Still support nuke power plants?

[XT]

I’m saying that China is now the largest user of coal, and that it makes up a huge percentage of their energy mix. I think hydro is the next highest (10-15% IIRC) with nuclear being about 5% (again from memory) and the rest coming mainly from natural gas and assorted ‘green’ energy. And that mix isn’t likely to change that much (I think China has about 10-20 Nuclear plants with another 25-30 under construction…so they will be doubling their use of nuclear in the next 10 years, but since their overall energy usage will be going up as well the percentage is unlikely to change much).

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Can we agree China in this day and age is a bit of an anachronism? They’re trying to put a man on the moon which is something we did decades and decades ago (can’t do it now, but whatevs). Should we get into some sort of nuclear energy race with China? For Earth’s sake, why?
[/QUOTE]

No, we should build nuclear power plants because if we want to reduce GhG it’s the only viable way to do it on a large scale, given the technology currently available. What China does is it’s own concern, and should only concern us in that they are building coal plants (DIRTY coal plants) like mad right now. They have pretty much tapped out their ability to use hydro IIRC (and done so in a way that is shockingly damaging to the environment, not to mention destroying the homes of literally millions of their citizens), and ‘green’ energy is only going to take them so far in their needs (a few percentage points at best).

Should we give them clean coal technology? Should we give them transmission technology? Energy storage technology as we develop it? No. Let them eventually steal it like they always do.

No…we should SELL them those things, though I doubt they will want them right now, at least not on a large scale. Right now what they are worried about is supplying all the energy they need and will need in the future…which means building cheap, dirty coal plants as quickly as they can.

-XT

[elucidator]

And the insurance? Who’s going to write the liability insurance for these plants? AIG? If friend XT is right, and this Murphyisitic disaster only underlines the total no-prob safety of nuclear plant, there will be no change in the costs for insurance, the Free Market, in its infinite wisdom, will examine all the evidence, and reach the inevitable conclusion.

But what if they don’t? Thinking the unthinkable is my specialty, what if they don’t?

I have only a surface understanding of this as it relates to Japan, but what little I can glean says that the Japan Electric company insures itself, more or less. Trouble is, of course, the asset base of of that company is somewhat compromised. (I like to employ my gift for understatement ever once in a while.) But no problem, the deal states that if Japan Electric is overwhelmed, the liability is handed over to the government.

Oh, dear. Our small-government types are not going to like that much, now are they? Can’t have government intruding on the Free Market, now can we? Well, maybe a little. Money wants this thing, and Money TALKS. And whatever Lola wants, Lola gets.

Quietly, very quietly, as quiet as a kitten walking on a deep shag carpet, some “adjustments” are going to be made. A few little legal mechanisms installed, so that insurance companies can underwrite the liability for nuke plants on the basis of previous assumptions of the Murphy proof nuke plant. And a little proviso will be tucked away, stating without equivocation that, in the event of catastrophe, insurance providers will be on the hook for every dollar of a multi-Godzillabuck liability. Unless, of course, they don’t want to. Then the liability will pass to the Federal government.

Small government types loathe this sort of thing. But they will find a way to see their way clear to this. Money can be very persuasive.

[elucidator]

Yes, indeed, we sell them “clean coal” technology! In fact, I’d like to buy some right now! Where do I go to buy this “clean coal”? If its in the aisle next to unicorns, that will be cool, because I want one of those, too.

[XT]

You could start here. It’s real enough, though more expensive than conventional coal plants. Una probably knows a ton about it and can say whether it’s fantasy or reality.

-XT

[XT]

As for insurance for nuclear power plants:

Insurance
US

Insurance for nuclear or radiological incidents in the U.S. is organized by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. In general, nuclear power plants have private insurance and assessments that are pooled into a fund currently worth about $10 billion. Insurance claims beyond the fund’s size would be organized by, and probably paid by, the U.S. government. In July 2005, Congress extended this Act to newer facilities. For full history, details and controversy, see Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

So…there is a pooled $10 billion insurance in the US if there is a disaster, and the government would have to pick up the tab after that. My guess is that if a nuke plant goes tits up badly enough to warrant something more than $10 billion then the nuke plant going tits up is probably the least of our worries.

