Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear

[ivanm]

If you use less and less energy every year because you become more and more efficient, you will never run out.

Think about it.

Apparently your premise is based on the assumption that energy supplies will continue to be available and will continue to be economically accessible.  The proposition has some merit though. In the early days, even in the era of my childhood we Americans were less fuelish and probably were more efficient on the national scale, but our standard of living was less too.  

You had mentioned the prowess of China, a communist country.  The following article from wikipedia provides insight to their growth since the late 40s. Even the commies recognized the power of capitalism and used it to propel their economy to what it is today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

[Velleity]

Apparently your premise is based on the assumption that energy supplies will continue to be available and will continue to be economically accessible.  The proposition has some merit though. In the early days, even in the era of my childhood we Americans were less fuelish and probably were more efficient on the national scale, but our standard of living was less too.  

You had mentioned the prowess of China, a communist country.  The following article from wikipedia provides insight to their growth since the late 40s. Even the commies recognized the power of capitalism and used it to propel their economy to what it is today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

They're not lassaize faire capitalists. Not even close.

A lot of the things you complain about, they do. Not that that matters as much as you think it matters, but they're doing it and "beating" us.

As for my contention, it is not based on an assumption that energy supplies will last forever. It based on mathematics. If you continue to get more and more efficient you never reach the point where energy supply runs out.

If it is an inch from point A to point B, and every move you make is half the distance of the previous move, you never reach point B.

Also I am relying on a Nobel Prize winning theory of growth posited by Robert Solow.

[ivanm]

As for my contention, it is not based on an assumption that energy supplies will last forever. It based on mathematics. If you continue to get more and more efficient you never reach the point where energy supply runs out.

If it is an inch from point A to point B, and every move you make is half the distance of the previous move, you never reach point B.

Also I am relying on a Nobel Prize winning theory of growth posited by Robert Solow.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please illustrate how this concept would work in real life. We may always have some energy but will it be feasible to utilize, will it be economical to use

Efficiency to me implies that one is doing work of some sort in the physical sense, and from what I can tell one cannot do work without expending some sort of energy, be it human power or in some other form.  Is the human body an efficient user of energy? I doubt is because like a horse, the human body must be nourished while at rest and doing no work. It in a sense is a hay burner just like a horse is. 

I don't think the energy supply is a function of or is dependent on our efficency in using it.

[johnhp]

In a practical sense, when dealing with real energy, Zeno's paradox just does not work.  i tend to agree with Ivan here.


On the other hand, if we could tap the power of bullshit, Fox news would be an infinite resource.

[Observer]

On the other hand, if we could tap the power of bullshit, I would be an infinite resource.

You sound proud of that.

[Velleity]

In a practical sense, when dealing with real energy, Zeno's paradox just does not work.  i tend to agree with Ivan here.

I'm only trying to illustrate a concept here. There's more to Solow's growth model but, unfortunately, I've lost my facility that I once had with calculus. Nevertheless there is a lot of stuff out there on Robert Solow's growth theory. I believe he won the Nobel Prize for it in 1992.

I also believe it has lost favor somewhat, but it's a pretty cool concept. It's about steady state growth with diminishing resources, and it suggests that it's possible, although you do get some inflation.

You don't really explain your "In a practical sense". Can you elaborate?

[ivanm]

I'm only trying to illustrate a concept here. There's more to Solow's growth model but, unfortunately, I've lost my facility that I once had with calculus. Nevertheless there is a lot of stuff out there on Robert Solow's growth theory. I believe he won the Nobel Prize for it in 1992.

I also believe it has lost favor somewhat, but it's a pretty cool concept. It's about steady state growth with diminishing resources, and it suggests that it's possible, although you do get some inflation.

You don't really explain your "In a practical sense". Can you elaborate?

Is steady state growth with diminishing resources desirable from a social standpoint?  I assume that steady state growth means no economic growth.  

As to 'practical sense", I cannot answer for John, but I too am trying to connect the theory to a real life situation.  It seems to  me that the cost of inflation, even in a steady state or no-growth situation, will eat up the diminishing resources and further exacerate the no growth situation. In other words an economy would have to
expend some energy just to maintain the status quo, so if there is a shortage of a resource like fuel, then what is the chance of breaking out of the slump, so to speak?  In other words, there is too little left for growth because it is in short supply and is being exhausted to just maintain the status quo.
 
I have been reading a number of books on the history of WW II, and invariably, be they friend or foe, the troops that do not have enough reserves or depth to hold territory or ground they have taken will in time lose it.  In a sense they too suffer from diminishing resources, mainly manpower and fuel, and become terribly inefficient, in fact become negative in terms of gains.  One thing that has really stood out in the various books is the resource of fuel because without it a mechanized army comes to a halt.  And if one side is not mechanized or has ran short of fuel, which was the case of the Axis powers in the end, then that side cannot even maintain status quo let alone gain ground.

