Russell wrote:

>> - Hydrogen. A way to convert oil/coal into something else.
>
> Dangerous summary.
> While Hydrogen is at present mainly produced from
> hydrocarbon feedstocks this is certainly not the only way to
> do it and many other means exist and any long term and world
> scale use of Hydrogen must use non FOSSIL hydrocarbon
> feedstocks.
[snip]

What "other means"? Anything we can use today, on an industrial scale?

>> - Government control. Essentially, coercing people to
>> walk/bike/use the
>> public transit system.
>
> That is a reasonable but incomplete summary of  what that
> means in the larger term and scheme of things.
> Add - " ...plus coordinating systems that allow people to
> use low cost alternatives to the increasingly prohibitively
> priced private small scale transport alternatives."

"Increasingly prohibitively priced"? "Low cost alternatives"? What,
specifically, are you talking about?

A while back, New York basically outlawed private shuttles (vans), because
they were competing with the city's public transit system. Even though the
city buses were heavily subsidized, riders preferred the convenience and
lower cost of the van service.

"Heavily subsidized" does not mean "low cost". I am forced by the government
to pay to keep AmTrak from going bankrupt. I am also subsidizing my city's
public transport system. I have never used either, in fact I've never even
seen an AmTrak train. However, I routinely see buses which operate at 20%
(or less) occupancy.

> Government by of and for the people should at least in part
> be about everyone helping everyone to get their act together
> and use available resources in a manner that makes averyone
> happy with the gains achieved.

We have very different views of what the government's job should be. As an
American, I expect my government to protect my basic rights: "life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness". In general, I want the government to stay out
of my life.

> eg in the worlds most major
> cities underground railway systems usually provide superb
> alternatives to private transport. Private transport is
> largely the domain of the very rich, the very important, the
> atypical or the braggadocio. Some cities have major
> privately operated private mass transport (eh Tokyo) but in
> most cases I think (BIMBW) that the economies of scale and
> 'other factors' lead to such systems being mainly or solely
> publicly operated.

For several decades, New York's subway system was privately owned. This
article documents what the price controls and later government takeover did
to it (spoiler: it's not good):

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0602e.asp

> I have travelled on underground rail
> services in a number of major cities. Nobody compelled me to
> and I don't think they compelled the other passengers to
> and there were alternatives available, including private
> individual transportation. Its just that the by-for-of
> systems were by far the most effective and  cost-effective
> at least to the travellers if not in overall fact.

Again, "heavily subsidized" is not "cost effective".

[snip]
> Wind energy is a great servant and a fearsome
> master. Energy delivered rises as the cube of the windspeed
> so a 1 MW system must deal with 8 MW of energy at double
> design speed. People have relatively recently pretty much
> [tm] got it right enough to make money in the 1MW - 10 MW
> turbine range and are doing it with a vengeance. NZ has
> sprouted truly vast arrays of MW class machines in the last
> 5 years. If we continue at this rate we'll climb well above
> the 1% level.
[snip]

How much electricity is produced this way? How does New Zealand deal with
the energy storage problem? What is the real cost (including subsidies)?

> Solar's time is about to come. China is into this in a vast
> way now and world prices are plummeting. Not going to
> challenge grid power in most cases for a while yet but
> already doing so in niche cases now - and not just the
> countryside applications of yore.

Same as above.

[nuclear power]
> Maturity is very highly debateable.

Sixty years of successful use, and an excellent safety record are not 
"highly debateable".

> Long term waste disposal is not solved (James' protests to
> the contrary and comments about it all coming out of the
> ground originally notwithstanding).

Can you explain in more detail, what your concern is? What is "long term", 
and what do you see wrong with the current proposals (e.g., Yucca)?

> All US nuclear power survives to date both on effective
> massive state subsidy (anathema to some very close to this
> discussion) AND legal protection by the state against
> responsibility for any harm done of a type and scale not
> accorded to any other industry ever.  One could argue with
> an almost straight face that "A more communist system of
> power generation than nuclear power has never existed, nor
> is ever likely to". One would have many takers in the debate

Nuclear energy is not inherently expensive. It is expensive because of 
government over-regulation. Regarding subsidies, Cohen says:

"It is often claimed that our government is heavily subsidizing commercial 
nuclear power, but this is not true; it is contrary to explicitly declared 
policy. Some aspects of our nuclear power program are by law conducted by 
the government, notably disposal of high level waste and isotope separation 
of uranium, i.e., increasing the ratio of U-235 to U-238 in fuel material. 
But the full costs for these services, as well as for government regulation 
of the industry and other services, are charged to the utilities and through 
them, to the cost of electricity. The cost of waste disposal is paid by an 
0.1 cent/kilowatt-hour tax on nuclear electricity, which is considerably 
more than it is now planned to spend. The isotope separation is carried out 
in plants constructed in the 1950s at very low cost by present standards to 
produce materials for military applications, but the charges for their 
services to utilities are computed as though they were constructed today. 
Government policy is to finance research and development of future nuclear 
technology, but operation of the industry with present technology is in no 
sense subsidized. On the contrary, it is very heavily penalized by the gross 
over-concern for safety and environmental impacts and the regulatory 
turbulence this engenders[..]. "

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

> Quiet warning: When the other guys ALL or mostly seem to be
> insane then standing up in public and saying so is liable to
> draw more attention to oneself than to them. ie none of us
> are sane and sensible.

Well, that's why I didn't say anything at that conference. Or maybe the 
reason is cowardice. Or a little bit of both. :)

There were other people at the conference who voiced their dissent in the 
hallway, which was encouraging.

> As long as we know this we may get on
> OK. When we start throwing too many rocks it draws others'
> attentions to our logical foibles. That said, I'd agree with
> the first part of what you said more than the second, and to
> the second to some extent. Which makes me ... ? ;-).

While the "outsiders" often have varying opinions about a given subject, 
there always seems to be a consensus among the experts on the subject. It 
makes sense: if you and I had the same set of information, we would come to 
the same conclusions (that's why I want you to read the book >;-). Those 
"other guys" are supposed to be energy experts.

Cohen uses this argument, and provides two tables to illustrate that the 
more people know about nuclear energy, the more they support it (see 
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html). Here's one table:


SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear scientists    7.9
Energy scientists    5.1
All scientists        3.3
Science journalists    1.3
Prestige press journalists    1.2
Science journalists at New York Times,
Washington Post & TV networks    0.5
TV reporters, producers    -1.9
TV journalists    -3.3

*Scale runs from +10 for perfect to -10 for complete rejection.


Best regards,

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist