by liberal japonicus
I provide this link with the proviso that if you don't think this is interesting, you obviously are not treating the question of power generation seriously. Have at it.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
Adding some links to tidal generation of electric power in the Bay of Fundy, Maine coast.
http://singularityhub.com/2012/11/01/first-offshore-turbine-for-u-s-begins-feeding-power-to-maines-grid/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy
Coincidentally, I’m attending an energy conference at MIT. Some take homes- for battery power to smooth out the irregularities of wind and solar power forget lithium batteries. What is needed are batteries as cheap as dirt and made from local dirt. Prof. Donald Sadoway on his “liquid battery”.
Also, “Nobody cares about energy efficiency, but they can be made to care about saving money”, from a group of entrepreneurs partnered with utility companies to decrease demand. One of their clients is the GSA.
Adding some links to tidal generation of electric power in the Bay of Fundy, Maine coast.
http://singularityhub.com/2012/11/01/first-offshore-turbine-for-u-s-begins-feeding-power-to-maines-grid/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy
Coincidentally, I’m attending an energy conference at MIT. Some take homes- for battery power to smooth out the irregularities of wind and solar power forget lithium batteries. What is needed are batteries as cheap as dirt and made from local dirt. Prof. Donald Sadoway on his “liquid battery”.
Also, “Nobody cares about energy efficiency, but they can be made to care about saving money”, from a group of entrepreneurs partnered with utility companies to decrease demand. One of their clients is the GSA.
I appreciate the articles. And I’m glad that the authors note that development is still in its infancy.
But I really, really wish that (with that caveat) they would give some numbers on manufacturing costs (and maybe estimated costs in production, rather than prototypes). And some idea of what power generation costs per KWH are now, vs what other sources are. And what they would be (in various locations, if it varies like I suspect it will) once generators are in regular production.
I appreciate the articles. And I’m glad that the authors note that development is still in its infancy.
But I really, really wish that (with that caveat) they would give some numbers on manufacturing costs (and maybe estimated costs in production, rather than prototypes). And some idea of what power generation costs per KWH are now, vs what other sources are. And what they would be (in various locations, if it varies like I suspect it will) once generators are in regular production.
Because I saw the Bay of Fundy prototype on vacation, I was impressed.
Another session at MIT was called “From lab space to marketplace: bridging the valley of death for emerging energy technologies” which spoke to the current absence of venture capitalists in that sector. The cost differential between a hand made prototype and a production model can be quite extreme, so current cost comparisons can be illusory.
As you know, sea water is extremely corrosive and waves can destroy most any structure, so working models need to be observed for quite a while to prove reliability.
Because I saw the Bay of Fundy prototype on vacation, I was impressed.
Another session at MIT was called “From lab space to marketplace: bridging the valley of death for emerging energy technologies” which spoke to the current absence of venture capitalists in that sector. The cost differential between a hand made prototype and a production model can be quite extreme, so current cost comparisons can be illusory.
As you know, sea water is extremely corrosive and waves can destroy most any structure, so working models need to be observed for quite a while to prove reliability.
Fair enough.
Although if Pelamis is on its sixth copy of the current prototype model, they must feel like the have a handle on the durability problem. They may be wrong, of course. But at the least I would expect they think that they have made some major strides.
Fair enough.
Although if Pelamis is on its sixth copy of the current prototype model, they must feel like the have a handle on the durability problem. They may be wrong, of course. But at the least I would expect they think that they have made some major strides.
A worthwhile technology in some places, but it’s worth remembering that waves, at least, are driven by the wind, and so wave power can only represent a fraction of the power available from wind. (Though perhaps concentrated in some circumstances.) And the amount of power available from the wind is limited, natural processes only place so much energy into moving air, and hence moving water, and only so much of it could feasibly be extracted.
It’s been estimated that the total amount of power available from wind/waves is on the order of one to several terawatts. Per capita energy consumption in the US is maybe 13KW. So you’re looking at a global potential to provide enough energy to support maybe 80 million people, perhaps several times that.
Not insignificant, not world changing. Just a reminder that human energy consumption is approaching the same scale as natural global energy flows, limiting the extent to which those flows can be tapped to provide our energy. ALL energy technologies with the potential to power civilization have significant levels of impact on nature.
A worthwhile technology in some places, but it’s worth remembering that waves, at least, are driven by the wind, and so wave power can only represent a fraction of the power available from wind. (Though perhaps concentrated in some circumstances.) And the amount of power available from the wind is limited, natural processes only place so much energy into moving air, and hence moving water, and only so much of it could feasibly be extracted.
It’s been estimated that the total amount of power available from wind/waves is on the order of one to several terawatts. Per capita energy consumption in the US is maybe 13KW. So you’re looking at a global potential to provide enough energy to support maybe 80 million people, perhaps several times that.
Not insignificant, not world changing. Just a reminder that human energy consumption is approaching the same scale as natural global energy flows, limiting the extent to which those flows can be tapped to provide our energy. ALL energy technologies with the potential to power civilization have significant levels of impact on nature.
Who says that a single form of energy (or to be more precise: electricity) production is the panacea? Most people think that it will always be a mix and in some contexts it is very likely to include oxidation of organic compounds, just not the majority anymore.
Btw, my personal views on nuclear power is that as long as there is such rampant malfeasance, corruption, incompetence and criminal neglect as we have witnessed in this business this business has has no business staying in business for the foreseeable future. (and I am all for making it mandatory for the profiteers of nuclear power to always reside on the premises so the safety becomes a personal concern).
Who says that a single form of energy (or to be more precise: electricity) production is the panacea? Most people think that it will always be a mix and in some contexts it is very likely to include oxidation of organic compounds, just not the majority anymore.
Btw, my personal views on nuclear power is that as long as there is such rampant malfeasance, corruption, incompetence and criminal neglect as we have witnessed in this business this business has has no business staying in business for the foreseeable future. (and I am all for making it mandatory for the profiteers of nuclear power to always reside on the premises so the safety becomes a personal concern).
While I don’t know about the percentages, I would note that the article is about wave AND tidal power. I leave it to the more math inclined to figure out how much energy is there and what percentage we would need to extract. The article makes another point, which is that the location is close to population centers where the energy is needed.
While I don’t know about the percentages, I would note that the article is about wave AND tidal power. I leave it to the more math inclined to figure out how much energy is there and what percentage we would need to extract. The article makes another point, which is that the location is close to population centers where the energy is needed.
“Just a reminder that human energy consumption is approaching the same scale as natural global energy flows, ”
A fair point regarding tidal power, but solar power striking the earth is 10**17 watts or so. Human power consumption is about 10**13 watts, I think.
On a different subject–
A link I saw at Digby’s blog about totally gratuitous police brutality in San Francisco link
Digby collects stories like this. It’s one reason why I often feel some kinship with libertarians. You can tell that in the story some of the decent cops knew that the system allows cops to abuse their authority, but they didn’t or couldn’t prevent the abuse.
“Just a reminder that human energy consumption is approaching the same scale as natural global energy flows, ”
A fair point regarding tidal power, but solar power striking the earth is 10**17 watts or so. Human power consumption is about 10**13 watts, I think.
On a different subject–
A link I saw at Digby’s blog about totally gratuitous police brutality in San Francisco link
Digby collects stories like this. It’s one reason why I often feel some kinship with libertarians. You can tell that in the story some of the decent cops knew that the system allows cops to abuse their authority, but they didn’t or couldn’t prevent the abuse.
Yes, and this does imply that you could run our current civilization off solar, if you covered a percent or so of the Earth’s surface with solar cells. Neglecting storage requirements, or a global superconducting power grid.
Storage is kind of expensive at the moment, and a global power grid implies the possibility of global blackouts, not to mention the geopolitical implications of being reliant on someplace halfway around the world for your power at night, and the places in between for it getting to you.
But, still, eventually solar will likely power our civilization. Eventually. Right now, that’s not a realistic option, and, as we saw in Germany, the choice is actually between nuclear and fossil fuels.
Yes, and this does imply that you could run our current civilization off solar, if you covered a percent or so of the Earth’s surface with solar cells. Neglecting storage requirements, or a global superconducting power grid.
Storage is kind of expensive at the moment, and a global power grid implies the possibility of global blackouts, not to mention the geopolitical implications of being reliant on someplace halfway around the world for your power at night, and the places in between for it getting to you.
But, still, eventually solar will likely power our civilization. Eventually. Right now, that’s not a realistic option, and, as we saw in Germany, the choice is actually between nuclear and fossil fuels.
I’d add that wind power is just reprocessed solar power, and so is a fraction of what’s available from solar. While wave power is just reprocessed wind power, and so is a fraction of a fraction.
Tidal power is impressive in the Bay of Fundy because the bay resonates with the tidal cycle. This makes it a lot easier to extract, but doesn’t actually increase the available energy. You’d damp the resonance as you approached extracting all of it.
Still, there’s room for niche sources, where nature concentrates something enough to be locally worth exploiting. For instance, there are areas around the poles where there are essentially perpetual gale force winds. Well worth extracting, even given the environmental extremes, if the poles weren’t by international agreement off limits.
Personally, living in the SC Piedmont region, I’m looking into installing heat pipes in the back yard. Ought to be able to keep a green house warm enough for citrus year round.
Even when the ice age kicks in. 😉
I’d add that wind power is just reprocessed solar power, and so is a fraction of what’s available from solar. While wave power is just reprocessed wind power, and so is a fraction of a fraction.
Tidal power is impressive in the Bay of Fundy because the bay resonates with the tidal cycle. This makes it a lot easier to extract, but doesn’t actually increase the available energy. You’d damp the resonance as you approached extracting all of it.
Still, there’s room for niche sources, where nature concentrates something enough to be locally worth exploiting. For instance, there are areas around the poles where there are essentially perpetual gale force winds. Well worth extracting, even given the environmental extremes, if the poles weren’t by international agreement off limits.
Personally, living in the SC Piedmont region, I’m looking into installing heat pipes in the back yard. Ought to be able to keep a green house warm enough for citrus year round.
Even when the ice age kicks in. 😉
Brett, just because I’m curious. What should we be doing?
You note that tidal power is limited, and so not a panacea. And solar is limited by the area that can be covered (not to mention the hours available), and so not a panacea. And wind is limited by where and when it actually blows, and so not a panacea. And, of course, hydrocarbons are also limited, and so not a panacea.
But then, nuclear (fission) reactants are also limited. So what, exactly, are you seeing as the way forward? Nobody, that I have heard of, has managed to do anything significant with fusion yet.
Or do we just run wild with what ever we are doing at the moment, and figure to morrow will take care of itself?
Brett, just because I’m curious. What should we be doing?
You note that tidal power is limited, and so not a panacea. And solar is limited by the area that can be covered (not to mention the hours available), and so not a panacea. And wind is limited by where and when it actually blows, and so not a panacea. And, of course, hydrocarbons are also limited, and so not a panacea.
But then, nuclear (fission) reactants are also limited. So what, exactly, are you seeing as the way forward? Nobody, that I have heard of, has managed to do anything significant with fusion yet.
Or do we just run wild with what ever we are doing at the moment, and figure to morrow will take care of itself?
Well, nuclear is limited, in the sense that at some point, the waste heat would become excessive. Not in the sense that it isn’t sufficient to power all of our current society. It’s not really fuel limited, we have enough nuclear fuel already mined to last a century or so, and we know enough is available to last geologic time periods.
Fusion managed something significant at Bikini island, or so I hear. The truth is that, if you had to, you could build power plants around fusion bombs. We figured out how to do that back in the 60’s, during the push to find civilian uses for nuclear bombs.
But the truth about fusion is that we don’t particularly need it, and that’s why we didn’t build those plants. And if we figured out how to build a fusion plant today, they wouldn’t get built. They’d be more expensive than fission, and have no particular advantage in the radiation department unless you managed the much more difficult aneutronic fusion.
Fusion is a dream held forth by people who want to end industrial society, to scale the human population back to hunter-gather levels. It’s the perfect they make the enemy of the good enough. Get it working, and they’d reject it, too.
Well, nuclear is limited, in the sense that at some point, the waste heat would become excessive. Not in the sense that it isn’t sufficient to power all of our current society. It’s not really fuel limited, we have enough nuclear fuel already mined to last a century or so, and we know enough is available to last geologic time periods.
Fusion managed something significant at Bikini island, or so I hear. The truth is that, if you had to, you could build power plants around fusion bombs. We figured out how to do that back in the 60’s, during the push to find civilian uses for nuclear bombs.
But the truth about fusion is that we don’t particularly need it, and that’s why we didn’t build those plants. And if we figured out how to build a fusion plant today, they wouldn’t get built. They’d be more expensive than fission, and have no particular advantage in the radiation department unless you managed the much more difficult aneutronic fusion.
Fusion is a dream held forth by people who want to end industrial society, to scale the human population back to hunter-gather levels. It’s the perfect they make the enemy of the good enough. Get it working, and they’d reject it, too.
Brett:
Fusion managed something significant at Bikini island, or so I hear. The truth is that, if you had to, you could build power plants around fusion bombs. We figured out how to do that back in the 60’s
Do you have a cite for that? I’ve heard some cockeyed theories about how *in theory* that could be done (project PACER, etc), but there were/are a lot of practical problems in using this for conventional energy generation.
Brett:
Fusion managed something significant at Bikini island, or so I hear. The truth is that, if you had to, you could build power plants around fusion bombs. We figured out how to do that back in the 60’s
Do you have a cite for that? I’ve heard some cockeyed theories about how *in theory* that could be done (project PACER, etc), but there were/are a lot of practical problems in using this for conventional energy generation.
Pacer was what I had in mind. Sure, there are practical problems with it, but they’re standard engineering practical problems, not “Whole new speculative technologies would have to be developed” problems.
The biggest practical problem is the same problem more ‘conventional’ fusion has: Even if you can get it to work, it has no advantage over a fission plant, and is more expensive.
Now, when we as a species expand into space, fusion would come in handy, because hydrogen is a lot more common than fissile and fertile elements are. But, on Earth? We could base our economy off fission, and not run out of fuel for a period longer than the Sun is going to stay on the main sequence.
If you’re not going to call that “renewable”, why not?
I think solar energy will eventually be our main power source, but that “eventually” carries a lot of load. Nuclear is a good transitional source of energy for getting off of fossil fuels.
And it works today, economically, which is more than can be said about solar, tidal, wave, wind…
Pacer was what I had in mind. Sure, there are practical problems with it, but they’re standard engineering practical problems, not “Whole new speculative technologies would have to be developed” problems.
The biggest practical problem is the same problem more ‘conventional’ fusion has: Even if you can get it to work, it has no advantage over a fission plant, and is more expensive.
Now, when we as a species expand into space, fusion would come in handy, because hydrogen is a lot more common than fissile and fertile elements are. But, on Earth? We could base our economy off fission, and not run out of fuel for a period longer than the Sun is going to stay on the main sequence.
If you’re not going to call that “renewable”, why not?
I think solar energy will eventually be our main power source, but that “eventually” carries a lot of load. Nuclear is a good transitional source of energy for getting off of fossil fuels.
And it works today, economically, which is more than can be said about solar, tidal, wave, wind…
standard engineering practical problems
Survival of the blast vessel and loading mechanism under repeated 1 kt explosions is not a standard engineering problem.
Neither is the supply of nukes, which is a very non-trivial production issue.
I’d place it at the same level of practical that NIF is ‘practical’. In theory they can break even or be positive. But in terms of an energy solution both are a long way off.
I’m all for nuclear as part of mix. I’m all for diversification. Basing something as important as our energy supply on a single source.
standard engineering practical problems
Survival of the blast vessel and loading mechanism under repeated 1 kt explosions is not a standard engineering problem.
Neither is the supply of nukes, which is a very non-trivial production issue.
