A number I'd like to know...



Brent Hugh wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:<[email protected]>...
::: Sheldon Brown wrote:
::::: Suppose that bicycles were totally banned, and that every mile of
::::: bicycle travel was then replaced by an automobile trip.
:::::
::::: How many additional gallons of gasoline per day or per year would
::::: then be consumed?
:::::
::::: Anybody have a reasonable estimate?
:::
::: In my case, zero. I don't ride my bike as a replacement for
::: driving my car. Bike riding, for me, is for fun and fitness.
:::
::: So, likely, to get reasonable numbers, you'd have to look at those
::: who commute by bike, not recreational folks are racers.
::
:: I don't think most people have thought this through very carefully.
::
:: Take yourself for instance. If you were not riding your bike for that
:: amount of time every day, you would be doing SOMETHING for that same
:: amount of time.

Yes, probably so. For example, my attendance at the movies has dropped off.
Lots of movies that would have normally seen at the theater I now see at
home on DVD - if I see them at all.

::
:: As others have mentioned, you might go to the gym as a replacement.
:: But let's say you decide to give up exercising altogether. So now
:: what are you doing during that time? Shopping, running errands,
:: visiting friends or family, taking kids to soccer or music lessons,
:: watching TV, gardening, ... ?

I don't cut my grass anymore, and I don't do my deck gardening anymore.
Also, I don't make as many trips to Walmart and other places in search of
stuff for the deck and lawn. All of that time has gone into bicycling...So,
at least in my case, you're right. My driving would go up if I didn't
devote so much time to riding the bike.

::
:: Notice how many of those activities are likely to involve driving.
:: It's just a fact that the average American's free time includes a lot
:: of automobile driving. So on average, less recreational bicycling
:: equals more free time equals more driving.

Right.

::
:: Of course, *how much* more driving, and whether on average additional
:: driving mileage would equal the bicycling mileage is a more difficult
:: question.
::
:: --Brent
::
:: bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
 
Peter Cole wrote:
>
> "gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > I brought up no value judgements ("wasting it") about energy use -- you
> did.
> > The value judgement has zero effect on the material idea, since it makes
> no
> > value judgement about particular usage. Moreover, no statement was made
> that
> > energy shouldn't be "saved" or "conserved" locally. In fact, I wrote
> that it
> > was a good idea. The question is whether it "saves" in the aggregate: it
> > doesn't, all other things equal.
>
> > A more fuel efficient car allows someone to commute further to work.
>
> Etc., etc.
>
> Supply and demand can be regulated by pricing. If energy is conserved, it
> becomes less of a factor in overall costs, so it may stimulate that
> particular activity, true. But (and this is a very important yet very
> simple "but"), the government can control price via taxes, in effect
> offsetting the otherwise increased demand. This is common policy in Europe.
> It's then possible (at least in theory) for the government to stabilize
> prices in the face of production fluctuations by modulating the tax. This
> is really what our government does with certain agricultural commodities.
> Additionally, the taxes can be used to ameliorate side effects of the
> activity where social costs wouldn't normally be captured by the market
> valuations. Obviously, government market regulation is mostly local in
> effect (excluding tariffs), although there are global ripples. To the
> extent we all live on the same planet, impacts of some activities cannot be
> limited to local scope. Fairness would argue for some global policies for
> resource conservation, allocation, and pricing. Conservation need not be a
> zero sum (or worse) game. It's all a matter of policy. To argue that all
> conservation is pointless, or counter-productive, is simplistic and wrong.

Uhhmm, I wrote nothing of the kind -- actually I wrote that local conservation
is good. I practice what I preach: I ride my bike to work; my car gets 50 mpg;
my domicile is loaded with compact fluorescents. Please do not grossly distort
what I wrote.

Local conservation != global conservation

That's all.

> Putting value judgments on conservation is tricky only because there is no
> universal set of values. Reasonable people may well disagree on how much
> open space, clean air, or rain forest we really need. Likewise, some may be
> less risk-averse than others when it comes to short-term market
> fluctuations. When it comes to energy use however, conservation would help
> stability, particularly if coupled with government price controls. There's
> no free lunch, though. Those stabilizing factors would have an economic
> cost. Without market controls, you're right, an individual farmer choosing
> to plant fewer soybeans just allows another farmer to plant more; a cyclist
> not burning gas, just allows another citizen to burn more. Although this is
> not quite the "efficiency" argument you cite (so it can't be worse than
> zero sum), it does show that conservation without market intervention would
> be ineffective. Market regulation has always been about trading off
> fairness and risk against the costs of doing so. The goal is finding the
> happy balance. Nothing new here.

