Energy Production in the U.S. is not a problem

[LonghornDave]

@begbert2

4. ignoring the possility of nuclear growth. 5) Ignoring that the trend is for consumption per capita to be highly static. 6) Presuming a double standard of changability in nuclear power presumption (presumed none) and consumption (presumed high) completely sans facts -nay, completely contrary to facts in the latter case.

I’m not ignoring the possibility of nuclear growth, I am saying it has significant roadblocks that make it nearly impossible as a real world solution. It’s fine for a theoretical solution, but do you really think there is any chance for the large scale expansion necessary?

How am I ignoring the trend for consumption per capita to be static? I am the one who first stated it. If the population is rising and consumption per capita stays static, consumption still rises.

How do I have a double standard? You seem to be ignoring that in the real world population is increasing in the U.S. Saying that consumption is increasing is a simple fact. It is indisputable. Further, I have never presumed no change in nuclear power generation. I have presumed no change in nuclear power generation that significantly increases the overall production of energy in the U.S. That is a huge difference.

@begbert2

And the capper - you’re mixing up “problem” and “solution”. The problem is that there’s an energy deficit -er, presuming we accept the premise that the problem is that there’s an energy deficit. That’s the problem. Period. Is consumption the problem? No more than production is, mathematically speaking; from the perspective of the deficit problem fixing either would be equally effective. If we look at if from the perspective of solutions, though, then the answer becomes “whatever solution best addresses the problem”. If the best solution addresses consumption, then you can call consumption the sub-problem to be addressed to correct the (assumed) deficit problem. If your solution fixes production, then production is the sub-problem to be addressed.

This is absurd. Do you really have a issue with me calling production or consumption a problem instead of a sub-problem? Obviously the top of the line problem is the deficit. After that it can be stated that the problem causing the deficit is consumption, production, combination. There is no meaningful difference between saying “the problem causing the deficit is too high of consumption” versus “the solution to the deficit problem is reducing the consumption”.

@begbert2

However, what you’re doing is coming into this without any solution whatsoever. You’ve provided no reason to think that consumption is more correctable the production - the closest you’ve come to that is saying that coal and oil can’t be improved, and then asserting that nuclear can never work. But without an actual way to do it, fixing consumption will never work either. And asserting that consumption is the real problem achieves nothing but closing yourself off to solutions in other quarters, which is methodologically self-sabotaging.

You want to fix consumption? Then fix consumption. Don’t tell us to ignore everything else.

It’s not self sabatoging. The issue that I see is the converse of what you are saying I am doing. Almost all public discourse focuses on production with very little attention paid to consumption. If it is made clear that production alone, or primarily, can not realistically fix the deficit, it forces the discussion to include the consumption side. Before you propose a solution, you usually need to recognize a problem.

@begbert2

Here’s what I believe:

1. the energy deficit isn’t necessarily a problem; declaring it to be a premise of this discussion turns this discussion into a game.

How is it any more of a game than any other message board discussion? To have an isolated discussion that doesn’t meander in multiple other directions requires certain assumptions to be set at the beginning.

@begbert2

2. Any solution that includes reduction of consumption is by defintion also a solution that addresses a combination of production and consumption, so you mock yourself. However, any idiot knows that problems are best addressed from as many angles as possible.

Are you serious with this comment? Do you seriously have this much difficulty in the written language? Yes, I agree that A is a subset of A + B. Do you have that much trouble understanding that if a person says “is the answer A, B, or a combination of A and B” that the person means for the ‘combination of A and B’ to have neither equal to zero or near zero? Do you really think you have caught me in some sort of a logical fallacy by saying that 100% consumption is actually a combination of consumption and production just with production being equal to 0%?

Further, obviously I don’t mean to completely ignore production. It’s obvious that ignoring production completely would only lead to a bigger deficit since we would likely see reduced production as a result of ignoring it instead of maintained production. To clear up any doubt, I mean that consumption is a bigger problem than constrained production.

[begbert2]

@LonghornDave

Further, obviously I don’t mean to completely ignore production. It’s obvious that ignoring production completely would only lead to a bigger deficit since we would likely see reduced production as a result of ignoring it instead of maintained production. To clear up any doubt, I mean that consumption is a bigger problem than constrained production.

God only knows what you mean, or what you hope to bring forth in this debate, but it’s hardly clear that you don’t mean to ignore production, since you’ve spent a fair amount of time in this thread saying that production is “impossible” to improve. What are we supposed to take away from that? That we should pay a lot of attention to it, because it’s a lost cause?

And what do you propose to do about consumption? Any ideas? At all? 'Cause we’re already aware that reducing consumption is a way to reduce the energy deficit, thank you very much.

