I have made some mistakes recently myself and none of us are infallible. Yet some errors are forgiveable and some are not. I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention Michael, but the small piece by Ko Shu-Ling in today's edition contains a stunning piece of innumeracy in the subtitle:
"Experts say Taiwan can easily generate 1 gigawatt of solar power, far more than the 2,700MW a fourth nuclear power plant is estimated to produce."Of course 2,700 MW means 2.7 GW. You and Vincent Chao ran a piece a couple of weeks back criticizing Premier Wu for not having his facts right on nuclear power stations - which I myself cheered. Perhaps you ought to make sure your own reporters understand elementary concepts like numerical scale before allowing them to report on very serious issues which demand at least some numeracy.
Update: oh dear, error and comprehension failures seem to be contagious.
2nd Update: the correct information was further within that report:
"Wang To-far (王塗發), a professor of economics at National Taipei University, said Taiwan had significant potential to develop renewable energy. Taiwan can generate 5,000MW of wind power..."Sure - nobody doubts that this can be technically accomplished. The salient questions are at what cost and to whom?
Michael Cole, sir, you misunderstand - the problem is not whether to use megawatts or gigawatts in describing power output, the problem is the elementary innumeracy in your reporter's claim that 1 gigawatt (i.e. 1000 megawatts) is "far more than" 2.7 gigawatts (or alternatively 2,700 megawatts).
ReplyDeleteIt's like saying 1 is "far more than" 2.7 - dont you see? [said Michael Smartaleck]
BUT Dr. Cole then notes: reader beware: reporters do not write the headlines or subheadlines so know how to blame and when:
So do not blame Ko Shu-ling the reporter, blame the copy desk. But on on ya, blogger sir here, for pointing that out. i do believe Bruno will never be writing for the TT again as per /
''Dear TT editors,
This letter [unpublished so far] will be my last contribution to the Taipei Times, and I will
briefly explain why:
(1) You published another letter by Michael Fagan who is a notorious
liar and hate-mongerer
RE: "It should have been 5 GW, not one, and wind power, not solar power. The story's right, as was TT reporter Ko Shu-ling. She had nothing to do with the subhead (readers need to know that reporters don't write headlines and subheads; the UK USA OZ NZ expat copy desk editors do). I'll fix that the moment I get in the office. Many thanks for catching that, Fagan-san!"
ReplyDeleteMC Hammer
intercepted in plein jour:
ReplyDelete''Dear editor of the august TT,
this will be my last contribution to the Taipei Times, and I will
briefly explain why:
(1) You published another letter by [MF][who is [REDACTED due to anger management issues](all evidence there to see on his website).......You might say this is part of the freedom
of expression; I say as a German national with a certain history behind us there should be a blacklist of people who are [REDACTED] that the Taipei Times and any other media with a
smitten of journalistic standards remaining should boycott them. I
cannot continue to be on the same platform as a person as [REDACTED]
as [MF].''
QUOTE unQUOTE:
ReplyDelete''Ever since the nuclear catastrophe began in Japan, I was just waiting
for somebody to step forward with the argument ‘but given all the
environmental problems caused by fossil fuels, isn’t nuclear energy
the lesser of two evils?' The Taipei Times’ lead editorial page opionion piece the other day indeed repeated
this tired and old propaganda of the nuclear industry (“The irrational
fear of invisible agents,” Mar. 22, page 8). In my opinion, what is
wrong with these arguments is that they are based not on what kind of
world we want to live in, but on purely economic cost-benefit
arguments in favour of either the fossil fuels or nuclear fission. But
what about moral imperatives? Are we morally justified to create
dangerous global warming and acid oceans leading to collapsed
ecosystems? Do we really want to burden the coming generations with
thousands of tons of the most toxic and dangerous waste for hundreds
of thousands of years?