What is not new is you completely missed the point and the argument -- just like
every other responder to date. You went off on a tangent. How tax dollars
lighting up a government office space (or fill in the blank) can "save" more
energy that buring it up in my car or a Chinese coal plant remains unexplained
and basically ignored, because to consider it would force a change of beliefs.
Just because a politician (or bureaucrat with vested interest) states that a
policy has "such and such intent/goal," does not mean the goal is achieved.
 
Brent Hugh wrote:
>
> gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm thinking there is a number that might be useful to cycling
> > > advocates,...
> >
> > In what way? *Most* folks have mistaken ideas about energy conservation, if
> > that is the concern. It is an economic fallacy that local conservation leads to
> > conservation in the whole (aggregate).
>
> Well then, let's try asking a question that an economist would love .

<snip>

That was all irrelevent junk. I made no statements about "discouragement" of
bicycling or "unfairness" of tax dollar allocation. I would tend to agree with
you. But it as zero to do with what I wrote.
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:

> Show me these commercial breeder reactors, providing electricity. We
> need dozens of them going online RIGHT NOW. Where are they? Are they in
> the future, after the downturn? Do they exist now? Are they just a
> dream? Where are they?

There is a widespread knee jerk reaction to fission power -- so *politically* it
remains untenable in the USA. We can't even get any new conventional reactors
online, so naturally breeder reactors are out of the question until people
become aware of what the true costs of their political ideals regarding energy
are costing them.


"Most nuclear power plants today use enriched uranium in which the concentration
of U-235 is increased from 0.7 percent U-235 to (nowadays) about 4 to 5 percent
U-235. This is done in an expensive separation plant of which there are several
kinds. The U-238 "tails" are left over for eventual use in "breeder reactors".
The Canadian CANDU reactors don't require enriched fuel, but since they use
expensive heavy water instead of ordinary water, their energy cost is about the
same....

For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the
U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years.
Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder reactors, we can have plenty of energy
for some billions of year....


Q. What about breeder reactors?

A. If the reactor design is much more economical of neutrons, enough U-238 can
be converted to plutonium so that after a fuel cycle there is more fissionable
material than there was in the original fuel rods in the reactor. Such a design
is called a breeder reactor. Breeder reactors essentially use U-238 as fuel, and
there is 140 times as much of it as there is U-235. The billion year estimates
for fuel resources depend on breeder reactors. The French built two of them, the
U.S. has a small one, the British built one, the Russians built one and the
Japanese are building one.

Breeder reactors seem to be a resource rather than a reserve. They are more
expensive than present reactors and maybe will wait for large scale deployment
until uranium gets more expensive. This is unlikely to be soon, because large
uranium reserves have been discovered in recent years."

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html


So we don't really "need" them yet, but they are available. We could put more
conventional reactors online. Whatever... it doesn't really matter. More
nuclear power is going online sooner or later. It is a matter of how much pain
(and for how long) the public is willing to accept before they take Doctor
Phil's advice and "get real." The sooner the plants go online is the sooner all
that oil and coal gets left in the ground, and the atmosphere does not have to
absorb greenhouse gases.


> And you're promoting a fanatastic Sci-Fi solution that no one has had
> success in making work yet.

Hardly. I'm not the one who starts with the Sci-Fi doomsday scenarios -- that
is the domain of those who start their Malthusian public policy discussion with
the "depletion of fossil fuels" argument. My concerns are based on reality --
that's why people hate it and react viscerally.

Not one responder has yet dealt with the macroeconomic argument I put forth. If
you all just close your eyes, maybe it will go away and all your dreams will
come true. This "number Sheldon would like to know" is a mirage. I can
appreciate the interest and concern, but know that if rbr posters can't come an
answer to the "Air Pressure" post, how can they propose to come up with an
answer to a question that is many orders of magnitude more difficult, if even
possible at all. Know that any answers presented here will invariably be wrong,
and quite badly at that.
 
gwhite wrote:

