Climate Change(d)?

[Bomb#20]

Nuclear power does not really solve the basic issue. Increasing demand.

The text I had at the time said that given current demand and predicted growth there was enough fuel for about 700 years of nuclear power.

Estimates like that one are based on the rate at which fuel is consumed by "conventional" reactors, i.e., U-235 reactors. Natural uranium is less than one percent U-235; conventional reactors simply throw away the other 99%. If the public can be persuaded to switch to nuclear power, then sooner or later the electrical utilities will need to switch to U-238 reactors, i.e., "fast-breeder" reactors. Then current reserves will last many thousands of years. And we already know how to build fast-breeder reactors; we've been building them since the 1940s for specialized purposes. We currently use conventional reactors for power generation because uranium is so plentiful we don't need to use it efficiently.

 

[Swammerdami]

I really do not have a dog in this debate. If I seem anti-nuclear that's just in response to what I see as excessive glibness by the pro-nuke folk here. I'd just like to understand some of the numbers. (For example, I'm still curious about the very high 12.5% discount rate on nuclear plant capital costs.)

Some of the arguments in the thread seem circular. Nuclear power is very safe, but costs much more than it should. And that high price? It's due to the safety! Are some of the safety systems unnecessary? Surely. But waving a magic wand to get rid of "unnecessary" safety features, while keeping the good ones is easier said than done. Building containment structures strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a 747 airliner seems extravagant to me; should that requirement be reduced? Even if another Al-Qaeda stunt is unlikely in the immediate future, how long does the containment need to endure?

Part of the high cost of nuclear power is a sort of "tax" to afford radioactive waste disposal. But in fact, waste disposal is on hold. Do nuclear advocates see that as a problem?

Mention of "construction days" confused me, until I realized the reference was to labor costs. We had that discussion before. Converting all costs to dollars seems simplest. But in fact, if two alternatives cost the same but one has a higher labor component and the other a higher material component, the higher labor product may be preferable!

Someone posted a cost figure based on the assumption that 100% of their power came from a lithium battery. Maybe they should do some of their chores in the daytime?

Should the world really want hydrogen-fueled automobiles or not? I dunno, but if that is the future won't electrolysis be a good way to utilize off-peak electricity? (And if electric cars are the future, charging is a good way to spend off-peak electricity.) I suppose the ridiculously low numbers on this page — $1.80/kg for Compressed Electrolyses — are false, but the actual cost of hydrogen fuel and its future projections would be more pertinent than generalities about "engineering challenges." (Didn't one Infidel brag in another thread that mankind could easily produce any material needed except helium?)

I hope the experts can put this 2018 article in perspective for me.

Median wind-plus-storage bids came in even lower, at $21 per megawatt-hour.

That's just $0.021 per kWh if my arithmetic is correct. How does that compare with the cost of nuclear power?

 

[Bomb#20]

Some of the arguments in the thread seem circular. Nuclear power is very safe, but costs much more than it should. And that high price? It's due to the safety! Are some of the safety systems unnecessary? Surely. But waving a magic wand to get rid of "unnecessary" safety features, while keeping the good ones is easier said than done. Building containment structures strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a 747 airliner seems extravagant to me; should that requirement be reduced? Even if another Al-Qaeda stunt is unlikely in the immediate future, how long does the containment need to endure?

Good questions all; and I don't object to expensive safety measures provided they actually contribute to net* safety. What it costs to produce electricity safely is what we should expect to pay for it. People need to internalize their externalities and pay the lifecycle costs of their consumption, which include the waste disposal costs and the insurance costs. But the point is, nobody is making nuclear power's competitors pay their full lifecycle costs. The hazards of renewables and fossil fuels, especially coal, are just freely pushed onto the public. The folks who lived and died downstream from the Banqiao dam weren't paid for the risk they were forced to take. It's only nuclear power that has to make its ratepayers pay the full cost of their electricity. If we had a carbon tax that covered the cost to us all of smog and global warming, and if we took the other measures that would be needed to make renewable energy sources, as it were, police their brass, then nuclear power would not seem so comparatively expensive.

(* You have to account for opportunity costs -- when you spend a hundred million dollars on a safety measure that can be expected to prevent one death, you're killing people, because adding those resources to the economy at random will save more than one expected life.)

Part of the high cost of nuclear power is a sort of "tax" to afford radioactive waste disposal. But in fact, waste disposal is on hold. Do nuclear advocates see that as a problem?

It's a problem, yes, but it's a much bigger problem than it needs to be. It's a consequence of the choice to use conventional reactors instead of fast-breeder reactors. Nuclear waste stays dangerous for a long time because 99% of the available energy is still in it. When we transition to fast-breeders the total radioactivity of reaction products per terawatt-hour will go down by a huge fraction so disposal will get a lot cheaper.