I’d place it at the same level of practical that NIF is ‘practical’. In theory they can break even or be positive. But in terms of an energy solution both are a long way off.
I’m all for nuclear as part of mix. I’m all for diversification. Basing something as important as our energy supply on a single source.
correction: “…on a single source is stupid.”
correction: “…on a single source is stupid.”
Brett, is nuclear still economic if you include the cost of disposal of spent fuel? Seriously. I have the distinct impression that nuclear is only cost-competitive because it is subsidized, including the cost of creating, maintaining, and securing spent fuel dumps. (When it is even done at all. See Japan’s experience with stuff just left lying about on-site.)
It may be that the cost numbers are still good. But I will be more persuaded when I see a commercial nuclear operation which has created such a fuel storage facility and is using it — and still makes money. Or have you heard of one that simply hasn’t come to my attention?
Brett, is nuclear still economic if you include the cost of disposal of spent fuel? Seriously. I have the distinct impression that nuclear is only cost-competitive because it is subsidized, including the cost of creating, maintaining, and securing spent fuel dumps. (When it is even done at all. See Japan’s experience with stuff just left lying about on-site.)
It may be that the cost numbers are still good. But I will be more persuaded when I see a commercial nuclear operation which has created such a fuel storage facility and is using it — and still makes money. Or have you heard of one that simply hasn’t come to my attention?
Sure, dealing with the blast is standard engineering. Doesn’t require superconductors or high vacuum, just steel and concrete and reference to steam tables.
As for the ‘waste’, remember that almost all of it is really fuel.
Sure, dealing with the blast is standard engineering. Doesn’t require superconductors or high vacuum, just steel and concrete and reference to steam tables.
As for the ‘waste’, remember that almost all of it is really fuel.
Fusion is a dream held forth by people who want to end industrial society, to scale the human population back to hunter-gather levels.
?????
Fusion is a dream held forth by people who want to end industrial society, to scale the human population back to hunter-gather levels.
?????
It’s dreamed of by others, of course, but much of the verbal support for fusion comes from people who only like it because it isn’t practical yet, and would reject it if we could start building the plants. As I said, the perfect they ‘like’ just exactly because it IS the enemy of the good they want to oppose.
Just wait, if one of the current fusion research projects (I like General Fusion, it’s so steampunk.) proves out, suddenly the usual suspects will notice there’s radioactive waste involved.
It’s dreamed of by others, of course, but much of the verbal support for fusion comes from people who only like it because it isn’t practical yet, and would reject it if we could start building the plants. As I said, the perfect they ‘like’ just exactly because it IS the enemy of the good they want to oppose.
Just wait, if one of the current fusion research projects (I like General Fusion, it’s so steampunk.) proves out, suddenly the usual suspects will notice there’s radioactive waste involved.
As for the ‘waste’, remember that almost all of it is really fuel.
I’d go so far as to say that it is potentially fuel. But whether you bury the waste or refine it for more fuel, you have to do something to or with it — you can’t just leave it sitting around on the back lot. And the cost of that “something” has to be figured in to the cost of operations, if your accounting is going to make any sense.
As for the ‘waste’, remember that almost all of it is really fuel.
I’d go so far as to say that it is potentially fuel. But whether you bury the waste or refine it for more fuel, you have to do something to or with it — you can’t just leave it sitting around on the back lot. And the cost of that “something” has to be figured in to the cost of operations, if your accounting is going to make any sense.
Brett:
dealing with the blast is standard engineering.
Agree to disagree? Not my area, but based on conversations with CE friends with matsci focus that is a non-trivial problem.
wj:
And the cost of that “something” has to be figured in to the cost of operations
Isn’t factored in? At least in the US, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires plant operators to pay into the fund for a permanent repository.
No repository has been built, but I see that as more of a political problem than a cost problem. Or at least a political problem AND a cost problem.
Fission has problems, but its a greenhouse free (semi)dispatchable power source.
If we want to wean ourselves off of carbon, we’re going to need multiple generation sources. Fission is readily adaptable to our grid and is suitable for meeting base demand. Since its dispatchable, it can be used in conjunction with less consistent renewable sources.
Brett:
dealing with the blast is standard engineering.
Agree to disagree? Not my area, but based on conversations with CE friends with matsci focus that is a non-trivial problem.
wj:
And the cost of that “something” has to be figured in to the cost of operations
Isn’t factored in? At least in the US, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires plant operators to pay into the fund for a permanent repository.
No repository has been built, but I see that as more of a political problem than a cost problem. Or at least a political problem AND a cost problem.
Fission has problems, but its a greenhouse free (semi)dispatchable power source.
If we want to wean ourselves off of carbon, we’re going to need multiple generation sources. Fission is readily adaptable to our grid and is suitable for meeting base demand. Since its dispatchable, it can be used in conjunction with less consistent renewable sources.
It’s dreamed of by others, of course, but much of the verbal support for fusion comes from people who only like it because it isn’t practical yet
I guess I travel in the wrong circles.
But the idea that a solution with the technical requirements of nuclear fusion would be a favorite of folks who want to return to a hunter-gatherer society seems just a little weird.
That doesn’t mean it’s not so, because there is no shortage of weird in the world. But, it’s weird.
What strikes me in all of the discussion of how to deal with our energy needs is that the idea of “use less” is, somehow, missing.
To me, that seems like low hanging fruit. Easy money, left on the table. But maybe it’s just me.
In any case, I doubt there is going to be One Amazing Technology that is going to be the unique and universal replacement for burning carbon. Different things are a better fit for different places, it seems to me.
It also seems to me that the easiest way to move folks off of lovely cheap ubiquitous carbon is the make it less cheap. Then let normal human ingenuity sort it out.
I live right next to the ocean, a solution based on waves that would be adequate for *where I live* would suit me to a T.
It’s dreamed of by others, of course, but much of the verbal support for fusion comes from people who only like it because it isn’t practical yet
I guess I travel in the wrong circles.
But the idea that a solution with the technical requirements of nuclear fusion would be a favorite of folks who want to return to a hunter-gatherer society seems just a little weird.
That doesn’t mean it’s not so, because there is no shortage of weird in the world. But, it’s weird.
What strikes me in all of the discussion of how to deal with our energy needs is that the idea of “use less” is, somehow, missing.
To me, that seems like low hanging fruit. Easy money, left on the table. But maybe it’s just me.
In any case, I doubt there is going to be One Amazing Technology that is going to be the unique and universal replacement for burning carbon. Different things are a better fit for different places, it seems to me.
It also seems to me that the easiest way to move folks off of lovely cheap ubiquitous carbon is the make it less cheap. Then let normal human ingenuity sort it out.
I live right next to the ocean, a solution based on waves that would be adequate for *where I live* would suit me to a T.
What strikes me in all of the discussion of how to deal with our energy needs is that the idea of “use less” is, somehow, missing.
That’s because Jimmy Carter wore a sweater. The fact is, energy hogs will be with us until energy hogging is outlawed. And outlawing people’s preferred overindulgence in energy is big government. And the era of big government is over.
What strikes me in all of the discussion of how to deal with our energy needs is that the idea of “use less” is, somehow, missing.
That’s because Jimmy Carter wore a sweater. The fact is, energy hogs will be with us until energy hogging is outlawed. And outlawing people’s preferred overindulgence in energy is big government. And the era of big government is over.
That’s because Jimmy Carter wore a sweater. The fact is, energy hogs will be with us until energy hogging is outlawed. And outlawing people’s preferred overindulgence in energy is big government. And the era of big government is over.
Or maybe its because our society uses a lot of energy? And most conceivable energy saving policies can only shave off a very small bit of it?
If you have a practical way of reducing our energy consumption by, say, 20% (or more) without crippling our economy, I would be very interested in hearing it.
At some point, boats have to ship goods, airplanes have to fly, and refrigerators need to keep running.
That’s because Jimmy Carter wore a sweater. The fact is, energy hogs will be with us until energy hogging is outlawed. And outlawing people’s preferred overindulgence in energy is big government. And the era of big government is over.
Or maybe its because our society uses a lot of energy? And most conceivable energy saving policies can only shave off a very small bit of it?
If you have a practical way of reducing our energy consumption by, say, 20% (or more) without crippling our economy, I would be very interested in hearing it.
At some point, boats have to ship goods, airplanes have to fly, and refrigerators need to keep running.
I’m not sure about the precise numbers, but this article gives an idea of reductions in Japanese power consumption. Some grafs:
The Japanese are large electricity consumers; their consumption per capita reached 7,700 kWh in 2010, i.e. the same level as the OECD average but 30 % higher than the EU average. The share of electricity represented about 25% of total energy consumption in 2010, compared to 21% for the OECD average and 20% in Europe. Nuclear power contributes to more than ¼ of the electricity production, the same contribution as coal and gas.
all nuclear plants were shut down after Fukushima
In July 2011, to overcome the summer peak period of power demand in Japan, the government implemented a plan which demanded a 15% reduction in usage for all electricity consumers. Restrictions by law were passes to restrict large energy users during peak times in the service areas of Tohoku EPCO and TEPCO, the two power companies operating in the areas impacted by the earthquake. Large electricity users were required to voluntarily formulate and implement plans for reducing their power consumption during peak times (100,000 plans implemented). Article 27 of the Electricity Business Act, “Restriction on Use of Electricity,” was enacted to secure the effectiveness of demand suppression and fairness among electricity users. For small electricity users, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Ministry in charge of the energy sector, presented examples of electricity-saving measures related to lighting, AC, etc., and encouraged consumers to formulate and implement voluntary energy-saving action plans to achieve the target.
This doesn’t give us the 20%, however, it was
This reduction was effective in all sectors, in particular in residential and commercial, where it was a voluntary action (consumption reduction of 15% in summer 2011 compared to 2010).
The article points out the caveat that 2011 was cool compared to other summers. While I don’t think it crippled the economy, it could be argued that it did handicap Japan quite a bit. Still, this was with voluntary action, so it seems possible.
I think that one of the key things is a feed-in-tariff, which mandates that electric companies purchase electricity produced by renewable energy. As I understand it, that is what has given Germany its big lead in renewables.
I’m not sure about the precise numbers, but this article gives an idea of reductions in Japanese power consumption. Some grafs:
The Japanese are large electricity consumers; their consumption per capita reached 7,700 kWh in 2010, i.e. the same level as the OECD average but 30 % higher than the EU average. The share of electricity represented about 25% of total energy consumption in 2010, compared to 21% for the OECD average and 20% in Europe. Nuclear power contributes to more than ¼ of the electricity production, the same contribution as coal and gas.
all nuclear plants were shut down after Fukushima
In July 2011, to overcome the summer peak period of power demand in Japan, the government implemented a plan which demanded a 15% reduction in usage for all electricity consumers. Restrictions by law were passes to restrict large energy users during peak times in the service areas of Tohoku EPCO and TEPCO, the two power companies operating in the areas impacted by the earthquake. Large electricity users were required to voluntarily formulate and implement plans for reducing their power consumption during peak times (100,000 plans implemented). Article 27 of the Electricity Business Act, “Restriction on Use of Electricity,” was enacted to secure the effectiveness of demand suppression and fairness among electricity users. For small electricity users, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Ministry in charge of the energy sector, presented examples of electricity-saving measures related to lighting, AC, etc., and encouraged consumers to formulate and implement voluntary energy-saving action plans to achieve the target.
This doesn’t give us the 20%, however, it was
This reduction was effective in all sectors, in particular in residential and commercial, where it was a voluntary action (consumption reduction of 15% in summer 2011 compared to 2010).
The article points out the caveat that 2011 was cool compared to other summers. While I don’t think it crippled the economy, it could be argued that it did handicap Japan quite a bit. Still, this was with voluntary action, so it seems possible.
I think that one of the key things is a feed-in-tariff, which mandates that electric companies purchase electricity produced by renewable energy. As I understand it, that is what has given Germany its big lead in renewables.
LJ:
It’s a fair point. 15% can be done by voluntary action in residential and commercial (40% of the US consumption, roughly). And I assume it was matched in the industrial sector as required by law, which probably reduced production.
In addition to being far below the emissions control projected as necessary by Hansen, et al (not that I totally by their projections), is likely a very tough political sell with high unemployment.
I wasn’t trying to argue against energy conservation as a component to the solution. But the problem isn’t a simple one.
And renewables are also a great source of power, not disagreeing. But if you to drop carbon emissions, its not going to be renewables in the near term. Nor is it going to be rationing.
There are several promising technologies (wind, solar, tidal, etc). None of them are there yet. In all fairness, neither is transmutation.
It’s really hard to predict what technology will ultimately succeed. Until that point, to me, it makes sense to invest in multiple technologies.
LJ:
It’s a fair point. 15% can be done by voluntary action in residential and commercial (40% of the US consumption, roughly). And I assume it was matched in the industrial sector as required by law, which probably reduced production.
In addition to being far below the emissions control projected as necessary by Hansen, et al (not that I totally by their projections), is likely a very tough political sell with high unemployment.
I wasn’t trying to argue against energy conservation as a component to the solution. But the problem isn’t a simple one.
And renewables are also a great source of power, not disagreeing. But if you to drop carbon emissions, its not going to be renewables in the near term. Nor is it going to be rationing.
There are several promising technologies (wind, solar, tidal, etc). None of them are there yet. In all fairness, neither is transmutation.
It’s really hard to predict what technology will ultimately succeed. Until that point, to me, it makes sense to invest in multiple technologies.
Our society uses a lot of fuel, which is not the same thing as energy.
Fuel is used up. Energy is conserved.
My house in MA requires fuel to heat in the winter and to cool in the summer. It would require less fuel if I insulated it better. To do so, I would have to encourage the manufacturers and installers of fiberglass and triple-glazed windows to the tune of many thousands of dollars. I can’t think how that would be a drag on The Economy. Afterwards, of course, I would be buying less fuel, which would be a drag on The Economy. So my personal net effect on The Economy would seem to be more of a wash than a crippling blow.
Or maybe better than a wash, at this particular time. If I spend $20K on weatherizing, and replacing my ancient furnace and air conditioner, this year, I do my bit to grow this year’s GDP. Any drag I impose on future years’ GDP has a discounted net present value.
You might point out that I would also be doing my bit to reduce this year’s GDP by $20K not spent on nice restaurant meals, vacation travel, booze, and so forth. But money, like energy, merely flows — it does not disappear. The people I pay the $20K to can spend it on meals out, plane trips, and beer just as well as I can. The Economy is made of money changing hands.
Now, I don’t know whether $20K would reduce my fuel consumption by 20%, or more, or less. What I’m fairly sure of is that ships, planes, and refrigerators (not to mention cars) can be made more efficient than they are at present — by spending money on them. Keeping in mind that spending money means buying stuff and hiring people, I fail to see how the general case is qualitatively different from the case of my little house. I don’t get how employing people to invent, produce, and implement efficiency-increasing devices and methods amounts to crippling The Economy.
Is 20% reduction in fuel use — without giving up Our Way of Life — physically possible? I don’t know, but I suspect it is. Provided, of course, that we do not define Our Way of Life by how much fuel we use. Increasing fuel efficiency is an engineering problem, as Brett might put it. Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
BTW, just to be clear: “efficiency” is not the same as “conservation”, in my vocabulary. Replacing the world’s fleet of automobiles, over time, with a fleet of 20%-more-efficient ones is not the same thing as driving 20% less to get through a temporary shortage of oil.
–TP
Our society uses a lot of fuel, which is not the same thing as energy.
Fuel is used up. Energy is conserved.
My house in MA requires fuel to heat in the winter and to cool in the summer. It would require less fuel if I insulated it better. To do so, I would have to encourage the manufacturers and installers of fiberglass and triple-glazed windows to the tune of many thousands of dollars. I can’t think how that would be a drag on The Economy. Afterwards, of course, I would be buying less fuel, which would be a drag on The Economy. So my personal net effect on The Economy would seem to be more of a wash than a crippling blow.