It is obvious that the Nazis and the Japs had over extended themselves when it came to fuel and a supply chain.  Even the Americans started to run up against limits of fuel and replacement manpower as they marched quickly across France after D Day.  The shortage of replacement men, ammo, and fuel for the Allied forces was due in large part to the lack of decent roads to carry the large volume of freight that was needed to sustain the forward reaching armies.
  
Another parallel between making war and economic growth or output is that an army seems to require much more in the way of fuel and supplies while on offense as opposed to being on defense or sitting still, relatively speaking.
It appears that the same pheonomenon is present with economic activity in that a stagnant economy requires less resources to exist than a growing  (moving) economy does. Perhaps it comes down to what is best for a country, to stagnate or to grow.

Webster gives a number of definitions for "practical" and there are some that seem to fit my understanding of what John is referring to.  As examples (1) usable, workable, or (2) concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends.  

[johnhp]

You sound proud of that.

Dishonesty becomes you.

[johnhp]

I'm only trying to illustrate a concept here. There's more to Solow's growth model but, unfortunately, I've lost my facility that I once had with calculus. Nevertheless there is a lot of stuff out there on Robert Solow's growth theory. I believe he won the Nobel Prize for it in 1992.

I also believe it has lost favor somewhat, but it's a pretty cool concept. It's about steady state growth with diminishing resources, and it suggests that it's possible, although you do get some inflation.

You don't really explain your "In a practical sense". Can you elaborate?

The paradox states that we are always on the way to a destination if, in every move, we cut the distance between ourselves and the destination by half.  This is possible because we can measure distance in smaller and smaller units.  However, in a practical sense, if i have to measure the distance in micro units i am already at the destination.  The same is the case, for instance, with fossil fuels.  If we have a specific amount X, using less only extends its use it neither extends it indefinitely not produces more.  This is especially the case as other economies are developing.

We do need alternatives.  However, i disagree that bio-fuels that can be used in internal combustion engines cannot fill, at least partially, that role.  i am here referring exclusively to algae based fuel.

[ivanm]

The paradox states that we are always on the way to a destination if, in every move, we cut the distance between ourselves and the destination by half.  This is possible because we can measure distance in smaller and smaller units.  However, in a practical sense, if i have to measure the distance in micro units i am already at the destination.  The same is the case, for instance, with fossil fuels.  If we have a specific amount X, using less only extends its use it neither extends it indefinitely not produces more.  This is especially the case as other economies are developing.

We do need alternatives.  However, i disagree that bio-fuels that can be used in internal combustion engines cannot fill, at least partially, that role.  i am here referring exclusively to algae based fuel.

I hadn't noticed the premise to biofuels not being able to fill our needs on this site.  Did you get that from somewhere else?  I once read that we have enough biomass, if converted to methanol, that would serve as an alternative to our gasolie consumption and have some left to apply to the diesel needs.  And the biomass would be domestic and renewable, which are two pluses for that fuel source.

I think that one thing that stands in the way is our mindset that only one or two motor fuels can be used and should be used nationwide.  How about a situation where the prevailing fuel in a given area be used there and some other prevailing source be used elsewhere?  Is it really necessary to have a motor vehicle that will operate across the nation?  Most of the driving is done relatively close to home for the typical private auto owner, so having one that is tailored to a given fuel type in the area where it is being used shouldn't be a major hindrance.  

Flex fuel cars attempt to let the user operate with petro based gasoline or a blend of ethanol, but is this really a good deal in the long run?  What it effectively does is to limit the fuel efficiency of ethanol because a flex fuel car has a low compression ratio so it can still burn the unleaded gasoline.  Ethanol is relatively high octane, and if an engine was designed with higher compression ratios to use ethanol then the mileage would be improved.

Another thing that holds us hostage to the gas pumps is the fact that so much diesel fuel is needed for the freight systems.  Given that only about half as much diesel can be extracted from a barrel of crude oil versus the amount of gasoline that can be produced, we are effectively using the gasoline as a bypoduct of diesel fuel production, looking at it one way.  The refiners aren't about the ditch the gasoline and will gladly sell us more as long as they can continue to serve the diesel trade.  Gasoline sales become effectively the gravy or added profit from this way of doing business.  

The following link gives a breakdown on the products obtained from a barrel of crude oil.

 tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=oil_home-basics



There are a number of alternatives to gasoline as a fuel for most cars and light  trucks but there is not many alternatives to petro based diesel fuel at the present time, which effectively keeps us prostrate over the oil barrel.  However, there are some alternatives to using petro diesel and maybe in time those products will be competitive enough with petro diesel to be utilized.  Syngas comes to mind, as does natural gas.  I am hesitant to climb on the NG usage as a motor fuel because it is used for home heating, and increased demand for NG will drive up the price.

[Velleity]

The paradox states that we are always on the way to a destination if, in every move, we cut the distance between ourselves and the destination by half.  This is possible because we can measure distance in smaller and smaller units.  However, in a practical sense, if i have to measure the distance in micro units i am already at the destination.  The same is the case, for instance, with fossil fuels.  If we have a specific amount X, using less only extends its use it neither extends it indefinitely not produces more.  This is especially the case as other economies are developing.

