Jump to content

Where can the left and right agree--Energy


Recommended Posts





Emerging energy interview of the year!  This really strikes at the heart of what THE BEDROCK of our university is known for... engineering innovation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Emerging energy interview of the year!  This really strikes at the heart of what THE BEDROCK of our university is known for... engineering innovation.

Very interesting and provocative discussion.  Thanks for posting.

(I wonder what will happen to the politics of nuclear energy when Russia shells a nuclear plant to the point it might release radioactivity?)   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very interesting and provocative discussion.  Thanks for posting.

(I wonder what will happen to the politics of nuclear energy when Russia shells a nuclear plant to the point it might release radioactivity?)   

 

Since I fear politics has become the zombie apocalypse of western media propaganda, I have no idea.

The facts are, Zaporizhzhia is an important energy asset Putin, he wants operational control.  No right minded person with regional interests would do this to create a disaster.  The reactor design is a PWR, same as the naval fleet.  It’s shielded to the outside world by 3 ft think concrete containment 10-12 in rebar.   So what if it’s shelled?

The incident a few months ago involved Rosatom engineers.  They were there to gain operational control over the plant.  If anything it proves the antifragility of the design technology.  We’ve since sanctioned Rosatom, the global leader in fuel enrichment.  Western enrichment has a real challenge on its hands, created the greatest speculative investment opportunity of our lifetimes, but that’s another story.

On the other hand a false flag accident/incident caused by western black ops could be the greatest threat.  This would require strategic sabotage of the pressurized cooling pumps.  James Bond stuff.  If Germany doesn’t recommission its 6 nukes this fall I might start to get worried (this scenario) the west is intentionally out to starve, destroy, freeze the public.  But frankly, I think leadership is just plain stupid and will whore themselves to the nightmares of 14 year old girls so long as it extends their employment another 6 months.

There’s not grand organized conspiracy in western nations.  It’s just foolish decline.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There’s not grand organized conspiracy in western nations.  It’s just foolish decline."

 

That is what happens when all foundational principles are the replaced with the lust for wealth and power.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Murrin (who Ray Dalio likely plagiarized) calls it abundance of "linear" leadership and dearth of "lateral" thinking leaders.

(section 3.5-3.8)

https://www.davidmurrin.co.uk/blog-entry/infusing-lateral-thinking-to-survive-the-entropic-waves-ahead?page=101

IMO this is what Mark Nelson is referring to with curiosity to appreciate mechanical things.  Greed climbs to the top and innovation tinkers in the garage.  We're not lead by Mavericks anymore.  Those of us in the garage need to get out of there.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

David Murrin (who Ray Dalio likely plagiarized) calls it abundance of "linear" leadership and dearth of "lateral" thinking leaders.

(section 3.5-3.8)

https://www.davidmurrin.co.uk/blog-entry/infusing-lateral-thinking-to-survive-the-entropic-waves-ahead?page=101

IMO this is what Mark Nelson is referring to with curiosity to appreciate mechanical things.  Greed climbs to the top and innovation tinkers in the garage.  We're not lead by Mavericks anymore.  Those of us in the garage need to get out of there.

 

Great article.  (I love the idea of entropy as representing the inevitable  crises of mature civilizations.)

Back to topic, I would propose that solar-based energy systems are an example of "lateral thinking" while nuclear-based energy systems represent "linear thinking".

Regardless, I totally reject the two represent a zero sum game. 

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"There’s not grand organized conspiracy in western nations.  It’s just foolish decline."

 

That is what happens when all foundational principles are the replaced with the lust for wealth and power.

 

I don't see it as a change or replacement in principles as much as a maturing of population with the corresponding reduction - or need - for resources.  In other words, it's more physical than moral.

The "lust for wealth and power" has always been a motivating power for human systems, particularly capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't see it as a change or replacement in principles as much as a maturing of population with the corresponding reduction - or need - for resources.  In other words, it's more physical than moral.

The "lust for wealth and power" has always been a motivating power for human systems, particularly capitalism.

I respectfully disagree.  I may be naive but, I believe the capital class of my youth had some restraint when it came to the best interests of our nation.  Their greed was somewhat throttled by the knowledge that, what was good for the country was ultimately good for them.

The destruction of organized labor led to the outsourcing of globalization which, led to the formation of idea that their power/leverage could not be challenged.  In other words, like Apple, if you don't give us what we want, we will take our jobs to China and, take our money to Ireland.  And guess what,,, if you do give us what we want we will take our jobs to China and, take our money to Ireland.