Your other questions I'll have to leave to someone more knowledgeable.

 

[Elixir]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood the direction of your sarcasm then, sorry. I'm not sure I get the point about self-destruction, though.

No worries. Just surmising that if we don't get a handle on either population increase or energy production, we (actually, you or your children; I won't live that long) are likely to render this planet unable to sustain billions of people.

 

[bilby]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood the direction of your sarcasm then, sorry. I'm not sure I get the point about self-destruction, though.

No worries. Just surmising that if we don't get a handle on either population increase or energy production, we (actually, you or your children; I won't live that long) are likely to render this planet unable to sustain billions of people.

Population increase has been solved. We got a handle on it when we invented the oral contraceptive - putting contraception into the control of women, and removing the decision about its use from the 'heat of the moment', had the effect of reducing reproductive rates to below replacement levels wherever it was made available at an affordable price, with the exception of areas with high religiosity and low or nonexistent levels of primary education for girls. Basically the only problem we have remaining is that many people hold the counter factual belief that contraception is evil.

Population growth continues today (at greatly reduced rates) only because of 'demographic lag' - the number of women able to have children is determined not by today's birth rates, but by those at the time in the past when those women were born, so gross population continues to increase for a few decades after the birth rate falls below replacement rate.

We also have a handle on energy production, with the invention of nuclear power. It's clean, safe, efficient, and does almost no harm to the environment. It's fuel is effectively inexhaustible. Like contraception, the only serious barrier to our using the technology to completely solve the problem is that lots of people have a counter factual belief that it is evil.

So neither of your problems require further technical solutions; Both are solved problems. The failure of humanity to implement these solutions is entirely down to our tendency to cling to falsehoods and outdated beliefs (another example of an outdated belief is "there is a population problem which we must urgently address" - that was true in the first half of the C20th, but hasn't been true since the 1980s, when the full impact of the invention of the oral contraceptive in the 1960s became apparent).

When you understand why you STILL believe in the urgency of a problem that was demonstrated to have been solved thirty odd years ago, you will begin to understand why we still have a problem with carbon dioxide emissions. It's not a technical or scientific problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Nuclear power does not really solve the basic issue. Increasing demand.

The text I had at the time said that given current demand and predicted growth there was enough fuel for about 700 years of nuclear power.

Estimates like that one are based on the rate at which fuel is consumed by "conventional" reactors, i.e., U-235 reactors. Natural uranium is less than one percent U-235; conventional reactors simply throw away the other 99%. If the public can be persuaded to switch to nuclear power, then sooner or later the electrical utilities will need to switch to U-238 reactors, i.e., "fast-breeder" reactors. Then current reserves will last many thousands of years. And we already know how to build fast-breeder reactors; we've been building them since the 1940s for specialized purposes. We currently use conventional reactors for power generation because uranium is so plentiful we don't need to use it efficiently.

IMO this kind of response is hand waving and avoiding the basic question, what is a sustainable human population?

We are already seeing increasing deaths from drought and climate change. When I was younger I would never have used the yerm decadence to describe American culture, Today I do. What is going to get us is ever increasing gratifications of all kinds requiring more energy.

Computers, gadgets and especciay server farms are driving deman. Back in the 90s all those battery charers actualy became a propem. They draw current ebem when not connected ot not charging. Standards were developed requiring maxim idle currents and minimum efficiencies.

The idea that the entire world is going to become the equivalent of wetern middle class consumption is gatasy, yet it is the underlying basis of out=r foreign policy. Spreading democracy and free choice is about opening free markets to create consumption. It has always been that way.

Free trade and increasing consumption to create return on investment goes back to early civilizations.

We need a 'patadaigm shift'.

 

[Elixir]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood the direction of your sarcasm then, sorry. I'm not sure I get the point about self-destruction, though.

No worries. Just surmising that if we don't get a handle on either population increase or energy production, we (actually, you or your children; I won't live that long) are likely to render this planet unable to sustain billions of people.

Population increase has been solved. We got a handle on it when we invented the oral contraceptive - putting contraception into the control of women, and removing the decision about its use from the 'heat of the moment', had the effect of reducing reproductive rates to below replacement levels wherever it was made available at an affordable price, with the exception of areas with high religiosity and low or nonexistent levels of primary education for girls. Basically the only problem we have remaining is that many people hold the counter factual belief that contraception is evil.

Population growth continues today (at greatly reduced rates) only because of 'demographic lag' - the number of women able to have children is determined not by today's birth rates, but by those at the time in the past when those women were born, so gross population continues to increase for a few decades after the birth rate falls below replacement rate.

