Typical confused ALEC propaganda.

You'll never hear a plan based on renewables that doesn't include energy efficiency. Nuclear power serves the same economic plan as fossil fuels by driving consumption ever higher - anticipate new demand, overbuild generating capacity, sell excess capacity at cut rate prices to promote demand, rinse, repeat.

Energy efficiency isn't something you'll ever hear from the atomophiles, as it is death to their expansion plans. Take a look at the UK for example. They had one of the best energy efficiency programs in Europe while they were committed to a renewable course, but as soon as the Conservatives gained control of the checkbook they reset the goal to focus on nuclear power. Part of that was scrapping their very effective EE program and instituting one that is (by design) a total and abysmal failure with participation rates at less than 1% of those who get assessments.

Renewables bring a new paradigm to the table. Energy efficiency, zero-net energy homes, geothermal heat pumps, air-source heat pumps, swamp coolers, heating and cooling systems that also act as energy storage batteries - the list goes on and on of ways that we are easily able to deal with the problems you try to use to advertise nuclear fission as a preferred energy choice.


It isn't. Nuclear power is on its way out with coal and petroleum.

Once you dispose of the centralized model thermal power that has defined the parameters of our electrical system, you start rethinking how it is best to use energy in some very fundamental ways. This is one example of how end user alternatives are going to be an important part of making the transition away from fossil fuels a comfortable move.



http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-sun-power-and-ice-energy-can-play-together?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

Google link for zero net energy homes
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=zero+net+energy+homes&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

To repeat: contrary to your overtly false statement, every piece of reputable data we have says that the quickest path away from carbon is with renewables. We are in the process right now of seeing fossil fuel plants being shut down in places around the world that have achieved moderately high renewable penetration and with the pace of solar installations increasing exponentially for the next several years, that is a clearly accelerating trend. For you see, unlike nuclear, which reenforces the economic structure that makes coal profitable, renewable sources destroy that structure and rebuild it in a fashion that forces ever escalating prices to be paid for the so-called "baseload" type of fueled generation.

Nuclear doesn't shut down coal, it preserves it.

That's a reason to vote them out.

How, for that matter, could we be communicating right now? Its mystifying.

Thanks for the transparent attempt to sell us on the "more consumption = good" message. This demonstrates why nuclear and fossil fuels were always a part of the same drumbeat for consumerism. No... nuclear actually exacerbated the consumption & growth rallying cry with the idea you could have anything that was "too cheap to meter"... that energy and other resources ought to be mere blips on our balance sheets.

It's easy for someone to say sitting in their air-conditioned, cooled and warmed, electrically-wired and cable-modemed living space (do correct me if I'm wrong) that more consumption is bad.

If you're like most Americans, you consume 5 times as much energy as the world average. For someone in that situation to rail against consumption is laughable.

When the 1/7 of the world which has no electricity at all gets it, we will have a disaster on our hands if it's not generated cleanly. Renewables have not a chance of delivering that kind of energy cheaply and practically throughout the world.

In contrast with my apparent silliness, one can surmise that you regard American levels of consumption with reverence.

Its not surprising to see the pro-consumerism position animated with the usual conservative tactic of painting American voices for moderation and efficiency as hypocritical. If you would so readily insinuate that against participants of a resource-conscious forum like E/E, I can only imagine what you're like in general. Numerous American acquaintances of mine have done the same thing and been prone to outburst or grimace if I (presumably anyone) merely hint at self-denial--though, honestly, the self-denial these days has as much to do with my income as any principle.

That is not to say you are in 'good' company.

Consumerism--the real religion rearing its head in this forum--has never been demonstrated to be sustainable and there is no theoretical framework for doing so apart from the speaking-in-tongues we hear from the Nuclear Cathedrals. It imparts truly bizarre ideas. I'd bet most of the third world would be appalled at the prospect of building nukes-and-grids into the most rural settlements on the planet (most of the remaining 1/7th you cite).

Step 1: "If all countries used air conditioning like the USA, the energy demand would be huge."

Step 2: ???

Step 3: "This is a nail in the coffin of renewables. Renewables will only increase our dependence on fossil fuels."

The underpants gnomes would be proud ...

but it's an inescapable conclusion.

Do you really believe the rest of the developing world in subtropical climates will settle for no A/C as their lot improves? If so, you're betting against history.

Step 2 is there will need to be a way to generate tremendous amounts of energy cheaply and reliably without carbon. Renewables can't do it, and coal can't do it.

?

You'd almost think you'd look for the source of what makes it hot, wouldn't you? What could that possibly be?

You claim "renewables can't do it", but that's a bald assertion without evidence. It in no way flows from the article you posted; and that's why your 'inescapable conclusion' or 'renewables increase the demand for fossil fuels' make you look like a clown. Solar PV is actually most suitable of all to run air conditioning from. It peaks when the demand is highest, and no need for a distribution network. As people start feeling they can afford air conditioning, they install some panels to power it.

When the sun is directly overhead a 12-square-meter solar array will provide the 3,000 watts necessary to power a 2.5 ton A/C unit, enough to cool a 1,000 sq ft residence. And nothing else. The rest of the day, the night, the residents can expect to swelter.

In the U.S. that system will cost around $15K. "As people start feeling they can afford air conditioning, they install some panels to power it." Where, in the U.S.? Where solar receives 8x its proportion of generation in subsidies? How many Bangladeshis can afford that system?

Solar generation doesn't peak anywhere near demand. Even at the height of daily temperature, typical consumption peaks 5 hours later in summer and 7 hours later in winter. Today in CA, demand will peak between 6-8PM:

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

No need for a distribution network? Apparently you believe developing countries will be more than happy to settle for no electricity at night - another first-world, ethnocentric point of view.

