Make that $45 trillion to fight AGW.

Great Debates
1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change

It says that “most” of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector. I just don’t see it happening when a country like China shows no intention whatsoever of slowing down it’s use of carbon fuel for at least the next 100 years. They also have recently signed huge energy deals with Africa for more coal since China’s coal reserve has been estimated to only last for about 100 years.

I don’t like the idea of nuclear energy at all, and I see no mention of Solar power either which in my opinion is vastly superior to nuclear energy (as I know it with all the toxic waste it produces as a by-product). Stick a bunch of solar collectors on towers in deserts that track the sun as it “moves” in the course of a day and our problems would be solved, mostly.

2

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]

I don’t like the idea of nuclear energy at all, and I see no mention of Solar power either which in my opinion is vastly superior to nuclear energy (as I know it with all the toxic waste it produces as a by-product). Stick a bunch of solar collectors on towers in deserts that track the sun as it “moves” in the course of a day and our problems would be solved, mostly.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, if it was that easy you’d think someone would have built those solar collectors by now. I wonder why they haven’t bothered?

-Joe

3

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]

Stick a bunch of solar collectors on towers in deserts that track the sun as it “moves” in the course of a day and our problems would be solved, mostly.
[/QUOTE]

“Mostly”. How you planning on dealing with the 50% of the time that the sun isn’t available?

4

Whether China does or not I would say it’s a given that the US will be investing heavily in non-CO2 emission technology in the next few decades. No idea if it will equal $45 trillion (or whatever our percentage of that would be), but it will be a bundle, no doubt of that.

You probably see no mention of solar power because it currently doesn’t scale up to meet anywhere near or needs. It’s a niche power source at best, at least for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean it isn’t being developed or that it’s worthless…but it currently has to big a foot print and doesn’t meet our overall needs.

Nuclear does. Out of curiosity…why don’t you like nuclear exactly?

How do you plan to get the energy out of the desert and to those city things where people live? Unless you are only planning to use the power in the desert states (or regions in the world) of course. Were you planning to use the power somewhere else?

(this of course leaves aside the fact that such a program would cost a ton and that current solar technology isn’t nearly ready for this kind of scale…but those are minor problems of course :))

-XT

5

45 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! OMG! OMG! WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!!

Ok, deep breaths, everyone. The cited article notes that the $45 trillion is 1.1% of world GDP over the same period. Clearly, it’s not a trivial amount, but neither is it a complete and utter train wreck. The CIA World Fact Book estimates 2006 world GDP at about $66 trillion (on a purchasing power parity basis). 1.1% of that is $726 billion. Wikipedia notes that the US spent about $626 billion on “military related expenses” in 2007. So about 14 months worth of the US military expenditures would cover the costs for the entire world. The US spent about 7.4% of its own GDP on energy in 2004 according to Energy Information Administration data - I’m sure that’s up a bit now with the higher fuel prices. That amount was about $870 billion (again in 2004). If we increased that 7.4% to 8.5%, we would cover the US share of that 1.1% (although the US will probably need to spend at a higher rate than some places, but lower than others).

It’s a lot of money, no doubt. But it’s not a huge increase over what we’re now spending on energy. The bottom line is that this is not a death sentence, and we should not pay much attention to those who say it is. (Edit - I don’t mean to imply that the OP was in a panic, but I just read through the Obama-climate thread which was clearly designed to instill panic amongst the gentle Doper community.)

6

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
45 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! OMG! OMG! WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!!

Ok, deep breaths, everyone. The cited article notes that the $45 trillion is 1.1% of world GDP over the same period. Clearly, it’s not a trivial amount, but neither is it a complete and utter train wreck.
[/QUOTE]

It’s an opportunity for smart people and smart companies to make a huge amount of money. Its not a totally free market, of course, the dread hand of government will be needed to facilitate some of it - waste repositories and suchlike, but c’mon, it’s very doable.

7

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Wow, if it was that easy you’d think someone would have built those solar collectors by now. I wonder why they haven’t bothered?