>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>gwhite wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Show me these commercial breeder reactors, providing electricity. We
>>need dozens of them going online RIGHT NOW. Where are they? Are they in
>>the future, after the downturn? Do they exist now? Are they just a
>>dream? Where are they?
>>
>>
>
>There is a widespread knee jerk reaction to fission power -- so *politically* it
>remains untenable in the USA. We can't even get any new conventional reactors
>online, so naturally breeder reactors are out of the question until people
>become aware of what the true costs of their political ideals regarding energy
>are costing them.
>
>
>"Most nuclear power plants today use enriched uranium in which the concentration
>of U-235 is increased from 0.7 percent U-235 to (nowadays) about 4 to 5 percent
>U-235. This is done in an expensive separation plant of which there are several
>kinds. The U-238 "tails" are left over for eventual use in "breeder reactors".
>The Canadian CANDU reactors don't require enriched fuel, but since they use
>expensive heavy water instead of ordinary water, their energy cost is about the
>same....
>
>For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the
>U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years.
>Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder reactors, we can have plenty of energy
>for some billions of year....
>
>
>Q. What about breeder reactors?
>
>A. If the reactor design is much more economical of neutrons, enough U-238 can
>be converted to plutonium so that after a fuel cycle there is more fissionable
>material than there was in the original fuel rods in the reactor. Such a design
>is called a breeder reactor. Breeder reactors essentially use U-238 as fuel, and
>there is 140 times as much of it as there is U-235. The billion year estimates
>for fuel resources depend on breeder reactors. The French built two of them, the
>U.S. has a small one, the British built one, the Russians built one and the
>Japanese are building one.
>
>Breeder reactors seem to be a resource rather than a reserve. They are more
>expensive than present reactors and maybe will wait for large scale deployment
>until uranium gets more expensive. This is unlikely to be soon, because large
>uranium reserves have been discovered in recent years."
>
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
>
>
>So we don't really "need" them yet, but they are available. We could put more
>conventional reactors online. Whatever... it doesn't really matter. More
>nuclear power is going online sooner or later. It is a matter of how much pain
>(and for how long) the public is willing to accept before they take Doctor
>Phil's advice and "get real." The sooner the plants go online is the sooner all
>that oil and coal gets left in the ground, and the atmosphere does not have to
>absorb greenhouse gases.
>
>
>
>
>>And you're promoting a fanatastic Sci-Fi solution that no one has had
>>success in making work yet.
>>
>>
>
>Hardly. I'm not the one who starts with the Sci-Fi doomsday scenarios -- that
>is the domain of those who start their Malthusian public policy discussion with
>the "depletion of fossil fuels" argument. My concerns are based on reality --
>that's why people hate it and react viscerally.
>
>Not one responder has yet dealt with the macroeconomic argument I put forth. If
>you all just close your eyes, maybe it will go away and all your dreams will
>come true. This "number Sheldon would like to know" is a mirage. I can
>appreciate the interest and concern, but know that if rbr posters can't come an
>answer to the "Air Pressure" post, how can they propose to come up with an
>answer to a question that is many orders of magnitude more difficult, if even
>possible at all. Know that any answers presented here will invariably be wrong,
>and quite badly at that.
>

Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
year when?

Jack Dingler
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:
>

> >The French built two of them, the
> >U.S. has a small one, the British built one, the Russians built one and the
> >Japanese are building one.

> >http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

> Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
> up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
> year when?

So you didn't read the quote or the link. What more needs to be said?
Conventional reactors are, of course, available too. Again, the problem is
political, not technical.
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
> Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
> up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
> year when?

When people stop protesting and blockading nuclear facilities?
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Brent Hugh wrote:
> > gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > > > I'm thinking there is a number that might be useful to cycling
> > > > advocates,...
> > > In what way? *Most* folks have mistaken ideas about energy conservation, if
> > > that is the concern. It is an economic fallacy that local conservation leads to
> > > conservation in the whole (aggregate).
> > Well then, let's try asking a question that an economist would love .
> <snip>
> That was all irrelevent junk. I made no statements about "discouragement" of
> bicycling or "unfairness" of tax dollar allocation. I would tend to agree with
> you. But it as zero to do with what I wrote.

I'm sorry to discover that you are full of facts but sadly lacking in
imagination, Mr. White. Maybe you need to get out and ride more?
Give your mind some free play time?

You objected to the premise of Mr. Brown's original question (how much
gas/oil is saved by bicycle riding) because conservation doesn't save
energy, it wastes it blahblahblah economic fallacy blahblahblah.

So I responded by rephrasing Mr. Brown's question in terms that ought
to be more familiar to a grand macroeconomic thinker like yourself.
That is to say, instead of asking how much oil is SAVED by the present
amount of bicycling in the U.S., I asked the converse:

How much oil is WASTED by the present policies that artificially make
driving seem inexpensive to the end user and thus encourage driving
and discourage bicycling, walking, transit use, and other
alternatives?

I'm sorry that I didn't tackle breeder reactors and all the other
blahblahblah that is such an important part of this thread now, but in
fact this new question goes right to the heart of Mr. Brown's original
question and, specifically, your objection to it.

