A Sober Look at Arctic Oil Exploration
Frequent commenter Glenn Doty, one of the brightest and best-informed people I’ve ever met, writes this in response to my piece on the Obama Administration’s cancelling all offshore drilling leases in our Arctic Ocean for the next two years and denying Shell’s and Statoil’s requests for their Arctic leases to be extended:
You can thank the Iran nuclear arms deal. The price of oil will continue to stay very low for at least another year, so Shell abandoned its exploration and no-one else wanted to bid (they’ll all be contracting their production), and aren’t interested in expensive development).
So there was no need to take the political heat when no-one was going to bite anyway. But the arctic will be exploited. The danger is VERY real. A burst clathrate could easily result in greater emissions than all of society for 10-20 years… An ice floe could sever the recovery pipelines and create a massive spill… The prospect is extremely dangerous, but it will happen.
I understand this, and I have to admit that underneath my celebratory tone I’m worried about all this too. (Sometimes I just like to celebrate just for the hell of it and hope you’re not reading my blog that day. 🙂 )
Seriously, this is a good opportunity for me to mention the only fundamental point on which you and I disagree, which is the speed at which things are changing and all that this ever-accelerating pace implies. Here, for instance, I wouldn’t say that arctic oil exploration will happen, simply because there are so many factors that are coming into play that will change everything. Take for example the exponential rate at which the plummeting price of wind, solar and energy storage, as well as the advent of smart-grid/efficiency, advanced nuclear, etc. are transforming the nature of our electricity grid, and what all this means for electric transportation and thus the end of the petroleum economy.
The future always looks like the past–until it looks like something completely different.
Dear Craig,
I agree with you that it is not sure Arctic oil exploration will happen, but of all the reasons you mention (plummeting price of wind, solar and energy storage, as well as the advent of smart-grid/efficiency, advanced nuclear, etc.) only one is important for electric transportation: energy storage in this case batteries. The rest is not important for oil consumption as oil is the transportation fuel and use in portable electricity generation. It has very little to do with grids, wind, solar or nuclear. Only Saudi Arabia seems to use lots of oil for electricity generation. Oil is used for airplanes, boats, cars and trucks and in the US for trains. We do make progress in batteries, but I am not sure if it is fast enough to keep the consumption of oil down. If prices go up I suppose the US will first starts fracking again. There is currently no need for artic oil, but I am not sure about the future.
We still need lost of progress on batteries to see the electric car take off. It is not yet economical (not even in Europe) and limits the range of mobility. Even if they only do it one time in a year they want to drive 1000km in 1 day.
Mark
You would have loved a comment that a speaker made yesterday up here at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum. He said that the progress being made in decreasing the cost of batteries, while increasing their performance is the equivalent to discovering oil all over again.
We should not be developing fossil fuel production in areas that are a threat to the environment. Unfortunately, that includes the shale gas that is being developed at the Marcellus and many other shale gas sites. When the shale is fractured a large amount of methane is released from its 380 million year imprisonment but only a fraction of it is actually recovered via the well pipe, and because of the large surface area of the fractures additional methane release will continue for many decades, long after commercial production has ceased. That cloud of gas is mobile and much of it will eventually reach the surface (including leakage from the hundreds of thousands of boreholes) but this kind of emission is being totally ignored.
Ron, I could not agree more. We have a long history of leaping onto the next big thing without looking too carefully. When some do see problems, like so many lemmings we march into the sea regardless, often making excuses to suggest why everything is OK.
Craig,
Reality is a bitch ! Only the economics created by an oversupply of cheap fossil fuels has halted Arctic exploration ( in the American sector) Most of that has been achieved by the dramatic rise in domestic North American fuel production .
The world needs energy. The developed industrialized world needs increasing amounts of energy on a massive scale, and the under-developed world needs energy to industrialize to alleviate poverty.
In 2013-4 the sources of World electricity generation were,
Coal/Peat (42.%)
Natural Gas (24.%)
Hydro (15%)
Nuclear (10.%)
Oil (5.%)
Others (Renew.) (4.%)
However, total Energy consumption by source was ;
Oil (32 %)
Coal/Peat (30% %)
Natural Gas (22.%)
Bio fuels and Waste (9%)
Nuclear (6%)
Others (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal power, etc.) 1%.)
(the increase in Bio-fuels looks promising, until you consider the majority consists of anti-environmentally produced Ethanol ).