-Joe
[/QUOTE]

I think it is because there have been many other cheap and easily exploitable energy resources, and until now there hasn’t been a “need” to shift to move to something else. Where there is a will…there is a way of course.

8

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Whether China does or not I would say it’s a given that the US will be investing heavily in non-CO2 emission technology in the next few decades. No idea if it will equal $45 trillion (or whatever our percentage of that would be), but it will be a bundle, no doubt of that.

You probably see no mention of solar power because it currently doesn’t scale up to meet anywhere near or needs. It’s a niche power source at best, at least for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean it isn’t being developed or that it’s worthless…but it currently has to big a foot print and doesn’t meet our overall needs.

Nuclear does. Out of curiosity…why don’t you like nuclear exactly?

How do you plan to get the energy out of the desert and to those city things where people live? Unless you are only planning to use the power in the desert states (or regions in the world) of course. Were you planning to use the power somewhere else?

(this of course leaves aside the fact that such a program would cost a ton and that current solar technology isn’t nearly ready for this kind of scale…but those are minor problems of course :))

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I argue that if there was enough public demand for solar power to be a large part of the solution it would happen. All some people have to do is figure out a way to make alot of money and it is a done deal. Mother Necessity and all that…

The sun is always shining SOMEWHERE so all we have to do is set up a innfrastructure that could capture that energy and funnel it to areas where the sun is not shining. I suspect that *microwave power transmission * would be the key for all of this, and I am sure that there needs to be a feasibility study.

I envision large towers with solar collectors on them. That way instead of having many square miles covered with solar panels in the desert we would have instead concentrations of towers with a certain amount of panels running straight up and perhaps out a little bit. Maybe something akin to the boughs of a Christmas tree. Then microwave transmission towers beam the energy without the need of wires all over the globe to distribution centers that provide the power for the customers.

If the biggest obstacle is cost I don’t see why it wouldn’t work.

'Course I am just thinking aloud here and have background in science at all…

I don’t like nuclear because I remember Chernobyl.

9

[QUOTE=Struan]
It’s an opportunity for smart people and smart companies to make a huge amount of money. Its not a totally free market, of course, the dread hand of government will be needed to facilitate some of it - waste repositories and suchlike, but c’mon, it’s very doable.
[/QUOTE]
So an enterprising person could fly around the world in a private jet and sell carbon credits? That sounds doable. If I can just get someone to pay me $100,000 for a sales presentation I’m set…..now where did I put my slide projector?

10

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
I argue that if there was enough public demand for solar power to be a large part of the solution it would happen. All some people have to do is figure out a way to make alot of money and it is a done deal. Mother Necessity and all that…
[/QUOTE]

Well, if we could we would. We have 9 Solar thermal plants in the US with more on the way but if I remember correctly it’s still something like 50% more expensive than coal. What we do have is an unlimited supply of coal and we can use the CO2 off these power plants to feed diesel algae farms which in turn could produce all the transportation fuel needed. We’re already using this technology NOW. If we use our own coal to produce our own diesel then all that money stays in the country and the taxes can be used to fund the next generation of power.

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
I don’t like nuclear because I remember Chernobyl.
[/QUOTE]
Well your memory should include the fact that it was a poorly designed facility. Don’t remember the technical side of it but it was of a type where additional water added to the core made the problem worse. We have the technology to build a safe reactor and we also have a lot of scrub land that is located 200 miles on the other side of BFE.

11

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Well, if we could we would. We have 9 Solar thermal plants in the US with more on the way but if I remember correctly it’s still something like 50% more expensive than coal. What we do have is an unlimited supply of coal and we can use the CO2 off these power plants to feed diesel algae farms which in turn could produce all the transportation fuel needed. We’re already using this technology NOW. If we use our own coal to produce our own diesel then all that money stays in the country and the taxes can be used to fund the next generation of power.

Well your memory should include the fact that it was a poorly designed facility. Don’t remember the technical side of it but it was of a type where additional water added to the core made the problem worse. We have the technology to build a safe reactor and we also have a lot of scrub land that is located 200 miles on the other side of BFE.
[/QUOTE]

But coal is teh suck. The idea is to stop burning filthy coal right? Solar power is the way to go because the only emissions it creates were created when the solar panels were made. When you start talking about burning coal to created CO2 to feed algae that will eventually be turned into something to fuel a car it is an unecessary emission of green house gas times 2.

