33 replies to this topic

[teledork]

 ALL lifetime costs should be learned and compared to other sources. 

 

Paul

Exactly.

 

I had a first generation Prius for 16 years, pre lithium but nickel mining is not "better". I bought it because I was commuting 120 miles a day (ironically to work for an environmental organization) It was very expensive for one thing but if I had known then what I know now about the impact (beyond my income) I would have purchased a different car or found a different job (easier said than done)

 

The questions we need to ask and the answers we need to consider are always gong to be difficult. 

Edited by teledork, 04 February 2021 - 05:58 PM.

[teledork]

(snip) but if we as the US are going to use these precious resources then we need to be destroying our own land for them and living with the direct results. Not some other possibly nameless 3rd world country with no environmental protection or human rights laws that nobody can see so nobody thinks about it.

(snip)

Yes. But I fear that not enough people know, love or care about the western deserts - much like a 3rd world country. 

[Stray Dog]

Good discussion on this topic. 

 

Nice to see the benefits as well as the negative impacts to the environment and the plus/minus of the economics involved.  Typically public discussions focus on the benefits of the new tech and never consider both sides of an issue.

 

The planet runs on fossil fuels and will for probably the remainder of all of our lives.  New tech holds much promise and should be pursued agressively considering all of the positive and negative impacts.

 

In the end what drives all of this?  Economics purely and simply.  Whether or not we like it, we all make our choices based upon the economics involved.  When these new technologies are economically viable considering all other impacts involved they can be expected to replace fossil fuels.  But not until then....

 

speaking of impacts:

 

https://www.wind-wat...turkey vulture.

 

 

 

[AWG_Pics]

I spent almost 35 years working directly with these issues. Though it is hard to sum up a lot of heavily nuanced issues, let me try:

 

Current tech:

 

- hydropower in the west should be considered renewable, but for historical reasons is not. And even if it were so designated, very few human endeavors have changed the natural environment the way hydropower has. (placeholder for very lengthy discussion if anyone is interested)

 

- oil & gas have done so much to benefit society while damaging the environment in numerous ways. Interestingly, peak oil (that moment when hydrocarbon production has reached its' apex but due to diminishing supplies will only decline in the future) has been carefully forecast more than 20 different times - those forecasts ranged from the 1970s for peak production to some undefined point in the future. (placeholder ... blah blah blah... as for hydropower)

 

- wind power is only economical due to tax subsidies. Two obvious ironies: First, during the hottest and coldest times, when we need electricity most for airconditioning or heating, wind velocities are very often right around zero, thus no generation. Second, for almost two decades I repeatedly asked wind power 'experts, regulators and owner/operators' what sort of reclamation bond had been set for recycling the wind turbines and towers and for site restoration and end of life. All I ever got was blank stares. (placeholder for roads, birds, blah, blah, blah... for wind power)

 

- hard rock, or unconsolidated sediment mining in the arid west has never, ever, in any place restored environmental damages created by mining, though the societal benefits are usually considered by decision makers to be worth it. (Insert very long placeholder with thousands of specific examples of mining impacts)

 

- nuclear power: good thing if you can figure out what to do with the waste -- which is still awaiting a solution.

 

- solar - I don't know enough about this industry to really talk about it.

 

Bonus: Most folk do not know that cement production is responsible for ~8% of all CO2 emissions by humans.

 

Bottom line: let's enjoy what remains, try to protect what we can, and do a bit of restoration if at all possible. Other than that, hold on tight and try not to get thrown off this crazy modern societal merry go round we have all had a share in building and growing.

Edited by AWG_Pics, 04 February 2021 - 08:41 PM.

[teledork]

I spent almost 35 years working directly with these issues. Though it is hard to sum up a lot of heavily nuanced issues, let me try:

 

Current tech:

 

- hydropower in the west should be considered renewable, but for historical reasons is not. And even if it were so designated, very few human endeavors have changed the natural environment the way hydropower has. (placeholder for very lengthy discussion if anyone is interested)

 

I have wondered if smaller scale could be less destructive but still economically viable. 

 

- oil & gas have done so much to benefit society while damaging the environment in numerous ways. Interestingly, peak oil (that moment when hydrocarbon production has reached its' apex but due to diminishing supplies will only decline in the future) has been carefully forecast more than 20 different times - those forecasts ranged from the 1970s for peak production to some undefined point in the future. (placeholder ... blah blah blah... as for hydropower)

 

Yes. the changing "peak oil" date is interesting. I've suspected that the rising cost of fuel and use of alternatives (at least for electricity) resulted in less consumption.

 

- wind power is only economical due to tax subsidies. Two obvious ironies: First, during the hottest and coldest times, when we need electricity most for airconditioning or heating, wind velocities are very often right around zero, thus no generation. Second, for almost two decades I repeatedly asked wind power 'experts, regulators and owner/operators' what sort of reclamation bond had been set for recycling the wind turbines and towers and for site restoration and end of life. All I ever got was blank stares. (placeholder for roads, birds, blah, blah, blah... for wind power)

 

IMO wind power is a loser all the way around because of the reasons you have mentioned. The most heartbreaking issue is the bird mortality. I grew up in the San Jose area - we'd go out on Altamont Pass and find carcasses. 

 

- hard rock, or unconsolidated sediment mining in the arid west has never, ever, in any place restored environmental damages created by mining, though the societal benefits are usually considered by decision makers to be worth it. (Insert very long placeholder with thousands of specific examples of mining impacts)

 

What? You mean those pretty scenes on the TV ads put out by the Nevada Mining Association are propaganda? (snark)

 

- nuclear power: good thing if you can figure out what to do with the waste -- which is still awaiting a solution.