Even by the most optimistic estimates, the percentage of ” renewable ” energy generation by 2030 might rise by another 1-2% in the industrialized West Even a 10 fold increase, including as yet not developed storage capacity to convert the power to ‘usable’ , would still only replace 10% of generation. Barely enough to replace the percentage of environmentally harmful Ethanol production.
” Renewable energy ” is one of those immensely popular ambitions. Something which every believes should be happening because it deserves to be true, and therefore ought to be true. The trouble is, that doesn’t make it a practical reality.
As a result, it’s very hard for politicians and the average person to comprehend the scale of the problem. Simply claiming “renewable power” is the fastest growing power source, is meaningless when calculated from a very low base ! ( increasing 1% to 2 % is a 100% increase, but it’s still only 2% ! It doesn’t automatically follow that the exponential increase will proceed at the same rate).
Nobody want’s to exploit the Arctic oil reserves, and Shell attracted a lot of ineffective protest. Interestingly, it was Shell, not Norwegian government owned Statoil was targeted) Glenn Doty is quite correct. once economically profitable, Arctic oil reserves will be exploited.
Renewable technologies such as Solar, Wind, Wave power etc are merely expensive placebo distractions. These technologies are highly popular and visible, attracting lots of passionate adherents, but as Germany discovered, these technologies simply don’t live up to the extravagant claims of their supporters.
Large scale problems, require large scale solutions. The only realistic replacement for fossil fuels (and ethanol) is advanced Nuclear power. Only Nuclear technology is capable of economically producing the sort of energy required to make a fundamental shift in energy production relatively quickly.
Not perfect, but nothing created by humans ever is ! On the other hand, the technology exists, can be engineered to eliminate all the old downsides and fears, is economically and logistically feasible.
Opposition from the coal industry is to be expected, but the equally powerful RFI (Renewable Fuel lobby) is also actively opposed to expansion of nuclear since it introduces a new, and more efficient competitor.
There’s a war of disinformation occurring, as the RFI, green-left, and al kinds of vested interests gear up to protect the industries while have been created on increasingly dubious scientific claims. it was always to be expected that the fossil fuel industry would protect it’s vested interests, but the forces arraigned against them seemed to be at least honest, with a higher level of integrity, with less corruption and self interest.
In recent times it’s becoming apparent that the loudest advocates are motivated purely by deceit, self-advancement and hidden agendas.
That’s sad, since clarity and dispassionate objectivity are going to needed if any real progress is to be achieved.
I’m writing this comment from my hotel room in San Francisco, where I’ve come to attend the Renewable Energy Finance Forum. I believe that, if you were here at this event with me, you’d be enormously impressed with the huge investments that are being made by some of the worlds largest organizations in the field of clean energy.
The keynote address was given by the chief executive officer of Pacific Gas and Electric. He is quite bullish on the subject of renewables. This is really happening, and it’s going on all around us every day.
Graig,
You are attending a “Renewable Energy Finance Forum ” . Without wishing to sound overly cynical, such a forum is unlikely to attract real debate and analysis. These forums are designed to provide a positive reinforcement and motivation for the subject material of the forum.
The renewable sector is an attractive area for investment, since the lack of profitability can often be hidden in the government subsidies, or public enthusiasm for the products.
PG&E operates in a very complex regulatory environment, quite unlike any other business. PG&E is completely dependent on the policies set down by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC).
PG&E profits are not dependent upon sales of energy versus operating costs, instead profits are generated by adherence to a complicated formula laid down by the CPUC.
By adherence to these policies PG&E operates as a monopoly, with very chequered history of corporate governance. PG&E’s enthusiasm for renewable power generation is undoubtedly genuine, since the CPUC ensures it’s investments in that area generate a return on investment.
The alliance between PG&E and the CPUC is a great example of what can go right, and very wrong, when a politically and ideologically motivated regulator, is allowed to keep altering the ground rules to assist a private enterprise corporation operate as a monopoly and guarantee artificial profits.
Conferences like the one you are attending, are a bit like attending a religious service or political party fund raiser, you will gain some useful and positive information and you will hear what you want to hear, but you will be unlikely to gain much critical insight ! The CEO of PG&E is quite rightly selling his product, investment and a positive image for his company. He’s good at telling the public and investors what they want to hear, that’s how he got to be CEO !
Graig, it might sound like I’m condemning the CPUC for it’s support of renewable energy, or PG&E for responding to the Californian incentives. That’s not the case, all I’m saying is beware of hearing what you want to hear, instead of critical analysis.
