just not possible to supply that much energy from solar and wind sources. Without surplus renewable energy storage a fossil fueled backup power plants are unavoidable unless blackouts become accpetable.

[madd0ct0r]

have you got a good source for that skycaptain?

[Aharon]

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

Are those goals realistic or just some talk from politicians? Unless there are some real advances in storage systems it is just not possible to supply that much energy from solar and wind sources. Without surplus renewable energy storage a fossil fueled backup power plants are unavoidable unless blackouts become accpetable.

The monetary incentives for investors to help accomplish those goals are certainly there. The ministry responsible for energy policy is aware of the storage problem at the working level - I don't know how far up this knowledge extends to the actual decisionmakers (our last minister, Peter Altmeier, was pretty clueless, his successor, Sigmar Gabriel, seems to be slightly better informed).

The current approach is not to rely on one storage method exclusively, but to combine several different ones (power to gas and biogas in conjunction with existing gas storage, better grid infrastructure partially obviating the need for storage, use of disused collieries for pumped-storage hydroelectricity). Up to now, the Energiewende went ahead largely as planned, the only stumbling block being the slower than planned extension of off-shore wind capabilities and the higher than expected financial costs, so as long as the costs don't make electricity to an extremely expensive commodity the working class can't afford any more, I think the further development will also go as planned.

[salm]

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

Are those goals realistic or just some talk from politicians? Unless there are some real advances in storage systems it is just not possible to supply that much energy from solar and wind sources. Without surplus renewable energy storage a fossil fueled backup power plants are unavoidable unless blackouts become accpetable.

If you create a demand for such storage systems (or any kind of technology) there´s a large incentive to develop them.

Isn´t it like this with most behemoth projects. You start somewhere and develop some of the required technology along the line.
If you started projects like this only if you had every single problem solved from the start you´d probably never start because the required tech will only be developed if somebody requires it badly enough.
It´s still possible to fail of course but if you don´t start at some point you´ll not even have the chance to succeed.

The time frame is, I guess, like in every project from small companies to international ones just some sort of more or less educated guess. Time frames estimated in the beginning never work out.

[K. A. Pital]

Clean power advocates focus on opposing nuclear (which is the cleanest of all conventional power sources) and in many countries they have achieved significant milestones in preventing nuclear power from becoming as widespread in at least electricity generation, as it is in France. In some nations they have either curtailed or downright destroyed the nuclear power programs. It means more fossil fuels period (not 'in the short term'), because even the most ambitious clean power goals for larger countries include 25-30% of the renewable-generated power. Correct me if I am wrong.

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

These figures are only for electricity, and even those are not what you say. I looked up the wiki article for Energiewende targets:
Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050

As one can see only 30 percent renewable energy by 2030. The '60 by 2050' depends critically on storage technology, so far it is old king coal rising again.

[Sky Captain]

If you create a demand for such storage systems (or any kind of technology) there´s a large incentive to develop them.

Problem is there already are probably multiple billions spent on developing effective grid level energy storage technology. Even without wind and solar energy a large scale energy storage system would be beneficial because it would allow to get rid of peak demand power plants potentially saving large amounts of money so there are large incentive to have storage systems even if grid is fully fossil fueled.
Currently only way how to store large amounts of energy is to collect water behind a dam to be released through turbines when demand is high and pumped back when there are surplus energy available, but that kind of system can be set up only in mountainous areas. And I bet if there were plans pushed to build the kind of reservoirs required to run large country for few days there would be NIMBY people screaming all over the place.

[Aharon]

Clean power advocates focus on opposing nuclear (which is the cleanest of all conventional power sources) and in many countries they have achieved significant milestones in preventing nuclear power from becoming as widespread in at least electricity generation, as it is in France. In some nations they have either curtailed or downright destroyed the nuclear power programs. It means more fossil fuels period (not 'in the short term'), because even the most ambitious clean power goals for larger countries include 25-30% of the renewable-generated power. Correct me if I am wrong.

