To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
bostonreview.net
To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#2I went to the Dominican Republic in the 1990s when the power grid was overloaded. They'd have rolling blackouts in the capitol, first the lights would go out, but the generators would kick in and the hotel you are in would light up, and the houses of rich people, everybody else would be in the dark.
The glass factories, the microchip factories, infrastructure that runs aviation, etc. are a different business which cannot start and stop production around supply interruptions.
The good news (e.g. "gospel") is that U238 + n => Pu239 and that we've mined enough uranium that is sitting above ground (so called "waste") that we've got 200 years of carbon-free fuel to run our civilization.
It can't possibly be economically competitive if it is driving a steam turbine, a huge and precision-engineered power conversion device that dwarfs the reactor and often the heat exchangers. With higher temperature materials (liquid metal or salt coolant) and this kind of turbine
https://www.powermag.com/supercritical-co2-pilot-power-plant...
we would never lack for carbon free power.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#3This is morally and politically a non-starter. Electricity improves people's lives way too much to be time restricted.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#4It is a source of great anxiety for me that our power will go out on a -40 day and take our furnace with it. I suppose that a battery, problematic as they are, could help some of that, but really for most of winter it's just not an option for the northern areas of the world.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#5This is morally and politically a non-starter. Electricity improves people's lives way too much to be time restricted.
This is why electoralism was, is, and always will be a failure. True global fixes will always require unpopular and unpleasant decisions like this.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#6The article yada-yada's over all the things that require constant electricity.
What about garage startups?
What about people who need some sort of pager charged? (Emergency responders, including troubleshooters for companies)
What about disabled people, plagued by anxiety, PTSD or Alzheimers?
What about the absolutly ridiciously look the country implementing this first would have from the rest of the world?
Who decides whose "usecase" for continous electricity is "important enough"?
I get a feeling that the article wants to stretch the Overton window for attention purposes, but forgoes all sense in the process...
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#7What's the author proposing? That we voluntarily abstain from using electricity during certain times, or the government shut down electricity usage to households during certain times? The former is the equivalent of the government telling people to "turn down your thermostat" or "don't drive SUVs". That's basically useless because most people don't care. The latter wouldn't work because most people place high value on continuous electricity, so such a proposal will be political suicide. In the unlikely event that such a proposal does get implemented, most people will either run their own generators or power storage systems (as evidenced by PaulHoule's comment), which will be much less efficient than a large scale solution and therefore be a net-negative.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#8What's the author proposing? That we voluntarily abstain from using electricity during certain times, or the government shut down electricity usage to households during certain times? The former is the equivalent of the government telling people to "turn down your thermostat" or "don't drive SUVs". That's basically useless because most people don't care. The latter wouldn't work because most people place high value o…
The latter is called rolling brownouts and happens regularly in countries like the Philippines where corrupt government officials grant power distribution monopolies to foreign companies.
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#9This is morally and politically a non-starter. Electricity improves people's lives way too much to be time restricted.
This is why electoralism was, is, and always will be a failure. True global fixes will always require unpopular and unpleasant decisions like this.
Ok...fun to see how the "common good" types often blatantly argue/devolve into authoritarianism...
Re: To Save the Climate, Give Up the Demand for Constant Electricity
#10What's the author proposing? That we voluntarily abstain from using electricity during certain times, or the government shut down electricity usage to households during certain times? The former is the equivalent of the government telling people to "turn down your thermostat" or "don't drive SUVs". That's basically useless because most people don't care. The latter wouldn't work because most people place high value o…
Anecdata, but some people do listen. My grandmother still keeps her thermostat at 65 - explicitly because Jimmy Carter asked her to in 1977.
I think institutional appeals from a conservation and energy-independence mindset can work on some people, though they are surely ignored by many more.