Their absolute power has bred absolute corruption.  The capital class IS now the state.  They are the ruling party.  We live in an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I respectfully disagree.  I may be naive but, I believe the capital class of my youth had some restraint when it came to the best interests of our nation.  Their greed was somewhat throttled by the knowledge that, what was good for the country was ultimately good for them.

The destruction of organized labor led to the outsourcing of globalization which, led to the formation of idea that their power/leverage could not be challenged.  In other words, like Apple, if you don't give us what we want, we will take our jobs to China and, take our money to Ireland.  And guess what,,, if you do give us what we want we will take our jobs to China and, take our money to Ireland.

Their absolute power has bred absolute corruption.  The capital class IS now the state.  They are the ruling party.  We live in an illusion.

You are probably correct in that there are progressive changes in any civilization as it matures/ages that are reflected by in increase in greed and a lust for power.  At least history suggests that.  (That is why progressive changes to our current political system are so important, particularly relating to our electoral process and money.)

It is the confluence of the physical with the political "entropy" we are facing that is so alarming.  I no longer have the confidence we (United States) can prevail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are probably correct in that there are progressive changes in any civilization as it matures/ages that are reflected by in increase in greed and a lust for power.  At least history suggests that.  (That is why progressive changes to our current political system are so important, particularly relating to our electoral process and money.)

It is the confluence of the physical with the political "entropy" we are facing that is so alarming.  I no longer have the confidence we (United States) can prevail.

Agree.  I believe it is further evidence of why, the capitalists are the real threat to capitalism and, why they must be restrained.

Absolute power is the goal of the irrational capitalist.  That is antithetical to capitalism.  Worse, it will also destroy democracy when they are allowed to "fund" the political class. 

I think you can argue that this is a cycle.  I also think you can argue that the cycle does not have to repeat if,,, we would only seek to balance the interests of society and capital rather than allowing either to dominate.  Choices like this are not binary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you can argue that this is a cycle

Agreed. Watch what happens and how many billionaires arise from the green movement. Trillions of $$ will certainly line pockets. It will end up the same power and money grab as what has occurred with big oil/gas and big pharma. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreed. Watch what happens and how many billionaires arise from the green movement. Trillions of $$ will certainly line pockets. It will end up the same power and money grab as what has occurred with big oil/gas and big pharma. 

Perhaps.  However, newer industries usually result in more competition. 

Until we do something to limit money in the political process, I believe you are ultimately correct.  The estimated return on money spent lobbying is 8,000%.  We will never see balance as long as the government is for sale and, only one group who can afford to buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 11:09 AM, homersapien said:Back to topic, I would propose that solar-based energy systems are an example of "lateral thinking" while nuclear-based energy systems represent "linear thinking".

How do you figure nuclear is linear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, maxwere said:

How do you figure nuclear is linear?

Nuclear is based on large centralized power plants that turn water into steam for turbines, only the heat is derived from fission instead of combustion. It's a use of existing technology and the resulting power feeds into the existing power grid. The goal is to just build more.

That sounds like linear thinking to me. Nothing really transformative about it.

(Not to say there's a lot of opportunity to improve designs and it's not a worthwhile option.)

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Nuclear is based on large centralized power plants that turn water into steam for turbines, only the heat is derived from fission instead of combustion. It's a use of existing technology and the resulting power feeds into the existing power grid. The goal is to just build more.

That sounds like linear thinking to me. Nothing really transformative about it.

(Not to say there's a lot of opportunity to improve designs and it's not a worthwhile option.)

 

Google Nuscale.  What they are working on will transform hard to reach places... especially Africa.

No longer large, no longer centralized (bureaucratized... the real problem of the two major disasters).

The guy that was standing at a nuclear test site thinking, "I wonder if we could power the world with this instead of blowing it up?" was a lateral thinker.

image.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The path we are on right now is not a good one.  As of 2021, energy production in the U.S. by type is as follows:

Hydro 6%

Wind 9%

Solar 3%

Natural gas 38%

Coal 22%

Nuclear 19%

Other 2%

The entire focus of the left right now is on Wind and Solar. I have nothing against those 2 sources, but they have to be backed up by more reliable sources, usually fossil fuels.  They (usually) raise costs to the overall production, and add instability if they aren't 100% backed up, and usually they aren't.  The other risk is the rapidly rising share of natural gas. We are seeing in Europe what happens when that supply is disrupted.  We have been decreasing our capacity in coal and nuclear for the last ten years, and the ultra low price of natural gas has saved us. That isn't continuing.  We have stopped building coal plants, and we are decommissioning the ones we have.  Nuclear capacity is declining as well.  We will continue to increase the share of natural gas, and marginally increase wind and solar. The result is we are very vulnerable to supply disruptions and price increases. China continues to build 2 or 3 coal plants every month, and will do so until something cheaper comes along. The path we are on will do little to curb world wide emissions. The world will burn fossil fuel as long as it is cheap or until it is exhausted.  The only way out is to go nuclear.  We would be so much better off spending the 800 billion dollars in the Inflation reduction act on a crash program to design and build nuclear reactors. What say you?

