Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[ReeferMadness]

There seem to be some of you who think that you can dismiss an article written by a pair of scientists just by sneering at it or comparing it to a Monty Python video. I'm sure that sort of debate plays well on the rigs or down in the coal mine. However, some of us would like you to point out some problems with it. Certainly, it is high level but that in itself doesn't make the plan unfeasible.

If you'd like to point out some actual problems with the proposal, we can talk.

[TimG]

If you'd like to point out some actual problems with the proposal, we can talk.

See my post above.

[Guest]

A thirst for cash seems pretty similar to greed to me. As for the video, Monty Python is always good satire. What it has to do with the SA article is beyond me.

Well, we need cash. Greed is wanting more than you can possibly use, just for the sake of it. Making and selling a product in order to get cash is not greedy, nor is accepting the cash you get if the product proves to be wildly popular. I like to think if I was in that situation I would use my wealth wisely.

The video illustrates the difference between wanting to do something and actually being able to do it. I would not argue with scientists who say it would be possible to power the world with windmills and solar panels, etc. They would know.

I would argue that it will not happen in the time frame they cite, as there is not the political will to work together to do that. And by that I mean it is so far from being doable, that the best illustration I could find was the video.

[bush_cheney2004]

The SA article is a scientist's dream that would never succeed because of not only the many challenges recognized in the "WWS" plan, but mostly because of the real world failures already experienced with photovoltaics, geothermal, and wind (which is just another form of solar). The estimated efficiencies would never be realized in practice and base load generation would routinely be put at risk. Far more "gains" could be made with far cheaper and politically achievable conservation measures, same as those taken during the world wars referred to in the article.

Scientists are not engineers.

[ReeferMadness]

The SA article is a scientist's dream that would never succeed because of not only the many challenges recognized in the "WWS" plan, but mostly because of the real world failures already experienced with photovoltaics, geothermal, and wind (which is just another form of solar). The estimated efficiencies would never be realized in practice and base load generation would routinely be put at risk. Far more "gains" could be made with far cheaper and politically achievable conservation measures, same as those taken during the world wars referred to in the article.

Scientists are not engineers.

Yes, we all know how wacky those scientists can be - just look at a picture of Einstein. I'm sure if you just told them they should ask engineers before they go off and publish their findings, everything would be much better. The funny thing is, though, that the number and size of WWS implementations continue to grow. Do you think that they are all put up by scientists or are there maybe a few engineers already involved??

If subsidization of fossil fuels were to end and the cost of fossil fuels included all of the indirect costs (environmental damage, health costs, climate change), we would see a very different picture.

[TimG]

If subsidization of fossil fuels were to end and the cost of fossil fuels included all of the indirect costs (environmental damage, health costs, climate change), we would see a very different picture.

This is another delusion. Fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries are peanuts relative to the value of fuel sold. Eliminating all of subsidization would have zero impact on consumption. I realize that is a question of faith for you (a bit like saying Jesus did not rise from the dead for Christians) but I challenge you to do the math for yourself. You will not like what you see.

Remember any such calculation needs to take into account taxes that are already charged on the purchase of fossil fuels and the revenue that fossil fuel production puts into government coffers.

BTW: I am also waiting for a comment on the critique of the SA article I posted.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...If subsidization of fossil fuels were to end and the cost of fossil fuels included all of the indirect costs (environmental damage, health costs, climate change), we would see a very different picture.

No we wouldn't. I already lived through such nonsense proposals in the 1970's, with equally stupid predictions of doom, and neither happened. The WWS proposal operates too close to the margins with happy path efficiency assumptions regardless of any cost savings or "subsidization". The funny part is that allied Tree Huggers want to fight wind farm sites to save migrating birds.

