Re: [Phys-L] climate change continues apace

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

Based on a couple decades of modeling U.S energy distribution systems 
for the future, eliminating most fossil fuel use by the year 2100 will 
run 35-50 TRILLION dollars in capital costs.  However, the cost per 
energy unit (kilowatt-hours for example) remains quite 
reasonable--capital cost, maintenance, operating costs--under what is 
currently charged (but add profits and transmission lines and their 
maintenance to maybe hit twice today's electrical energy costs). These 
models do include replacing all major energy technologies at their rated 
or estimated lifetimes, so wind turbines and solar panels do get 
replaced often.  But the bottom line here is that countries like the 
U.S. with plenty of land and plenty of money can accomplish this 
transition without too much pain.  Small countries with stable 
populations and reasonable wealth are fine. But, what about China and 
especially India?  What about Eastern Europe (money) or even Western 
Europe (land)?  Then there is sub Saharan Africa and much of the rest of 
Asia.   Calculate how many wind turbines or the area of solar farms 
needed to run a country like the U.S. or better yet the World at 2.5-3 
times current energy usage to see the problem.  Nuclear (used in our 
models) is really just a stop-gap measure unless we get serious about 
breeder reactors since the Uranium supplies are insufficient to ramp up 
to really significant percentages.  This is a really tough problem, and 
as some of the 'experts' have been brave enough to state--it is no 
certain that we can solve it...at least for the energy needs of a world 
at the level of say Western Europe.

rwt

On 6/9/2015 7:26 PM, lucanus@iinet.net.au wrote:
> On regulation,
> http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=51eb8cea80&e=a3b55276e6
> http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
>
> On human health aspects,
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
>
>
> On Fukushima, particularly,
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2syXBL8xG0 , Is it radiation, or fear
> of it?
> ( From http://www.radiationandreason.com/  slow going but worth the
> patience)
>
> I don't have enough time to lay out my own distillation of the above
> information right now. However, I do want to put something on the
> table challenging the anti-nuke mindset affecting our ability to
> tackle AGW. IMO, a low EROEI renewable energy pathway will end up in
> failure, due to its unaffordability in mitigating AGW when so many
> other issues compete for funding, and when a much cheaper option
> exists.  That is not detract from RE's worth as a
> projection/extension of fossil/nuclear fuels which are used to produce
> the  infrastructure.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent:Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:48:51 -0700
> Subject:Re: [Phys-L] climate change continues apace
>
>   On 06/08/2015 11:15 PM, lucanus@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
>   > nuclear, which is knobbled out of the
>   > competition by costly over-regulation,
>
>   Nice sentence! In just a few words, it equates
>   a) regulation
>   b) with over-regulation
>   c) with costly over-regulation
>   d) with gangsterism.
>
>   I would point out that in the real world, regulation is
>   multidimensional. It is possible for something to be
>   over-regulated in one direction and simultaneously
>   under-regulated in another.
>
>   Also: Not all regulation is costly. In particular it
>   seems likely that better regulation at Fukushima would
>   have /saved/ well over 100 billion dollars. Furthermore,
>   that cost was not borne by the free market, but was largely
>   socialized, via the virtual bankruptcy and nationalization
>   of TEPCO ... and via uncompensated losses to innocent
>   individuals. So once again, corruption leads to
>   privatization of profits and socialization of losses.
>   Remind me, what were we saying about the invisible hand?
>
>   Better regulation is not the same as more regulation,
>   and also not the same as less regulation. Integrity,
>   judgment, and skill are required.
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   Forum for Physics Educators
>   Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
>   http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
Richard Tarara
Professor Emeritus
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW: Energy management simulators now available.