Or maybe better than a wash, at this particular time. If I spend $20K on weatherizing, and replacing my ancient furnace and air conditioner, this year, I do my bit to grow this year’s GDP. Any drag I impose on future years’ GDP has a discounted net present value.
You might point out that I would also be doing my bit to reduce this year’s GDP by $20K not spent on nice restaurant meals, vacation travel, booze, and so forth. But money, like energy, merely flows — it does not disappear. The people I pay the $20K to can spend it on meals out, plane trips, and beer just as well as I can. The Economy is made of money changing hands.
Now, I don’t know whether $20K would reduce my fuel consumption by 20%, or more, or less. What I’m fairly sure of is that ships, planes, and refrigerators (not to mention cars) can be made more efficient than they are at present — by spending money on them. Keeping in mind that spending money means buying stuff and hiring people, I fail to see how the general case is qualitatively different from the case of my little house. I don’t get how employing people to invent, produce, and implement efficiency-increasing devices and methods amounts to crippling The Economy.
Is 20% reduction in fuel use — without giving up Our Way of Life — physically possible? I don’t know, but I suspect it is. Provided, of course, that we do not define Our Way of Life by how much fuel we use. Increasing fuel efficiency is an engineering problem, as Brett might put it. Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
BTW, just to be clear: “efficiency” is not the same as “conservation”, in my vocabulary. Replacing the world’s fleet of automobiles, over time, with a fleet of 20%-more-efficient ones is not the same thing as driving 20% less to get through a temporary shortage of oil.
–TP
I’m not sure why in these discussions we have to contrast existing, or even obsolete, nuclear plants, to projected solar and wind technologies. There are fission reactor designs which are supposed to achieve incredibly high “burnup”, basically they ‘burn’ the wastes as they’re generated, along with the fuel. They would actually be fueled with existing stockpiles of ‘waste’. We’d be building them today, instead of obsolete plants modeled off of nuclear submarine powerplants, if progress in nuclear powerplant design hadn’t been stopped by hostile regulatory agencies.
The anti-nuke movement was pretty successful in halting progress in nuclear plant design, but there are indications that their capacity to do that is about spent. Though much of the progress is likely to happen outside the US.
I think a lot of different energy sources make sense in local situations. In the Bay of Fundy you’d be a fool not to exploit tidal power, wind makes sense in places with a lot of consistent wind, solar in sunny climes, especially if you’re far from the existing grid. But, solar in the frozen north? Wind in places where it doesn’t blow for weeks at a time? Nah. And it makes little sense to pretend that ‘renewables’ are capable of powering an industrial civilization, short of huge, basic advances in their technology.
Where fission shines is in baseline power generation. (And, yes, the newer plants can ramp up and down enough for demand tracking.) Also in powering LARGE vehicles, such as big cargo ships. It’s hard to beat for that, the plant sits in a small space, and just keeps ticking along for decades with 99% plus availability, and the downtime scheduled, not at the whim of weather. Not chopping up or frying birds, either.
I’m not sure why in these discussions we have to contrast existing, or even obsolete, nuclear plants, to projected solar and wind technologies. There are fission reactor designs which are supposed to achieve incredibly high “burnup”, basically they ‘burn’ the wastes as they’re generated, along with the fuel. They would actually be fueled with existing stockpiles of ‘waste’. We’d be building them today, instead of obsolete plants modeled off of nuclear submarine powerplants, if progress in nuclear powerplant design hadn’t been stopped by hostile regulatory agencies.
The anti-nuke movement was pretty successful in halting progress in nuclear plant design, but there are indications that their capacity to do that is about spent. Though much of the progress is likely to happen outside the US.
I think a lot of different energy sources make sense in local situations. In the Bay of Fundy you’d be a fool not to exploit tidal power, wind makes sense in places with a lot of consistent wind, solar in sunny climes, especially if you’re far from the existing grid. But, solar in the frozen north? Wind in places where it doesn’t blow for weeks at a time? Nah. And it makes little sense to pretend that ‘renewables’ are capable of powering an industrial civilization, short of huge, basic advances in their technology.
Where fission shines is in baseline power generation. (And, yes, the newer plants can ramp up and down enough for demand tracking.) Also in powering LARGE vehicles, such as big cargo ships. It’s hard to beat for that, the plant sits in a small space, and just keeps ticking along for decades with 99% plus availability, and the downtime scheduled, not at the whim of weather. Not chopping up or frying birds, either.
Tony:
Now, I don’t know whether $20K would reduce my fuel consumption by 20%, or more, or less
Ok. I’m going to go out on a limb and say it might if heating/cooling is a large part of your energy bill, and that may very well be a very good decision for you to make. Not everyone is a homeowner, not everybody has 20k to spend, and in situations where the winters aren’t quite as bad it might not make sense.
Is 20% reduction in fuel use — without giving up Our Way of Life — physically possible? I don’t know, but I suspect it is.
I agree. The question is how. As I’ve said above , we should diversify our feedstock. I think I said it in the other thread, but if not, research into new technologies is also great. But if you think that coal is a dangerous energy source (and it is, from when its mined until after its burned), fission is, IMHO, a good option to replace coal in base power production.
Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
“efficiency” is not the same as “conservation”, in my vocabulary.
I hope hope they aren’t identical in anybody’s vocabulary. But if you want broad reductions in carbon emissions *now* you can either replace our feedstock (fission) or conserve. Efficiency gains, while continuing, are not sitting there for the taking. They require research, which requires time.
Increasing fuel efficiency is an engineering problem
Yes, with an emphasis on the word *problem*. This is a nontrivial solution to CO2 release.
I have a phd in engineering. I know people working on fuel cells, wind turbine design, solar thermal, nanomaterials for PVs and batteries. These are all areas of active research. All of them are making strides.
But the technology isn’t simply waiting in the wings if only we could get past those crazy people that burn coal for the sheer thrill of it.
“Engineering” isn’t a magic solution to problems. A lot of the low hanging fruit has already been taken and squeezing efficiency out of things that have already been optimized is really hard. Research continues, which is good, and progress is being made, but research tends to have an unpredictable timeline.
Tony:
Now, I don’t know whether $20K would reduce my fuel consumption by 20%, or more, or less
Ok. I’m going to go out on a limb and say it might if heating/cooling is a large part of your energy bill, and that may very well be a very good decision for you to make. Not everyone is a homeowner, not everybody has 20k to spend, and in situations where the winters aren’t quite as bad it might not make sense.
Is 20% reduction in fuel use — without giving up Our Way of Life — physically possible? I don’t know, but I suspect it is.
I agree. The question is how. As I’ve said above , we should diversify our feedstock. I think I said it in the other thread, but if not, research into new technologies is also great. But if you think that coal is a dangerous energy source (and it is, from when its mined until after its burned), fission is, IMHO, a good option to replace coal in base power production.
Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
“efficiency” is not the same as “conservation”, in my vocabulary.
I hope hope they aren’t identical in anybody’s vocabulary. But if you want broad reductions in carbon emissions *now* you can either replace our feedstock (fission) or conserve. Efficiency gains, while continuing, are not sitting there for the taking. They require research, which requires time.
Increasing fuel efficiency is an engineering problem
Yes, with an emphasis on the word *problem*. This is a nontrivial solution to CO2 release.
I have a phd in engineering. I know people working on fuel cells, wind turbine design, solar thermal, nanomaterials for PVs and batteries. These are all areas of active research. All of them are making strides.
But the technology isn’t simply waiting in the wings if only we could get past those crazy people that burn coal for the sheer thrill of it.
“Engineering” isn’t a magic solution to problems. A lot of the low hanging fruit has already been taken and squeezing efficiency out of things that have already been optimized is really hard. Research continues, which is good, and progress is being made, but research tends to have an unpredictable timeline.
Relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/23/219105/states-brace-for-clash-between.html#storylink=rss
Has some numbers on solar use in the US and a discussion on the growing conflict between installers and utilities. It doesn’t get into problems of tying distributed generation to the grid on a large scale.
This isn’t to say that solar isn’t a good power source (it is) and shouldn’t be encouraged (it should), but these changes have problems associated with them and take time to implement.
Relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/23/219105/states-brace-for-clash-between.html#storylink=rss
Has some numbers on solar use in the US and a discussion on the growing conflict between installers and utilities. It doesn’t get into problems of tying distributed generation to the grid on a large scale.
This isn’t to say that solar isn’t a good power source (it is) and shouldn’t be encouraged (it should), but these changes have problems associated with them and take time to implement.
If you have a practical way of reducing our energy consumption by, say, 20% (or more) without crippling our economy, I would be very interested in hearing it.
raise CAFE standards.
raising the average fuel efficiency of cars on the road by 20% could be done pretty easily. all those F-150s and Chevy Tahoes that get 15/23 MPG ? how many people never use them for anything but commuting and hauling kids around? i know there are a few in the parking lot at work that have never carried anything my little 2L 4-door sedan couldn’t carry.
really push geothermal heat pumps for new residential construction. i’m bummed we didn’t fight harder to get one in the house we just built. especially since i just paid $800 for a tank of propane, the idea that we could be offsetting that simply by moving some water around in our front yard seems mighty attractive. i know they are incentivised, but builders apparently aren’t familiar with them and don’t like to talk about things they haven’t done a hundred times already.
If you have a practical way of reducing our energy consumption by, say, 20% (or more) without crippling our economy, I would be very interested in hearing it.
raise CAFE standards.
raising the average fuel efficiency of cars on the road by 20% could be done pretty easily. all those F-150s and Chevy Tahoes that get 15/23 MPG ? how many people never use them for anything but commuting and hauling kids around? i know there are a few in the parking lot at work that have never carried anything my little 2L 4-door sedan couldn’t carry.
really push geothermal heat pumps for new residential construction. i’m bummed we didn’t fight harder to get one in the house we just built. especially since i just paid $800 for a tank of propane, the idea that we could be offsetting that simply by moving some water around in our front yard seems mighty attractive. i know they are incentivised, but builders apparently aren’t familiar with them and don’t like to talk about things they haven’t done a hundred times already.
halp, halp. the moderation monster is after me.
halp, halp. the moderation monster is after me.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
You need to get out more.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
You need to get out more.
You need to get out more.
…ok…does that mean you have and can describe their motivations? Or are you just encouraging me to go outside and get some sun?
To me, right now, the concept of “man, I really enjoy spending money heating my house so I’m leaving all the windows open” is foreign, to say the least.
Or maybe I’m missing the implication of a phrase like: “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel”
You need to get out more.
…ok…does that mean you have and can describe their motivations? Or are you just encouraging me to go outside and get some sun?
To me, right now, the concept of “man, I really enjoy spending money heating my house so I’m leaving all the windows open” is foreign, to say the least.
Or maybe I’m missing the implication of a phrase like: “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel”
Perhaps it’s more a matter of some people being so focused on other things (the feel of a huge car engine; the convenience of leaving the door open for a few minutes or more during the dead of winter or the heat of summer) that the inefficiency cost is insignificant to them.
It isn’t that they like inefficiency particularly. Just that efficiency is such a low priority for them compared to other things that it simply doesn’t matter.
Perhaps it’s more a matter of some people being so focused on other things (the feel of a huge car engine; the convenience of leaving the door open for a few minutes or more during the dead of winter or the heat of summer) that the inefficiency cost is insignificant to them.
It isn’t that they like inefficiency particularly. Just that efficiency is such a low priority for them compared to other things that it simply doesn’t matter.
Just that efficiency is such a low priority for them compared to other things that it simply doesn’t matter.
Which is different than the phrase upthread and far more reasonable.
Just that efficiency is such a low priority for them compared to other things that it simply doesn’t matter.
Which is different than the phrase upthread and far more reasonable.
in my experience, it’s not “man, I really enjoy spending money heating my house so I’m leaving all the windows open” so much as “screw those liberal-enviro scolds. ah do what ah want!”
in my experience, it’s not “man, I really enjoy spending money heating my house so I’m leaving all the windows open” so much as “screw those liberal-enviro scolds. ah do what ah want!”
does that mean you have and can describe their motivations?
oh yes, indeed.
cleek’s law, baby.
does that mean you have and can describe their motivations?
oh yes, indeed.
cleek’s law, baby.
“I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.”
Well, I’ve got a fireplace, and wouldn’t replace it with a wood stove, and I certainly enjoy it. I’m certainly not under the illusion that it is an efficient source of heat, however efficient it is at generating romance.
“I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.”
Well, I’ve got a fireplace, and wouldn’t replace it with a wood stove, and I certainly enjoy it. I’m certainly not under the illusion that it is an efficient source of heat, however efficient it is at generating romance.
so much as “screw those liberal-enviro scolds. ah do what ah want!”
And people have said this to you? Or just on Fox news and the internets (both reliable sources of reality, no doubt)?
In my experience (and yeah, anecdote, so if you have something firmer go ahead and share), people are generally concerned about their energy bill and how often they fill up their car.
Because, you know, most people don’t have the money to burn just to spite ‘teh libruls’. They’re more concerned about making rent and eating and those other troublesome parts of life.
And some of them might drive old cars and trucks or have an inefficient furnace. Most, probably. But upfront costs for savings realized over several years are often a substantial impediment for people. Accelerating the turnover of old technology isn’t simple nor is it cheap.
The solutions to Joe, who drives around in a Hummer because ‘screw the bald eagles!’ and the solutions to people locked into low efficiency options are not the same.
I’d speculate the second one is a larger part of the overall energy consumption.
so much as “screw those liberal-enviro scolds. ah do what ah want!”
And people have said this to you? Or just on Fox news and the internets (both reliable sources of reality, no doubt)?
In my experience (and yeah, anecdote, so if you have something firmer go ahead and share), people are generally concerned about their energy bill and how often they fill up their car.
Because, you know, most people don’t have the money to burn just to spite ‘teh libruls’. They’re more concerned about making rent and eating and those other troublesome parts of life.
And some of them might drive old cars and trucks or have an inefficient furnace. Most, probably. But upfront costs for savings realized over several years are often a substantial impediment for people. Accelerating the turnover of old technology isn’t simple nor is it cheap.
The solutions to Joe, who drives around in a Hummer because ‘screw the bald eagles!’ and the solutions to people locked into low efficiency options are not the same.
I’d speculate the second one is a larger part of the overall energy consumption.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
Well, there was this.
I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
Well, there was this.
If you compare US per capita energy usage (and indeed car gas mileage) with anywhere else on earth outside of the Middle East, then yes, you do enjoy poor fuel economy. So there is some headroom.
Electricity is more or less at parity with gasoline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
Solar is more or less at grid parity with fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
You can quibble about the details, and cheap natural will skew the calculations for a few years, but basically we’re just about there already. And solar can only get cheaper.
The smartest engineer/businessperson in the US is determined to replace gas powered autos with electric ones. He’s also involved in mass market solar, and is about to build the largest battery plant on the planet.
Add in a couple of technical breakthroughs along these lines –
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/batteries-flammable-polymer/
– and we won’t need to argue with the global warming skeptics for more than a couple of decades.
Whether all this happens quite quickly enough to prevent some rather unpleasant climate effects is open to question.
If you compare US per capita energy usage (and indeed car gas mileage) with anywhere else on earth outside of the Middle East, then yes, you do enjoy poor fuel economy. So there is some headroom.
Electricity is more or less at parity with gasoline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
Solar is more or less at grid parity with fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
You can quibble about the details, and cheap natural will skew the calculations for a few years, but basically we’re just about there already. And solar can only get cheaper.
The smartest engineer/businessperson in the US is determined to replace gas powered autos with electric ones. He’s also involved in mass market solar, and is about to build the largest battery plant on the planet.