How do you define "larger countries", and what timeframe are you looking at? The German goals are 40-45% in 2025, 55-60% in 2035 and 80% in 2050.

These figures are only for electricity, and even those are not what you say. I looked up the wiki article for Energiewende targets:
Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, and 80% by 2050
Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050

As one can see only 30 percent renewable energy by 2030. The '60 by 2050' depends critically on storage technology, so far it is old king coal rising again.

What you say is true, but up to now the whole thread has been about clean power in the form of those power sources that rely on rare earths (PV, Windpower, etc.), which you contrasted with nuclear power. Thus far, while it has not been explicitly stated, I think most participants of this discussions were talking about renewable electricity specifically, not about renewable energy in general. I conceed that the numbers I cited were for renewable electricity, which I thought we were discussing.

Concerning the goal of having 60% of the gross final consumption being produced by renewables: while it depends on technological advancement, it is still the stated goal - twice as ambitious as what you claimed to be the maximum.

[madd0ct0r]

funnily enough, if you try building a green energy pathway for the UK, the system dosen't bother with complex speculation on storage systems. It just builds gas plants that sit idle until that wintery day peak when we need them. If they're only running 6% of the time, but let you use renewables to cover demand the other 94%, that's a pretty good fucking system. Prepared to sacrifice effceincy? double the amount of gas stations and throw on CCS.

Go to http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk ... ergy_chart

Examples are in the top right corner, look at the friends of the earth one (loads of renewables, no nucelar, pretty extreme). Then go to the map tab to see how many gas stations would be added for backup generation

[Aharon]

Addendum:
Also, the numbers I quoted were the most recent ones from the coalition agreement of the SPD and the CDU. They are currently in the process of reforming the legislation on renewable energy, and the new law will very likely include those goals. (Only found it in german, unfortunately, the numbers I cited for 2025 and 2035 can be found on page 37: https://www.cdu.de/sites/default/files/ ... g.pdf).The 80% by 2050 is from the cabinet decision in 2011 (http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg ... _node.html).

[salm]

If you create a demand for such storage systems (or any kind of technology) there´s a large incentive to develop them.

Problem is there already are probably multiple billions spent on developing effective grid level energy storage technology. Even without wind and solar energy a large scale energy storage system would be beneficial because it would allow to get rid of peak demand power plants potentially saving large amounts of money so there are large incentive to have storage systems even if grid is fully fossil fueled.
Currently only way how to store large amounts of energy is to collect water behind a dam to be released through turbines when demand is high and pumped back when there are surplus energy available, but that kind of system can be set up only in mountainous areas. And I bet if there were plans pushed to build the kind of reservoirs required to run large country for few days there would be NIMBY people screaming all over the place.

I don´t see your problem. An energy storage sysem might be beneficial but not absolutely essential with conventional power. Since there are the NIMBYs, and we´ve got plenty of idiot NIMBYs who don´t like pump storages, you can really choose to not build storage systems if you´re using conventional energy. If you use solar and wind, though, you simply can not cater to the NIMBYs so the incentive to develop some type of storage is massively higher.

Like mentioned above you never start projects knowing how to solve every single problem. You develop solutions along the line. If you require solutions for everything beforehand you will never start any kind of project, neither large nor small.

[K. A. Pital]

What you say is true, but up to now the whole thread has been about clean power in the form of those power sources that rely on rare earths (PV, Windpower, etc.), which you contrasted with nuclear power. Thus far, while it has not been explicitly stated, I think most participants of this discussions were talking about renewable electricity specifically, not about renewable energy in general. I conceed that the numbers I cited were for renewable electricity, which I thought we were discussing.

Concerning the goal of having 60% of the gross final consumption being produced by renewables: while it depends on technological advancement, it is still the stated goal - twice as ambitious as what you claimed to be the maximum.

I do admit me being wrong, and that the long-term German goal is far more ambitious than I thought - it is also true that this goal has been re-stated in 2013, last year. It is actually interesting if such a result could be achieved in such a big nation - there's no doubt that smaller nations could get 100% renewable power using some geographical features (coastline, thermal sources, etc).