Here is another Wiki cite that goes into more detail:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act’s passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate. [1]

Comparisons to Other Industries

United States law requires payment of 8 cents per barrel of oil to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for all oil imported or produced. For this payment, operators of offshore oil platforms (among others) are limited in liability to $75 million for damages (which can be paid by the fund), but are not indemnified from the cost of cleanup. As of 2010, before payouts related to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, the fund stood at $1.6 billion.[7]

Criticisms

The Price-Anderson Act has been criticized by various think tanks and environmental organizations, including Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace International, Public Citizen and the Cato Institute. Public Citizen has been particularly critical of Price-Anderson; it claims that the Act understates the risks inherent in atomic power, does not require reactors to carry adequate insurance, and would therefore result in taxpayers footing most of the bill for a catastrophic accident.[8] An analysis by economists Heyes and Heyes (1998) places the value of the government insurance subsidy at $2.3 million per reactor-year, or $237 million annually.[9] In 2008 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the value of the subsidy at only $600,000 per reactor per year. [10] Due to the structure of the liability immunities as the number of nuclear plants in operation is reduced the public liability in case of an accident goes up.[11]

The free government-granted insurance given to for-profit nuclear plant operators in the Price-Anderson Act has been used as an example of corporate welfare by Ralph Nader.[11]

Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups due to a portion of the Act that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). “No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel”. [12] The Energy Department counters those critics by saying that the distinction is irrelevant, since the damage to the public would be the same. [13]

-XT

[levdrakon]

@Steve_MB

It is highly disingenuous to support NIMBY obstructionism and then cite costs caused by NIMBY obstructionism as part of your case.

It’s disingenuous to claim NAMBLA-ism or whatever is the sole reason for the dearth of nuclear projects in the US, and around the world.

I hate fucking NAMBLIES or whatever they are. I really do. Obama was bitching about it recently.

there are 351 projects stalled or canceled for a host of reasons, including regulatory barriers, lawsuits and threats of legal action. These projects include 140 renewable energy projects, of which 89 projects are wind related, 4 are wave related, 10 are solar energy related, 7 are related to hydropower, 29 related to ethanol/biomass and 1 geothermal project.

This represents (minus the stupid ones that would never have been approved)

[ul]
[li]Planning and construction of the projects would generate $577 billion in direct investment.[/li][li]The indirect and induced effects would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), including $352 billion in employment earnings over an average construction period of seven years.[/li][li]As many as 1.9 million jobs would be required during each year of construction if these projects were pursued.[/li][li]The operation of the projects, including multiplier effects, would yield $145 billion in increased GDP, $35 billion in employment earnings and an average 791,200 jobs per year of operation.[/li][li]The total potential economic and employment benefits of the subject projects, if constructed and operated for twenty years, would be approximately $3.4 trillion in GDP, including $1.4 trillion in employment earnings.[/li][/ul]

Two million fucking jobs swirling the toilet. Yes, I do hate those fucking NAMBLIES or whatever. I do.

Oh, while we’re on the subject. 1.9 million jobs. Let’s call it 2 mil. Nuclear power plants create between 400-700 permanent jobs, per plant. Let’s compare: 2 million jobs divided by let’s say 500 employees/jobs per nuke plant… that’s 4,000 nuke plants.

Ha, ha, ha!

[gonzomax]

@L. G. Butts

Yo, gonzo, does post 199 sway you in the slightest? You realize we will never, never, ever be able to convince the masses to give up power, even if their neighbors were burning to death in a nuclear reactor core catcher. Not all of them. Not enough of them. Do you really want to give up on nuclear? Would it matter if I proved to you that their is no way in hell that we could switch over to renewables in the next 50 years? Really, does post 199 have no impact on your stance here?

