The Ideology of Environmentalism
Apparently, some readers freak out at the concept of an ideology’s driving climate change mitigation and other actions to promote environmental sustainability. One writes: (Someone) starts with an hypothesis formulated from an ideological/political/philosophic agenda….. Unfortunately, this sort of debate has greatly reduced the effectiveness of environmental credibility and awareness.
This, IMO, is a good example of verisimilitude, i.e., a statement that has the appearance of truth but is actually false.
I believe we have a moral duty to act on behalf of the world’s people and protect our environment from the indisputable damage that is being wreaked on it by our current energy and agricultural practices, and that our civilization should take action in this arena. Does that belief do violence to the argument for renewables and sustainability more generally? Hardly. Does it turn people off that some of us actually care about the world around them? I doubt it.
Of course “we have a moral duty to act on behalf of the world’s people and protect our environment from the indisputable damage that is being wreaked on it by our current energy and agricultural practices, and that our civilization should take action in this arena.”.
However, we must also carefully evaluate proposed solutions to ensure that they will be practical and effective. Unfortunately, that is not always done. Instead, we too often engage in wishful thinking to the detriment of finding workable solutions.
Craig,
” verisimilitude ” ? Really ?
You seem to have paraphrased and altered the context of my comment to produce a completely different meaning.
That’s exactly the type of advocacy driven technique practiced by all “true believers” or ideologues.
My contention was simple. When confronted with any problem there are two approaches that can be adopted :
1)
a) Careful analysis on the exact nature of the problem and possible effects
b) Gather all known information about the problem .
c) Impartially and objectively analyze all known information, including any theories.
d) Based on a careful appraisal and including all the known elements available, formulate a solution with flexibility to adjust for new information that may occur.
Or 2)
a) Based on a “belief” or “ideology” formulated through prejudice or political doctrine, accept only information which adheres to a preconceived “solution”.
Honestly Craig, which seems preferable to you ? To what do you object in the first example? Where is the verisimilitude ?
I realize that you are simply trying to defend the confused rantings of a friend, but it’s just not worthwhile !
Substituting doctrine for analysis, may give comfort to a few “true believers”, but in the real world it damages the credibility of the environmental movement.
“Rational thought” requires reasoning, not blind belief.
You write:
“I believe we have a moral duty to act on behalf of the world’s people and protect our environment from the indisputable damage that is being wreaked on it by our current energy and agricultural practices, and that our civilization should take action in this arena “.
Great ! But so what ? No one objected to you holding such a belief. In fact we all agree ! However, knowing you as we do from your writings you didn’t arrive at this conclusion by divine revelation!
Instead your beliefs are the product of a long (and on going) process of gathering and analyzing information.
The problem begins when the process of analyzing information objectively ceases and the infallibility of a doctrine or belief becomes inflexible. That’s when belief in doctrine prevents the absorption of new information.
But the real problem is when other extraneous political/ideological concepts are allowed to contaminate the logical reasoning process. Priorities get distorted and adherence to orthodoxy takes precedence over objective analysis.
Craig,
Oh, and i forgot to mention that I really liked the picture of all those enthusiastic young people.
(except, they are just a little reminiscent of other young people in the 30’s, or the young pioneers of Stalin, Brezhnev and Honecker. Give them a little Red book, and it could be the 60’s 🙂
Comparing PV solar power with nuclear power
Those who oppose nuclear power on the basis of cost assert that the cost of nuclear power is too high and rising thereby making it uncompetitive with the cost of solar PV power which is said to be dropping. It is true that the investment cost of nuclear power has risen, but it is important to determine the reasons and what can be done about them. That is generally neglected.
This linked to article explains why costs of nuclear power have escalated:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
And here is a quotation from the article:
“The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants. In addition, the EEDB, corrected for inflation, approximately doubled during that time period. Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in the way of safety? One point of view often expressed privately by those involved in design and construction is that it has bought nothing.”
I suggest reading the entire article. It certainly looks as though, at least to a considerable extent, the rising costs could have been prevented.
Those opposing nuclear power often compare the cost on the bases of cents per watt. That sounds like a good and clear way to compare the costs, but is it really? Do they include all the relevant factors?
Let us suppose that the investment cost per watt of a nuclear plant is computed by dividing the investment cost by the rated power of the plant. Presumably that would include all the investment to generate power that is grid ready.
In computing the investment cost of a PV system, is the cost of three phase sine wave inverters included? They are quite expensive and have a shorter life than the PV panels. Is that being taken into consideration? Also, unlike nuclear power systems, PV power systems usually cannot be located where the grid is designed to accept power. Therefore, a power line has to be built thereby adding to cost. Is that being taken into consideration?
Nuclear plants will deliver power continuously regardless of weather; they fail to deliver power only while being refuled or repaired. Typically a nuclear plant will have an capacity factor of about 90%. So, when computing the investment cost per watt, the output must be multiplied by 0.9 thereby increasing the investment cost per watt by about 11%.. On the other hand, a PV system will have an capacity factor of about 20%, so when computing the investment cost per watt the rated output must first be multiplied by 0.2 thereby increasing the investment cost by about FIVE TIMES! Are capacity factors being taken into account when computing the investment cost per watt?
For more information on capacity factors, visit this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor
The same principals used to compute the per watt investment cost of nuclear and PV power are also applicable to concentrated solar power and wind power.
Another factor to be considered is the cost of storage required to make intermittent power systems capable of delivering continuous and reliable power. Although that is an important factor, I have omitted it because of the extreme difficulties in determining it. However, it can be expected to add greatly to the cost of intermittent power systems.
Before reaching conclusions when comparing the cost of nuclear power with the cost of PV power, we must be sure that all factors are considered. Are they? How can we be sure?