In fact thinking about it this way shows very clearly that bicycling
(and walking, transit, etc.) could indeed save a *substantial*
percentage of the energy the U.S. presently uses for transportation,
if only we would abandon the present muddle-headed economic policies
that prevent these modes from assuming their rightful place.

Right now the average American drives 39 miles per day in short
utility trips--commuting, store, park, library, school, visiting
friends, etc. Assuming that there are 1.4 drivers per vehicle, that
the average vehicle gets 20 MPG, and that by letting gasoline reach
its "real" price, bicycling/walking mode share would increase from 6%
to 35%, we find that allowing gasoline to reach its "real" price would
save about 46 billion gallons of gasoline per year in the U.S.

Since you think like an economist, Mr. White, I presume that you would
not say that bicycling and walking has saved this 46 billion gallons.
Rather, you would say that allowing gasoline/transportation to reach
its natural ("real") price has saved the 46 billion gallons.

But we bicycle and pedestrian advocates would, very gently, point out
that it is exactly bicycling and walking that are there to pick up the
slack.

And that they pick up the slack precisely because they are
economically viable and sensible in an important segment of the market
where automobile driving is not (once muddle-headed automobile
subsidies are removed).

--Brent
bhugh[at]mwsc.edu
www.MoBikeFed.org


For 39 miles per day figure, see
http://www.sdi.gov/Curtis/Trans_Trends.html

Please note that the 46 billion gallon figure is a back-of-an-envelope
calculation based on ballpark estimates. But still, it gives a
general idea of the possible scope of change possible.

The figure of 35% of utility trips by bicycling and walking is a
lowball estimate of the percentage of European bicycling and walking
on such utility trips. Note that the price of gasoline is much higher
in Europe than in the U.S. but even in Europe probably still is not
high enough to represent the "true" and complete cost of oil-based
transportation.
 
Brent Hugh wrote:
>

> That is to say, instead of asking how much oil is SAVED by the present
> amount of bicycling in the U.S., I asked the converse:.....
>
> How much oil is WASTED by the present policies that artificially make
> driving seem inexpensive to the end user and thus encourage driving
> and discourage bicycling, walking, transit use, and other
> alternatives?

I think you'll rarely find me defending the government and its policies. It is
I who am regularly excoriated for criticizing government distortion of
marketplaces -- what you now seem to suggest I am supporting ("present
policies")! Preposterous! It is others who regularly *tell me* that government
intervention via monopoly, regulation, and taxation is the solution to all our
problems. As I already wrote in response to you: "I would tend to agree with
you." Moreover, your "oil is wasted" statement is a value judgement, not an
economic argument. I am making zero statements about value. In fact, until we
get real about the tradeoffs, we cannot intelligently discuss "value" -- this is
my main concern here. "Nuts and bolts economics" does not pretend to make value
judgements. It is only a tool for *us* to weigh value.

Re-read my initial post. I never said "oil" specifically could not be saved on
the global marketplace -- it is simply one form of energy among others. Indeed,
I re-directed immediately to the question of *energy in general*. That is, no
"favorites" regarding energy sources as a beginning point for discussion. My
point is that all other things equal, you can "save" oil, only at the expense of
something else, coal, nuclear, wind, etcetera. Indeed I pointed out that the
oil/coal could be left in the ground if substitutes are used (I referred to
nuclear since it is fundamentally capable of producing huge amounts of energy).
So at least implicitly I am saying "oil can be saved" as a *specific* form of
energy. What I am saying is that it cannot be saved without a cost arising
somewhere else.

In fact, if other things are not equal, for example if coal energy is cheaper
than gas, then a further increase in gas prices will only promote the switching
to a substitute like coal. Or simply, a more economical car supplies the
"excess" funds to purchase cheaper coal energy with the net result of *higher*
joule consumption (to keep things *simple*, I normally try to avoid this with
the "all other things equal" caveat)! (Or just purchase more gas -- like for
example going on a auto vacation, or a train trip, or a plane trip, etcetera.)
Commuting by bike does the same thing. That is, if the transportation utility
of a person is met equally by biking or driving, and the individual chooses
biking with the lower energy and dollar cost, that individual now has funds
available to purchase more energy, since all that is ever purchased *is* energy
(mass is neither created or destroyed). The same thing happens if the saved
money is invested in a venture capital firm, since the company they invest in
requires energy to turn the lights on and computers on.

Why is this so difficult for some to understand? You guys still don't get it.
 
Mitch Haley wrote:

>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
>>up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
>>year when?
>>
>>
>
>When people stop protesting and blockading nuclear facilities?
>

Do you honestly believe that makes a difference? That just sounds like
and poor excuse and at best naive.