Scientists (including Einstein) are no match for the engineers and bean counters. And until the economic scale tips away from cheaper hydrocarbon fuels, the "WWS" will have to remain a pipe dream in a Scientific American article. I can find others just like it in Popular Mechanics from decades prior, like this 1950's prediction for unlimited "fusion power":

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=popular+mechanics+fusion+power&source=bl&ots=QDxLWRmQ4C&sig=_fAZOq76-nw0UlwE7Uyvto1aMxg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f8UpUeiwJ4WfqQH__YHQCA&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20fusion%20power&f=false

Edited February 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

No, the stupidest thing people have ever done is fill the planet with 7 billion of themselves. When you come up with a way of keeping them all warm, fed and gainfully employed using oversized beanies to produce curly lightbulbs you can change things. Until then, the hydrocarbons are coming out of the ground by whatever means possible, and will do until you stop using them.

The reality is the lands where people breed like rabbits have very low living stands for that reason. They don't use much in the way of hydrocarbons.

[ReeferMadness]

The reality is the lands where people breed like rabbits have very low living stands for that reason. They don't use much in the way of hydrocarbons.

Here we go. I wonder what is the record amount of posts for an internet discussion before someone comes up with statements containing thinly veiled racist sentiments.

The reality is that you have things exactly backwards. The reality is that these people have large families because they are poor - not the other way around. The reality is that people living in poor, largely agrarian societies have large families because children are economic assets and the parents rely on the children to get them through old age. (The one notable exception that comes to mind is China, which implemented a brutal one child policy implemented by forced abortions and sometimes infanticide. Is that a model you care to endorse?) The reality is that this has been the case in western societies until they went through economic development. The reality is that the western economic development came about in no small part on the backs of the colonies that now make up the impoverished nations that you now denigrate.

The reality is that the inhabitants of these poor nations will have smaller families once they rise out their state of economic desperation. We could assist in many ways but we won't until we give up on the notion of economic Darwinism. At the very least, we could insist that the multi-national headquartered in the west that help to keep these people impoverished change their ways.

[TimG]

The reality is that these people have large families because they are poor - not the other way around. The reality is that people living in poor, largely agrarian societies have large families because children are economic assets and the parents rely on the children to get them through old age.

Right. And cheap energy is the proven way to lift these societies out of poverty. Cheap energy means fossil fuels.

Some facts about birth rates:

BTW: You still have not responded to my critics of the SA article.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

This is another delusion. Fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries are peanuts relative to the value of fuel sold. Eliminating all of subsidization would have zero impact on consumption. I realize that is a question of faith for you (a bit like saying Jesus did not rise from the dead for Christians) but I challenge you to do the math for yourself. You will not like what you see.

Remember any such calculation needs to take into account taxes that are already charged on the purchase of fossil fuels and the revenue that fossil fuel production puts into government coffers.

BTW: I am also waiting for a comment on the critique of the SA article I posted.

That might be true if you consider only direct subsidies. In fact, the true cost of subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels can't even be accurately calculated. The National Academy of Sciences, in a 400-odd page publication had this to say:

In aggregate, the damage estimates presented in this report for various external effects are substantial. Just the damages from external effects the committee was able to quantify add up to more than $120 billion for the year 2005.15 Although large uncertainties are associated with the committee’s estimates, there is little doubt that this aggregate total substantially underestimates the damages, because it does not include many other kinds of damages that could not be quantified for reasons explained in the report, such as damages related to some pollutants, climate change, ecosystems, infrastructure, and security. In many cases, we have identified those omissions, within the chapters of this report, with the hope that they will be evaluated in future studies.

Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground (while the good captain slept off a Vodka binge), the beaches of Prince William Sound remain soaked in oil.

You want to claim we're not subsidizing the fossil fuel industry? Fine. Here's how to achieve that. Pass laws that say the cost of removing pollutants from the atmosphere must be baked into the cost of fuel. All of it. CO₂, SO₂. Everything. And let's talk about fracking. Don't tell me chemicals that they're injecting won't hurt us. Clean it up. All of it. And when there's a spill? Clean it up. And don't stop until you're done. Make the beaches the way you found them. Don't tell us it's good enough and nature will clean it up in a few years. That's nonsense. When that coal mine is exhausted, I want the company to make the area pristine like it was. No tailings ponds. No moonscape. No contaminated land or groundwater.

Once you're done costing that, come back and tell me renewables are too expensive.