I am well aware that coal plants are dirty . I also am well aware that with the incredible political power the energy producers have, they will fight to the death to keep from making them cleaner. They have the power to keep from cleaning them up. They have exercised that power . Our coal plants are terrible.
Try and follow. Nuclear takes too damn long to get on line. The plants cost too much and the energy produced is too too damn expensive. Nuke is not the answer. There is no answer for the spent fuel rods, which is really is the problem in Japan.
My other complaint that the builders and operators have proven over and over that they will lie and hide problems, seems to fall on deaf ears.
The 50 years is being pulled out of your sphincter. Lots of European countries are getting a reasonable percentage of their energy from clean sources. We have powerful interests that fight against alternative energy ,even though many people live off the grid now. That is the direction we should go immediately. The billions that a nuke plant costs could be spent taking communities off the grid. But where is the profit for GE in that?

[Una_Persson]

I’m going to be brief because I’ve posted at length before.

1. There is no such thing as “clean coal”, and I ought to damn well know. There is however such a thing as “much, much cleaner coal.” Right now we can clean 98-99% or more of the sulfur, 95-99% of the NOx, 90+% of the mercury (it’s new tech, so it’s getting better), 99.9% of the ash (possibly close to 100% with some designs), and so forth. New coal power plants already must meet limits which are about at these levels (I say “about” because every plant has different permits). It’s just a matter of money, and not an impossible amount, certainly.

2. Clean coal with respect to CO2 capture is a fantasy and my prediction is that it will never reach commercial stage application on more than 5 plants in this country by 2035. The economics are simply not there, the technology for working reliably with hundreds of MW does not exist, the economics are not there, we still aren’t sure what will happen with the sequestered CO2 and how safe it is, and the economics just simply aren’t there, not with shale gas developments.

3. The solution to the energy issue is supply side, but it’s also demand-side, and I would say even moreso. The average American is an energy hog and waster of a magnitude which is near criminal. Buying 3,000+ square-foot McMansions to stick it to the Joneses, driving giant SUVs to haul around the 2.3 kids and 1.9 Labrador Retrievers per Pleasant Valley household, 1000W of security lights burning 24/7 to keep the scary black people away from their New South Africa gated enclaves, giving the kids weekly throwaway crap made from and shipped with cheap oil and cheap energy so they’ll toss down their daily behavior modification drugs without complaint, no real drive to reduce, reuse, and recycle. I know people whose 16 year-old kids will drive their SUV to go to a friend’s house on the same block, because only “fags” walk.

Only about 50%-60% of homes even have a programmable thermostat, and many of those aren’t used properly, or at all. Why insulate your house - just turn the thermostat up a notch! What, $50 more for a refrigerator that saves that much in electricity in one year? That’s too long to wait! And what do you mean I need to give up my walk-in cigar humidor? That’s un-freaking-American!

I’m focusing on the demand side because the problems of the supply side have been discussed at-length in this thread already. Don’t take by implication that I’m minimizing the supply side issues.

Una, bringing you angry, bizarre rants since 2000…

[XT]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I am well aware that coal plants are dirty . I also am well aware that with the incredible political power the energy producers have, they will fight to the death to keep from making them cleaner. They have the power to keep from cleaning them up. They have exercised that power . Our coal plants are terrible.
[/QUOTE]

Leaving aside the assertion that our coal plants are ‘terrible’ (and presumably worse than other countries plants or something), I guess that the fact that it would cost a lot of money doesn’t factor in, right?

Try and follow. Nuclear takes too damn long to get on line. The plants cost too much and the energy produced is too too damn expensive.

Since you can’t build a new nuclear plant in the US, it’s sort of a moot point. And the reason you can’t build on comes directly from why it takes so long and why it costs so much…and the reason that new plant designs don’t get approved. I love it when this argument gets trotted out by the anti-nuke crowd. And the funny thing is you really don’t get it, do you?