[DanBlather]

I’m not sure why there is so much hostility to reducing consumption. Changing the CAFE standards, better home insulation, changes to lighting, better public transportation, shipping more freight by train, and reducing packaging are all very workable and they would create new jobs in the short term and pay back economically in the longer term.

More far reaching changes can be made by addressing how cities are laid out, increasing telecommuting, looking at what hours businesses are open, using more natural lighting, and many, many other changes.

It’s inevitable that we will need to address consumption since energy costs will rise as developing countries create more demand.

[Sam_Stone]

@DanBlather

I’m not sure why there is so much hostility to reducing consumption. Changing the CAFE standards, better home insulation, changes to lighting, better public transportation, shipping more freight by train, and reducing packaging are all very workable and they would create new jobs in the short term and pay back economically in the longer term.

This is the kind of blatant assertion that bugs me. How exactly do you know that doiing this will pay back economically in the longer term? If it did, why isn’t the market driving that behavior already? It’s not like people are averse to recycling and lowering energy costs where it makes sense. There are thriving businesses that recycle cars, plastics, aluminum, you name it. Businesses expend a lot of effort reducing energy consumption - my job in part involves providing software that allows factories to reduce energy consumption.

But there’s always a point you reach where additional reductions cost more than the energy you save. And yet, politicians and activists just wave their hands and asset that not only can these factories conserve more, but they can make more profit by doing so.

More far reaching changes can be made by addressing how cities are laid out, increasing telecommuting, looking at what hours businesses are open, using more natural lighting, and many, many other changes.

“Changing how cities are laid out”? Right. We’ll get right on that.

Again, you’ve got all kinds of plans for micro-managing business hours, forcing people to use lighting other than what they’ve chosen and making “many other changes”. And I suppose it will all create jobs and improve the economy too, huh?

As for shipping more stuff by rail, did you know that the U.S. already ships a higher percentage of freight by rail than almost any other country? I suppose you’re a fan of high-speed rail too, huh? In Europe, where passenger rail is extensive, freight has been offloaded from the trains into vans and trucks, making their delivery less energy efficient. These decisions are not trivial, and they’re not obvious.

It’s inevitable that we will need to address consumption since energy costs will rise as developing countries create more demand.

No, it’s not inevitable. Nuclear power’s fuel cost is a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclear, so even large changes in demand won’t affect the price much. Wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power cost the same whether there are a billion other people getting power the same way or ten billion. And right now, world oil and coal reserves are actually increasing.

As for the OP’s assertion that a gap between production and consumption constitutes a consumption problem, let me ask you this:

The U.S. produces about 3,000 metric tons of mangoes per year. But it imports about 187,000 metric tons. So… Does the U.S. have a mango production problem, or a mango consumption problem?

Here’s a hint: There’s NO problem.

Why should a gap between production and consumption of energy be seen as a problem at all?

[begbert2]

@Sam_Stone

As for the OP’s assertion that a gap between production and consumption constitutes a consumption problem, let me ask you this:

The U.S. produces about 3,000 metric tons of mangoes per year. But it imports about 187,000 metric tons. So… Does the U.S. have a mango production problem, or a mango consumption problem?

Here’s a hint: There’s NO problem.

Why should a gap between production and consumption of energy be seen as a problem at all?

'Cause he says so. I called him on this and his response was that it’s an axiom of the OP - deal with it. Perhaps he anticipates the passing of a new Isolationism Act which cuts off all trade of any kind with anywhere else ever again.

Of course, even assuming that the trade disparity is a problem - your example hilights what the discussion is. If you want to reduce the mango deficit, then there are two potential approaches (which can both be pursued at once):

1. Grow more mangoes locally.

2. Talk the locals out of eating as many mangoes.

Call me silly, but presuming you’re dealing with an industry that’s not currently operating at the limit of its production capacity (like nuclear, and perhaps wind, water, and solar), increasing local production is merely a matter of incentivizing it, which can be done by removing roadblocks and imposing artificial restrictions on importing like tariffs. Getting people not to consume as much, on the other hand, does not have an easy answer. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to reduce consumption somewhat, but there’s no one-size-fits-all plan for doing so - so before we can decide if it’s a feasable approach, we need to know what the precise proposed approach for reducing consumption will be.

[DanBlather]

@Sam_Stone

The U.S. produces about 3,000 metric tons of mangoes per year. But it imports about 187,000 metric tons. So… Does the U.S. have a mango production problem, or a mango consumption problem?

Here’s a hint: There’s NO problem.

Why should a gap between production and consumption of energy be seen as a problem at all?

Because we spend several orders of magnitude more on petroleum than mangoes? Because you can easily substitute other food for mangoes but you can’t for petroleum? Because the demand for mangoes is elastic and petroleum is inelastic? Because petroleum is a strategic resource and mangoes aren’t? Other than that it’s great analogy.