Add in a couple of technical breakthroughs along these lines –
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/batteries-flammable-polymer/
– and we won’t need to argue with the global warming skeptics for more than a couple of decades.
Whether all this happens quite quickly enough to prevent some rather unpleasant climate effects is open to question.
There was a survey concerning fuel usage that addressed that, but I can’t turn it up. I did turn up this.
http://www.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/News+Media/republicans-democrats-at-odds-on-energy-issues.aspx
from the survey
Even on areas where there’s majority agreement, a partisan gap remains. For instance, there is broad backing for programs to help consumers learn to make more energy-efficient choices, but the support is 81 percent among Democrats and 57 percent among Republicans.
We’ve just gone through a whole round of comments that seem to be centered around having a light bulb in a chicken coop as unacceptable government meddling. Thompson, you yourself said something to the effect that concentrating power in the government is unacceptable. When that kind of thinking meets because chicken coop, I’m not sure why you are surprised that some folks would feel that buying a Hummer is the way to go.
And given that there is this notion that any gubmint action is impinging on freedom, you have this catch-22: if it were really an emergency, the government should ignore the minority and do it, and since they try voluntary measures, it is obviously not an emergency, so go suck eggs (but not out of their chicken coop).
The poll, made possible by a grant to the AP-NORC Center from the Joyce Foundation, illuminates one driver of this campaign season’s divisive political rhetoric: Both parties are playing to their bases. So it’s no surprise that presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans push for more drilling for oil and natural gas, and President Barack Obama emphasizes renewable energy development as part of what he calls an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.
Given that the campaign has never ended and we have never settled down to the business of governing since Obama’s election, it should be unsurprising that this state of affairs continues. One would think polls like this or this should point the way to a bipartisan consensus, there are obvious reasons why that won’t happen, at least until the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs.
There was a survey concerning fuel usage that addressed that, but I can’t turn it up. I did turn up this.
http://www.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/News+Media/republicans-democrats-at-odds-on-energy-issues.aspx
from the survey
Even on areas where there’s majority agreement, a partisan gap remains. For instance, there is broad backing for programs to help consumers learn to make more energy-efficient choices, but the support is 81 percent among Democrats and 57 percent among Republicans.
We’ve just gone through a whole round of comments that seem to be centered around having a light bulb in a chicken coop as unacceptable government meddling. Thompson, you yourself said something to the effect that concentrating power in the government is unacceptable. When that kind of thinking meets because chicken coop, I’m not sure why you are surprised that some folks would feel that buying a Hummer is the way to go.
And given that there is this notion that any gubmint action is impinging on freedom, you have this catch-22: if it were really an emergency, the government should ignore the minority and do it, and since they try voluntary measures, it is obviously not an emergency, so go suck eggs (but not out of their chicken coop).
The poll, made possible by a grant to the AP-NORC Center from the Joyce Foundation, illuminates one driver of this campaign season’s divisive political rhetoric: Both parties are playing to their bases. So it’s no surprise that presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans push for more drilling for oil and natural gas, and President Barack Obama emphasizes renewable energy development as part of what he calls an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.
Given that the campaign has never ended and we have never settled down to the business of governing since Obama’s election, it should be unsurprising that this state of affairs continues. One would think polls like this or this should point the way to a bipartisan consensus, there are obvious reasons why that won’t happen, at least until the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs.
Tony P.: Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
Thompson: I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
Well, maybe not their own.
But there are large and wealthy companies that do get positive joy out of other people’s poor fuel economy. Large vehicles are more profitable for the automakers by far than small ones. And then there are those outfits whose revenues come from selling fuel, including lots of gasoline.
These companies, and the people who run them, certainly enjoy political influence – a lot of it. So there well may be a political problem there, not because a lot of folks enjoy burning fuel but because influential forces want people to burn fuel.
Tony P.: Whether it’s also a political problem because some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel is not for me to say.
Thompson: I have never met someone who *enjoyed* poor fuel economy.
Well, maybe not their own.
But there are large and wealthy companies that do get positive joy out of other people’s poor fuel economy. Large vehicles are more profitable for the automakers by far than small ones. And then there are those outfits whose revenues come from selling fuel, including lots of gasoline.
These companies, and the people who run them, certainly enjoy political influence – a lot of it. So there well may be a political problem there, not because a lot of folks enjoy burning fuel but because influential forces want people to burn fuel.
Nigel:
A couple of points.
The EIA disagrees with you on LC for generation.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
But I would agree, as I’ve said above, solar is a good technology and we should implement it.
So let’s do that. But that’s not trivial. Solar currently represents less than a quarter percent of generation in the US. So we’re talking about scaling up production and installation of PVs by 100x to get to about 20% generation in the US.
That’s a lot of installations, a lot of production, and a lot of materials.
On top of that, a lot of those installations are going to be distributed, which can impact power quality on the grid. Again, a solvable problem, but non-trivial.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1489228
This is on top of energy storage/base load problems.
Again, not saying solar is bad. It’s good, and we should be increasing our use of it. However, there are very real problems that we need to tackle as part of that increase, which will take time.
Regarding batteries: I mentioned the importance of research upthread. I also mentioned that there are very real problems in battery research. You linked to a Wired article about a *potentially promising* technology that is “years away” from commercialization.
It would be great if we had a storage solution (and potentially that battery chemistry, or super caps, or one of the many other promising technologies) but we don’t yet, nor do we have anything on the horizon.
That might change, but that change is going to be unpredictable.
Again, I’m not trying to be a killjoy on solar. But getting a large PV market share in the US is going to take time. That could change rapidly with the development of a disruptive technology, but those are hard to predict.
byomtov:
These companies, and the people who run them, certainly enjoy political influence – a lot of it.
Agree 100%. My posts on previous threads should indicate that I view corporate influence in government as a huge problem.
LJ:
Thompson, you yourself said something to the effect that concentrating power in the government is unacceptable. When that kind of thinking meets because chicken coop, I’m not sure why you are surprised that some folks would feel that buying a Hummer is the way to go.
I’m honestly a little lost where you’re going. Not disagreeing with you, just really not seeing the connectivity between the thoughts. Likely my poor comprehension, not your poor writing.
But just casting around:
I don’t view the “screw you, I’m buying a hummer!” type as a large problem in our energy markets. I think its mostly an exaggerated caricature of people, but to the extent that its true, people that can execute on that feeling are few and far between.
Because Hummers are expensive, and gas is expensive. So, I don’t worry about the “screw you environment” types because to the extent they exist, they are likely a very small portion of our energy consumption.
But its a trope I’ve seen before and honestly I think it detracts from the already fractured and contentious debate.
Renewable energy generation is slowed by substantial technical problems. I would agree that it is also hindered by politicking and lobbying, but IMHO the technical problems are the dominant ones.
Of course, I think MOST things are hindered by politicking and lobbying. But hindered by people that buy hummers to screw “teh libruls”? Eh, I don’t buy it.
If you sell a 15K car that has 100 mpg, but has enough power that you can merge onto a freeway safely, people will buy it in droves.
If you give people a battery powered car for 15K that gets 200 mi on a charge and the charge only takes a few minutes, they will buy it. In droves. Tesla is working towards this, but they aren’t there yet, or close.
etc etc: People are motivated by money and lack thereof. Give them a way to save money by increasing efficiency, and they will. In general.
Nigel:
A couple of points.
The EIA disagrees with you on LC for generation.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
But I would agree, as I’ve said above, solar is a good technology and we should implement it.
So let’s do that. But that’s not trivial. Solar currently represents less than a quarter percent of generation in the US. So we’re talking about scaling up production and installation of PVs by 100x to get to about 20% generation in the US.
That’s a lot of installations, a lot of production, and a lot of materials.
On top of that, a lot of those installations are going to be distributed, which can impact power quality on the grid. Again, a solvable problem, but non-trivial.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1489228
This is on top of energy storage/base load problems.
Again, not saying solar is bad. It’s good, and we should be increasing our use of it. However, there are very real problems that we need to tackle as part of that increase, which will take time.
Regarding batteries: I mentioned the importance of research upthread. I also mentioned that there are very real problems in battery research. You linked to a Wired article about a *potentially promising* technology that is “years away” from commercialization.
It would be great if we had a storage solution (and potentially that battery chemistry, or super caps, or one of the many other promising technologies) but we don’t yet, nor do we have anything on the horizon.
That might change, but that change is going to be unpredictable.
Again, I’m not trying to be a killjoy on solar. But getting a large PV market share in the US is going to take time. That could change rapidly with the development of a disruptive technology, but those are hard to predict.
byomtov:
These companies, and the people who run them, certainly enjoy political influence – a lot of it.
Agree 100%. My posts on previous threads should indicate that I view corporate influence in government as a huge problem.
LJ:
Thompson, you yourself said something to the effect that concentrating power in the government is unacceptable. When that kind of thinking meets because chicken coop, I’m not sure why you are surprised that some folks would feel that buying a Hummer is the way to go.
I’m honestly a little lost where you’re going. Not disagreeing with you, just really not seeing the connectivity between the thoughts. Likely my poor comprehension, not your poor writing.
But just casting around:
I don’t view the “screw you, I’m buying a hummer!” type as a large problem in our energy markets. I think its mostly an exaggerated caricature of people, but to the extent that its true, people that can execute on that feeling are few and far between.
Because Hummers are expensive, and gas is expensive. So, I don’t worry about the “screw you environment” types because to the extent they exist, they are likely a very small portion of our energy consumption.
But its a trope I’ve seen before and honestly I think it detracts from the already fractured and contentious debate.
Renewable energy generation is slowed by substantial technical problems. I would agree that it is also hindered by politicking and lobbying, but IMHO the technical problems are the dominant ones.
Of course, I think MOST things are hindered by politicking and lobbying. But hindered by people that buy hummers to screw “teh libruls”? Eh, I don’t buy it.
If you sell a 15K car that has 100 mpg, but has enough power that you can merge onto a freeway safely, people will buy it in droves.
If you give people a battery powered car for 15K that gets 200 mi on a charge and the charge only takes a few minutes, they will buy it. In droves. Tesla is working towards this, but they aren’t there yet, or close.
etc etc: People are motivated by money and lack thereof. Give them a way to save money by increasing efficiency, and they will. In general.
And people have said this to you?
how many links would you like me to provide? people say stuff like this all the time.
i’m not saying they sit around and think of ways to waste fuel all day long, but there’s a mindset out there that all this eco-crap is nonsense and god gave us the earth and i’m just one person and i need this truck cause i have a dog and yaintgonnatellme what i cant do. etc..
And people have said this to you?
how many links would you like me to provide? people say stuff like this all the time.
i’m not saying they sit around and think of ways to waste fuel all day long, but there’s a mindset out there that all this eco-crap is nonsense and god gave us the earth and i’m just one person and i need this truck cause i have a dog and yaintgonnatellme what i cant do. etc..
So, I don’t worry about the “screw you environment” types because to the extent they exist, they are likely a very small portion of our energy consumption.
yeah. the point was never “there are millions” it was that it’s a mindset. and it is. and if it hurts in the margins, it’s a problem. a small one, maybe. ok.
So, I don’t worry about the “screw you environment” types because to the extent they exist, they are likely a very small portion of our energy consumption.
yeah. the point was never “there are millions” it was that it’s a mindset. and it is. and if it hurts in the margins, it’s a problem. a small one, maybe. ok.
cleek:
Seems we’re in agreement. I’ve seen the mindset expressed hyperbolically, but I have yet to seem someone buy an expensive SUV because of that mindset.
In fact, again in my anecdotal experience, the people I know that are most likely to engage in that hyperbole tend to be scrooges with the thermostat.
Principle takes a back seat to economics. Which is in general unfortunate, but in this case is probably good.
cleek:
Seems we’re in agreement. I’ve seen the mindset expressed hyperbolically, but I have yet to seem someone buy an expensive SUV because of that mindset.
In fact, again in my anecdotal experience, the people I know that are most likely to engage in that hyperbole tend to be scrooges with the thermostat.
Principle takes a back seat to economics. Which is in general unfortunate, but in this case is probably good.
Hi thompson, no worries, I’m sure I’m as much or more at fault for not getting what I want to say across.
To try and restate it, there is a general attitude, much more in the states than in any other OECD country, that government is a problem. It certainly seems to be part of our Anglo-Saxon heritage, as the UK is probably the closest to the kind of anti-government rhetoric that is such a theme in US discussions. Obviously, I don’t read the volume of French or German or Japanese that I do of English, so there may be a bias, and I admit that Japan may be an outlier, but I try to follow what is going on in Europe and there doesn’t seem to be that anti-government bent that you can easily find in the US.
I also believe it is spurred on by astro-turfing, but I don’t think that the companies are creating something from nothing. Folks may not have enough money to buy a Hummer or spend extravagantly on fuel bills, but they can be vociferous enough in their complaining that they make it difficult to take even small steps towards some sort of energy self-sufficiency. I was looking to post something about Obama’s setting of the mpg requirements by 2020 and the resistance to that, but it got too depressing. I do think that is a good example of how the ‘whatever he’s for, we are against’ really drags down this process. And, as I noted, then the claim is that it isn’t really an emergency, because if it were, everyone would agree.
So I’d say that it is not the people buying Hummers who are the problem, it is the people cheering on the people who are buying Hummers, which expands that demographic a bit. If you don’t see a link between them, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
At any rate, I do appreciate you commenting to bring out the “other side” and apologies if any of what I have written came off as dumping on you personally.
Hi thompson, no worries, I’m sure I’m as much or more at fault for not getting what I want to say across.
To try and restate it, there is a general attitude, much more in the states than in any other OECD country, that government is a problem. It certainly seems to be part of our Anglo-Saxon heritage, as the UK is probably the closest to the kind of anti-government rhetoric that is such a theme in US discussions. Obviously, I don’t read the volume of French or German or Japanese that I do of English, so there may be a bias, and I admit that Japan may be an outlier, but I try to follow what is going on in Europe and there doesn’t seem to be that anti-government bent that you can easily find in the US.
I also believe it is spurred on by astro-turfing, but I don’t think that the companies are creating something from nothing. Folks may not have enough money to buy a Hummer or spend extravagantly on fuel bills, but they can be vociferous enough in their complaining that they make it difficult to take even small steps towards some sort of energy self-sufficiency. I was looking to post something about Obama’s setting of the mpg requirements by 2020 and the resistance to that, but it got too depressing. I do think that is a good example of how the ‘whatever he’s for, we are against’ really drags down this process. And, as I noted, then the claim is that it isn’t really an emergency, because if it were, everyone would agree.
So I’d say that it is not the people buying Hummers who are the problem, it is the people cheering on the people who are buying Hummers, which expands that demographic a bit. If you don’t see a link between them, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
At any rate, I do appreciate you commenting to bring out the “other side” and apologies if any of what I have written came off as dumping on you personally.
Because, you know, most people don’t have the money to burn just to spite ‘teh libruls’.
Whatever.
I know a guy who drives a Hummer H1 purely for the political incorrectness value.
8.0 – 8.5 mpg, depending on drivetrain.
A somewhat over-the-top example, but a far from unusual mindset, as cleek notes.
Because, you know, most people don’t have the money to burn just to spite ‘teh libruls’.
Whatever.
I know a guy who drives a Hummer H1 purely for the political incorrectness value.
8.0 – 8.5 mpg, depending on drivetrain.
A somewhat over-the-top example, but a far from unusual mindset, as cleek notes.
I know a guy who drives a Hummer H1 purely for the political incorrectness value.
I don’t know any actual Hummer drivers, but I know plenty of people who have the attitude. I don’t know how to explain, either, the SUV craze that lasted two decades, when people were supposedly “afraid” to drive anything smaller than a tank. They supposedly did that “for their safety.”
I know a guy who drives a Hummer H1 purely for the political incorrectness value.