Actually, you are incorrect about the “positive re-enforcement.” Check this out: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/11/07/reasons-renewable-energy/
Craig,
Possibly your comments received a lukewarm reaction because most people see the question of Keystone in more simple terms that your more esoteric view.
Most people see the issue simply as a decision of how to transport Canadian oil from Canada to oil refineries in the southern US. Rail or Pipeline.
The concept that without Keystone, the Canadians with abandon oil production, is bizarre. At the best the US will continue to import Canadian oil albeit by a less safe, less economic, and far less environmental method. At worst the Canadian sell to Asia, and the US resumes it’s dependency on places such as Venezuela and the Gulf States.
Possibly also, many people see this as a decision made by a President, and party, heavily beholden to it’s largest source of considerable campaign contributors, the vested interests representing the rail option.
Did you really imagine the Chief lobbyist for the RFS would be unbiased about an oil pipeline ?
Massive investment in huge electrical generation is not what I see in our future. What I see is smaller localized generation distributed on a super efficient smart grid.
In Europe they send electricity where it is needed as DC current which is much more efficient and economical not to mention invisible being underground. From what I am reading, low temperature super conductors will soon reach marketability and the 50% of electricity we lose in resistance will be there to use. Imagine the high tension electric lines slowly being replaced with underground super conductors. Superconductors can also be the next power storage medium.
The continued rise in renewable energy production despite the naysayers discounting the importance is mirrored in the rise in organic food production.
We do not need big corporation investing untold billions we need a rational movement towards shared benefit and risk.
There should never be a need to drill in the arctic because the risk to the environment is too great
You make some terrific points here, Bruce. Thanks very much. Regarding your suggestion about distributed generation, personally, I find it hard to predict the future in this arena. I think you are most certainly correct as it applies to the developing world.
The world needs clean energy. The developed industrialized world needs increasing amounts of clean non-fossil energy on a massive scale, and the under-developed world needs cleaner non-fossil energy to help alleviate poverty.
Advanced Alternative / Renewable energy ” is one of those immensely popular ambitions, something which everyone believes should be happening because it deserves to happen. The trouble is, that doesn’t make it a practical reality unless and until a new innovation is made available to enable it to happen.
Fortunately there is a new innovation being made available to enable it to happen.
Advanced Alternative Energy Corporation is a business entity that’s been around for over two decades and I can report I’ve obtained all the patents I’ve applied for – but because concepts embodied in our new technology are novel, advanced and not easily understood, it has not attracted backers nor investors, and therefore products and projects based on my IP are not yet in production. But at the same time I am not giving up on seeing my IP commercialized.
Why? Because of global warming and climate change we know we will have an epic battle ahead if we are not going to give up and doom our descendants to a far worse economic and environmental situation than we have enjoyed. My firm offers a solution because we need innovative new technologies that offer new approaches.
My position is; to win this epic battle, humanity needs new, modern and innovative tools of battle, and my company – Advanced Alternative Energy – has developed such technology and so I’m inviting requests for more information from all interested in helping humanity move forward on a much saner pathway. Email me at the below address if you would like more information on my novel, new concept technology, a technology designed for the epic battle ahead, and designed to help us win the fight for humanity’s long term survival.
AAEC management believes we will do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power our societies on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also reducing ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting our communities and electric power grids. We are claiming to be the inventor of one of the repowering “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity boxed up in. We propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at residential, village, community and county scale because many good paying infrastructure construction jobs are needed worldwide. Thus AAEC is seeking support from any and all that may care to support this grass roots – trickle up – project.
The following is a notice I’ve posted on Facebook and elsewhere.
COLLABORATORS, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND/OR INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT GLOBAL REPOWERING TECHNOLOGY.
AAEC invented, patented, tested and further developed a new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for far cleaner renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and municipal waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide scalable heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production. AAEC’s technology is for stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.
AAEC developed this new concept breakthrough technology to enable homeowners, businesses, towns, cities and counties to convert completely to cleaner energy. AAEC is for all those who understand that distributed alternative / renewable energy derived from solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a much better future for our descendants, and ultimately for all humanity. AAEC offers a viable way to move to a future where we are better at controlling global warming. Fossil fuel firms and utilities may at first oppose what AAEC offers and prefer to continue passing on the costs in cleaning up their operations to their clients and customers even if better options are available that would benefit them as well.