No, commenting without any understanding of actual facts/figures (and being snarky about it, to boot) makes you look like a clown.

The article identifies a possible demand for electricity. You then say "this is a nail in the coffin of renewables". This is completely illogical. If there is more demand, then more supply will be needed. Renewables are one form of supply. More demand does not mean less supply is needed. Solar PV turns out to be particularly well-suited to the demand for A/C, since it peaks in summer months, during the day. This cannot be said for, say, nuclear (which I presume is what you are trying to push). You could build the extra capacity for A/C with nuclear, but it would end up sitting idle at other times, and thus be less efficient. Now, I wouldn't be as dumb to say "this is a nail in the coffin of nuclear", just because it is ill-suited to one aspect of electricity demand. To say anything remotely like that would be to show no understanding whatsoever of what 'supply' and 'demand' are.

"No need for a distribution network? Apparently you believe developing countries will be more than happy to settle for no electricity at night"

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the world, or a country, has to opt for just one form of electricity generation, and not use any others. If people have solar PV that provides the extra power needed for their A/C, then the distribution network doesn't need the extra capacity to carry the large amounts of power from distant power stations.

to opt for power generation touted by affluent societies, especially that which is largely ineffectual without subsidies entirely disproportionate to its contribution.



When their expensive solar panels don't deliver as expected (most of the time), they will fall back on the cheapest energy they can find, which will be coal.

That's exactly what is playing out in Germany, where some citizens actually have the resources to buy solar panels.

Your original claim - that increased demand from A/C will mean less demand for renewables - is still completely fucking dumb.

If you had said "this means increased nuclear will be needed", you would have an arguable point. But, instead, you appear to be an anti-renewable person (I thought we only had one person on this board who actually hates renewables, as opposed to several who think nuclear power is necessary, but are happy for renewables to be used too - but you appear to have joined him), and in your haste to say something bad about renewables, you made one of the stupidest OPs we've seen on E&E in months.

for a couple of reasons:

1) The U.S. like all countries does not have umlimited resources, and all the idiotic money spent on something making up 4% of generation is merely taking money away from real solutions.

2) Renewables, because of their variability, lock in dependence on natural gas peak plants to balance their generation. Which is why the natural gas industry absolutely loves them.

Maybe that's completely fucking dumb, or maybe completely fucking dumb is assuming we have the time to try out a whole smorgasbord of impractical shit - squirrel wheels, rubber bands, any other ideas?

If you don't want countries (not just the US - your own OP is about countries other than the USA) to all be entirely dependent on nuclear and nothing else, then they need to use some renewables.

It is completely fucking dumb to be anti-renewables. But particularly in a case where they actually fit the demand well.

It won't happen. India has made it clear in climate talks that they will never, ever sacrifice growth for the climate, and China has done so in less vociferous terms. Roger Pielke, Jr.'s so-called "Iron Rule", which he delineates in The Climate Fix, argues fairly convincingly that no country will ever sacrifice growth for the climate, and that Western renewables efforts are merely politicoenvironmental shell games which are not reducing carbon emissions a whit.

If the U.S. doesn't devote resources to create a practical, mass-produced 4th gen nuclear solution, what will happen is these countries will soon be using more A/C than the U.S. (see graph) and using coal to power it. Game over.

*When I refer to renewables I'm talking about solar/wind. Hydro and geothermal are great where they exist, but not a lot of potential for growth.

Fuck, that's your plan - put all the world's eggs into nuclear power, and wait for the entire world to convert to it? That technology which causes problems when the world's most technically advanced countries use it - you want it powering everything, everywhere? Yes, Bangladesh do need to start using renewables. Luckily, they already have, and aren't waiting around for the nuclear power stations to drop from the sky courtesy of the USA.

If we're really lucky, someone will design practical, safe nuclear power stations and we can work out the mining infrastructure to power them all over the world. And we'll have governments everywhere we're all happy selling nuclear fuel to, because we know none of them would ever misuse it. But to say "that's our only chance - screw the alternatives, we'll just use fossil fuels until the wonder solution arrives" would be deeply irresponsible.

I think you can at least now see why your OP was such a non sequitur, though.

Not the technology "which causes problems when the world's most technically advanced countries use it", because that technology is 40 years old. If the U.S. assigned a put-a-man-on-the-moon priority to molten salt reactors, which:

1) Have already been proven to work
2) Can use existing stockpiles of nuclear waste for fuel
3) Leave 1% of the waste of traditional pressurized-water reactors
4) Leave waste that is radioactive for hundreds of years, instead of thousands
5) After an initial "seeding" with U-233 can run on abundant and safe thorium for 30 years

there is no known reason why they couldn't be mass-produced and begin to replace coal plants within 10 years.

The reason these are not being developed in the U.S. now are 0% logistical and 100% political. Harry Reid and Orin Hatch co-sponsored a bill in 2009 to devote a meager $250M to MSR development, and it was killed in the Senate Natural Resources committee by the chairman, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Why? New Mexico is the home of URENCO, the world's largest uranium mining and manufacturing consortium (a reactor which requires a few pounds of uranium every 30 years doesn't make uranium producers the happiest of campers).

I see from your link a writer who is bemoaning the Bangladesh governments lack of commitment to renewables, and a program that in 2015 will be satisfying about a tenth of a percent of Bangladesh's energy needs. Whether deeply irresponsible or not, "screw the alternatives" is what is actually happening with the status quo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11273055

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-13/news/31055435_1_durban-climate-key-non-negotiable-principle-climate-talks

When he speaks of "the people", I get the sense he doesn't mean the average American. We are excluded from his outlook on growth.