We also have a handle on energy production, with the invention of nuclear power. It's clean, safe, efficient, and does almost no harm to the environment. It's fuel is effectively inexhaustible. Like contraception, the only serious barrier to our using the technology to completely solve the problem is that lots of people have a counter factual belief that it is evil.

So neither of your problems require further technical solutions; Both are solved problems. The failure of humanity to implement these solutions is entirely down to our tendency to cling to falsehoods and outdated beliefs (another example of an outdated belief is "there is a population problem which we must urgently address" - that was true in the first half of the C20th, but hasn't been true since the 1980s, when the full impact of the invention of the oral contraceptive in the 1960s became apparent).

When you understand why you STILL believe in the urgency of a problem that was demonstrated to have been solved thirty odd years ago, you will begin to understand why we still have a problem with carbon dioxide emissions. It's not a technical or scientific problem.

Outcomes from lack of solutions are generally indistinguishable from outcomes from failure to implement solutions.
We had solutions in the 1950s that could have prevented most of the famines and plagues that have ravaged the world since then. “Get a handle” would mean either implementing or obviating the solutions we have in hand.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood the direction of your sarcasm then, sorry. I'm not sure I get the point about self-destruction, though.

No worries. Just surmising that if we don't get a handle on either population increase or energy production, we (actually, you or your children; I won't live that long) are likely to render this planet unable to sustain billions of people.

Okay, then I disagree with that; I mean, I won't live that long either and have no children, but I mean that's not going to happen. By what mechanism do you think that that could happen?

 

[Elixir]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood the direction of your sarcasm then, sorry. I'm not sure I get the point about self-destruction, though.

No worries. Just surmising that if we don't get a handle on either population increase or energy production, we (actually, you or your children; I won't live that long) are likely to render this planet unable to sustain billions of people.

Okay, then I disagree with that; I mean, I won't live that long either and have no children, but I mean that's not going to happen. By what mechanism do you think that that could happen?

Too many things to mention. Loss of biodiversity would be my best guess over hundreds of years to come. Risk categories however, include biological, geological, climatic, physical and even cosmic hazards for which a species intelligent enough to recognize them should be able to prepare. Species don't last terribly long in general, but intelligence might be the most lethal mutation of all. Or it might let HSS set some endurance record, at least for large mammals. We'd have a long way to go, depending on how far back you want to go referring to "us".
Right now, HSS is hardly even a blip on the planet's biohistory, just another mass extinction event yielding an ever widening niche for one single species. Doesn't seem sustainable to me.

 

[bilby]

intelligence might be the most lethal mutation of all

Sure. I mean, so far it's caused us nothing but the ability to occupy most of the land area of the planet; to eliminate famine; eradicate a couple of deadly diseases and massively reduce the incidence and impact of most others; Transport materials around the world so cheaply that it's viable to eat fresh fruit and vegetables all year round almost anywhere on the planet; massively reduce infant mortality and massively increase life-spans; halt population growth; and generate effectively limitless energy cleanly and safely.

What a disaster.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Too many things to mention. Loss of biodiversity would be my best guess over hundreds of years to come. Risk categories however, include biological, geological, climatic, physical and even cosmic hazards for which a species intelligent enough to recognize them should be able to prepare. Species don't last terribly long in general, but intelligence might be the most lethal mutation of all. Or it might let HSS set some endurance record, at least for large mammals. We'd have a long way to go, depending on how far back you want to go referring to "us".

It's hard to pinpoint the argument, but let me comment on some of the points:

a. Loss of biodiversity.

Humans are omnivores and do not need any specific food items. Humans eat rice, wheat, soy, corn, potatoes, pumpkins, apples, bananas, etc., as well as all sorts of meat (insects if needed, too). There are more than enough things on the list (more on the long one, the etc.) to keep a large population (i.e., billions) going.

b. Climate change:

1. Some areas will become less suitable for humans (and/or some the things humans eat), but others will become more so - probably much of Canada, Russia, Patagonia, probably the north of Europe and the US, etc. Why can't billions live there? There seems to be no obstacle (the transition can be pretty lethal, but that's another matter).

2. There is also the possibility of genetic engineering to make crops more resistant to droughts, heat, etc., and that's just counting only gradual improvement of our tech.


c. Geological.

1. That is not something our successors are in any way likely to do to the planet, and we're talking about how they could render the planet uninhabitable for billions; more precisely, we're talking about what will happen if we do not get a handle on either population increase or energy production.

