How would libertarians respond to climate change?

Post Reply New Topic

That is true. If so the only thing to do is let the cost of hydrocarbon fuels go so high, that nuclear fission is attractive by comparison. So called renewables are intermittent and cannot maintain a sufficient baseline energy output. Imagine trying to run an aluminum factory powered by windmills and roof panels.

ruveyn

Roof panels can really reduce the electricity bill of a private home, but in terms of an aluminum plant they are negligible. Things like tankless water heaters (solar powered) are a no-brainer for a private homeowner who can afford one, but for industrial use solar is pretty negligible.

A major aluminum needs about 300-400 MW. For wind power, batteries are used to store power so it is false to say that the flow is not even, it is. Turbines are usually rated between 1.5-3 MW apiece, but that's maximum output, effective capacity determines the actual average which determines how much can be drawn so that the flow is still even. Effective capacity is expressed as a percent. 30 percent or so is fairly typical for a random location (gets much higher for very suitable locations). So, on average in a random location, we might expect an even flow of about 0.6 MW per turbine. You would therefore need about 500 to power an aluminum plant.

This would still be much cheaper than a nuclear plant, and with far less fuel inputs. The only thing is that it needs much more land, unless you were to site it somewhere with very good wind potential and get the effective capacity up. Better than 60% is highly unlikely, so you would still need about 250.

That being said. Aluminum plants are probably the most energy-intense industry in the entire manufacturing sector, by a long shot. Most plants don't need anywhere near this sort of wattage. And aluminum plants produce for continental or intercontinental markets, there really aren't very many of them. This is a list of all the main aluminum plants worldwide - I didn't count but it looks like there are less than 200 on the entire planet:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ ... lants2.pdf

But that goes against one of the premises I set when I began this discussion. I specifically said that we'd need to see drastic change within the next 13 years (globally emissions would have peak, but realistically this would require major reductions in the West).