I don’t know any actual Hummer drivers, but I know plenty of people who have the attitude. I don’t know how to explain, either, the SUV craze that lasted two decades, when people were supposedly “afraid” to drive anything smaller than a tank. They supposedly did that “for their safety.”
Seems we’re in agreement. I’ve seen the mindset expressed hyperbolically, but I have yet to seem someone buy an expensive SUV because of that mindset.
As with the others above, I’ve met people who view fuel inefficiency as a feature, not a bug. The ones I’ve known use it as a masculinity marker and explicitly mock the limp-wristed sissies who drive smaller fuel-efficient vehicles. They also were generally possessed of zero financial planning skills and lived paycheck to paycheck, so there did seem to be a psychological detachment between their desires and the consequences thereof, as well as a lack of “enlightened self-interest” despite generally libertarian attitudes…
Seems we’re in agreement. I’ve seen the mindset expressed hyperbolically, but I have yet to seem someone buy an expensive SUV because of that mindset.
As with the others above, I’ve met people who view fuel inefficiency as a feature, not a bug. The ones I’ve known use it as a masculinity marker and explicitly mock the limp-wristed sissies who drive smaller fuel-efficient vehicles. They also were generally possessed of zero financial planning skills and lived paycheck to paycheck, so there did seem to be a psychological detachment between their desires and the consequences thereof, as well as a lack of “enlightened self-interest” despite generally libertarian attitudes…
Actually, I’ve noticed that a lot of (loudly) self-proclaimed libertarians are a little weak on enlightened self-interest. Specifically, it seems to be an article of faith among some that it can never be in someone’s self-interest to voluntarily agree with others to make decisions on a group basis.
Anyone who actually knows something about the libertarian philosophy, of course, knows that cooperation is entirely in keeping with it. But we seem to have a significant part of the population who thinks that “libertarian” means “nobody can tell me what to do about anything, ever, under any circumstances.” Fortunately, the libertarians here seem to be rather clearer on the concept. But they are far from being typical.
Actually, I’ve noticed that a lot of (loudly) self-proclaimed libertarians are a little weak on enlightened self-interest. Specifically, it seems to be an article of faith among some that it can never be in someone’s self-interest to voluntarily agree with others to make decisions on a group basis.
Anyone who actually knows something about the libertarian philosophy, of course, knows that cooperation is entirely in keeping with it. But we seem to have a significant part of the population who thinks that “libertarian” means “nobody can tell me what to do about anything, ever, under any circumstances.” Fortunately, the libertarians here seem to be rather clearer on the concept. But they are far from being typical.
That was the easiest link to this classic that I could find on the quick 😉
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×2385701
That was the easiest link to this classic that I could find on the quick 😉
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×2385701
“Specifically, it seems to be an article of faith among some that it can never be in someone’s self-interest to voluntarily agree with others to make decisions on a group basis.”
Say, seldom, and I’d agree.
There are, obviously, some sorts of decisions, (Which side of the road shall we drive on?) which must be done collectively, because everybody has to end up doing the same thing in the end. Most decisions are not of this nature.
In the marginal cases, you have a choice: You can go straight for the collective decision, accepting that a lot of people will be compelled to accept a decision they disagree with. OR. You can try to arrange things so that the individual choice is preserved. As somebody who values individual liberty, I prefer the latter solution, even at some cost. Because individual liberty is worth paying a cost for. I think, for instance, having redundant cables strung about is preferable to getting by with one set, and accepting a local cable company monopoly.
Then there are the cases where there is no real need at all to collectivize a decision. It’s perfectly feasible to let each person or small group, (My five year old has no say in what is served for dinner.) get their own way. We walk into a restaurant, there’s no reason why the patrons should vote on what gets ordered.
It is possible to respond to such cases by groping around for “externalities”, or even engineering their creation, to claim or transform situations entirely suited to individual choice, into marginal cases, and then resolve the matter in favor of collective choice.
You can, for instance, have the government start paying for health care under some circumstances. Order emergency rooms to serve people who can’t pay. Or mandate that insurance companies not take into account actuarially relevant information when pricing their product. And, presto, chango! Individual choice now has externalities that it didn’t have, and you have an excuse to inquire into, and eventually dictate, any choices that effect health. Suddenly, it’s the government’s business what I eat, or the extent to which I exercise.
I see way too much of this artificial creation of “externalities” going on, at the hands of people who really like collective decision making, and presumably would like excuses to do more of it.
I don’t accept that such synthetic externalities count towards making a decision suited to collectivizing. I can’t walk up to somebody in a restaurant, offer to pay their tab, and thereby give myself the right to dictate what they eat. Because *I* created the externality, not them.
Stop creating externalities, and then demanding on the basis of them the right to make other people’s decisions.
As for my choice of light bulbs? I pick my bulb, I pay my electric bill, all externalities neatly dealt with. So, again I say, you don’t like CO2? Take it up with the utility company, and hands off my light bulbs.
Do it for the chickens. ‘Cause they really do need some heat during the winter, along with their light, and why do you insist on my spending $100 for a separate radiant heater and light source, when I can combine them for 69 cents?
“Specifically, it seems to be an article of faith among some that it can never be in someone’s self-interest to voluntarily agree with others to make decisions on a group basis.”
Say, seldom, and I’d agree.
There are, obviously, some sorts of decisions, (Which side of the road shall we drive on?) which must be done collectively, because everybody has to end up doing the same thing in the end. Most decisions are not of this nature.
In the marginal cases, you have a choice: You can go straight for the collective decision, accepting that a lot of people will be compelled to accept a decision they disagree with. OR. You can try to arrange things so that the individual choice is preserved. As somebody who values individual liberty, I prefer the latter solution, even at some cost. Because individual liberty is worth paying a cost for. I think, for instance, having redundant cables strung about is preferable to getting by with one set, and accepting a local cable company monopoly.
Then there are the cases where there is no real need at all to collectivize a decision. It’s perfectly feasible to let each person or small group, (My five year old has no say in what is served for dinner.) get their own way. We walk into a restaurant, there’s no reason why the patrons should vote on what gets ordered.
It is possible to respond to such cases by groping around for “externalities”, or even engineering their creation, to claim or transform situations entirely suited to individual choice, into marginal cases, and then resolve the matter in favor of collective choice.
You can, for instance, have the government start paying for health care under some circumstances. Order emergency rooms to serve people who can’t pay. Or mandate that insurance companies not take into account actuarially relevant information when pricing their product. And, presto, chango! Individual choice now has externalities that it didn’t have, and you have an excuse to inquire into, and eventually dictate, any choices that effect health. Suddenly, it’s the government’s business what I eat, or the extent to which I exercise.
I see way too much of this artificial creation of “externalities” going on, at the hands of people who really like collective decision making, and presumably would like excuses to do more of it.
I don’t accept that such synthetic externalities count towards making a decision suited to collectivizing. I can’t walk up to somebody in a restaurant, offer to pay their tab, and thereby give myself the right to dictate what they eat. Because *I* created the externality, not them.
Stop creating externalities, and then demanding on the basis of them the right to make other people’s decisions.
As for my choice of light bulbs? I pick my bulb, I pay my electric bill, all externalities neatly dealt with. So, again I say, you don’t like CO2? Take it up with the utility company, and hands off my light bulbs.
Do it for the chickens. ‘Cause they really do need some heat during the winter, along with their light, and why do you insist on my spending $100 for a separate radiant heater and light source, when I can combine them for 69 cents?
And, by the way, I switch the chickens over to a CFL when the weather warms up, because I do conserve electricity, and have been using them where appropriate long before this stupid incandescent bulb ban was put in place. But it does piss me off that advocates of newer bulbs can’t accept that there are a lot of uses for which incandescent bulbs are better suited, and let individuals make that call themselves.
Frankly, it’s hilarious: You’re being used by the bulb manufacturers to get rid of the cheap bulbs they didn’t make much profit on, and force people to buy expensive ones, and you don’t even notice you’ve let yourselves be transformed into corporate shills.
And, by the way, I switch the chickens over to a CFL when the weather warms up, because I do conserve electricity, and have been using them where appropriate long before this stupid incandescent bulb ban was put in place. But it does piss me off that advocates of newer bulbs can’t accept that there are a lot of uses for which incandescent bulbs are better suited, and let individuals make that call themselves.
Frankly, it’s hilarious: You’re being used by the bulb manufacturers to get rid of the cheap bulbs they didn’t make much profit on, and force people to buy expensive ones, and you don’t even notice you’ve let yourselves be transformed into corporate shills.
Brett, I know of TWO applications where incandescents are really better suited, and they are very tiny niche applications (gain stabilization in a sine wave oscillator [ye olde HP sine wave generator], and lighting where even tiny levels of electrical noise is unacceptable).
If you have others, please mention them.
You seem to be using them as a combination of “light+resistive heater”. Better to use LEDs for the lights and a simple resistive heater and YOU NEVER HAVE TO REPLACE THEM. Just switch the heater on or off, depending on the weather.
I don’t like CFLs either, but LED lighting has really made great strides, and will continue to do so. Yes, they cost more, but when they last 20+ years, so what?
In America, we’re all corporate shills. Only the corporations differ. It’s just like a P.K.Dick novel.
Brett, I know of TWO applications where incandescents are really better suited, and they are very tiny niche applications (gain stabilization in a sine wave oscillator [ye olde HP sine wave generator], and lighting where even tiny levels of electrical noise is unacceptable).
If you have others, please mention them.
You seem to be using them as a combination of “light+resistive heater”. Better to use LEDs for the lights and a simple resistive heater and YOU NEVER HAVE TO REPLACE THEM. Just switch the heater on or off, depending on the weather.
I don’t like CFLs either, but LED lighting has really made great strides, and will continue to do so. Yes, they cost more, but when they last 20+ years, so what?
In America, we’re all corporate shills. Only the corporations differ. It’s just like a P.K.Dick novel.
Most variations of the basic incandescent bulb are still available. But at a huge premium of course.
Most variations of the basic incandescent bulb are still available. But at a huge premium of course.
Most decisions are not of this nature.
As far as I’m concerned, you can do whatever the heck you like, as long as nobody else is affected by your decision.
As soon as other people are affected by your decision, you’re no longer free to do as you wish. Because in doing whatever you wish, you are limiting other folks’ ability to do the same.
The more people there are on the planet, the fewer the number of cases where what you do has no effect on anyone else.
there are a lot of uses for which incandescent bulbs are better suited, and let individuals make that call themselves.
Rough service 60W incandescent. It’ll cost you a buck.
Problem solved.
Most decisions are not of this nature.
As far as I’m concerned, you can do whatever the heck you like, as long as nobody else is affected by your decision.
As soon as other people are affected by your decision, you’re no longer free to do as you wish. Because in doing whatever you wish, you are limiting other folks’ ability to do the same.
The more people there are on the planet, the fewer the number of cases where what you do has no effect on anyone else.
there are a lot of uses for which incandescent bulbs are better suited, and let individuals make that call themselves.
Rough service 60W incandescent. It’ll cost you a buck.
Problem solved.
A problem I’ve encountered is that some light fixtures and lamps designed for incandescent bulbs will cause CFLs to overheat and croak in short order.
A problem I’ve encountered is that some light fixtures and lamps designed for incandescent bulbs will cause CFLs to overheat and croak in short order.
Amazon has all kinds of incandescents for sale. you can buy a 48-pack of GE 100W bulbs for less than $40.
freedom!
Amazon has all kinds of incandescents for sale. you can buy a 48-pack of GE 100W bulbs for less than $40.
freedom!
“If you have others, please mention them.”
Ok, first off, your “better” solution for my chicken coop doesn’t seem to involve any consideration of cost. I wonder why that is? I DID install a resistance heater. It’s called a “light bulb”.
Second, applications for which incandescents are better:
1. Any application where the bulb is not used much. If a bulb is only going to be on a couple hours a year, initial cost utterly dominates over energy cost. Closet lights. Attic lights. Basement lights. There are a lot of places where you’ll put lighting, and hardly use it at all.
2. Any application where the bulb is exposed to temperature extremes.
3. Any application where you WANT the heat. Try installing an LED light in a lava lamp. Try using one in a DIY proofing box.
4. Any application where you want a bulb which ACTUALLY lasts a long time, instead of merely being purported to last a long time. Incandescent bulbs are an old technology, all the bugs worked out, they are genuinely reliable. CFLs and LEDs are purported to last a long while, and doubtless one day this will be true, but it is NOT true today, except under ideal conditions.
“If you have others, please mention them.”
Ok, first off, your “better” solution for my chicken coop doesn’t seem to involve any consideration of cost. I wonder why that is? I DID install a resistance heater. It’s called a “light bulb”.
Second, applications for which incandescents are better:
1. Any application where the bulb is not used much. If a bulb is only going to be on a couple hours a year, initial cost utterly dominates over energy cost. Closet lights. Attic lights. Basement lights. There are a lot of places where you’ll put lighting, and hardly use it at all.
2. Any application where the bulb is exposed to temperature extremes.
3. Any application where you WANT the heat. Try installing an LED light in a lava lamp. Try using one in a DIY proofing box.
4. Any application where you want a bulb which ACTUALLY lasts a long time, instead of merely being purported to last a long time. Incandescent bulbs are an old technology, all the bugs worked out, they are genuinely reliable. CFLs and LEDs are purported to last a long while, and doubtless one day this will be true, but it is NOT true today, except under ideal conditions.
first they came for the chicken coops.
then it was the lava lamps.
what next, my e-z bake oven?
first they came for the chicken coops.
then it was the lava lamps.
what next, my e-z bake oven?
LJ:
Crap, left a post at the captcha overnight. Sorry about that.
there is a general attitude…that government is a problem
I’d agree that that sentiment exists. And I sympathize with it to the point that govt can be and often is a problem. Not to the point where the mere existence of govt is an affront to my liberty, or whatever. It’s not.
I also believe it is spurred on by astro-turfing, but I don’t think that the companies are creating something from nothing.
Again, I’d agree.
whatever he’s for, we are against’ really drags down this process
Agree. And this is someone who thinks Obama is a pretty crappy president and who personally disagrees with many of his policy proposals. Above and beyond what is a coherent disagreement, there is a strong current of fighting him to fight. Which is a problem, as you note.
it is the people cheering on the people who are buying Hummers, which expands that demographic a bit
I’d expand it further. When you talk energy/conservation/etc there is massive FUD on all sides. The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem. Maybe a small fraction of the problem. But that’s what the punditry focuses on: small fractions of the problem because that’s what gets ratings and votes, sadly.
The debate is polarized, heavily so, which is not conducive to productive solutions. And characterizing entire swathes of opposition to policy X with “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel” or similar phrases are not useful to depolarizing the debate. Because its a cheap method for discrediting opposition.
If you don’t see a link between them, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I’d concede a link likely exists between hyperbole and russell’s acquaintance with a H1, and I was too absolute in my previous statements. Fair?
Perhaps, to be more measured, I should say that energy consumption just because ‘the environmentalists told me no’ is unlikely to be a significant contributor to our overall energy consumption. This just strikes me as merely a small part of the energy problem, and therefore deserves very little attention.
At any rate, I do appreciate you commenting to bring out the “other side” and apologies if any of what I have written came off as dumping on you personally.
I certainly didn’t feel dumped on, no apologies necessary. I appreciate the forum you and your fellow moderators have cultivated. It’s…rare…on the internet or anywhere else.
I just couldn’t really follow the train of thought at the time (which I tried to explain without coming off like a jerk). But I see it now.
LJ:
Crap, left a post at the captcha overnight. Sorry about that.
there is a general attitude…that government is a problem
I’d agree that that sentiment exists. And I sympathize with it to the point that govt can be and often is a problem. Not to the point where the mere existence of govt is an affront to my liberty, or whatever. It’s not.