There is no answer for the spent fuel rods, which is really is the problem in Japan.

Again, considering the way the anti-nuke crowd has basically killed Yucca Mountain and then points at this as a show stopper (‘Well? Where are you going to story the spent fuel??? GOTCHA!’) is pretty much off the scale, irony wise.

My other complaint that the builders and operators have proven over and over that they will lie and hide problems, seems to fall on deaf ears.

Probably because you’ve not been able to adequately demonstrate this as a major problem. One factor is that we’ve (the US, Europe, Japan, etc) had nuclear power plants in production for decades and the problems or issues have been pretty few and far between. It takes a major disaster to bring one of these plants down, and even then it’s doing what it’s supposed to, containing the majority of the radiation and buying time to evacuate or at least prepare if the worst happens. And this is a point that the anti-nuke crowd seems incapable of grasping…even with a disaster on this scale, the plant didn’t fail. Even though it’s an older and less safe design to modern design it didn’t fail. If we could fucking build NEW plants then we’d be MORE safe. But no…this is being pointed at, but the sky is falling anti-nuke crowd as an example of why nuclear power is unsafe. It’s like they (you) think that you can stack the deck in every way you can, and no one notices where the REAL problem is.

The 50 years is being pulled out of your sphincter. Lots of European countries are getting a reasonable percentage of their energy from clean sources. We have powerful interests that fight against alternative energy ,even though many people live off the grid now. That is the direction we should go immediately. The billions that a nuke plant costs could be spent taking communities off the grid. But where is the profit for GE in that?

Leaving aside the irony of you telling someone else they are pulling facts out of their ass, let me ask you…do you think that alternative energy is free? That companies can’t make a profit on it?? Seriously? You think that building up the equivalent energy output to a large nuclear power plant using wind or solar is not going to cost billions of dollars? And that companies like GE aren’t going to make huge profits doing it?? Seriously? What do you think it would cost to build a wind farm that could produce, say, 1000 MW? Or a solar plant? And do you seriously believe that, once the plant is in and operating it’s free after that?? Really?

-XT

[elucidator]

@Una_Persson

…3) The solution to the energy issue is supply side, but it’s also demand-side, and I would say even moreso. The average American is an energy hog and waster of a magnitude which is near criminal. …

Preach it, sistah!

[gonzomax]

Chapter 14: People Died at Three Mile Island, "KILLING OUR OWN", 1982 Here is another article about TMI. Infant deaths spiked.However officials just call it a statistical aberration.
XT ,there is a plant being built in the US right now. There are plans for 200. It is not moot.
There is a difference in passive energy collection. Solar panels are personal. You put them on your home. Hopefully the government helps. They have in the past.
Yes, there are people living off the grid now. It is not a profit goldmine for an energy company. But it costs money. People who do it have to invest in clean technology and most people can not afford to refit their homes. However that is what we should encourage.
A few years ago the electric company in Dearborn offered free loans tp help people insulate their attics. If you went to an approved company they would add a small charge on your electric bill. We did it and it was painless. That is the sort of thing we should be doing;.

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Preach it, sistah!
[/QUOTE]

Sure, and I agree with Una (except about the walk in humidor…you’ll have to take that from my cold, tobaccos stained dead hand!!), but it’s like saying ‘the problem with our importation of foreign oil is that American’s drive too much. What we need to do is drive less!’. It’s true…but it’s also going to be impossible to change as things stand now. It’s the price of oil or energy that makes it easier for people to waste it. I’m a bit of an eco-nut in that I DO have solar on my house, and I’ve got double insulated windows and extra insulation in my walls, and every appliance I have is energy star (plus I have everything set up on special cutoffs so that I can shut off the vampire appliances when I’m not home).