The deep-lying fault in the whole argument is what environmental
economists call ‘externalities’. Energy production via fossil fuels
and nuclear fission produces lots of external effects, such as air
pollution, global warming or cancer, some of which can be economically
calculated, but some which cannot (how do you value a lost human
life?). Therefore, the whole dreadfully simple-minded economic case
which was put forward as a letter to the editor in favor of nuclear energy (“Despicable
scaremongering,” Mar. 25, page 8) falls apart if we simply incorporate
the externality of having to safeguard nuclear waste for the next
hundred thousand years. The neo-liberal school of economics is forever
disregarding external costs as if they do not exist which makes it
highly cost-effective to trash the planet. Environmental economics
tries to incorporate these costs. However, many decisions should not
be based on such cost-benefit analyses alone, even if they incorporate
environmental externalities, but on what kind of world we want to live
in.
For my part, I want to live in a world in which we avert the threat of
global warming and nuclear poisoning through the massive investment
into truly renewable energy sources. I like to show my students a
diagram which shows that we only need to capture less than one
thousand of all the solar energy reaching the earth to provide for all
of our energy needs. We do not have a shortage of renewable energy,
but a shortage of political will. If we made a moral decision to do
so, we could revamp the entire world economy in one to two decades to
run on solar, geothermal and tidal energy, the three truly long-term
sustainable energy sources. Moreover, through the economies of scale,
renewable energies would soon become cheaper than fossil fuel or
nuclear energy. Truly renewable energies are the only solution that
any responsible parent would wish for his or her child. The only
people that are despicable are those that are willing to trash the
planet in the name of economic efficiency, which is just another way
of saying ‘for the sake of economic greed’."
This is his last letter ever to the TT, if published. Don't hold yr breath!
Taipei Pommie, Esquire
So Bruno Walther is calling me names and throwing a hissy-fit is he? Any chance of a link?
ReplyDeleteCheers Pommie - I'll copy and paste that into a new post and give it a thorough fisking when I get time...
ReplyDeleteI'm confused by all the anonymouses above... the semi-literate post above is quoted from Bruno Walther?
ReplyDeleteY'know, I'm an environmentalist at heart but the insistence on the part of environmentalists to brand nuclear power as "evil" simply fails to address reality. We're not going to give up our air conditioners. We're not going to give up our cars and our motorcycles. Instead of brandishing the false promise of renewable energy (there isn't enough of it, people!) we should be building CLEANER and reliable nuclear power plants and not blocking their construction.
Don't these people realize that every time they succeed in blocking a nuclear power plant, it's quietly replaced by one burning coal?
"I like to show my students a diagram which shows that we only need to capture less than one thousand[th] of all the solar energy reaching the earth to provide for all
ReplyDeleteof our energy needs."
Total surface area of the earth: 5.1×10^8 sqkm
One thousandth of this = 5.1×10^5 sqkm
Assuming 100% efficiency in converting the incoming solar radiation to electricity, I need to cover an area the size of Taiwan 14.1 times over.
"We do not have a shortage of renewable energy,
but a shortage of political will."
And the space upon which to build a gigantic solar collector. And the industry with which to build a circular solar collector measuring 805km in diameter.
"I'm confused by all the anonymouses above..."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Anons: I can't tell whether you're all different people or the same person or what the hell is going on with those comments.
The quoted stuff does sound like Bruno Walther though, but since there's no link to anything I can't be sure and am left guessing. I can write up a fisking of the quoted remarks later but it'll have to be under strict qualifiers, unless I get a link. Or I might just leave it since I have other things to be doing...
"Y'know, I'm an environmentalist at heart..."
But see... isn't everybody? I can't think of a single person who likes to see rivers polluted with industrial effluent and so on - merely for the sake of it. Nobody likes to see garbage thrown around needlessly in the park. The word itself "environmentalist" draws my contempt because its typical use to mean "someone who cares for the environment" elides the necessity of making economic choices between competing values. I care about the environment too, I just don't favour the Statist "solutions" to environmental problems; nor do I even trust such people to tell the truth about the nature and extent of those problems.
"...we should be building CLEANER and reliable nuclear power plants and not blocking their construction."