[ReeferMadness]

I just added a link with detailed critiques:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/The 'cost competitive' claims are also complete nonsense because they don't include all costs (transmission lines are just one of those issues).

For example, a 1GW coal plant will produce 1GW of power 85% of the time. A 1GW wind farm will produce and average of 200MW depending the wind conditions. The only way to make 1GW wind useful is to have 200MW gas plant as backup - the cost of the backup plant is always ignored by people making such claims.

IOW - 1W of installed fossil fuel power is equal 10W of installed renewable power. To be truly cost-competitive the nominal cost per watt of renewables needs to a fraction of the cost per watt of fossil fuels. We are a long way from that.

The only reason that fossil fuels are as inexpensive as they are (and the costs are climbing fast and will continue to do so) is that they've succeeded in externalizing the lion's share of the costs. The associated health care costs will continue for decades after we stop using fossil fuels. The cost to the environment will continue for centuries.

It's ironic that fossil fuels were created in the age of dinosaurs - because it's today's dinosaurs that can't stop using them.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, we need cash. Greed is wanting more than you can possibly use, just for the sake of it. Making and selling a product in order to get cash is not greedy, nor is accepting the cash you get if the product proves to be wildly popular. I like to think if I was in that situation I would use my wealth wisely.

The video illustrates the difference between wanting to do something and actually being able to do it. I would not argue with scientists who say it would be possible to power the world with windmills and solar panels, etc. They would know.

I would argue that it will not happen in the time frame they cite, as there is not the political will to work together to do that. And by that I mean it is so far from being doable, that the best illustration I could find was the video.

They cite several timeframes. I agree that the most aggressive one is unlikely but that doesn't mean we should all just shrug our shoulders and continue to pollute the planet the same as we've always done. That would be defeatist and not very intelligent.

Political will doesn't just happen - it has to be created. Political will is the sum of awareness and knowledge of citizens. If we all do our part, it can easily happen. But people have to care first.

[shortlived]

They cite several timeframes. I agree that the most aggressive one is unlikely but that doesn't mean we should all just shrug our shoulders and continue to pollute the planet the same as we've always done. That would be defeatist and not very intelligent.

Political will doesn't just happen - it has to be created. Political will is the sum of awareness and knowledge of citizens. If we all do our part, it can easily happen. But people have to care first.

That is exactly it right there, if there is no impetus there will be no improved standards.

There has actually been a slip allowing more pollution to occur, which is nonsense, as there is really no excuse for it. The largest polluters are the largest earners they can afford to modernize.

That is it perhaps right there based on earnings to slope the expectations of a use it or loose it deduction. WIth that portion going to Environment Canada initiatives to do EPA like activities and mitigate the damages if the companies don't use it on approved improvements to environmental standards of operation.

Edited February 24, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

That might be true if you consider only direct subsidies. In fact, the true cost of subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels can't even be accurately calculated. The National Academy of Sciences, in a 400-odd page publication had this to say:

Gee. Your own report states that the cost of damages for coal based electricity produced by new plants is whopping $1.90 per MWh! For the worst plants it is $120 per MWh - but that is an argument against keeping old plants open - not an argument against coal. For natural gas the worst case is $5.50 per MWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

From the 'Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources' table above you see that the pollution costs will make no difference to the demand for fossil fuel based electricity. Which is my point. I never said the costs were zero - I simply said that the costs were insignificant compared to the value of the fossil fuels.

Your assertion that fossil fuels are benefiting from some huge subsidy that would radically change the economics of energy production has been proven false by your source!

Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground (while the good captain slept off a Vodka binge), the beaches of Prince William Sound remain soaked in oil.

So what? There is little evidence of actual damages. Damages are not caused simply because the natural environment changes. Damages are only caused if the environmental changes cause economic losses for humans.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

The associated health care costs will continue for decades after we stop using fossil fuels.

The idea that health care costs should be included in the costs of fossil fuels is completely absurd. Life spans are longer than they have ever been and it is all thanks to a fossil fuel driven economy. IOW - Fossil fuels are clearly a net benefit to human health. Trying to say that only the *negative* health effects should be added to the cost of fossil fuels is ideologically driven nonsense.