Nuclear plants suck because the risk of any nuclear plant being poorly designed AND built rests upon the shoulders of the actual people who do such work. I don’t trust anyone to get something like that right.

12

Solar power isn’t the solution; it simply doesn’t produce enough energy. And microwave trasmission would only make the problem worse, since it’s innately inefficient. Nuclear energy IS the solution, because it’s the technology we have that will give us the energy we want. And if anything solar is less ecologically friendly than nuclear; plenty of chemical waste from manufacturing the cells, lots of land that needs to be used, etc.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Well your memory should include the fact that it was a poorly designed facility. Don’t remember the technical side of it but it was of a type where additional water added to the core made the problem worse.
[/QUOTE]
Among other things, I recall that it was a graphite moderated reactor - in other words, the system designed to keep it from overheating was flammable.

And they decided to save money by not building a containment dome.

And they chose people to run the plant according to their political credentials and not their technical ones.

And they decided to run a safety test by shutting off it’s safety systems and inducing a crisis.
Really; if you ran any other large industrial facility like that, disaster isn’t surprising. Which is one reason why the Soviet Union was such an ecological mess. Nuclear energy wasn’t the problem.

13

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Make that $45 trillion to fight AGW.
[/QUOTE]
The article doesn’t say what the forecast electrical demand is in 2050, nor does it say how many trillions we’d need to spend to meet that demand without taking global warming into account.
I expect the later figure is in the multiple tens of trillions range.

14

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Solar power isn’t the solution; it simply doesn’t produce enough energy..
[/QUOTE]
I need to take notes when I research stuff but the solar thermal plants are more efficient than solar panels and they’re not out of the realm of being on par with coal. I’m guessing that it’s a materials problem given the amount of space these things take up. They’re essentially nothing but a bunch of computer controlled reflectors that heat up oil inside a tube. If we can make a pex like conduit that can stand 800 deg F then the capital expenditure would go way down. Certainly the reflectors could be improved upon on a cost/per square foot basis.

Given the possibility of a paint-on solar cell that produces electricity we may be able to make a reflective paint that creates electricity and reflects the infra red rays back to a collector that captures the heat. In the near-term I’d like nuclear power to keep the wheels of progress turning.

15

How are you going to get the power from the desert to the folks trying to use the stuff without unacceptable loss? Or is the plan to only use this solar tech near the big cities in the South West?

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Solar power isn’t the solution; it simply doesn’t produce enough energy. And microwave trasmission would only make the problem worse, since it’s innately inefficient. Nuclear energy IS the solution, because it’s the technology we have that will give us the energy we want. And if anything solar is less ecologically friendly than nuclear; plenty of chemical waste from manufacturing the cells, lots of land that needs to be used, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty much what he said…and with the newer generation of nuclear reactors that can be made safer, smaller, more efficient and less manpower intensive we would be able to use them in more places than solar and wind can currently be used efficiently.

This isn’t to say that solar and wind won’t have their niches…they will. But solar, wind, geothermal, etc will never be able to scale up to take over the majority of our power needs. Besides coal and other hydrocarbon based fuels, nuclear is the only technology available that can scale up currently to meet our needs.

So…people need to ask themselves. What’s important here? Is CO2 emissions a concern? Should we attempt to lower those emissions in a meaningful way? Can we wait a few decades (or more) for solar/wind etc to be ready for prime time? If it’s important, and if we need to start doing something about it then the eco types need to get the old dinosaur anti-nukes out of the way so we can start building nuclear power plants and the logistics and infrastructure we need to safely handle the waste.

Simple as that.

-XT

16

[QUOTE=xtisme]
How are you going to get the power from the desert to the folks trying to use the stuff without unacceptable loss? Or is the plan to only use this solar tech near the big cities in the South West?
[/QUOTE]

Even if you limit the tech to areas near deserts, you still get a significant portion of the energy consumption of the US covered. Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas are all close enough to (or right in the middle of) enormous deserts.