Generally - yes. My only disagreement is with that royal "we". I will not have people forced to pay for nukes they don't want - in an ideal world they'd be left to realize the consequences of their anti-nuclear choice (whilst shivering in the dark as their power is rationed).
"Don't these people realize that every time they succeed in blocking a nuclear power plant, it's quietly replaced by one burning coal?"
Or gas, which is likely to increase in the future. It does give the lie to their belief in global warming/cooling/climate change hysteria - but I've had doubts on that ever since I escaped from the ivory molehills.
"...a circular solar collector measuring 805km in diameter."
Ha! A true Eye Of Sauron...
Dammit, I wrote an enormous response to you, Mike, and it didn't post. I apologize if the following lacks any kind of eloquence whatsoever; I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.
ReplyDelete"But see... isn't everybody?
Well, no. Not really. I acknowledge that I'm incredibly privileged to be living in a time when I don't need to worry about clean water or where my next meal is coming from, but I really don't see too many of my fellow privileged citizens as caring about the environment.
"I can't think of a single person who likes to see rivers polluted with industrial effluent and so on - merely for the sake of it. Nobody likes to see garbage thrown around needlessly in the park."
But there are still plenty of people who DO throw garbage needlessly in the park. Or out the car window or off their bikes. In Taipei, we even have garbage cans at regular intervals but they don't stop people littering. Why do they do it? Well, I think there are two types: those who actively take pleasure in spreading trash and committing acts of spite (the same type who set fire to that dog in your local park), and those who simply don't give a shit (the ones who may have seen the dog getting set alight and just watched).
You can put garbage cans in the park and these people will still litter ("it's too far"). They're the same people who won't recycle ("what's in it for me") - in fact that's my own father. There's a massive recycling dump near where he lives in North Wales. He could take his recyclables out with the dog and drop them off there, but it's much easier for him to toss them in the garbage so they can end up in a toxic landfill somewhere.
"The word itself "environmentalist" draws my contempt because its typical use to mean "someone who cares for the environment" elides the necessity of making economic choices between competing values."
I'm not 100% sure I understand you, Mike, but for me, the extra cost of keeping the hypothetical river clean is worth it because I believe the river has value in and of itself. I suspect I'm in a minority, otherwise the company owner would ensure his waste was cleaned before dumping it in the river. But cleaning waste costs money and the company owner would rather keep his money for as long as he can.
As I said, we live in privileged times. I don't think we (the royal we? :) This time I mean "we who live in developed nations and don't need to scrabble for food") need to sacrifice the environment on the altar of economic gain. By being a little less greedy, we could still have enough without having to poison "the river". But I think the world is full of greedy people as well as selfish people.
"I care about the environment too, I just don't favour the Statist "solutions" to environmental problems; nor do I even trust such people to tell the truth about the nature and extent of those problems.""
Nor do I. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to believe (for example) the climate change naysayers when some of them have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and ignoring the question of climate change altogether.
(My original post mentioned land reappropriation as an excellent point you're making that people can't seem to grasp but for the life of me I can't remember how I got to it smoothly first time round. I thought Firefox was supposed to be stable...)
Steve, I'm busy right now checking numbers for wind power output and costs in comparison with nuclear for another piece, but briefly:
ReplyDeleteOn your comment having gotten lost - there's noothing in the spam filter but I'm guessing it's a Blogger glitch and probably nothing to do with Firefox (it's happened before both here and elsewhere). As a precaution it's usually a good idea to copy your post, reload the page and then paste into the comments box again - or did you do that already?
On littering and so on - yes, I know (I constantly have to pick up trash [e.g. toilet refuse bags from some dirty sod's bathroom] at the park so the dogs don't get into it, it drives me round the bend). That's not what I meant - I often (but this time I forgot) preface moral imperatives with some phrase like "a decent person". I take it as read that people like that don't count.
"I believe the river has value in and of itself."
No, the river has value to you (and me). A value cannot exist without a valuer. Whatever her other faults, and it's become fashionable on both left and right to trash her now, that Rand woman was very good on this.