You also completely ignored the point. The SA article is impractical nonsense because it failed to take into account the real cost of building a network supplied with renewables.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Gee. Your own report states that the cost of damages for coal based electricity produced by new plants is whopping $1.90 per MWh! For the worst plants it is $120 per MWh - but that is an argument against keeping old plants open - not an argument against coal. For natural gas the worst case is $5.50 per MWh.

Only based on your highly selective reading. The report doesn't say the worst case is anything. It says that the overall costs can't be quantified. And the costs that can't be quantified (health, future climate change) are likely to be the largest costs. I suppose you'd prefer to just keep your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

From the 'Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources' table above you see that the pollution costs will make no difference to the demand for fossil fuel based electricity. Which is my point. I never said the costs were zero - I simply said that the costs were insignificant compared to the value of the fossil fuels.

You didn't look at that wikipedia article very closely, did you? Because if you had, you would notice that the tables say that the cost of renewable energy is already in the cost-competitive range compared to electricity generated by fossil fuels. For example, the Department of Energy estimates for a plant opening in 2017 are that generating electricity from coal would cost between $99.60 and $144.70 per MWh. Generating the same power by wind (compensating for lower availability) would cost just $96.80 per MWh. Generating by photovoltaic solar power would be $156.80 per MWh. YOUR source.

Your assertion that fossil fuels are benefiting from some huge subsidy that would radically change the economics of energy production has been proven false by your source!

Not at all. It's just that you apparently see only what you want to see.

So what? There is little evidence of actual damages. Damages are not caused simply because the natural environment changes. Damages are only caused if the environmental changes cause economic losses for humans.

Oh, I see. Then I guess you wouldn't mind if we dug up your lawn and buried toxic waste there? After all, there are only damages if you can prove loss right??

[TimG]

Only based on your highly selective reading. The report doesn't say the worst case is anything. It says that the overall costs can't be quantified.

So? I looked at the numbers that it did provide. In any case, the externalities assigned to fossil fuels are largely bogus because they are based on the assumption that energy could have been produced by something else. Since this assumption is false all of the positive benefits that come from low cost energy need to be factored in which means that fossil fuel has a net positive effect on health.

Generating the same power by wind (compensating for lower availability) would cost just $96.80 per MWh. Generating by photovoltaic solar power would be $156.80 per MWh.

You obviously did not notice the little caveat that wind and solar are not *dispatchable*.

That means these sources must be backed up with dispatchable generation capacity (a.k.a. fossil fuels). In fact, the cost of building and running a gas plant designed to provide back-up to a wind power is more expensive that just building the gas plant to provide power 24x7.

Your lack of understanding of the economics of energy generation seems to be the basis for your absurd beliefs when it comes to suitability of renewables. I suggest you educate yourself.

Edited February 25, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

TimG, on 24 Feb 2013 - 15:36, said:

The idea that health care costs should be included in the costs of fossil fuels is completely absurd. Life spans are longer than they have ever been and it is all thanks to a fossil fuel driven economy. IOW - Fossil fuels are clearly a net benefit to human health. Trying to say that only the *negative* health effects should be added to the cost of fossil fuels is ideologically driven nonsense.

Your logic is specious and you're just plain wrong.

First, if you could show that the improvements in life spans are somehow due to the use of fossil fuels (which, by the way you haven't even attempted), that would would only show a benefit relative to the use of wood and coal, not relative to the use of modern renewable energy. You're comparing apples to woodchucks.

Second, increased life span does not automatically infer improved health. Due to medical advances people can live for decades in an unhealthy state.

We know that solar and wind power avoid emissions that harm human health. It is perfectly valid to assess that harm to human health as a cost of using fossil fuels. Even your "engineers and bean-counters" could see that!!

TimG, on 24 Feb 2013 - 15:36, said:

You also completely ignored the point. The SA article is impractical nonsense because it failed to take into account the real cost of building a network supplied with renewables.