I also believe it is spurred on by astro-turfing, but I don’t think that the companies are creating something from nothing.
Again, I’d agree.
whatever he’s for, we are against’ really drags down this process
Agree. And this is someone who thinks Obama is a pretty crappy president and who personally disagrees with many of his policy proposals. Above and beyond what is a coherent disagreement, there is a strong current of fighting him to fight. Which is a problem, as you note.
it is the people cheering on the people who are buying Hummers, which expands that demographic a bit
I’d expand it further. When you talk energy/conservation/etc there is massive FUD on all sides. The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem. Maybe a small fraction of the problem. But that’s what the punditry focuses on: small fractions of the problem because that’s what gets ratings and votes, sadly.
The debate is polarized, heavily so, which is not conducive to productive solutions. And characterizing entire swathes of opposition to policy X with “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel” or similar phrases are not useful to depolarizing the debate. Because its a cheap method for discrediting opposition.
If you don’t see a link between them, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I’d concede a link likely exists between hyperbole and russell’s acquaintance with a H1, and I was too absolute in my previous statements. Fair?
Perhaps, to be more measured, I should say that energy consumption just because ‘the environmentalists told me no’ is unlikely to be a significant contributor to our overall energy consumption. This just strikes me as merely a small part of the energy problem, and therefore deserves very little attention.
At any rate, I do appreciate you commenting to bring out the “other side” and apologies if any of what I have written came off as dumping on you personally.
I certainly didn’t feel dumped on, no apologies necessary. I appreciate the forum you and your fellow moderators have cultivated. It’s…rare…on the internet or anywhere else.
I just couldn’t really follow the train of thought at the time (which I tried to explain without coming off like a jerk). But I see it now.
The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem.
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem.
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
On those really cold nights (and early mornings) I get comfort from my 150 watt reading/heat lamp. Fortunately I’m capable of planning ahead and bought a lifetime supply of bulbs when they were on sale, so no worries here.
On those really cold nights (and early mornings) I get comfort from my 150 watt reading/heat lamp. Fortunately I’m capable of planning ahead and bought a lifetime supply of bulbs when they were on sale, so no worries here.
what next, my e-z bake oven?
they’ve already come for it. new models don’t use light bulbs.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/16/hasbros-new-easy-bake-oven-ditches-the-light-bulb/
what next, my e-z bake oven?
they’ve already come for it. new models don’t use light bulbs.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/16/hasbros-new-easy-bake-oven-ditches-the-light-bulb/
bleh. would changing my name help my comments avoid the moderation trap ?
bleh. would changing my name help my comments avoid the moderation trap ?
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
that F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 32 years straight now.
15mpg on avg.
raising that 20% would bring it up to 18mpg ! 18 !
but that would impinge on freedom.
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
that F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 32 years straight now.
15mpg on avg.
raising that 20% would bring it up to 18mpg ! 18 !
but that would impinge on freedom.
A lot of consumers switched over to pickups, SUVs and other truck running gear based vehicles because the station wagon was regulated out of existence.
A lot of consumers switched over to pickups, SUVs and other truck running gear based vehicles because the station wagon was regulated out of existence.
Charles, Could you share what particular regulations you think did in the station wagon? (Since I’m not a car guy I simply have no idea.) Thanks.
Charles, Could you share what particular regulations you think did in the station wagon? (Since I’m not a car guy I simply have no idea.) Thanks.
“what next, my e-z bake oven?”
Precisely. You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions. You figure you’re entitled to inconvenience them. You’ve got what you think is a good reason, how dare they disagree?
I’ve long thought this is one of the fundamental divides in human thought: Some people just don’t cross that developmental stage where they realize that other people ARE other people, entitled to make their own decisions. They’re still stuck in that infantile mindset where all the toys are their’s, where everybody is supposed to hop to their tune.
Yes, people ARE entitled to have lightbulbs for EZ back ovens, even if you don’t like it.
“what next, my e-z bake oven?”
Precisely. You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions. You figure you’re entitled to inconvenience them. You’ve got what you think is a good reason, how dare they disagree?
I’ve long thought this is one of the fundamental divides in human thought: Some people just don’t cross that developmental stage where they realize that other people ARE other people, entitled to make their own decisions. They’re still stuck in that infantile mindset where all the toys are their’s, where everybody is supposed to hop to their tune.
Yes, people ARE entitled to have lightbulbs for EZ back ovens, even if you don’t like it.
You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions.
No.
I figure it’s a joke that, in threads addressing whether and how to address the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, you raise your chicken coop and lava lamp as examples of why it’s best to just let people do whatever they want to do, and f**k the consequences.
Unfortunately, my figuring is wrong, it’s not a joke at all. You are quite sincere in your concern for your chicken coop and your lava lamp.
What I mostly figure is that we’re screwed, because the dialog about stuff like this in this country inevitably devolves to a discussion of how crap like what kind of bulb will work with a lava lamp is really a matter of personal liberty.
I think your conception of liberty is extraordinarily small beer.
You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions.
No.
I figure it’s a joke that, in threads addressing whether and how to address the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, you raise your chicken coop and lava lamp as examples of why it’s best to just let people do whatever they want to do, and f**k the consequences.
Unfortunately, my figuring is wrong, it’s not a joke at all. You are quite sincere in your concern for your chicken coop and your lava lamp.
What I mostly figure is that we’re screwed, because the dialog about stuff like this in this country inevitably devolves to a discussion of how crap like what kind of bulb will work with a lava lamp is really a matter of personal liberty.
I think your conception of liberty is extraordinarily small beer.
Station wagons were subject to the same CAFE standards as other passenger cars. But vehicles classified as light trucks were subject to less stringent standards for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. In order to raise their fleet fuel economy averages, auto manufacturers stop making station wagons or priced them so high consumers stopped buying them.
Station wagons were subject to the same CAFE standards as other passenger cars. But vehicles classified as light trucks were subject to less stringent standards for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. In order to raise their fleet fuel economy averages, auto manufacturers stop making station wagons or priced them so high consumers stopped buying them.
You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions.
I doubt you have any idea what I value.
In a discussion of how to address the possible consequences of climate change, you raise the spectre of no bulbs for your lava lamp as an imposition on your personal liberty.
Yes, I find that to be a joke.
You figure it’s a joke, because you don’t value other people being able to make their own decisions.
I doubt you have any idea what I value.
In a discussion of how to address the possible consequences of climate change, you raise the spectre of no bulbs for your lava lamp as an imposition on your personal liberty.
Yes, I find that to be a joke.
Regarding taking pleasure in inefficiency, I would just point out this:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/04/the-2012-iowahawk-earth-week-cruise-in.html
Sure, he’s just twitting the Greens some. It’s all in good fun. But the inefficiency-for-pleasure doesn’t have to be pleasure ONLY in inefficiency.
Iowahawk is a FB friend of mine (and several hundred other people, to be sure). His humor isn’t for everyone, but I think he’s a hoot.
Regarding fusion power, I have noted previously that not all fusion reactions are equivalently “clean”. Reaction products are typically gamma radiation plus neutrons, protons and sometimes even radioactive reaction products. All of this means that there will in fact be a waste-disposal issue.
As far as I have been able to tell, the more clean a fusion reaction is, the harder it is to make happen in the first place. I think case in point is the proton-boron fusion that produces no energetic neutrons or protons, but is much more difficult to ignite.
Regarding taking pleasure in inefficiency, I would just point out this:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/04/the-2012-iowahawk-earth-week-cruise-in.html
Sure, he’s just twitting the Greens some. It’s all in good fun. But the inefficiency-for-pleasure doesn’t have to be pleasure ONLY in inefficiency.
Iowahawk is a FB friend of mine (and several hundred other people, to be sure). His humor isn’t for everyone, but I think he’s a hoot.
Regarding fusion power, I have noted previously that not all fusion reactions are equivalently “clean”. Reaction products are typically gamma radiation plus neutrons, protons and sometimes even radioactive reaction products. All of this means that there will in fact be a waste-disposal issue.
As far as I have been able to tell, the more clean a fusion reaction is, the harder it is to make happen in the first place. I think case in point is the proton-boron fusion that produces no energetic neutrons or protons, but is much more difficult to ignite.
hey man, what’s that R75/6 doing in there?
those things will get mid-30’s MPG when they’re in good tune.
hey man, what’s that R75/6 doing in there?
those things will get mid-30’s MPG when they’re in good tune.
They’re still stuck in that infantile mindset where all the toys are their’s, where everybody is supposed to hop to their tune.
As far as I can tell, no one here is suggesting that s/he should be able to personally dictate to everyone else in the country what they should be allowed to do. The underlying and overarching context here is one of representative democracy, with respect for certain fundamental if limited rights, none of which involves the use of a particular light-bulb technology.
It’s certainly possible that outlawing or making it very difficult to obtain a particular type of light bulb is a bad idea, in light of a fully comprehensive understanding of the totality of the situation, but advocating for such, even in the absence of complete and perfect knowledge, doesn’t make one a wanna-be overlord of all mankind (or even all of the US).
They’re still stuck in that infantile mindset where all the toys are their’s, where everybody is supposed to hop to their tune.
As far as I can tell, no one here is suggesting that s/he should be able to personally dictate to everyone else in the country what they should be allowed to do. The underlying and overarching context here is one of representative democracy, with respect for certain fundamental if limited rights, none of which involves the use of a particular light-bulb technology.
It’s certainly possible that outlawing or making it very difficult to obtain a particular type of light bulb is a bad idea, in light of a fully comprehensive understanding of the totality of the situation, but advocating for such, even in the absence of complete and perfect knowledge, doesn’t make one a wanna-be overlord of all mankind (or even all of the US).
The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem.
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
Not hummers. The top selling vehicle has been the F150, which has double the mpg and is overall more functional and useful than hummers.
As someone who owns a F250 (wife needs to haul for work) and regularly gets roped in to helping people move furniture, go to the dump, go to the lumber yard, etc etc, I’d say trucks are at least nominally required in today’s society.
Trust me, I don’t drive it more often than I have to. Filling the tanks on it is brutal.
The few thousands of hummers in the US are not the problem.
What were the two largest selling vehicles in the US last year?
Not hummers. The top selling vehicle has been the F150, which has double the mpg and is overall more functional and useful than hummers.
As someone who owns a F250 (wife needs to haul for work) and regularly gets roped in to helping people move furniture, go to the dump, go to the lumber yard, etc etc, I’d say trucks are at least nominally required in today’s society.
Trust me, I don’t drive it more often than I have to. Filling the tanks on it is brutal.
The top selling vehicle has been the F150, which has double the mpg
So, 15 mpg, as cleek notes.
I’d say trucks are at least nominally required in today’s society.
Whatever, thompson.
Look, drive whatever you want. My point is that there’s nothing whatsoever unusual about people driving vehicles that get crap mileage. And, for quite a number of them, that’s a feature, not a bug.
My opinion about all of this stuff is that Americans view a fairly wasteful lifestyle as their birthright. We’re not likely to change our habits in any kind of significant way.
We didn’t do anything about clean air until our cities became borderline unliveable. We didn’t do anything about clean water until the rivers caught fire.
If climate change is what folks say it is, we won’t do anything about it until it bites us on the @ss, good and hard.
Where that will leave us, I can’t say.
But, lava lamps and pickup trucks, y’all.
The top selling vehicle has been the F150, which has double the mpg
So, 15 mpg, as cleek notes.
I’d say trucks are at least nominally required in today’s society.
Whatever, thompson.
Look, drive whatever you want. My point is that there’s nothing whatsoever unusual about people driving vehicles that get crap mileage. And, for quite a number of them, that’s a feature, not a bug.
My opinion about all of this stuff is that Americans view a fairly wasteful lifestyle as their birthright. We’re not likely to change our habits in any kind of significant way.
We didn’t do anything about clean air until our cities became borderline unliveable. We didn’t do anything about clean water until the rivers caught fire.
If climate change is what folks say it is, we won’t do anything about it until it bites us on the @ss, good and hard.
Where that will leave us, I can’t say.
But, lava lamps and pickup trucks, y’all.
HSH:
It’s certainly possible that outlawing or making it very difficult to obtain a particular type of light bulb is a bad idea, in light of a fully comprehensive understanding of the totality of the situation, but advocating for such, even in the absence of complete and perfect knowledge, doesn’t make one a wanna-be overlord of all mankind (or even all of the US).
I’d agree with this, and this is why I haven’t delved into the lightbulb thing. It’s a minor infringement of liberty, as far as it goes, and I also don’t think its going to have a substantial impact on energy use longterm.
Wouldn’t have passed it myself, could be wrong, don’t really care.
Regarding chicken coops, it’s a pretty trivial problem of incorporating a resistive heater in line with a light. Or selling an incandescent bulb as a space heater that also happens to give off light:
https://www.heatball.de/index.php
HSH:
It’s certainly possible that outlawing or making it very difficult to obtain a particular type of light bulb is a bad idea, in light of a fully comprehensive understanding of the totality of the situation, but advocating for such, even in the absence of complete and perfect knowledge, doesn’t make one a wanna-be overlord of all mankind (or even all of the US).
I’d agree with this, and this is why I haven’t delved into the lightbulb thing. It’s a minor infringement of liberty, as far as it goes, and I also don’t think its going to have a substantial impact on energy use longterm.
Wouldn’t have passed it myself, could be wrong, don’t really care.
Regarding chicken coops, it’s a pretty trivial problem of incorporating a resistive heater in line with a light. Or selling an incandescent bulb as a space heater that also happens to give off light:
https://www.heatball.de/index.php
If climate change is what folks say it is, we won’t do anything about it until it bites us on the @ss, good and hard.
The question might be, in what fashion will we get bitten first? My suspicion is that it will be indirectly — rising food prices, as the current agricultural areas need to change. So that probably won’t be correlated enough in people’s minds to get us to change.
Another possibility would be rising sea leavels. Not that even Florida (by far the lowest-lying state) will be that badly damaged by a few meters rise. But again, we might see an indirect impact, as some of the island countries where big money gets cached/laundered disappear beneath the waves. So probably not enough to get us to change there either.
In fact, I’m not sure what it will turn out to be. Anybody got any inspirations?
If climate change is what folks say it is, we won’t do anything about it until it bites us on the @ss, good and hard.
The question might be, in what fashion will we get bitten first? My suspicion is that it will be indirectly — rising food prices, as the current agricultural areas need to change. So that probably won’t be correlated enough in people’s minds to get us to change.
Another possibility would be rising sea leavels. Not that even Florida (by far the lowest-lying state) will be that badly damaged by a few meters rise. But again, we might see an indirect impact, as some of the island countries where big money gets cached/laundered disappear beneath the waves. So probably not enough to get us to change there either.
In fact, I’m not sure what it will turn out to be. Anybody got any inspirations?
Anybody got any inspirations?
If all else fails, being dead.
Anybody got any inspirations?
If all else fails, being dead.
Whatever, thompson.
Look, drive whatever you want. My point is that there’s nothing whatsoever unusual about people driving vehicles that get crap mileage.
Ok…and my point is that people utilizing low mpg vehicles out of spite is not a major contributor to the overall energy consumption in the US.
If you want to bitch and moan about how some weekend warrior has a F150 they don’t need: great, enjoy yourself. That’s not the same thing as a policy suggestion that will slow carbon emissions.
I don’t view it as productive because, similar to incandescent bulbs, it serves to add more heat than light.
Whatever, thompson.
Look, drive whatever you want. My point is that there’s nothing whatsoever unusual about people driving vehicles that get crap mileage.
Ok…and my point is that people utilizing low mpg vehicles out of spite is not a major contributor to the overall energy consumption in the US.
If you want to bitch and moan about how some weekend warrior has a F150 they don’t need: great, enjoy yourself. That’s not the same thing as a policy suggestion that will slow carbon emissions.
