The End of Growth/Economic Alternatives thread

This is the thread for asking: do we have to fundamentally change how our economy works, now that we've hit peak oil/the U.S. credit rating's been downgraded/whichever other reason you can think of? Is there no going back? (Those who wish to argue that we can go back to an economy of unending growth are welcome too.)

First, some context:

Personally, I'm willing to accept that we need to throw growth as a goal in and of itself out the window. We do need to pay more attention to what jobs are being created, but a goal of keeping sustainably supplied and gainfully employed* seems more important to me than economic growth.

• I also reject the idea that people don't want to work. People like having something fulfilling and productive to do, on the whole and by and large.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Well, instead of trying to create a new system when every attempt recently has failed miserably, we could, you know, just replace oil with a less stupid option, and tell organizations like the credit agencies that would jeopardize international stability for selfish reasons to go stuff it...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, sounds good. I don't see credit ratings and large banks giving up without a fight.

And I don't see how to dislodge them.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Well, moving onto sustainable energy sources would be a good place to start.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

^ Nuclear... Seriously, we have a reliable and viable alternative for coal and oil based power plants and it can be put into place within 5 years and yet every eco-moron and their dog opposes it.

It takes a lot more then 5 years to build a nuclear plant.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Man, I was hoping by the time we ran out of natural resources to expand on, we'd be mining on asteroids... :/

I'm skeptical about nuclear plants unless we can achieve fusion.

edited 6th Aug '11 8:53:31 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Only if you include wading through red tape as "building".

Fight smart, not fair.

A whole lot of standing nuclear plants worldwide are going to need replacement anyway on account of many of them being around half a century old.

Then again, the whole Fukushima scare is likely going to make it far harder to build new plants. Japan's recently pledged to reduce dependence on nuclear energy at the anniversary of Hiroshima, for instance.

If they can somehow figure out an energy cheaper than nukes that aren't fossil fuels, more power to them I guess, but at the very least, I hope the older plants end up being updated or dismantled at some point.

Well I wouldn't call all of it red-tape. There's R&D involved and not all the new designs are entirely ready as is. The new plants that China are building, for instance, cut through a lot of the red tape that would exist here but will still probably take around 10 years to build. The usual rule is around 10 years for a power plant, they aren't cheap and they aren't easy to build.

Fusion we'll have to wait on.

But even then, I don't think that exactly addresses the issues stated in the OP.

I think that what we've done is relied too much on just the GDP as a metric of economic well being. We've ignored wealth balance issues, wages but most importantly, the effect on quality of life. While people pat US on the back for its high GDP per capita, and gives a place like Sweden a lower GDP per capita by PPP, every year the US ranks lower than a lot of countries with lower GDP per capita by PPP in quality of life. Something is fundamentally wrong with how we measure economic performance if, when converted to PPP, it doesn't reflect quality of life at all.

We can technically still be dependent on unending growth until humans pack the entire "traversible" universe.

In the short term, tighter regulations on the financial industry and reining in the extent of risk in the system would be a good start. In the long term, we need to look at capital investment. In the super long term, we want to ask ourselves where government should direct R&D (ignoring what random inventions might come from private sector, because that is outside of our control as taxpayers/citizens).

I agree capital investment is the problem: There's a glut, and its current incentives are largely perverse. What's needed is to cap interest rates extremely low and shut down the stock market, this would put more money where it can be spent on real things, and force investors to care about the long-term health of their investments.

Already done. Solar is $2.5-4 per watt, wind $1.4-1.9, and grid storage $0.42-1.5. On the other hand, nuclear is $3-10+ and coal $1.9 for a huge 800MW plant. That means nuclear is a total waste of money, while wind is cheaper than coal even with matching storage.

Eric,

edited 7th Aug '11 7:12:37 PM by EricDVH

Does that cost of energy include only the operating costs of running the facility, or does it include depreciation of the initial costs of the plant and maintenance over the life of the facility? I'd ask about pollution and nuclear waste externalities as well, but I don't think those would be included.

OP: We should have been wary of the false belief of continous growth. We should have aimed for stable/sustainable models a long time ago.

Who watches the watchmen?

It doesn't really say, but I can't see how you could ever do any sort of cost analysis without including depreciation costs.

edited 7th Aug '11 7:40:30 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Emerging markets will save the day.

What I am worried about is the environment.

I, for one, support nuclear plants for being the most effective.

edited 7th Aug '11 8:40:53 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

The power figures, as is obvious from their being dollars per Watt rather than dollars per Watt-hour, are for construction cost only. The operations & maintenance costs for solar, wind, and similar technologies are insignificant. I've got O&M costs somewhere, so I'll post those later.

As I've noted before, there isn't enough conventional nuclear fuel to supply the world's energy needs for even six years, while breeder plants are both unproven experiments and banned by international treaty. Oh, and fusion isn't a question of when, but if, a risky bet to stake the future of civilization on.

Eric,

So "nuclear is cheaper than renewables" is, in fact, a whopping big lie.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Eric, I forget the last thread we discussed this. Do you have a link? I'd like to dig up my old posts in defence of uranium fast breeders, which I maintain are viable if we don't let the nuclear lobby centralize it too much (my problem with nuclear remains with the guys at the top running it).

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^^ It's true when you factor in advancements in reactor design (STOP ACTING LIKE CONTROL ROD REACTORS FROM THE 1960s ARE ALL WE GOT!), reliability of electrical power (let's see solar keep the grid up during a stormy spell, or wind when there's none), availability of electrical power, and the fact that a nuclear plant will be less than a tenth the land area of even the most efficiently used solar/wind generation facilities.

Solar O&M is about 2.6¢ per kilowatt-hour (7MB PDF,) wind 1-5¢, nuclear about 2.1¢ (including fuel, 32k XLS,) and coal about 3¢. All of this can vary widely, and a more complete number, the “levelized cost,” combines O&M with construction and various other figures. Also, note that subsidies (including the gobs of taxpayer cash that nuclear relies on for survival to the tune of 7¢ per kWH) are rarely accounted for.

Oh, and the plant isn't what takes up most of a nuclear generator's footprint.

^^ This post seems to be a likely candidate, and I think you mean plutonium breeders.

Eric,

Breeders won't be viable until the inherent proliferation concerns can be addressed.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

@Tom: If you get storage sorted out, which Eric addressed, a few dark or still spells won't be a problem.

EDIT: If your concerns were accurate, why don't we hear of areas that are supplied by wind farms and solar panels being periodically plunged into darkness?

edited 8th Aug '11 12:11:41 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

^ It's called a power grid maintained and held reliable by coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants.

We have wind power in Colorado and it routinely stops owing to the weather. It does not however brown out the state because the backbone of Colorado's power grid is coal fired power plants.

Well I do believe Nuclear power is cheaper than renewable sources.

I also believe it is more eco-friendly than many renewable technologies such as aeolic.

edited 8th Aug '11 5:03:09 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.