I think the solution to the fuel and greenhouse gas crises will include at least some solar generated electricity. Nuclear is almost certainly going to be a much bigger part of the solution, but there’s just no single particular tech that will be the answer to oil and coal.

17

I don’t think a massive solar facility is the most appropriate use for the technology. Use Solar panels on the tops of buildings to reduce overall demand on the power grid, and coal/nuclear as a scalable source for the difference that the solar power doesn’t provide.

Think about a typical suburban mall or a large warehouse: A large single/dual story building with a massive footprint that uses primarily artificial lighting, and is open/operational during the day. Cover the roof with solar panels, and the mall can produce a large portion of its own energy needs. At night, the building won’t produce energy, but needs less because it is closed.

Think about a typical suburban home: Millions of empty rooftops across the US that are exposed to sunlight all day long, when the occupants are at work. Install solar panels on the roofs. During the day, while the home’s energy needs are low, the panels are sending electricity to the grid to help power office, retail, and industrial buildings. In the evening, when people return home, the panels won’t produce energy, but the retail and office buildings will be shut down.

When are electricity demands highest, causing rolling blackouts, and pleas from the power companies to reduce usage? In the middle of summer, when the sun is blazing, and everyone is blasting their air conditioners to keep cool. This is the perfect situation for solar power to shine. cover the under-utilized rooftops with power-producing panels and you reduce your needs from the coal and nuclear plants around the country.

18

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
45 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! OMG! OMG! WE’RE ALL DOOMED!!!

Ok, deep breaths, everyone. The cited article notes that the $45 trillion is 1.1% of world GDP over the same period. Clearly, it’s not a trivial amount, but neither is it a complete and utter train wreck. The CIA World Fact Book estimates 2006 world GDP at about $66 trillion (on a purchasing power parity basis). 1.1% of that is $726 billion. Wikipedia notes that the US spent about $626 billion on “military related expenses” in 2007. So about 14 months worth of the US military expenditures would cover the costs for the entire world. The US spent about 7.4% of its own GDP on energy in 2004 according to Energy Information Administration data - I’m sure that’s up a bit now with the higher fuel prices. That amount was about $870 billion (again in 2004). If we increased that 7.4% to 8.5%, we would cover the US share of that 1.1% (although the US will probably need to spend at a higher rate than some places, but lower than others).

It’s a lot of money, no doubt. But it’s not a huge increase over what we’re now spending on energy. The bottom line is that this is not a death sentence, and we should not pay much attention to those who say it is. (Edit - I don’t mean to imply that the OP was in a panic, but I just read through the Obama-climate thread which was clearly designed to instill panic amongst the gentle Doper community.)
[/QUOTE]
Claiming that spending some incredibly huge amount of money is OK because it’s only 1.1% of some even huger number is meaningless. That’s like saying “your kid’s gonna die, but its no problem, it’s only 1% of the kids in the town, so it’s no big deal” … spending $45 trillion dollars would make this one of the largest projects humans have ever undertaken. Saying “deep breaths everyone” is a meaningless and insulting response to people who might be seriously (and rightly) concerned by someone proposing the largest project in human history, especially when the project is based on untested, unverified computer models and may not even work.

The issues are a) will spending the money actually cut emissions in half?, and b) will cutting emissions in half make a significant difference in the climate, and c) do we have other very important places to spend $45 trillion dollars?

Given the fact that, despite spending billions of dollars, most of the European economies have not been able to reduce their CO2 emissions at all, much less in a significant manner, the odds seem to be against a).

The answer to b) is unknown at this point. There are some people who say yes, some who say no, but the jury is still out – it is an experiment which has never been done.

And given the huge and pressing nature of the problems of the world, the answer to c) is clearly yes.

A trillion dollars is a huge, insane, almost unimaginable amount of money. If someone had started a business when Jesus was born, and that business lost an incredible amount, say a million dollars a day, would his business have lost a trillion dollars in the last 2000 years?

Nope … not yet. A million a day for two thousand years, that’s not a trillion.