It probably saves me a couple of hundred dollars a year, and from a cost perspective I’m a total idiot, since I’ll never get the money back out of it that I put in. It’s just that I have the money, and I thought it was a good idea to spend it no in case I ever need it (plus I’m somewhat of a geek, and love to mess with stuff like this).

So…how do you get the average American to drive less or use less energy/make their homes more efficient? Politically it’s not going to be a good thing to take all the subsidies out and also start penalizing people for using energy inefficiently, so the ‘free market’ approach is probably out. You could give more incentives via tax rebates and such, but those already exist and they haven’t really done the job. So…how do you make it a reality?

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
XT ,there is a plant being built in the US right now. There are plans for 200. It is not moot.
[/QUOTE]

Cite? There is a new nuclear plant being built today, or a plant that was chartered before the quasi-moratorium? As for ‘plans for 200’ additional plants, I have no doubt…how many will be approved? Also, you didn’t address the fact that new plant designs aren’t being approved…and the only designs that are even possible are all older designs.

There is a difference in passive energy collection. Solar panels are personal. You put them on your home. Hopefully the government helps. They have in the past.

They have. I have them on my house, so I’m well aware of what they can and can’t do (I don’t have newer, more modern panels, granted).

Yes, there are people living off the grid now. It is not a profit goldmine for an energy company. But it costs money. People who do it have to invest in clean technology and most people can not afford to refit their homes. However that is what we should encourage.

Here is the thing…living off the grid is expensive, unless you want to live a very minimalist lifestyle. Even then, it’s not free, and companies like GE are still going to earn their profits selling you all the stuff you need to do it…especially if you aren’t an expert at this stuff and don’t have access to older, used equipment (my solar panels we’re new, and I had my dad and some other EE’s I know help me set it all up).

A few years ago the electric company in Dearborn offered free loans tp help people insulate their attics. If you went to an approved company they would add a small charge on your electric bill. We did it and it was painless. That is the sort of thing we should be doing

I’m totally fine with that. Hell, I’ve put in several layers of additional insulation (on my own dime) and if someone offered to do it for free or even somewhat defray the costs I’d have been even more willing.

-XT

[levdrakon]

@Una_Persson

Only about 50%-60% of homes even have a programmable thermostat, and many of those aren’t used properly, or at all. Why insulate your house - just turn the thermostat up a notch! What, $50 more for a refrigerator that saves that much in electricity in one year? That’s too long to wait! And what do you mean I need to give up my walk-in cigar humidor? That’s un-freaking-American!

I’m glad you brought this up. The energy efficiency industry is something we really need to hear more about. Here’s a little.

Energy efficiency programs also would produce more jobs. A 2009 study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that a national standard requiring utilities to institute programs reducing electricity demand by 15 percent and natural gas demand by 10 percent would generate more than 220,000 jobs by 2020.

Also, Creating 625,000 jobs and saving $64 billion through energy efficiency.

[ul]
[li]Create 625,000 sustained full-time jobs over a decade.[/li][li]Spark $500 billion in new investments to upgrade 50 million homes and office buildings.[/li][li]Generate as much as $64 billion a year in cost savings for U.S. ratepayers, freeing consumers to spend their money in more productive ways.[/li][/ul]

[levdrakon]

@xtisme

Sure, and I agree with Una (except about the walk in humidor…you’ll have to take that from my cold, tobaccos stained dead hand!!), but it’s like saying ‘the problem with our importation of foreign oil is that American’s drive too much. What we need to do is drive less!’. It’s true…but it’s also going to be impossible to change as things stand now.
-XT

Someone upthread mentioned the 30-minute pizza. As I see it, no we should not give up our 30-minute pizza. Rather, that pizza better be delivered in an electric SUV, and we’ll let the market sort out how much that 30-minute pizza costs.

It’s the price of oil or energy that makes it easier for people to waste it.