 

- solar - I don't know enough about this industry to really talk about it.

 

About a 15 year lifespan on PV  panels - ironically about the same amount of time it would take to recoup your investment on a self contained system. It is an expensive way to produce electricity. No recycling of the panels currently. The panels need to be washed - a problem in the desert. The largest solar facility (Ivanpah/ Bright Energy) is not PV but reflectors that concentrate sunlight (and fry birds in flight) to heat a substance in a tower which creates steam to drive a turbine  They also use natural gas.  

 

Bonus: Most folk do not know that cement production is responsible for ~8% of all CO2 emissions by humans.

 

I had heard but promptly forgot that fact. 

 

Bottom line: let's enjoy what remains, try to protect what we can, and do a bit of restoration if at all possible. Other than that, hold on tight and try not to get thrown off this crazy modern societal merry go round we have all had a share in building and growing.

 

And that is it. This is the culture we have which is why I become frustrated when someone demands perfection - such as I shouldn't complain about automobiles and fuel since I use one. But we need to do better if we want to enjoy, or even simply live in the world we have.

Yes. I am interested. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. 

[AWG_Pics]

Yes. I am interested. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. 

 

I am struggling to find a way, other than a pedantic rage/rant, to share what bits of knowledge I have gained. It is popular to talk about a problem, but then end on happy note of unicorns and rainbows. I can't and won't do that. Seems false. So for the time being I am struck dumb. But I am thinking hard about how to speak/write clearly and effectively about these topics.

[Hoopy]

One of the last acts of the 45th president was to provide a "fast track" for desert mining operations. The Thacker Pass area (North of Winnemucca) is slated to be turned into a lithium mine. There will also be a processing facility to turn sulphur (which is removed during the refinement of gasoline) into sulphuric acid  in order to extract the lithium from the clay soil of the valley floor. The entire operation may eventually cover as much as 17,000 acres with the chemical processing plant, tailings piles and several open pit mines. The quantity of lithium that is present in the clay is so small that more trucks will be bringing in sulphur than bringing out lithium. 

 

I leave these links here as I think they do a better presentation than I can. 

 

https://www.protectthackerpass.org/

 

https://www.stoplithium.com/

 We were in that area this Dec and Jan passing thru 3-4 days...going either S. or N.  what a beautiful area>  its unfortunate   that everyone wants lithium. I  I will read your attachments  thanks hoop 

[teledork]

I am struggling to find a way, other than a pedantic rage/rant, to share what bits of knowledge I have gained. It is popular to talk about a problem, but then end on happy note of unicorns and rainbows. I can't and won't do that. Seems false. So for the time being I am struck dumb. But I am thinking hard about how to speak/write clearly and effectively about these topics.

Environmental writer Derrick Jensen told a story of a journal publisher asking him to end a piece on the destruction of the planet on a happy note. He turned the job down.

And as I was falling asleep last night I was thinking about hydropower and recalled the small hydro push in the late '80s - early'90s?(subsidy driven if I remember correctly) There were several proposals on small streams in the Yuba River drainage. And I can't believe I almost forgot the plans for just about every stream that enters the N. Fork of the Kings river, including the main stem. This area is now wilderness but was not at that time. We were nearing the end of a two week backpacking trip and were puzzled by the sight of a man in a white shirt, carrying a briefcase, climbing out of a helicopter in a meadow. Then we were horrified when he told us why he was there.

Or the recent proposal to pump water to reservoirs in wilderness above Bishop, CA, to "store" the "power", plumbing the south facing wall of Pine Creek to release the water to drive turbines. That part of the project was withdrawn but not the part which would do the same in the canyons on the west slope of the White Mountains - but I do not know the current status.

I have to admit I fear another push for hydro - big or small. But one of my concerns is when projects are labeled "green", such as the Bishop example, which encourages people who do not have the time or desire to look any closer to just say, "oh, okay".

Edited by teledork, 05 February 2021 - 03:23 PM.

[teledork]

This just came into my e-mail box. 

 

https://dgrnewsservi...632fe-427290917

[OutToLunch]

Clarify a point made by AWG who states that wind power is only economical due to subsidies.  That is true for nuclear, oil, hydro, . . .  Consumers have never directly paid the full cost of their energy.  Government has subsidized most forms of energy including nuclear, coal and oil in a variety of ways.  Nuclear had been the most heavily subsidized form of energy unless you add the costs of popping up friendly governments in oil producing countries.  Heck, even the wood I heat with is subsidized by the federal government.  I buy a permit for five dollars a cord to harvest firewood in Coconino NF which is way below market value if all wood was privately owned.  
 

One of the attractive features of wind and solar for some is the decentralization of energy production.  Nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal tended to centralize production and control of electricity.

 

Peak oil keeps changing due to several factor including cost of oil, cost of extraction and technology.  Oil fields do not go dry.  Either the oil becomes too expensive to pump or the technology does not permit more to be pumped.  Change the price and more oil is available. Change the technology and more oil/gas becomes available (see natural gas and fracking).  Over time, any specific technology tends to do down in price.

 

As economists say “there is no free lunch”.  No matter what form of energy you use, there are costs, both direct and indirect, to pay.  Among those costs is damage to the environment.

 

As many environmentalists have noted on the years, the problem isn’t just how we produce energy, but how much energy we use.  In the US, energy production has largely been in the private hands.  Profits are driven by use, not conservation or limiting use.