On the larger point about externalities, the trick is to ask how the structure of incentives might be altered to capture them effectively - so that each person "pays" for consequences of his actions. State regulation is the easiest and most obvious answer to this problem (which is I think one reason why so many people gravitate to the political left), but, principled objections put to one side for the moment, it can be a very bad solution because it typically brings further externality problems of its own. I'll have to write a post on this later...
"...it's pretty hard to believe (for example) the climate change naysayers when some of them have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and ignoring the question of climate change altogether."
But the same goes for the yaysayers - they have plenty of vested interests of their own from investments in garbage like ethanol production to research grants and academic prestige. The clinching point to me was the contrast between the inherent uncertainties of mathematical modelling (of course I'm not a mathematician myself, but I sometimes go out of my way to read the mathematicians) and the religious fervour with which some of these guys call for economically illiterate programs like carbon rationing schemes.
"My original post mentioned land reappropriation as an excellent point you're making that people can't seem to grasp..."
Oh I think plenty of environmentalists grasp it just fine. They are just afraid of admitting it in public because it will expose them for what they really are.
Steve, I'm busy right now checking numbers for wind power output and costs in comparison with nuclear for another piece, but briefly:
ReplyDeleteI doubt you'll be surprised to find that the output is pretty pathetic - and it's reliant on the wind. Costs I'm not so sure about, but I've heard (don't quote me on this) that one reason so many wind turbines on the west coast are inactive is that they cost 30 million NT to repair when they break. That number may be hyperbole but I'm sure they're a pain in the ass to fix.
As a precaution it's usually a good idea to copy your post, reload the page and then paste into the comments box again - or did you do that already?
I'm doing it from now on. That wasn't the first time it's happened.
I often (but this time I forgot) preface moral imperatives with some phrase like "a decent person". I take it as read that people like that don't count.
I guess I don't think there are enough decent people about. In fact, there are plenty of indecent people who'll be quite happy to take advantage of the rest of us.
No, the river has value to you (and me). A value cannot exist without a valuer.
That's a great point, so allow me to rephrase: "For me, the river has value to me just through existing; it doesn't need some kind of economic output to have value."
On climate change, carbon rationing schemes are a joke. What concerns me are the people who have no vested interest and are still pretty pessimistic. One of my very good friends used to work in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the G.W.Bush years. All that carbon goes somewhere, and oceanic acidity is a worrying issue that gets little attention but could be disastrous. A little bit of caution wouldn't be a bad thing.
Anyway, thanks for replying so late this evening.
Well I've just got back from the park (doggy trip) so I'll probably up for another few hours...
ReplyDeleteOn off shore wind farm costs... an optimistic number for replacing nuclear in Taiwan is going to be NT$400 billion plus in capital costs alone - and that's without bothering with location issues for the engineers or externalities. As to repair costs, $30 mil per turbine is about x2 to x3 the cost of construction...
"For me, the river has value to me just through existing; it doesn't need some kind of economic output to have value."
Nearly there: the lack of a financial output doesn't mean it's not an economic value. You like the river, and you want it to stay clean - that's your economic value right there, so you have to find ways to pay for this (i.e. to pay for its protection). State regulation is one way of doing that; I just don't think it's the best way (and on consequential grounds alone, it may sometimes even be the worst).
"A little bit of caution wouldn't be a bad thing."
Oh I can agree with that. But in reference to the environmental politicists we're not talking typically about a "little bit" of caution - we're talking about hurting a lot of people very badly, and on the basis of an inconclusive empirical picture and some non-linear modelling?! Sorry no deal.
"But in reference to the environmental politicists we're not talking typically about a "little bit" of caution - we're talking about hurting a lot of people very badly, and on the basis of an inconclusive empirical picture and some non-linear modelling?!"
ReplyDeleteI honestly feel that we're probably talking about hurting a FEW people very badly, and they're the people getting rich on the backs of everyone else and have no wish to see such things as (e.g.) emissions controls because it'll eat into their bottom lines.
Or at least, we should be talking about hurting just them... I'm not an environmental politicist so I'm not the guy proposing flawed legislature.