We’re slaves to the oil economy, and it’s our fault. The oil economy isn’t the energy economy. Maybe we should try that. Let’s make fuck-loads of energy and see what happens. This time, rather than letting a handful of inbred oil companies control a global commodity, let’s try keeping control of the price of energy much, much closer to home.

[Una_Persson]

@xtisme

So…how do you get the average American to drive less or use less energy/make their homes more efficient? Politically it’s not going to be a good thing to take all the subsidies out and also start penalizing people for using energy inefficiently, so the ‘free market’ approach is probably out. You could give more incentives via tax rebates and such, but those already exist and they haven’t really done the job. So…how do you make it a reality?

-XT

It’s a Societal thing. If it becomes “cool” to reduce, reuse, and recycle, then very few incentives will be needed.

But we don’t celebrate frugality in America - frugality is something which people semi-respect from an abstract standpoint, like a Southern Baptist refraining from punching the Pope in the mouth if he meets him. We’re Big and Badass and we need to stick it right in your face. Miss Brown just bought a new Ford? Screw her, I’m buying a new Lexus next week! Mr. Black thinks he’s so bad with his 60-inch LCD; where’s my credit card! And the Green family thinks they should conserve water, energy, the environment, and help the planet by planting buffalo grass on their lawn? Fuck that shit, I’ve got the Home’s Association Rent-a-cop on speed dial!

The average American worships, yes, actually worships music idols, television, movies, and of course most of all, sports. They spend more time, energy, and devotion to these household gods than they ever will in their lives to any higher power they may believe in, at some point when it’s convenient to do so, I reckon. And all of those lifestyles of popular entertainment are rife with excess, waste, and disgustingly conspicuous consumption. Obama was excellent when he said words to the effect of “no one ever runs onto the field to carry scientists on their shoulders.” Scientists are stupid; preacher says so. Engineers are evil, so pronounce people even on the SDMB. What’s that, another show on global warming? To hell with that, the Packers are on! Football! Woo! The average teenager can recite faithfully every hit Christina Freaking Aguilera ever had or what the Steeler’s record is this season, but ask them if hot water boils faster than cold, or where their electricity comes from, and you may as well ask my cat.

I recall something from High School, Senior year, where our teacher had us read a novel, I do not recall the title or author, but the point of it was a man made a bet for a large sum of money that he could light his cigarette lighter 10 times in a row. The penalty if he didn’t, however, was he would have his little finger of one hand chopped off. So then the teacher asked the class he asked the boys:

“How many of you would give up your pinkie finger for a new Camaro?”

And there was a 100% immediate positive response. There was almost a sonic boom as the hands shot up. He was flabbergasted and didn’t believe it. And he asked several random boys why, and the responses backed up that yes they were serious. Then he upped it to having their hand cut off - and nearly 100% said yes. The reasons were repeated; in essence, they were thus: a new Camaro meant you would be the coolest kid in the school. (He didn’t ask the girls in the class anything like that).

He also then asked who would trade having their head cut off in exchange for a new Camaro, and I remember a few hands shot halfway up, then paused, and went back down as the pennies slowly dropped, save for one…which remained erect, proudly in ignorance and stupidity. Much laughter ensued.

Money is great, incentives are great, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Until frugality, as well as science and technology, becomes “cool” again much of it is going to go down a rabbit hole when it comes to getting the average American dumbass to make a change for the better.

[MsWhatsit]

@Una_Persson

I recall something from High School, Senior year, where our teacher had us read a novel, I do not recall the title or author, but the point of it was a man made a bet for a large sum of money that he could light his cigarette lighter 10 times in a row. The penalty if he didn’t, however, was he would have his little finger of one hand chopped off.

Roald Dahl, “Man from the South.”

Carry on.

[Evil_Captor]

<Moe Sislak>"You know what I blame the energy problem on? Society! </Moe Sislak>

I dunno, whenever I see someone saying “the problem is US, all of us!” I reflexively think, “Someone just ran out of ideas.”