Sez you. You take the critique at face value and discount the SA article itself. Your own Wikipedia source states that wind energy is cheaper than coal, even allowing for availability. Edited February 25, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

So? I looked at the numbers that it did provide. In any case, the externalities assigned to fossil fuels are largely bogus because they are based on the assumption that energy could have been produced by something else. Since this assumption is false all of the positive benefits that come from low cost energy need to be factored in which means that fossil fuel has a net positive effect on health.

It is perhaps net positive compared to burning wood and coal (you still haven't demonstrated even that much). It is certainly net negative compared to contemporary renewable energy.

You obviously did not notice the little caveat that wind and solar are not *dispatchable*.

That means these sources must be backed up with dispatchable generation capacity (a.k.a. fossil fuels). In fact, the cost of building and running a gas plant designed to provide back-up to a wind power is more expensive that just building the gas plant to provide power 24x7.

Perhaps you could read the replies to the critique, not just the stuff you agree with. The author states that the analysis shows that they could build a system without using backups. And if they did need backups, there are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel generation. Pumped water, compressed air, molten salt, hydrogen storage, these are just examples of backup systems in place today.

Your lack of understanding of the economics of energy generation seems to be the basis for your absurd beliefs when it comes to suitability of renewables. I suggest you educate yourself.

Ooh, nice ad hominem. I guess that means you've run out of specious logic.

[TimG]

It is perhaps net positive compared to burning wood and coal (you still haven't demonstrated even that much). It is certainly net negative compared to contemporary renewable energy.

Renewables aren't a remotely plausible option at this time. The only reason they are useable in any form is because fossil fuels provide the base load power.

Also renewables have their own negative effects. Bird and bat populations would be wiped out if wind was deployed at any large scale. Solar PV means a lot of toxic waste especially since the panels need to be replaced every 20 years (if you are lucky).

Historical note: the gasoline car cleaned up cities and improved health because it eliminated the horse crap that had to be removed from the cities. It is silly to assume that renewables no negative externalities.

The author states that the analysis shows that they could build a system without using backups. And if they did need backups, there are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel generation. Pumped water, compressed air, molten salt, hydrogen storage, these are just examples of backup systems in place today.

All at astronomical costs. What you seem to be missing is financial viability matters and if an energy source is too expensive it won't be used and no government can afford to make up the difference. Edited February 25, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

The "SA article" is political, economic, geographic, and technical fiction. Energy densities are too low and distributed storage costs too high. Using the logic of "environmental costs", all hydro-electric projects should be removed from the plan as destructive, as would be more large scale wind farms in the path of migrating birds. Wanna play the "environment card", then be consistent.

[ReeferMadness]

The "SA article" is political, economic, geographic, and technical fiction. Energy densities are too low and distributed storage costs too high. Using the logic of "environmental costs", all hydro-electric projects should be removed from the plan as destructive, as would be more large scale wind farms in the path of migrating birds. Wanna play the "environment card", then be consistent.

I can tell you're desperate when you're reduce to arguing for fossil fuels on environmental grounds. Of course there will be environmental effects from anything we do. But the National Academy of Science wrote a document almost 500 pages long on the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels. And they couldn't even properly quantify the worst effects. Are you seriously going to argue that we should keep using fossil fuels for the sake of migratory birds? Could anyone remotely familiar with your posts take that seriously?? Give it up.

[jbg]

Renewables aren't a remotely plausible option at this time.

Only someone mad as a result of marijuana consumption could disagree with you.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can tell you're desperate when you're reduce to arguing for fossil fuels on environmental grounds. Of course there will be environmental effects from anything we do. But the National Academy of Science wrote a document almost 500 pages long on the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels. And they couldn't even properly quantify the worst effects. Are you seriously going to argue that we should keep using fossil fuels for the sake of migratory birds? Could anyone remotely familiar with your posts take that seriously?? Give it up.

Agreed...making such arguments on "environmental grounds" is silly, yet you persist. Accordingly, I will meet your bet, and raise you hydro and wind as environmental disasters that will destroy the earth ! Spouting more mumbo jumbo from American sources does not help your cause.

Start over and find more than just U.S. based data and speculation for "green energy", because the Americans sure as hell love them some HYDROCARBONS.