Maybe they just cost so much, no one wants to put the money up? May they
know they won't get a positive return on them. And from a politcal
point of view there's better porkbarrel projects out there?

The Camanche Peak Nuclear Facility cost ten times it's estimated cost
and had to be underwritten by the US Gov to keep Ft Worth's utility
prices from going sky high. The extra $540,000,000 it cost was
attributed to their having to hire a dozen more security guards for six
months.

Jack Dingler
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> Mitch Haley wrote:
>
> >Jack Dingler wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
> >>up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
> >>year when?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >When people stop protesting and blockading nuclear facilities?
> >
>
> Do you honestly believe that makes a difference?

Well it is certainly reasonable to believe that it has some effect, athough the
particular "blockading" example might be intentionally trite.

"U.S.: The U.S. has the most reactors and generates the most electricity from
nuclear energy. However, the anti-nuclear movement succeeded in stalling new
commitments to nuclear plants. There is only one reactor currently under
construction. [2003: probably finished by now.] Nuclear energy generates about
20 percent of U.S. electricity. Early problems with reliability have been mainly
overcome, and nuclear plants have reached an average of 75 percent availability.
Republicans generally favor resuming construction, and Democrats generally
oppose it. 2003: Reliability is now over 90 percent.

There is plenty of coal in the U.S., so decisions can be long delayed without
serious consequences - provided global warming and the contribution of coal
burning to respiratory problems can be ignored. The utilities have made their
peace with the environmental organizations and the activist, lawyer dominated
regulatory commissions and will use whatever technology the regulators approve
regardless of costs.


Conclusion
The politics of nuclear energy is unlikely to change rapidly. When the cost of
petroleum goes up a lot, the countries that have had nuclear programs will have
a competitive advantage that will put pressure on the backward countries. The
danger that anti-nuclear politics would succeed in suppressing nuclear energy
everywhere seems to have passed.

1999: The politics of nuclear energy has improved slightly in the U.S. Congress
has mandated that the Government take the nuclear waste that it has been
charging the companies for taking. There is still stalling on the repository.
The repository for Government low level waste has finally opened in New Mexico.
There is a one stop law on licensing plants. The undamaged Three Mile Island
power plant has been sold to an energy supply company. With all that, a company
proposing to build a new nuclear power plant might still face expensive delays
from lawsuits.

Most of the new power plants in the US have used natural gas. The CEO of
Entergy, an operator of nuclear plants bought from utilities, said that a
natural gas price of $5.00 per million BTU should trigger the construction of
new nuclear plants. It's above that in late 2003.

2003: Congress passed a bill, and President Bush signed it specifying that a
waste site in Nevada will be used. With the expected lawsuits 2010 is the
earliest that waste will be stored. The energy bill that almost passed in Fall
2003 provided for a Government subsidy to construct a nuclear plant to produce
hydrogen. The delays in passing the bill have involved conflicts over subsidies
for ethanol, MTBE, etc. and have not involved the nuclear part. So far as I
know, the opponents of the bill have not raised anti-nuclear issues."
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-politics.html


"Economical.
Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production.
Fuel costs for an equivalent amount of power run from 1/3rd to 1/6th the cost
for fossil production, and capital and non-fuel operating costs are roughly
equivalent, resulting in the overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity
running 50% to 80% that of other sources. This is in spite of the fact that
capital costs have been hugely inflated due to lawsuits, court injunctions, and
other delaying tactics used by individuals and organizations opposed to nuclear
power."
http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html

"The root cause of the troubles and frustrations, moreover, is commonly thought
to be more political than economic. The promise of nuclear power in the United
States is said to have been dimmed primarily by an eccentrically risk-averse
public and an unusually hostile regulatory climate. Practically nowhere else, it
is said, have political and legal institutions been so uncooperative. Supposedly
the central governments of most other advanced countries have lent far more
support to their nuclear industries. And because those governments are assumed
to be more aggressive in combating pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions
from burning fossil fuels, surely "the rest of the world'' has been doing much
more than America to level the playing field for the development of nuclear
energy. But just how valid is this conventional picture?"
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm


No firm needs that headache -- so they just build coal or gas plants which emit
greenhouse gases and radioactivity.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

> That just sounds like
> and poor excuse and at best naive.
>
> Maybe they just cost so much, no one wants to put the money up? May they
> know they won't get a positive return on them. And from a politcal
> point of view there's better porkbarrel projects out there?

http://www.nei.org/documents/US_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Ownership.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/World_Plants_Under_Construction.pdf

Actually, the private firms that own the plants (and their customers) can pay
the costs themselves. The spent fuel rods are a problem because radioactivity
is so hazardous. The government *wants* the waste because it is, for one thing,
a national security issue. I have no problem of the users paying the cost of
the federal storage. Yes, nukes should compete based on actual costs. Nuke
costs may be higher, or may appear to be so, depending upon how costs are
accounted for.