AAEC management believes we will all do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power all human activities on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also cutting back on ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting communities and electric power grids. I’m claiming to be an inventor of one of the “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity bound up in. I propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at residential, community, city and county scale as good paying, infrastructure producing, jobs are needed. Therefore AAEC is seeking support from any and all that may care to support this trickle up – distributed energy – project. With such support AAEC will enable bringing energy production to the people much as the PC brought computing to the people.
Les Blevins
Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602
“We’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and we’re the last generation that can do something about it. We only get one planet. There’s no Plan B.” ~ President Barack Obama
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – Buckmister Fuller
“There are risks and costs to any program of action, but they can be far less than the long range risks and costs of inaction” ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thank God the State Department and the President have rejected the Keystone XL pipeline
Yes it is good that the President and others have decided to call time out on the Keystone Pipeline that would only create a measly 50 or less full time jobs in US , what a red herring false narrative gomer argument; while aiding and abetting the destruction of Canada’s environment and some would say social structure in the affected areas of Alberta province and the Athabasca River regions First Nation people.
The mining of the tar sands is expensive process , the end result after all the inputted energy values and volumes ( more water ruined , air polluting and green house gases emitted) results in a LOW EROEI of around 5 per most studies done over the years. This contrasts greatly with Legacy petroleum extraction economics and also is below the ever declining EROEI for shale oil / gas resources with their well documented rapid depletion rates at the well head thus making it a unstable and elusive resource supply. Only corn ethanol is lower .Tar Sands is marginal resource trying to dance around and defy the economic laws of ever diminishing returns.
The world price for oil is too low at the present time to continue to justify this environmentally wrong and weak economic source of fuel. The output was for the export market where they can or will pay a much higher price per gallon than what is needed in the US market Under utilized capacity in coastal refineries also. What pretends to be news media never explains any of these realities as their job is to continue the false narrative re energy and that we must entrust our futures to the mega corporations and under write thru taxation their resource wars to maintain their stranglehold on our pocket books and our economy and further destruct the environment.
It is wonderful to learn that Shell lost close to $ 7 billion on Arctic drilling. Exxon ‘s multi million 20 plus year paid campaign to deny man made climate changes after they did their own extensive field research from late 1970’s to early 1980’s. Their own research had documented the growing CO 2 problems linked to mankind. Organized deception.
Both of these firms and BP had the money ( which we see they have wasted in some cases) and they had the technical research and scale to Dominate the solar,wind and bio fuel space. They chose to let it go and continue on their carbon extraction pathways. Talk about missed opportunity for the Globe! Capitalism once again missing its Moment!
My colleagues in the Calgary area say that over 35,000 tar sands jobs have been lost to lay offs in recent months. Before the Presidents ruling. ( lest the morons of the media and of moronic political persuasion) continue their distorted versions of energy realities to the gullible consumers addicted to so called cheap fuels! The majors have mothballed sand/oil extraction plants that range in cost $ 4 to $ 5 Billion for a few years. Plants that were just completed and never operated? Speaks volumes about the lack of quality in Energy Co Planning Depts or perhaps sheds light on the need for these companies to continue to Over leverage financial resources to the max with little regard for market fundamentals. This is done so the lending banks will keep the credit lines flowing at higher rates than what the resources they are trying to extract are worth in some cases. Some who have done exhaustive analysis on all this tend to conclude that there is some similarities to so called PONZI funding schemes? Interesting perhaps ?
Going Forward
Canada may decide they need some jobs to appease the locals so they may build some gasoline refineries in future. Make a deal with the First Nations and BC Province and get the Chinese to fund a large gasoline pipeline WEST for export. When this happens in the future is unknown at this time.
When the excess Iran Oil hits the China market it will keep prices low for a period also. Many Wildcards in the Deck. In contrast the Sun always shines and never raises its prices and when it fails to shine well then…..all bets are off.
But in the Spirit of most of the commenters to this blog and their positive and uplifting comments, my hope and vision is that we may now have a market window opportunity for the lowered cost of batteries and electric transportation to scale and deploy and the demand for fossil fuel is further reduced in US.
Gasoline demand lower prices aside continues to be flat in the US for many reasons some of which are Structural- like gone- reduced like a LED Lights reduces electric demand permanently. New Technology, Economics and Demographics convergence. Our needs for these fuels will decline as we shift to a modular and cleaner energy economy.
A certain nathsayer’s negative comments aside, Germany’s energy shift while not perfect ( as they are un winding from an imperfect grid so it is messy at times) is driving down the wholesale price of electricity just as wind and gas are driving down the wholesale electric prices in the Mid West at night and in Texas too. Some old nukes and aging coal plants wilt against the lower price competition. This makes bigger is not better nukes uneconomical, 40 year old ones too that are depreciated should be delivering real cheap power as promised so long, long ago ! . Speaks volumes about those elusive nuclear economics.