[gonzomax]

http://www.truth-out.org/tokyo-electric-build-us-nuclear-plants-the-no-bs-info-japans-disastrous-nuclear-operators68457 The new plants in the US are going to be built by TEPCO. That is the same company that designed and operates the ones on fire. So new plant wont even be an American job creator.
TEPCO got caught lying to the government over safety issues numerous times.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Money is great, incentives are great, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Until frugality, as well as science and technology, becomes “cool” again much of it is going to go down a rabbit hole when it comes to getting the average American dumbass to make a change for the better.
[/QUOTE]

I hear what you are saying, though I disagree that Americans are ‘dumbass’ for making the decisions they make based on the real world factors they use to make their/our calculations. I think they are human beings, making the exact same choices other human beings would make based on the same information. Europeans live much more frugal lives…but they do so because they have other factors impacting their calculations (greater costs, space issues, etc).

I don’t believe that ‘frugality’ is something that happens when a group of humans lives in plenty. It’s something that get’s imposed due to real internal or external factors, not something that any general population, whether they be idiotic Americans or stellar Europeans or wonderful Asians (etc etc).

“How many of you would give up your pinkie finger for a new Camaro?”

And yet, in effect, we all make similar decisions. Is your job risk free? Do you have to commute to work every day? Do you work around anything that could be considered hazardous to your long term (or even short term) health? Even if the answer is ‘no’, there are a lot of folks who would have to answer ‘yes’…yet they do that work anyway, and many times they do so to get that fancy car, that vacation in Hawaii or that new big screen TV.

I was watching a show on Discovery last night about the history of gold and they were showing this guy in (IIRC) Peru. Basically, what this guy does is he goes into the jungle, and finds some place where he thinks there might be gold. Then he and his crew essentially clear cut that section of the rain forest near the river, then use an old truck motor to drive a pump to power wash the soil in the area into a sluice. This obviously causes a huge amount of ecological damage, but they don’t care about that. The main point though is that, once they have what they think is the ore, they use mercury in a big barrel mixed with the ore to separate the gold from the dross…and they do this by pouring the bottle of mercury into a big ass barrel then stamping on it with their bar feet. Sort of like the old fashioned way of crushing grapes for wine.

They KNOW it’s harmful to them and that eventually they are going to have health issues…but they do it anyway because it’s a way to make more money than they normally could or would make (they made about $800 US for a nights work…even split 6 ways that’s apparently enough money to make it worth their while).

That’s the way humans, be they American or any other ‘race’ think. To these guys, the environmental costs (btw, they poured the mercury into the river when they were done…and left a huge hole and a bunch of cut down trees in their wake) don’t effect them, since they don’t have to pay for them. The health issues…well, it might take months or years, and that’s in the future. All they know is that they got $800 for 24 hours of back breaking work, and this was better than they could do otherwise.

So…to me, if you REALLY want to change the way people think about the energy they use, the only way that would actually work is to hit them in the pocketbook. If it costs the average person a lot more in real costs for the energy they use (be it the gas in their car or the energy in their houses), then they will find ways to conserve just to save themselves the money. That will have much more effect than if celebrities or sports stars or politicians tell them they would be cool if they conserved…hell, they have BEEN telling us that and most people nod their heads and bitch about the fact that if only people would conserve we’d be better off (of course, it’s OTHER people who need to do that, not us…we have to by that new sports car or trip to see the rain forest and can’t afford home renovations right now, blah blah blah).

Double the price of energy and you’ll see Americans changing the equations they use to make decisions about how they use that energy. Double the price of transportation fuel and you’ll see them make different decisions about what they drive, how they drive, etc (in fact, we are already seeing this and we haven’t doubled the price of fuel yet). It’s the only way that real change can or will happen. Of course, you’d have to get politicians willing to tell the public that the free ride is over and that the government isn’t going to hide the true costs of energy anymore…something that is probably unlikely to happen any time soon.

-XT