2. Even then, a supervolcano eruption would not prevent billions of people from living on the planet. And that or something worse will very likely take so long to happen that it will encounter post-humans with super-advance mitigation technologies, unless something else destroys humans before.

d. Cosmic hazards.

1. That is not something our successors are in any way likely to do to the planet, and in any case it is very probable unrelated to population increase or energy production.

2. Actually, human action will almost certainly mitigate cosmic hazards in a massive way, protecting the rest of the biosphere as well. For example, when it comes to asteroids, I can't rule out a city killer, but a planet killer is so rare that it won't get here before whoever inhabits the planet can easily detect it and divert it. So, that won't happen.

e. Biological hazards.

This one can be pretty lethal. However:

a. If you want to make it lethal enough to threaten extinction, it's going to have to be a weapon or combination of them. But that's not a result of not getting a handle of energy production or population increase.

b. If you don't want something that threatens extinction, it's not the sort of thing that limits the numbers to less than billions. For example, if millions can live with a virus, chances are so can billions - if no one else, the descendants of the millions who got immunity, either natural or by vaccines.

f. Physical hazards.

I'm not sure what you mean by that (but non-physical hazards might do it...just think of all those ghosts, demons and other angels bringing about the apocalypse. ).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Too many things to mention. Loss of biodiversity would be my best guess over hundreds of years to come. Risk categories however, include biological, geological, climatic, physical and even cosmic hazards for which a species intelligent enough to recognize them should be able to prepare. Species don't last terribly long in general, but intelligence might be the most lethal mutation of all. Or it might let HSS set some endurance record, at least for large mammals. We'd have a long way to go, depending on how far back you want to go referring to "us".

It's hard to pinpoint the argument, but let me comment on some of the points:

a. Loss of biodiversity.

Humans are omnivores and do not need any specific food items. Humans eat rice, wheat, soy, corn, potatoes, pumpkins, apples, bananas, etc., as well as all sorts of meat (insects if needed, too). There are more than enough things on the list (more on the long one, the etc.) to keep a large population (i.e., billions) going.

b. Climate change:

1. Some areas will become less suitable for humans (and/or some the things humans eat), but others will become more so - probably much of Canada, Russia, Patagonia, probably the north of Europe and the US, etc. Why can't billions live there? There seems to be no obstacle (the transition can be pretty lethal, but that's another matter).

2. There is also the possibility of genetic engineering to make crops more resistant to droughts, heat, etc., and that's just counting only gradual improvement of our tech.


c. Geological.

1. That is not something our successors are in any way likely to do to the planet, and we're talking about how they could render the planet uninhabitable for billions; more precisely, we're talking about what will happen if we do not get a handle on either population increase or energy production.

2. Even then, a supervolcano eruption would not prevent billions of people from living on the planet. And that or something worse will very likely take so long to happen that it will encounter post-humans with super-advance mitigation technologies, unless something else destroys humans before.

d. Cosmic hazards.

1. That is not something our successors are in any way likely to do to the planet, and in any case it is very probable unrelated to population increase or energy production.

2. Actually, human action will almost certainly mitigate cosmic hazards in a massive way, protecting the rest of the biosphere as well. For example, when it comes to asteroids, I can't rule out a city killer, but a planet killer is so rare that it won't get here before whoever inhabits the planet can easily detect it and divert it. So, that won't happen.

e. Biological hazards.

This one can be pretty lethal. However:

a. If you want to make it lethal enough to threaten extinction, it's going to have to be a weapon or combination of them. But that's not a result of not getting a handle of energy production or population increase.

b. If you don't want something that threatens extinction, it's not the sort of thing that limits the numbers to less than billions. For example, if millions can live with a virus, chances are so can billions - if no one else, the descendants of the millions who got immunity, either natural or by vaccines.

f. Physical hazards.

I'm not sure what you mean by that (but non-physical hazards might do it...just think of all those ghosts, demons and other angels bringing about the apocalypse. ).

And to add a point: it's extremely improbable that a non-engineered bug would only leave millions of survivors on the planet.

 

[steve_bank]

It appears Angra is saying with climate change there will be winners and losers? Sounds like a true conservative capitalist. He is actualy sounding a bit like Hannity and Carlson on FOX News.

We are at the start of a l;age scale biodiversity loss with unpredictable results. The diseae attacking bee hives was actauly a threat to both agriculture and natural plant life.

The loss the ocean nurseries erpresented by the loss of coral reefs affects all life in the ocean. The ocean dies and we die.