I don’t view it as productive because, similar to incandescent bulbs, it serves to add more heat than light.
Wouldn’t have passed it myself, could be wrong, don’t really care.
That, I can respect.
Wouldn’t have passed it myself, could be wrong, don’t really care.
That, I can respect.
according to this, the top 5 of the 10 most-vulnerable cities in the world are in the US:
http://ens-newswire.com/2013/09/03/10-coastal-cities-at-greatest-flood-risk-as-sea-levels-rise/
but, since the “conservative” reply is something like “but we’re not to blame for rising sea level. it’s the sun!” we will do nothing, even if NYC is permanently flooded
according to this, the top 5 of the 10 most-vulnerable cities in the world are in the US:
http://ens-newswire.com/2013/09/03/10-coastal-cities-at-greatest-flood-risk-as-sea-levels-rise/
but, since the “conservative” reply is something like “but we’re not to blame for rising sea level. it’s the sun!” we will do nothing, even if NYC is permanently flooded
wj:
probably won’t be correlated enough in people’s minds
Part of the problem is climate change is big, spread out of many decades, and uncertain. None of those things are conducive to people caring.
There’s plenty of reason to reduce our dependance on oil and coal and increase our use of renewable energy. Particulate pollution, growing and unstable foreign energy markets (Like my bumper sticker says: “Renewable energy is homeland security”), etc etc.
Research and development into renewables, in addition to likely resulting in cheaper energy longterm, stimulate the economy.
Focus the debate on those factors, you’ll get a lot of traction.
wj:
probably won’t be correlated enough in people’s minds
Part of the problem is climate change is big, spread out of many decades, and uncertain. None of those things are conducive to people caring.
There’s plenty of reason to reduce our dependance on oil and coal and increase our use of renewable energy. Particulate pollution, growing and unstable foreign energy markets (Like my bumper sticker says: “Renewable energy is homeland security”), etc etc.
Research and development into renewables, in addition to likely resulting in cheaper energy longterm, stimulate the economy.
Focus the debate on those factors, you’ll get a lot of traction.
That, I can respect.
Thanks.
That, I can respect.
Thanks.
Focus the debate on those factors, you’ll get a lot of traction.
Obama says the word “renewable” almost as often as he says “infrastructure”. he’s been trying to focus the debate on that stuff for years. and so has has every President before him, going back at least to Nixon.
the US isn’t interested. and, in many cases, there’s outright hostility to the idea that we should do anything that inconveniences anybody, even one iota.
Focus the debate on those factors, you’ll get a lot of traction.
Obama says the word “renewable” almost as often as he says “infrastructure”. he’s been trying to focus the debate on that stuff for years. and so has has every President before him, going back at least to Nixon.
the US isn’t interested. and, in many cases, there’s outright hostility to the idea that we should do anything that inconveniences anybody, even one iota.
If you want to bitch and moan about how some weekend warrior has a F150 they don’t need: great, enjoy yourself.
As mentioned upthread, I don’t really care what you drive. Live your life.
That said, the aggregate result of millions and millions of people driving vehicles that get crap mileage is that we will burn more gas.
So, as it turns out, it actually is relevant to the question of reducing carbon emissions.
Everybody’s got their reason for why they, personally, shouldn’t have to change anything about how they live.
Lava lamps, trips to the dump, what have you.
And, like you say, climate change is a fairly diffuse phenomena, so folks just don’t care that much.
If you want to bitch and moan about how some weekend warrior has a F150 they don’t need: great, enjoy yourself.
As mentioned upthread, I don’t really care what you drive. Live your life.
That said, the aggregate result of millions and millions of people driving vehicles that get crap mileage is that we will burn more gas.
So, as it turns out, it actually is relevant to the question of reducing carbon emissions.
Everybody’s got their reason for why they, personally, shouldn’t have to change anything about how they live.
Lava lamps, trips to the dump, what have you.
And, like you say, climate change is a fairly diffuse phenomena, so folks just don’t care that much.
Obama says the word “renewable” almost as often as he says “infrastructure”.
Agree. And my response to LJ is in the same vein. I don’t like Obama, but there is A LOT of political obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It makes it hard to get even sensible reforms that everybody agrees on passed.
Obama says the word “renewable” almost as often as he says “infrastructure”.
Agree. And my response to LJ is in the same vein. I don’t like Obama, but there is A LOT of political obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It makes it hard to get even sensible reforms that everybody agrees on passed.
In fact, I’m not sure what it will turn out to be. Anybody got any inspirations?
Some guesses…..
1. Ocean acidification pretty much ends commercial ocean fishing, and no more shellfish for you!
2. Rising sea levels force 100’s of millions to move. They will go somewhere, whether you particularly like it or not. All those people in Bangladesh are not just going to sit around and drown.
3. Summers in northern Canada, where nobody lives will be nicer. Summers in Brazil, not so much. But hey, they’re just expendable brown people…and poor to boot.
4. Siberia permafrost meltdown releasing all that methane gas….well, that would pretty much end the game.
But by all means, we must first resolve whether or not the phasing out of the incandescent light bulb is an infringement on liberty (however defined).
Small beer indeed.
In fact, I’m not sure what it will turn out to be. Anybody got any inspirations?
Some guesses…..
1. Ocean acidification pretty much ends commercial ocean fishing, and no more shellfish for you!
2. Rising sea levels force 100’s of millions to move. They will go somewhere, whether you particularly like it or not. All those people in Bangladesh are not just going to sit around and drown.
3. Summers in northern Canada, where nobody lives will be nicer. Summers in Brazil, not so much. But hey, they’re just expendable brown people…and poor to boot.
4. Siberia permafrost meltdown releasing all that methane gas….well, that would pretty much end the game.
But by all means, we must first resolve whether or not the phasing out of the incandescent light bulb is an infringement on liberty (however defined).
Small beer indeed.
Harold Ramis is dead.
Harold Ramis is dead.
Here’s my guess:
1. Increased agricultural productivity, thanks to warmer weather and CO2 fertilization effects.
2. Reduced energy consumpion. (Far more energy is consumed for winter heating than summer airconditioning.)
3. Fewer people dying from cold. (Many more people die of cold than heat each year.)
One of the key questions that seldom gets adressed in these arguments: What is the optimal “global temperature”? It’s impossible to say whether warming is undesirable, or desirable, without knowing this, but how much energy ever gets put into establishing this indispensible prior?
Here’s my guess:
1. Increased agricultural productivity, thanks to warmer weather and CO2 fertilization effects.
2. Reduced energy consumpion. (Far more energy is consumed for winter heating than summer airconditioning.)
3. Fewer people dying from cold. (Many more people die of cold than heat each year.)
One of the key questions that seldom gets adressed in these arguments: What is the optimal “global temperature”? It’s impossible to say whether warming is undesirable, or desirable, without knowing this, but how much energy ever gets put into establishing this indispensible prior?
Bug, or feature?
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it. Subsidence poses a much greater threat.
We’re talking an inch and a fraction per decade. It’s not cost-free, certainly. Someday we may have to abandon some 80-year-old buildings. In the present tense, if you’re really concerned about such things, you don’t let people build below some minimum elevation above sea level.
IMO, natch.
Bug, or feature?
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it. Subsidence poses a much greater threat.
We’re talking an inch and a fraction per decade. It’s not cost-free, certainly. Someday we may have to abandon some 80-year-old buildings. In the present tense, if you’re really concerned about such things, you don’t let people build below some minimum elevation above sea level.
IMO, natch.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, either way, but I’d like a list of what we are expected to do to materially change the present course. I ask because, with suburbs and whatnot, how we’re going to end reliance on cars, heating and cooling plus have viable industry and agriculture without fossil fuels really eludes me. Also, if the US were to go all in on reducing carbon emissions, but if the rest of the world doesn’t, can we alone stem the tide? How are we going to compel universal compliance, assuming we take the first steps?
All up, making a real, world wide dent in CO2 emissions seems like an insurmountably tall order.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, either way, but I’d like a list of what we are expected to do to materially change the present course. I ask because, with suburbs and whatnot, how we’re going to end reliance on cars, heating and cooling plus have viable industry and agriculture without fossil fuels really eludes me. Also, if the US were to go all in on reducing carbon emissions, but if the rest of the world doesn’t, can we alone stem the tide? How are we going to compel universal compliance, assuming we take the first steps?
All up, making a real, world wide dent in CO2 emissions seems like an insurmountably tall order.
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it.
England was once connected to continental Europe and Alaska to Asia. We had glaciers well into the central US 10K years ago. I know it’s different now, but the fact is, these things happen without widespread industry.
Subsidence is a big issue along the TX coast.
Sea rise is different from pollution–I get that part, but sea rise seems to be a big part of the pitch.
Also, not to pick any scabs, a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me that ACA would be cost neutral and that I could keep my doc and my insurance if I liked it. There is a bit of a trust factor here.
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it.
England was once connected to continental Europe and Alaska to Asia. We had glaciers well into the central US 10K years ago. I know it’s different now, but the fact is, these things happen without widespread industry.
Subsidence is a big issue along the TX coast.
Sea rise is different from pollution–I get that part, but sea rise seems to be a big part of the pitch.
Also, not to pick any scabs, a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me that ACA would be cost neutral and that I could keep my doc and my insurance if I liked it. There is a bit of a trust factor here.
McK:
Also, if the US were to go all in on reducing carbon emissions, but if the rest of the world doesn’t, can we alone stem the tide?
It depends how we go about reducing emissions. We invest heavily in energy infrastructure that is ultimately cheaper, as I think renewables and various efficiency gains will be in long term: the rest of the world will follow along.
Because, you know, money.
McK:
Also, if the US were to go all in on reducing carbon emissions, but if the rest of the world doesn’t, can we alone stem the tide?
It depends how we go about reducing emissions. We invest heavily in energy infrastructure that is ultimately cheaper, as I think renewables and various efficiency gains will be in long term: the rest of the world will follow along.
Because, you know, money.
My understanding, perhaps incorrect, about sea level rise is that the big risks are the ice sheets over Greenland and the Antartic.
If the Greenland sheet melted totally, it would be good for about a 24 foot rise in ocean levels, and it would take about 2,000 years to happen.
So, that may not be the most urgent thing.
Were I to guess, my guess would be that changing weather patterns would be the salient problem, near term. Where “near term” is measured in a couple of decades.
For the US, drought in the plains and west, and loss of fresh water for large southwestern cities would be my most specific guess.
But I don’t really know.
I’d like a list
Put Less Carbon In The Air.
Per the EPA, the big sources of carbon emissions are electric power generation, and transportation, in that order.
So, generate electric power in other ways, and find other ways to move people and stuff around.
If we jump on this, you are correct, there is no guarantee that anyone else will. And, most of the problems are not trivial to address. And, there is a VERY VERY LARGE financial incentive to pull every available ounce of gas, oil, and coal out of the ground and burn it up.
So, I don’t see anything constructive happening on a large scale unless and until the effects of warming are overwhelmingly large and blatant. At which point, a rise in temperature above what we would consider acceptable levels will probably be irreversible.
I know it’s different now, but the fact is, these things happen without widespread industry.
Yes, climate during the Holocene has varied from glacial to about as warm as current-day doomsday scenarios.
I see two differences.
1. CO2 levels, which we know we contribute to, and which we therefore could choose to moderate.
2. 10K years ago, 1 or 2 million people on earth. Now, 7 billion. Big difference.
a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me….
The first big splash about this stuff was Hansen’s testimony to Congress in 1988.
So, over 25 years ago.
This is not just the liberal cause du jour.
My understanding, perhaps incorrect, about sea level rise is that the big risks are the ice sheets over Greenland and the Antartic.
If the Greenland sheet melted totally, it would be good for about a 24 foot rise in ocean levels, and it would take about 2,000 years to happen.
So, that may not be the most urgent thing.
Were I to guess, my guess would be that changing weather patterns would be the salient problem, near term. Where “near term” is measured in a couple of decades.
For the US, drought in the plains and west, and loss of fresh water for large southwestern cities would be my most specific guess.
But I don’t really know.
I’d like a list
Put Less Carbon In The Air.
Per the EPA, the big sources of carbon emissions are electric power generation, and transportation, in that order.
So, generate electric power in other ways, and find other ways to move people and stuff around.
If we jump on this, you are correct, there is no guarantee that anyone else will. And, most of the problems are not trivial to address. And, there is a VERY VERY LARGE financial incentive to pull every available ounce of gas, oil, and coal out of the ground and burn it up.
So, I don’t see anything constructive happening on a large scale unless and until the effects of warming are overwhelmingly large and blatant. At which point, a rise in temperature above what we would consider acceptable levels will probably be irreversible.
I know it’s different now, but the fact is, these things happen without widespread industry.
Yes, climate during the Holocene has varied from glacial to about as warm as current-day doomsday scenarios.
I see two differences.
1. CO2 levels, which we know we contribute to, and which we therefore could choose to moderate.
2. 10K years ago, 1 or 2 million people on earth. Now, 7 billion. Big difference.
a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me….
The first big splash about this stuff was Hansen’s testimony to Congress in 1988.
So, over 25 years ago.
This is not just the liberal cause du jour.
“a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me that ACA would be cost neutral and that I could keep my doc and my insurance if I liked it. There is a bit of a trust factor here.”
Those are pundits, politicians and maybe even blog commenters you’re talking about, people who bloviate about all sorts of topics. Whatever the truth about the ACA, the experts on health care reform and the experts on global climate are not the same people. It’s illogical to link the two. It’s more of an excuse to disbelieve everything that lefties tend to think.
“a lot of people who today assure me about the effects of climate change also confidently informed me that ACA would be cost neutral and that I could keep my doc and my insurance if I liked it. There is a bit of a trust factor here.”
Those are pundits, politicians and maybe even blog commenters you’re talking about, people who bloviate about all sorts of topics. Whatever the truth about the ACA, the experts on health care reform and the experts on global climate are not the same people. It’s illogical to link the two. It’s more of an excuse to disbelieve everything that lefties tend to think.
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it.
Well, not exactly.
The apparent rate of recently observed acceleration strikes me as the key.
Sea level rise has been occurring at a fairly constant 3mm/year as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it.
Well, not exactly.
The apparent rate of recently observed acceleration strikes me as the key.
the US isn’t interested. and, in many cases, there’s outright hostility to the idea that we should do anything that inconveniences anybody, even one iota.
Anything that inconveniences ourselves, that is. Not others. Because externalities are, you know, manufactured nonsense.
the US isn’t interested. and, in many cases, there’s outright hostility to the idea that we should do anything that inconveniences anybody, even one iota.
Anything that inconveniences ourselves, that is. Not others. Because externalities are, you know, manufactured nonsense.
All up, making a real, world wide dent in CO2 emissions seems like an insurmountably tall order.
That would be an easy position to take and act upon for someone who doesn’t think AGW/ACC will cause significant problems, either because it’s just not happening or, as Brett proposes, it might make for a better climate than we now have.
For people of the opposite opinion, living with the consequences of AGW/ACC might be seen as being even worse. For them, it’s a matter of picking their poison, coloring how insurmountable something must be before it’s really and truly insurmountable.
All up, making a real, world wide dent in CO2 emissions seems like an insurmountably tall order.
That would be an easy position to take and act upon for someone who doesn’t think AGW/ACC will cause significant problems, either because it’s just not happening or, as Brett proposes, it might make for a better climate than we now have.
For people of the opposite opinion, living with the consequences of AGW/ACC might be seen as being even worse. For them, it’s a matter of picking their poison, coloring how insurmountable something must be before it’s really and truly insurmountable.
I mean, I don’t make a habit out of jumping out of second-story windows, but if it’s that or burning to death, what’s a couple of broken ankles between friends, right?
I mean, I don’t make a habit out of jumping out of second-story windows, but if it’s that or burning to death, what’s a couple of broken ankles between friends, right?