They are proposing spending a trillion dollars, not over 2000 years, but each and every year for 45 years on this boondoggle. That’s about three billion dollars a day, each and every day, for forty years … to maybe guard against a possible threat … while we have people living on a dollar a day, children sold into sex slavery, babies dying for lack of clean water, AIDS ravaging Africa, girls without education, and my friend’s kid dying of malaria.

Me, if I had three billion a day to spend, I’d spend it on that … but YMMV …

w.

PS - the crazy part is that, of course, no one thinks that spending $45 trillion dollars will give us a good climate, or even a friendly climate, or anything but the same old shitty climate we’ve always had. You know that climate, the same sweet, lovable climate that has killed hundreds of thousands of people every year for the entirety of all recorded history? I’d pay $45 trillion for a good climate, a climate that didn’t do that kind of shit … but paying huge bucks for a climate that freezes us and roasts us and drowns us at a rate of knots, on the off chance that will keep that same ratbag, murderous climate from maybe getting a little bit worse, doesn’t make sense to me.

19

Oh, yeah, forgot to mention … the plan calls for building a new nuclear plant every three weeks for 45 years, a total of 1,400 new plants … but hey, take a deep breath, that’s only 1.1% of 127,000 nuclear plants.

Lets see, the US is about a sixth of the world economy, so the US would have to build 245 nuclear power plants in 45 years, that’s five nuclear plants every year for 45 years … does anyone actually think this is a practical plan, one that would be all right if we just took a deep breath and meditated on the idea that 1,400 is really a very small number?

w.

20

[QUOTE=intention]
And given the huge and pressing nature of the problems of the world, the answer to c) is clearly yes.
[/quote]
Climate change is presently one of the largest single and most pressing problems facing the world. It’s not some trivial thing that we can put off; in fact, odds are good that it’s too late and disaster is inevitable. Which is one reason why people are talking about such huge expenses; if we’d started seriously going nuclear decades ago, we wouldn’t be in this fix, and wouldn’t have nearly so much left to do.

[QUOTE=intention]
That’s about three billion dollars a day, each and every day, for forty years … to maybe guard against a possible threat … while we have people living on a dollar a day, children sold into sex slavery, babies dying for lack of clean water, AIDS ravaging Africa, girls without education, and my friend’s kid dying of malaria.
[/quote]
All of which are small compared to climate change. All of which will be made worse by climate change, one way or another. And the threat isn’t “possible”; it’s already happened. The only question is how much worse it will get and how fast.

[QUOTE=intention]
PS - the crazy part is that, of course, no one thinks that spending $45 trillion dollars will give us a good climate, or even a friendly climate, or anything but the same old shitty climate we’ve always had. You know that climate, the same sweet, lovable climate that has killed hundreds of thousands of people every year for the entirety of all recorded history? I’d pay $45 trillion for a good climate, a climate that didn’t do that kind of shit … but paying huge bucks for a climate that freezes us and roasts us and drowns us at a rate of knots, on the off chance that will keep that same ratbag, murderous climate from maybe getting a little bit worse, doesn’t make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]
Not a little bit worse; much worse. We are quite likely looking at a climate change worse than any experienced than any since the last glacial period. A disaster bigger than any in historical times.

You are operating under the assumption that the result of doing nothing will be better, or at least cheaper than doing nothing, and we have no reason to believe that. And also, regardless of climate change much of this would have to be done anyway; we’ve neglected our infrastructure, and there’s only so much oil. Basically, if people like you are right, that doesn’t mean that we should not do this; it just means that we are utterly screwed. If we can’t afford this or something similar, then we are headed for a general collapse when the oceans rise and the oil runs out, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

[QUOTE==intention]
Lets see, the US is about a sixth of the world economy, so the US would have to build 245 nuclear power plants in 45 years, that’s five nuclear plants every year for 45 years … does anyone actually think this is a practical plan, one that would be all right if we just took a deep breath and meditated on the idea that 1,400 is really a very small number?
[/QUOTE]
It’s certainly more practical than your “Let’s Pretend There’s No Problem Because The Solution Is Expensive” plan.