 

[Elixir]

intelligence might be the most lethal mutation of all

Sure. I mean, so far it's caused us nothing but the ability to occupy most of the land area of the planet; to eliminate famine; eradicate a couple of deadly diseases and massively reduce the incidence and impact of most others; Transport materials around the world so cheaply that it's viable to eat fresh fruit and vegetables all year round almost anywhere on the planet; massively reduce infant mortality and massively increase life-spans; halt population growth; and generate effectively limitless energy cleanly and safely.

What a disaster.

Yeah, a really good 20-100 thousand year run so far. A geological blink of an eye. But we've only very recently (~last 100 yrs - a geological nanosecond) reached the point where we can drastically alter the planet's carrying capacity.

We are at the start of a l;age scale biodiversity loss with unpredictable results. The diseae attacking bee hives was actauly a threat to both agriculture and natural plant life.
...
The loss the ocean nurseries erpresented by the loss of coral reefs affects all life in the ocean. The ocean dies and we die.

All true. The "unpredictable results" part is what I find most disturbing, in light of the fact that historically, "unpredictable results" include a lot of extinctions. I agree with a lot of bilby's positions, but on this I find his cocksure anthropocentrism very suspect. And I don't even think the direct biological front is where HSS is most likely to lose the battle for survival.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We are at the start of a l;age scale biodiversity loss with unpredictable results.

Humans perceive themselves as separate from all that natural bullshit. If it's too hot just turn on the AC. And there are those that just don't give a shit.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It appears Angra is saying with climate change there will be winners and losers? Sounds like a true conservative capitalist. He is actualy sounding a bit like Hannity and Carlson on FOX News.

First, no, it does not appear that. It appears to you, but I did not say or suggested that.

Second, since you mention it, obviously there will be winners and losers. Mostly losers.

Third, can you give me a link to the videos or transcripts where they sound like me? Because that would mean that Hannity and Carlson are a bit right.

We are at the start of a l;age scale biodiversity loss with unpredictable results. The diseae attacking bee hives was actauly a threat to both agriculture and natural plant life.

Where? Which disease? Do you have a link, evidence of some sort, beyond some declines of some bee species in some parts of the world?

The loss the ocean nurseries erpresented by the loss of coral reefs affects all life in the ocean. The ocean dies and we die.

The ocean does not die. Many species in the ocean die. And humans keep going, since humans do not need them to live. Otherwise, can you provide a mechanism by which humans die out?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The ocean does not die. Many species in the ocean die. And humans keep going, since humans do not need them to live. Otherwise, can you provide a mechanism by which humans die out?

Humans are not going to die out because of climate change. People who make that claim are off their coconuts. The issue is not extinction but rather the quality of life, the quality of that existence going forward, its richness in terms of biodiversity, opportunity and discovery.

Of course oceans do not die, that statement was hyperbole. But oceans and shorelines can lose their richness and become polluted as they have certainly become today. The problem is that those polluted conditions have become normalized. People don't even know what they've lost, they don't even know they are poorer.

But the primary problem is that not enough people care about such things, care about preserving a clean environment, are willing to pay the price to preserve it and improve it for future generations. It's a kind of sickliness that doesn't threaten survival, it just leaves that survival less wholesome. Trees are meant to be cut for human use. Only kooks want to preserve some old growth forest so we can still enjoy ivory billed woodpeckers. That's the problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Were failing the Darwin Test, our big brains, manual dexterity, and language allows us to craetae things we can not control. The environment us in the process of deselecting us.

I would say nuclear war is inevitable. Food and resources.


It is pure ignorance. I will leave to Angra to do his won homework and find out where the O2 he breathes comes from, along with rhe ocean's part in the carbon cycle.

Plankton is at the very bottom of life on the panet, it is no exageration.

 

[bilby]

I would say nuclear war is inevitable.

Yes, but that's because your political beliefs don't incorporate anything that has happened since you were a young man, so you sustain the conclusions you reached in the Cold War, despite its having been over for thirty years.

All of your positions would be comfortably mainstream in 1970. But a few things have changed in the half century that you have spent fossilising your conservatism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Humans are not going to die out because of climate change. People who make that claim are off their coconuts.

But I was not taking issue with your claims there.

The issue is not extinction but rather the quality of life, the quality of that existence going forward, its richness in terms of biodiversity, opportunity and discovery.

I agree the issue is quality of life...though I do not think those are the main problems involved. In any case, I was responding to steve's claims.

Of course oceans do not die, that statement was hyperbole. But oceans and shorelines can lose their richness and become polluted as they have certainly become today. The problem is that those polluted conditions have become normalized. People don't even know what they've lost, they don't even know they are poorer.

Hmm...I'm not sure how much of a hyperbole it was - he seems to be talking about a risk of humans dying out. If I misunderstand, alright that's much better. But I'm not convinced I misunderstand.