Edited by Cardin Drake
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The path we are on right now is not a good one.  As of 2021, energy production in the U.S. by type is as follows:

Hydro 6%

Wind 9%

Solar 3%

Natural gas 38%

Coal 22%

Nuclear 19%

Other 2%

The entire focus of the left right now is on Wind and Solar. I have nothing against those 2 sources, but they have to be backed up by more reliable sources, usually fossil fuels.  They (usually) raise costs to the overall production, and add instability if they aren't 100% backup. The other risk is the rapidly rising share of natural gas. We are seeing in Europe what happens when that supply is disrupted.  We have been decreasing our capacity in coal and nuclear for the last ten years, and the ultra low price of natural gas has saved us. That isn't continuing.  We have stopped building coal plants, and we are decommissioning the ones we have.  Nuclear capacity is declining as well.  We will continue to increase the share of natural gas, and marginally increase wind and solar. The result is we are very vulnerable to supply disruptions and price increases. China continues to build 2 or 3 coal plants every month, and will do so until something cheaper comes along. The path we are on will do little to curb world wide emissions. The world will burn fossil fuel as long as it is cheap or until it is exhausted.  The only way out is to go nuclear.  We would be so much better off spending the 800 billion dollars in the Inflation reduction act on a crash program to design and build nuclear reactors. What say you?

You are being to reasonable for some in this thread. I agree with you on this.

Wind and solar are great sources of energy, they are just not the solution like you said. However, some on here seem to think that they are only options we have to solve this problem. That is what happens when you buy into the politicization of this matter. I was at one point against nuclear power based on what I had read of things that have happened previously. After working in the nuclear industry for the last 6 months on some recent projects I have changed my view on it. Nuclear needs to seriously be considered as a source of energy that will help reduce emissions. Our grid is setup to need to have the ability to ramp up and down power as demand changes. Wind and Solar don't really give us that function. 

The inflation reduction act will make some select people rich and nothing more. 

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 7:53 PM, homersapien said:

Very interesting and provocative discussion.  Thanks for posting.

(I wonder what will happen to the politics of nuclear energy when Russia shells a nuclear plant to the point it might release radioactivity?)   

 

He deals with this scenario here... Mark is one of those people we should listen to very closely.  If we have a fighting chance of getting back on our feet, this is the kind of geopolitical thought we need to hear from our leaders.  ...and we should condition ourselves to think beyond headlines and tweets.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You are being to reasonable for some in this thread. I agree with you on this.

Wind and solar are great sources of energy, they are just not the solution like you said. However, some on here seem to think that they are only options we have to solve this problem. That is what happens when you buy into the politicization of this matter. I was at one point against nuclear power based on what I had read of things that have happened previously. After working in the nuclear industry for the last 6 months on some recent projects I have changed my view on it. Nuclear needs to seriously be considered as a source of energy that will help reduce emissions. Our grid is setup to need to have the ability to ramp up and down power as demand changes. Wind and Solar don't really give us that function. 

The inflation reduction act will make some select people rich and nothing more. 

No one with any real knowledge believes there is a single solution, at this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No one with any real knowledge believes there is a single solution, at this point.

 

Yet, some seem to only push for one or two solutions.  Guess those folks on here have no real knowledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yet, some seem to only push for one or two solutions.  Guess those folks on here have no real knowledge. 

Or perhaps you are mischaracterizing them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Or perhaps you are mischaracterizing them?

Maybe so, but maybe that is because if they really mean to have more than one or two options to solve this problem they aren't conveying it. You rarely hear them include anything other than wind and solar. Only a passing acknowledgement of other sources when called out on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Maybe so, but maybe that is because if they really mean to have more than one or two options to solve this problem they aren't conveying it. You rarely hear them include anything other than wind and solar. Only a passing acknowledgement of other sources when called out on it. 

Probably because wind and solar have the least environmental opposition.  Hardly nefarious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Probably because wind and solar have the least environmental opposition.  Hardly nefarious.

 

So it's ok for them to think only one or two options solves everything? Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...