Also, the basic argument about greenhouse gases is that the costs are not fully
accounted for. It is difficult to account for greenhouse gas costs, because no
one really knows what the cost is. Nukes don't make greenhouse gases. None of
these fundamentally "big sources" of energy are perfect -- so the decision is
about tradeoffs, not perfection.

> The Camanche Peak Nuclear Facility cost ten times it's estimated cost
> and had to be underwritten by the US Gov to keep Ft Worth's utility
> prices from going sky high. The extra $540,000,000 it cost was
> attributed to their having to hire a dozen more security guards for six
> months.

Those are some expensive security guards! ;-) Are they hiring?

In any case, if nukes aren't competitive today, they will be someday. The
initial capital costs of a nuke are quite high, for whatever reason. The world
will increase its energy consumption. This means there will be increasing
competition for fossil fuels and other forms of energy. On that you can count
on 100%.



http://www.nei.org/documents/Status_Report_Competitive_Outlook.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/Status_Report_Events.pdf
 
In article <[email protected]>,
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:

> hat is, if the transportation utility
> of a person is met equally by biking or driving, and the individual chooses
> biking with the lower energy and dollar cost, that individual now has funds
> available to purchase more energy, since all that is ever purchased *is*
> energy

wait, wait -- you just palmed a card. You said "individual now has
funds available" and then you go on to treat it as though the individual
actually _spends_ those funds. Not proven.

And you palm another card when you write "all that is ever purchased
*is* energy" because you imply all goods/services to be energetically
equivalent. clearly wrong.


we're not all stupid, y'know.

cletus.

--
the part of <[email protected]>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
Max wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > hat is, if the transportation utility
> > of a person is met equally by biking or driving, and the individual chooses
> > biking with the lower energy and dollar cost, that individual now has funds
> > available to purchase more energy, since all that is ever purchased *is*
> > energy
>
> wait, wait -- you just palmed a card. You said "individual now has
> funds available" and then you go on to treat it as though the individual
> actually _spends_ those funds. Not proven.


"Unless they bury it in the back yard or stuff it into a mattress, that 20 bucks
gets spent on some other energy somewhere in the world."

"No one with any sense stuffs money into the mattress unless they predict
deflation. Even then, the days of putting it to use purchasing energy are
numbered. At most, usage can be delayed a little bit."


> And you palm another card when you write "all that is ever purchased
> *is* energy" because you imply all goods/services to be energetically
> equivalent. clearly wrong.


"In fact, if other things are not equal, for example if coal energy is cheaper
than gas, then a further increase in gas prices will only promote the switching
to a substitute like coal. Or simply, a more economical car supplies the
'excess' funds to purchase cheaper coal energy with the net result of *higher*
joule consumption (to keep things *simple*, I normally try to avoid this with
the 'all other things equal' caveat)!"


> we're not all stupid, y'know.


LOL. Don't "misoverestimate" yourself. I think it has been covered. Funny how
you can say I "palmed" cards, when I explicitly addressed the exact concerns you
point out; one in the post you directly responded to! Wow.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>Re-read my initial post. I never said "oil" specifically could not be saved
>on
>the global marketplace -- it is simply one form of energy among others.
>Indeed,
>I re-directed immediately to the question of *energy in general*. That is, no
>"favorites" regarding energy sources as a beginning point for discussion. My
>point is that all other things equal, you can "save" oil, only at the expense
>of
>something else, coal, nuclear, wind, etcetera. Indeed I pointed out that the
>oil/coal could be left in the ground if substitutes are used (I referred to
>nuclear since it is fundamentally capable of producing huge amounts of
>energy).
>So at least implicitly I am saying "oil can be saved" as a *specific* form of
>energy. What I am saying is that it cannot be saved without a cost arising
>somewhere else.

You're omitting one really big element: indirect energy savings.
While someone is biking around, they're not at home, running appliances.
Those appliances are generally quite wasteful and more time spent away
from them saves energy on the whole.
Also, cycling doesn't incur the secondary costs associated with
driving. ie, bikes don't tear up the roads as quickly as cars do, so
repaves become rarer. Accidents are cheaper to clean up, traffic
signals are unneeded on bike trails....
And, with a healthier population (with the assistance of cycling)
health care needs drop--good since health care wastes scads of energy.
So you can make the argument that the energy immediately saved by
biking around wouldn't amount to squat at best, or even winds up getting
used elsewhere, but it's harder to disregard the secondary benefits.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
 

> And, with a healthier population (with the assistance of cycling)
>health care needs drop--good since health care wastes scads of energy.