RE is making greater inroads than some would recognize . In early 2015, Bloomberg says $200 Billion and over 110,000 megs in global pipeline now. More than a blip on the screen. Utilities in US are frantically rushing to own and build utility solar plants which can power cleaner transportation – selling against oil is easier than selling against the depreciated grid prices in some cases.
Texas has close to 25,000 megs of utility scale solar / wind in the planning QUE w ERCOT.
The bottom line is the energy production / consumption model is evolving and the old bigger is better and we need more and more is a Siren’s song from the Past!
Craig you attracted some good contributors to this blog who offer positive insights into the situation. You have a Big Tent ! as they say. A Good One too!
You even have room for our resident doomsayer and purveyor of the nuclear genie. Par to form he devalues the spirit of positive technology advancements that will better serve more of Humanity. More WORN out, One Trick Pony approaches are presented . Even leading Edge Energy Conferences fail to pass the test???
Given current market conditions that create opportunity a midst the polluted skies of Calgary Canada region. I encourage Sir Marco Polo to take his action to Calgary and Capitalize on the need for the oil players to reduce their operating costs and improve ( clean up if that is possible??) extraction processes. Build them a nuke brother , save all that gas and other carbon fuels used to process things make it clean. You would have a Big Stage to demonstrate the positives of focused nuclear power, your uranium fuel sources are close and there is plenty of water to boil off too. Location – Location – perfect timing for construction project too jobs are needed.
Take Full Stock of this Grand Opportunity , You get to make power, freeze the tar sands insitu , then use waste heat to make steam to inject into the tar sands and then power pumps to pump the melted tars from the ground. Minimize disruption to the earth and water and reduce health issues too. Deliver oil thru nukes.
This is beyond Tri- generation this is a Grand Slam application for nuclear . With needs like this price is no longer a limitation. Showcase CUMBRE project!
The Charge of the Nuclear Genie Brigade goes North! contributes to lowering carbon emissions and frees up more carbon fuel for the market to burn! , A Two-fer! , Grand slam or more as they say! Perhaps you would restart the nuclear Renaissance movement ?
Need investment capital the oil fellas have it they also have the cost problem. Match made in the Heavens ! Go solve it Marco ! Your Moment is calling to unleash the atoms to good purpose. Transform your talking points into constructive actions.
Your continued and incessant criticism of RE technology and Sustainability concepts, Social Harmonizing , and Industry forums where learned people gather is like a One Trick Pony, good for 1 shot at the rodeo! Most Definitely is not a Long Distance Voyager which is what Humanity really needs.
The Urgency of our Times call for creative genius to be positively applied to Humanity’s challenges. lest we all lose.
Blessings to All
Thanks for the kind words. I agree with you 100%, in particular, the concept of the urgency of the times; most people, for some reason, simply don’t get this. You may have seen: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/11/07/reasons-renewable-energy/
@ Stjoseph09
Your passion is commendable, but your maths and logic, less so.
But you do illustrate the bizarre nature of the politicization surrounding the Keystone pipeline. This use is a simple question of how to best transport oil over long distances, by pipeline or rail.
Opponents of the pipeline, have expanded that question to include the idea that by rejecting the pipeline, the US will reject the purchase of Canadian Oil. Some advocates even believe that this will cause the US to reject oil in favour of renewable energy.
Back in the real world, the US will simply continue to import Canadian oil by rail. All that will have been achieved, is the continued use a less efficient, less economic and far less environmentally safe method of transport.
Depending on the price and availability of US-Mexican production, Canada will either continue to sell to the US, or export to Asia, and even less environmentally friendly solution. The loss of Canadian oil may also result in the US increasing it’s imports from the Venezuela and the Gulf States.
That’s reality ! That’s the real world ! It may not be how you like it, it may not be how I like it, but that’s reality. President Obama isn’t going to be the President who has to deal with the economic losses to the US economy created by the folly of his policies.
But, hey he’s kept his promises to his largest campaign backers, those who benefit from the continued use of rail transport for oil.
Germany is not proving renewable power to be a success ! Germany buys power from the Czech and French Nuclear Power companies. In Addition, Germany has reopened new Coal fired power station to provide adequate base load power. Solar an wind technology are just not compatible with power supply for industrialized societies, unless regulators create artificial conditions.