Neither Solow nor I are invoking that paradox. Solow is not saying that you can never get to a point and that isn't what the math is about.

In fact I'm talking about reaching the smaller and smaller units. The real problem with the model is whether or not the kinds of increases in efficiency that are required can actually be achieved.

It is only a theory, after all. But there are other factors to be considered here. I have oversimplified the description of the model. In economics what happens when prices rise is that you get substitution. It's all part of the theory of supply and demand, and once again I'm not teaching an economics course here. But stated, again in over simplified fashion, it costs X to make a pound of butter and X + 10 to make a pound of margarine. If the cost of making a pound of butter goes above X + 10 people will start using margarine instead of butter.

Again, there's a lot more to that concept, but that's the general idea and it is also at play in Solow's model, which is based on a Cobb-Douglas production function.

For the purposes of this discussion your paradox is inapposite John.

[Velleity]

I hadn't noticed the premise to biofuels not being able to fill our needs on this site.  Did you get that from somewhere else?  I once read that we have enough biomass, if converted to methanol, that would serve as an alternative to our gasolie consumption and have some left to apply to the diesel needs.  And the biomass would be domestic and renewable, which are two pluses for that fuel source.

And again, at some point with diminishing resources and corresponding rises in price this becomes cost effective. We don't run out of energy.

I believe that algae can be used to do this and take carbon out of the atmosphere at the same time.

I think that one thing that stands in the way is our mindset that only one or two motor fuels can be used and should be used nationwide.  How about a situation where the prevailing fuel in a given area be used there and some other prevailing source be used elsewhere?  Is it really necessary to have a motor vehicle that will operate across the nation?  Most of the driving is done relatively close to home for the typical private auto owner, so having one that is tailored to a given fuel type in the area where it is being used shouldn't be a major hindrance.  

Obviously a problem. Change is always painful. This will have to be dealt with.

Flex fuel cars attempt to let the user operate with petro based gasoline or a blend of ethanol, but is this really a good deal in the long run?  What it effectively does is to limit the fuel efficiency of ethanol because a flex fuel car has a low compression ratio so it can still burn the unleaded gasoline.  Ethanol is relatively high octane, and if an engine was designed with higher compression ratios to use ethanol then the mileage would be improved.

Ethanol has also been highly subsidized.

[ivanm]

And again, at some point with diminishing resources and corresponding rises in price this becomes cost effective. We don't run out of energy.

I believe that algae can be used to do this and take carbon out of the atmosphere at the same time.

Obviously a problem. Change is always painful. This will have to be dealt with.

Ethanol has also been highly subsidized.

Yes, perhaps in more ways than one.  I think that some farm crops still get a subsidy.

If the supply of petro peters out then it seems the price of it would rise alarmingly, which will also drive up the price of ethanol and other biofuels.  Hopefully then the ethanol can be produced without subsidy. 

I may be wrong but it appears that the ethanol subsidy is two fold in purpose.  Number one, it helps to keep the fledgling industry alive and number two the subsidy helps to promote more use of ethanol, which is believed to be environmentally more friendly than petro based fuels are.  It would be short sighted to let the industry die on the vine only to wake up needing it badly someday, and that could be the case if we lose our foreign suppliers of crude oil and other refined petro products. It takes time to develop and perfect an ethanol industry. 

Along that line, the biodiesel plants are apparently under stress because the cost of the feedstock, which is primarily soybean oil, is very high due to demand in other sectors.  In fact, grains are unusually high right now, which puts cost pressure on the ethanol industry as it uses primarily corn for its feedstock.

[Velleity]

Ivan, I think it all boils down to whether we're smart enough as a species to do what we need to do. If we don't I don't think we survive.

I wish I didn't have come down on the side of us being stupid enough to destroy ourselves but I see little evidence that we're not. I would love nothing more than if you were to prove me wrong.

[ivanm]

Saying that we don't run out of energy is like saying we would never run out of aluminum because aluminum is very abundant world wide. However, the concentration of it in the average soil makes it unfeasible to extract and utilize,
given the present technology.   I think that one can say the same about many of the bio energy sources.  They may exist in abundance, but is it practical or economically feasible to harvest them?  Increased cost may be a factor, but in time the customer will simply balk and walk, or take the bus.  There is a limit to what they can tolerate in the way of transportation expense.

As an example of biomass being abundant but not being feasible to harvest, I see large growths of trees that would do better if they were systematically thinned and cared for.  However, the demand for the cuttings is so low that one would lose his shirt trying to sell the stuff at a profit or even to recover his expenses. In the meantime the wild growth continues to choke off and ruin good pasture and crop land.

If the growth is hardwood with low ash content then the practical commerical use of it is to make wood pellets for heat stoves.  I have a pellet stove but am disappointed so far at the cost of operating it and the work involved in cleaning it out so the ash won't clog up the exhaust pipe.  Frankly a good tight cordwood burner might be a better deal as most of them do not have problems with ash clogging the exhaust or flue. These are some of the considerations that one must face when trying to use alternate heating fuels.