This is a key point. I may suffer a few scratches or bruises but since
I've started commuting by bike I've dropped 30 pounds and my HDL is
way up and the LDL is down. I think we can say that the risk of
expensive circulatory problems is way down.

On the other hand, I'll likely live longer and thus use more energy
than if I died young.
 
"B.B." wrote:
>

> You're omitting one really big element: indirect energy savings.

I am not "omitting" anything. Sheesh!!! Why can't you guys address the
*argument*, instead repeatedly ignoring it.

> So you can make the argument that the energy immediately saved...

Whoa there. Sure, as a "time of habit change," there might be a *momentary*
delay/lag -- no one is saying otherwise.

But as the new habits are formed by the user, and their "expectations" become
clear, those delays evaporate.

The main crux proposed by conservationists is to lower the burn rate
*permanently*. Unfortunately, the delays can only be temporary at best.

> ... by
> biking around wouldn't amount to squat at best, or even winds up getting
> used elsewhere, but it's harder to disregard the secondary benefits.

All other things equal, any secondary benefits do not amount to global
conservation, even if local conservation is acheived. By all means, conserve
locally: it is a good thing. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are
conserving globally. You aren't.
 
"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote >
> Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> > Obviously, government market regulation is mostly local in
> > effect (excluding tariffs), although there are global ripples. To the
> > extent we all live on the same planet, impacts of some activities
cannot be
> > limited to local scope. Fairness would argue for some global policies
for
> > resource conservation, allocation, and pricing. Conservation need not
be a
> > zero sum (or worse) game. It's all a matter of policy. To argue that
all
> > conservation is pointless, or counter-productive, is simplistic and
wrong.
>
> Uhhmm, I wrote nothing of the kind -- actually I wrote that local
conservation
> is good. I practice what I preach: I ride my bike to work; my car gets
50 mpg;
> my domicile is loaded with compact fluorescents. Please do not grossly
distort
> what I wrote.
>
> Local conservation != global conservation
>
> That's all.

But, global conservation == local conservation, & we have to start
somewhere.


> What is not new is you completely missed the point and the argument --
just like
> every other responder to date. You went off on a tangent. How tax
dollars
> lighting up a government office space (or fill in the blank) can "save"
more
> energy that buring it up in my car or a Chinese coal plant remains
unexplained
> and basically ignored, because to consider it would force a change of
beliefs.
> Just because a politician (or bureaucrat with vested interest) states
that a
> policy has "such and such intent/goal," does not mean the goal is
achieved.

Uhm, now you're putting words in my mouth. I think your point is either too
convoluted for me to follow or vanishingly subtle. In any case, I didn't
say anything like that.
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The empirical evidence shows
> that world energy consumption will grow, and always has as
> productivity grows. The macroeconomic argument helps shed light on
> why this is so, and helps us get real. Why not just think about it
> for awhile?

The obvious explanation for why world energy consumption grows as
productivity grows is that the extra energy is fueling the productivity.

--
to email me, run my email address through /usr/bin/caesar
(or rotate by -4)
 
Peter Cole wrote:
>

> > Local conservation != global conservation
> >
> > That's all.
>
> But, global conservation == local conservation,...

No. Unfortunately the evidence counters you -- consumption is growing.


> ... & we have to start somewhere.

I pointed out that the place to start out with concerns about energy is to get
real about what we can or cannot accomplish. Also, the idea that "we must
conserve energy" is another point that is not necessarily a "given" in the
strength that some *believe* it should be. As I've pointed out, there are
enormous amounts of energy available -- doomsday projections aren't enough
without the substance to back them up. The argument put forth by so-called
conservationists about needing to conserve energy (in a way beyond what one
would tend to "conserve" simply paying market costs) mostly stems from a refusal
to acknowledge nuclear power and focus on fossil fuels as the only substantial
source in the forseeable future. My *guess* is that nuclear will be used in the
future much more that it is today (sooner or later). Time will tell. Plants
are being built today. That is a fact.



> > Just because a politician (or bureaucrat with
> > vested interest) states that a policy has
> > "such and such intent/goal," does not mean the goal is
> > achieved.
>
> Uhm, now you're putting words in my mouth. I think your point is either too
> convoluted for me to follow or vanishingly subtle. In any case, I didn't
> say anything like that.