Like I say, reality’s a bitch ! Passionate rhetoric and idealistic advocacy is pointless without providing real practical solutions.
It’s also important before you commence ranting against something, or someone that you take car not to misquote or distort. That take listening carefully to what others have said, and gain a good comprehension of the merits of their proposals. (That’s something you’re not very good at are you ?)
A little research would tell you that “Uranium” is not the only nuclear fuel capable of generating nuclear power. Nor have I ever advocated the building of Gen 1 nuclear power plants. In fact one of the strongest selling points for Thorium technology is the ability to safely re-use and dispose of the existing waste from old nuclear plants , war heads etc.
There are lot’s of practical methods of reducing pollution, albeit on a smaller scale. As an individual, I can only do so much, so I try to limit my personal involvement to investments to project where I can make a difference.
As for your snide reference to the circumstances of my birth, it true that I am born into what was once a fairly privileged English family. However, by the time I was born all that was left was a massive accumulation of debt. Although I attended a privileged school in the UK, I spent my holidays in Australia and attended university in Australian thanks to being an serving officer in the Australian army.
Much to my dismay, I discovered that upon the death of my father I was obliged to leave my chosen career, ( which I enjoyed) as I discovered that I was responsible for the exorbitant school fees, and upbringing of my younger brother back in the UK, and an ancient, uneconomic estate burden with vast debt, and tax obligations resembling the debt of some small nations.
I regarded myself as Australian and couldn’t give a damn about the ancient ties to the UK, but for my brother’s sake, I felt a duty to try and rectify my father’s profligate management of affairs, and secure my brother’s heritage since due to his English upbringing he regarded as important.
Whatever success I have achieved, has been the result of my own labour, and not due to any privilege. ( In fact the opposite, I stated with a lot of inherited debt).
Perhaps it’s those challenges which has taught me to achieve what can be achieved, and not waste time on Utopian projects that will never prove practical.
@ Stjoseph09
Oop’s ! At the risk of following ol’ Les’s habit of posting replies to himself, there is one point you raised that I think needs answering :-
” Some old nukes and aging coal plants wilt against the lower price competition. This makes bigger is not better nukes uneconomical, 40 year old ones too that are depreciated should be delivering real cheap power as promised so long, long ago ! ”
You seem to have a strange idea about ‘depreciation’. The whole point of depreciation is when you have 100% depreciation, it’s accepted that the plant needs replacement !
Obviously, a 40 year of technology will find it hard to compete, which is why airlines don’t still fly across the Atlantic in Boeing 707 , DC-10, Tri-Star, or even Concord aircraft.
( By the same logic, 40 year old solar panels will continue to function without replacement, out performing newer solar technology ).
Nor are ‘bigger plants” the obvious choice for nuclear technology. Thorium technology allows for the economic construction of small, underground, power generators, requiring few employees and dramatically reducing transmission losses, while providing environmental benefits.
Stjoseph09, I see a lot of wasted passion and rhetoric from well meaning advocates such as yourself, mostly based on grand Utopian visions of massive social reorganization. I prefer to get on with achieving smaller, but more realistic projects that can actually be achieved.
Over the years I have invested in many environmentally beneficial projects, with the expected ratio of success and failure. It’s all too easy for small, but realistic projects to get overlooked in a passion for grand plans.
An example is the lack of government support and incentives for the adoption of Electrically powers agricultural and garden care appliances. Did you know that a single domestic 2 stroke lawn mower emits more pollution in one hour than an 18 wheeler big rig traveling 100 miles ? Did you know North America alone uses more than 1.6 billion gallons of highly pollutant two and four stroke mixture each year on garden tools ?
This is a terrific opportunity to help the environment, and promote solar power use. These machines are a perfect compatible use for solar energy. It may not be as glamorous as raging against the wickedness of Shell and Exxon, but with just a little government incentive from fed and local regulators it could be achieved world wide. 1.6 billion gallons may not sound a lot when considered against the nearly 136 billion gallons of gasoline-diesel consumed each year in the US, but the US DOE and EPA advise that the fuel used by motor mowers and similar garden devices can be as much as 30 times more pollutant than auto-engines.
Just imagine a saving of up to 10 or 20 % harmful ICE emissions, just by introducing quieter, cleaner tech ? : )
More importantly, the technology exists. Battery technology is sufficiently advanced to be economic, while surplus domestic and small scale solar is becoming widespread.
Governments have a legitimate and economic duty to regulate and provide incentives for this change, which would be supported by citizens if only as means to ending noise pollution.