I'm not claiming you "said it." However, where you would "start" is where
"they" would start (and "they" say so, as do you). That is, with what I
consider to be a false premise regarding what can and cannot be accomplished.
You can't just will something to be true and hope that good intentions are
enough -- they aren't. Recall it is you that entered the thread by supplying a
post filled with notes about government intervention (government policy).

The phrase "Law of Unintended Consequences" was created by economists to
describe political policies that do not produce the intended results, despite
glorious and wonderful goals on which everyone agrees, and which invoked the
policy. The empirical evidence shows that world energy consumption will grow,
and always has as productivity grows. The macroeconomic argument helps shed
light on why this is so, and helps us get real. Why not just think about it for
awhile?
 
gwhite <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "B.B." wrote:
> >
>
> > You're omitting one really big element: indirect energy savings.
>
> I am not "omitting" anything. Sheesh!!! Why can't you guys address the
> *argument*, instead repeatedly ignoring it.

Is the rebound effect necessarily 100%? If, for instance, I purchase
a more efficient refrigerator, I won't always buy two, just because
I'm saving so much money. In other words, no. It's not 100% always.

According to: http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-80.cfm?&CFID=11262148&CFTOKEN=7028302

"Under certain circumstances, the rebound effect could actually turn
an increase in efficiency into an increase in demand. However this has
only happened in very special cases such as in some developing
countries or in new markets such as the coal market in the mid 1800s
or the electricity market in the early 1900s. For mature markets, it
is generally accepted that although real the rebound effect is
limited."

Further, while you suggest that if I save $5 worth of gasoline, I will
purchase some good that requires the consumption of a similar amount
of energy (the theoretical $5 of dirty Chinese coal to process and
transport a cup of coffee). Interesting, but most of the cost of the
Starbucks coffee isn't energy, indeed, it's a small fraction of the
cost. Sure, you could treat energy as the economic equivalent of heat
in thermodynamics - the ultimate sink, but that's bending reality
pretty hard. What is $5 of coal, really? I mean, it's like asking a
physicist when something happened - it's all relative. How much do
you pay for the actual coal, REALLY, and how much do you pay for the
costs of extraction, transportation, buying off the local politicians,
security of the location, etc etc. The value of goods is pretty
cheap, and not that easy to determine. What you pay actually is what
you and the seller are willing to comprimse at.

It's also amusing that a nuclear power advocate would repeatedly use
the phrase "mass is neither created nor destroyed", but I digress.

Also, it seems that more and more of the dollar value of a purchase
(that cup of Starbucks, for instance) isn't actually about any
physical element, but it's paying for the IP. What's the cost of a
DVD? $1? $2? I'm not sure what the going price for polycarbonate
is, but it's not much. So why does it cost me $30? Intellectual
property. Marketing. Management. Sure, eventually that money will
be spent on some tranformative energy. But if you talk in circles
long enough, you can convince yourself of anything.

> All other things equal, any secondary benefits do not amount to global
> conservation, even if local conservation is acheived. By all means, conserve
> locally: it is a good thing. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are
> conserving globally. You aren't.

If we all live by your theories, you're right, we're not saving energy
in the net. On the other hand, the world is much more complicated
than the musings of an 19th century logician. Certainly, if you make
enough simplifying assumptions, you can wrap your mind around it. But
that doesn't mean you understand the world, just your model, which
may, or may not, be accurate. Jevons was wrong about the coal, after
all.

Earlier you had said that if we decrease the global energy
consumption, billions would die. Given that the US is by far the
largest consumer of energy in the world, would a curtailment of our
energy consumption, even to the point of a recession/depression here,
actually cause death to Billions, with a "B"? That's a pretty bold
assertion. I mean, if you waved a magic wand and all US residents
simply disappeared, the global energy consumption would drop fairly
dramatically, at the cost of less than half a billion souls. Sure
there would be ripple effects but...

Okay. So, Jevons was wrong about the coal, you've apparently
dramatically overstated the power of the rebound effect that Jevons
proposed and I don't think anyone has switched sides on the need for
breeder reactors. I don't know if you feel better about things, but I
do. I'll continue riding in the belief that if I live more simply,
others may simply live.

Instead of buying more coffees at Starbucks, I'll set my goals of
letting traffic run more free without my automotive presence, of
strengthening my heart, lungs and legs by cycling, of saving my little
corner of the world by stepping lighter on it. Perhaps, with the
money I save by living simply, I can let someone else take over my job
a couple years earlier - decreasing unemployment and the whole hassle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back