A number of countries state explicitly that THEY will not limit their carbon footprint unless the US joins in in a genuine way. That may be just an excuse but the US behaviour (NONNEGOTIABLE!!!!!) hands it to them on a silver platter. And I have a lot more sympathy for Indian (or even Chinese) demands for a higher (and thus more energy consuming) living standard for their masses than for the joyful wastrel that occupies the space between Canada and Mexico. The US could make a huge difference without really putting a dent on their quality of living following the example of others and that might (might!) serve as an incentive for the 2nd and 3rd world upstarts to follow suit. No guarantees there except that doing nothing and being boastful (NONNEGOTIABLE!!!!!) about it will not actually improve the situation either. Btw, we see similar stuff concerning nukes and the nonproliferation treaty. The run for these status symbols by the havenots is imo not unconnected to the hypocritical behaviour of the haves.
A number of countries state explicitly that THEY will not limit their carbon footprint unless the US joins in in a genuine way. That may be just an excuse but the US behaviour (NONNEGOTIABLE!!!!!) hands it to them on a silver platter. And I have a lot more sympathy for Indian (or even Chinese) demands for a higher (and thus more energy consuming) living standard for their masses than for the joyful wastrel that occupies the space between Canada and Mexico. The US could make a huge difference without really putting a dent on their quality of living following the example of others and that might (might!) serve as an incentive for the 2nd and 3rd world upstarts to follow suit. No guarantees there except that doing nothing and being boastful (NONNEGOTIABLE!!!!!) about it will not actually improve the situation either. Btw, we see similar stuff concerning nukes and the nonproliferation treaty. The run for these status symbols by the havenots is imo not unconnected to the hypocritical behaviour of the haves.
If the Greenland sheet melted totally, it would be good for about a 24 foot rise in ocean levels, and it would take about 2,000 years to happen.
That’s assuming, of course, that it melts in place. If it manages to slide down into the ocean and float, the impact is when it starts to float, not when if finaly finishes melting. Actually, that may be more of an issue with the Antarctic ice, but the same applies — floating ice raises the sea level to the same extent that all of that ice melted would.
If the Greenland sheet melted totally, it would be good for about a 24 foot rise in ocean levels, and it would take about 2,000 years to happen.
That’s assuming, of course, that it melts in place. If it manages to slide down into the ocean and float, the impact is when it starts to float, not when if finaly finishes melting. Actually, that may be more of an issue with the Antarctic ice, but the same applies — floating ice raises the sea level to the same extent that all of that ice melted would.
Hartmut makes an excellent point. The US alone probably cannot stop global warming; anaything we could do alone would not be sufficient. It would, however, be a necessary condition, simply because significant parts of the rest of the world will refuse to do anything if the US is not visibly taking steps.
And that does not, unfortunately, mean just getting more efficient and so saving ourselves money. It means actually doing something that inconveniences more people than are merely irritated at limits on what kinds of light bulbs they can buy. More like a 10-15 year plan to shut down all coal-fired power plants more than 20 years old.
The good news is, the shrieks of outrage that would greet such a proposal will at least help convince the rest of the world that we are actually doing something significant.
Hartmut makes an excellent point. The US alone probably cannot stop global warming; anaything we could do alone would not be sufficient. It would, however, be a necessary condition, simply because significant parts of the rest of the world will refuse to do anything if the US is not visibly taking steps.
And that does not, unfortunately, mean just getting more efficient and so saving ourselves money. It means actually doing something that inconveniences more people than are merely irritated at limits on what kinds of light bulbs they can buy. More like a 10-15 year plan to shut down all coal-fired power plants more than 20 years old.
The good news is, the shrieks of outrage that would greet such a proposal will at least help convince the rest of the world that we are actually doing something significant.
but I’d like a list of what we are expected to do to materially change the present course. I ask because, with suburbs and whatnot, how we’re going to end reliance on cars, heating and cooling plus have viable industry and agriculture without fossil fuels really eludes me.
Global warming folks here and elsewhere have a lot of facts and figures to back up their case. My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming. I am waiting to hear what it is.
We invest heavily in energy infrastructure that is ultimately cheaper, as I think renewables and various efficiency gains will be in long term: the rest of the world will follow along.
What if this very nonspecific statement is wishful thinking? What if the technical limitations make energy cost-prohibitive? Wind and solar require massive subsidies to compete. The lefties on this site can’t even concede that nukes play a vital role.
I here plenty of gloom and doom, minimal specifics on the viability of alternative energy (but plenty of rosy predictions) and nothing concrete and comprehensive on what changes and compromises US citizens will be compelled to make (yes, ‘compelled’; no one is going to voluntarily go along with whatever the program is just as voluntary compliance with ACA would make it a joke). I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
but I’d like a list of what we are expected to do to materially change the present course. I ask because, with suburbs and whatnot, how we’re going to end reliance on cars, heating and cooling plus have viable industry and agriculture without fossil fuels really eludes me.
Global warming folks here and elsewhere have a lot of facts and figures to back up their case. My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming. I am waiting to hear what it is.
We invest heavily in energy infrastructure that is ultimately cheaper, as I think renewables and various efficiency gains will be in long term: the rest of the world will follow along.
What if this very nonspecific statement is wishful thinking? What if the technical limitations make energy cost-prohibitive? Wind and solar require massive subsidies to compete. The lefties on this site can’t even concede that nukes play a vital role.
I here plenty of gloom and doom, minimal specifics on the viability of alternative energy (but plenty of rosy predictions) and nothing concrete and comprehensive on what changes and compromises US citizens will be compelled to make (yes, ‘compelled’; no one is going to voluntarily go along with whatever the program is just as voluntary compliance with ACA would make it a joke). I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
….is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes….
A pattern of land use development that was and continues to be highly subsidized by public money. We also note in passing the public subsidies accorded to the gas and petroleum industries.
I shall now turn my attention back to my desk and the work I am ‘compelled’ to undertake to make a living, because I’ll have you know I am not doing it voluntarily.
Does that make capitalism a joke?
….is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes….
A pattern of land use development that was and continues to be highly subsidized by public money. We also note in passing the public subsidies accorded to the gas and petroleum industries.
I shall now turn my attention back to my desk and the work I am ‘compelled’ to undertake to make a living, because I’ll have you know I am not doing it voluntarily.
Does that make capitalism a joke?
I think it is unwise to speak low/ill of subsidies when at the same time holding up nuclear power.
(I recognize that it’s Brett who pushes for the latter and do not know McKT’s opinions on that).
Again my own opposition to nuclear power is based to a large degree on the totally corrupted economical-political environemnt surrounding it. Those who own and/or run nuclear power plants on this Earth cannot be trusted in too many places for it to be a safe option. And it seems not to matter whether it is private entities or states being in charge (France, I am looking at you).
I think it is unwise to speak low/ill of subsidies when at the same time holding up nuclear power.
(I recognize that it’s Brett who pushes for the latter and do not know McKT’s opinions on that).
Again my own opposition to nuclear power is based to a large degree on the totally corrupted economical-political environemnt surrounding it. Those who own and/or run nuclear power plants on this Earth cannot be trusted in too many places for it to be a safe option. And it seems not to matter whether it is private entities or states being in charge (France, I am looking at you).
My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming. I am waiting to hear what it is.
As much as I dislike using a war metaphor, compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war? And the invocation of the “changes and compromises US citizens will be compelled to make” suggests that you think that climate change is something that can be stopped at the border.
I’d also note that the
I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
is that anti gubmint paranoia creeping out into view.
My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming. I am waiting to hear what it is.
As much as I dislike using a war metaphor, compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war? And the invocation of the “changes and compromises US citizens will be compelled to make” suggests that you think that climate change is something that can be stopped at the border.
I’d also note that the
I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
is that anti gubmint paranoia creeping out into view.
is that anti gubmint paranoia creeping out into view.
So, it’s a WWII type effort involved but thinking it might involve permanent, compelled lifestyle changes is dismissed as ‘gubmint paranoia’.
And still, no real specifics, as to what is expected. Not very reassuring.
is that anti gubmint paranoia creeping out into view.
So, it’s a WWII type effort involved but thinking it might involve permanent, compelled lifestyle changes is dismissed as ‘gubmint paranoia’.
And still, no real specifics, as to what is expected. Not very reassuring.
Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
Oh, please. Are you not aware of Harry Hopkins’ famous memo to FDR in May, 1938, entitled “Artificial Externalities and the Coming Age of Total Global War, The Liberal Wet Dream”?
Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
Oh, please. Are you not aware of Harry Hopkins’ famous memo to FDR in May, 1938, entitled “Artificial Externalities and the Coming Age of Total Global War, The Liberal Wet Dream”?
What if this very nonspecific statement is wishful thinking? What if the technical limitations make energy cost-prohibitive? Wind and solar require massive subsidies to compete.
Well, we’re boned then. I personally don’t view massive restrictions (voluntary or otherwise) in energy usage as feasible without additional technology making up the gap. Politics play a role, what people expect of their modern life, and realities of our economy.
But, I’m still optimistic. Glass half full kinda guy, I suppose.
Wind and solar both have had made great strides. As have biomass, tidal/wave, and battery tech. Don’t count me among the ‘OMG we can totally replace our coal plants with renewables today!’ crowd. I’m not. But I am pretty optimistic that multiple technologies are maturing and will continue to do so over the next few decades.
Solar can likely compete without subsidy in commercially in terms of LC for distributed generation. Industrial generation, yeah, its not there yet, especially compared to NG. But its not lightyears away either, and trending in the right direction.
Wind, with the bigger multi-MW range turbines, properly placed offshore or in favorable wind conditions, are arguably price equivalent to carbon sources (less than coal, more than cheap NG burning) without subsidies. Of course, those areas are somewhat limited and the technology is non-dspatchable.
So again, not solving all of our problems overnight, but will start working its way in, with or without subsidies.
As they are deployed, we’ll learn from the technology and improve it. Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly what happened with wind. LCOE tanked as soon as they started hiring aerodynamcists.
Me, personally? I’d push for more fission plants along with more renewables. At some point maybe we’ll figure out how to burn the fuel, in the meantime I like fission better than coal and its a good bridge to a future powered by renewables.
What if this very nonspecific statement is wishful thinking? What if the technical limitations make energy cost-prohibitive? Wind and solar require massive subsidies to compete.
Well, we’re boned then. I personally don’t view massive restrictions (voluntary or otherwise) in energy usage as feasible without additional technology making up the gap. Politics play a role, what people expect of their modern life, and realities of our economy.
But, I’m still optimistic. Glass half full kinda guy, I suppose.
Wind and solar both have had made great strides. As have biomass, tidal/wave, and battery tech. Don’t count me among the ‘OMG we can totally replace our coal plants with renewables today!’ crowd. I’m not. But I am pretty optimistic that multiple technologies are maturing and will continue to do so over the next few decades.
Solar can likely compete without subsidy in commercially in terms of LC for distributed generation. Industrial generation, yeah, its not there yet, especially compared to NG. But its not lightyears away either, and trending in the right direction.
Wind, with the bigger multi-MW range turbines, properly placed offshore or in favorable wind conditions, are arguably price equivalent to carbon sources (less than coal, more than cheap NG burning) without subsidies. Of course, those areas are somewhat limited and the technology is non-dspatchable.
So again, not solving all of our problems overnight, but will start working its way in, with or without subsidies.
As they are deployed, we’ll learn from the technology and improve it. Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly what happened with wind. LCOE tanked as soon as they started hiring aerodynamcists.
Me, personally? I’d push for more fission plants along with more renewables. At some point maybe we’ll figure out how to burn the fuel, in the meantime I like fission better than coal and its a good bridge to a future powered by renewables.
As much as I dislike using a war metaphor, compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
The more I think about this, the more I think Brett may be on to something. If we are being asked to live in a permanent state of war against climate change on the order of WWII, but no specifics, I suspect an agenda that won’t bear the light of day. Which means we are not being given the opportunity to compare risks and benefits. Which means, until proponents come clean, whether I accept the fact of climate change and it’s amenability to being meaningfully reversed, I am not on board with any solution that includes blind faith and a blank check.
As much as I dislike using a war metaphor, compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
The more I think about this, the more I think Brett may be on to something. If we are being asked to live in a permanent state of war against climate change on the order of WWII, but no specifics, I suspect an agenda that won’t bear the light of day. Which means we are not being given the opportunity to compare risks and benefits. Which means, until proponents come clean, whether I accept the fact of climate change and it’s amenability to being meaningfully reversed, I am not on board with any solution that includes blind faith and a blank check.
LJ:
Not to really draw any real point here, but I’m struck by the juxtaposition of WWII and “gubmit paranoia”.
A large segment of the US population was interned and stripped of property for no good reason during WWII.
Perhaps that’s why some people are a little paranoid when the “existential threat” and “government action” cards get played together?
LJ:
Not to really draw any real point here, but I’m struck by the juxtaposition of WWII and “gubmit paranoia”.
A large segment of the US population was interned and stripped of property for no good reason during WWII.
Perhaps that’s why some people are a little paranoid when the “existential threat” and “government action” cards get played together?
I am not on board with any solution that includes blind faith and a blank check.
Since there are no such ‘solutions’ being bandied about seriously by anybody, you can rest comfortably in that regard.
Perhaps that’s why some people are a little paranoid…
Paranoid (păr′ə-noid′) adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
I am not on board with any solution that includes blind faith and a blank check.
Since there are no such ‘solutions’ being bandied about seriously by anybody, you can rest comfortably in that regard.
Perhaps that’s why some people are a little paranoid…
Paranoid (păr′ə-noid′) adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
I don’t recall my history books telling me about all the public details, listed in advance, to get Congress and the citizenry to approve the Manhattan Project. Or explanations about the potential effects of nuclear fallout. I’m sure the physicists had models and all, but until you start setting actual bombs off, you don’t have proof.
There will be “big government” programs, with taxes raised and bonds sold to pay for them. Maybe coastal protection technology, like what’s going on in Venice, or the Netherlands; not feasible for South Florida, so then you’ve got relocation grants for the refugees moving to higher, dryer ground. Higher food prices will mean that much more in subsidies for the poor, or price controls and rationing.
All of us commenting here will be dead before any of this comes to pass, most likely, but my guess is that some amount of it will happen even if a crash program started being implemented by our dictators tomorrow.
I don’t recall my history books telling me about all the public details, listed in advance, to get Congress and the citizenry to approve the Manhattan Project. Or explanations about the potential effects of nuclear fallout. I’m sure the physicists had models and all, but until you start setting actual bombs off, you don’t have proof.
There will be “big government” programs, with taxes raised and bonds sold to pay for them. Maybe coastal protection technology, like what’s going on in Venice, or the Netherlands; not feasible for South Florida, so then you’ve got relocation grants for the refugees moving to higher, dryer ground. Higher food prices will mean that much more in subsidies for the poor, or price controls and rationing.
All of us commenting here will be dead before any of this comes to pass, most likely, but my guess is that some amount of it will happen even if a crash program started being implemented by our dictators tomorrow.
Well, if we can contrive to avoid/stall action long enough, then the eventual action will have to be far more dramatic. And expensive/intrusive.
Which will delight those who are sure the government/liberals are out to get them — because they will be proven right. So nice to be proven right.
Well, if we can contrive to avoid/stall action long enough, then the eventual action will have to be far more dramatic. And expensive/intrusive.
Which will delight those who are sure the government/liberals are out to get them — because they will be proven right. So nice to be proven right.
thompson: And characterizing entire swathes of opposition to policy X with “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel” or similar phrases are not useful to depolarizing the debate.
Debates get resolved by various means, and polarization is one of them. While 10% are for, 10% are against, and 80% are indifferent, there is no polarization — and no resolution either. When the mushy middle “polarizes” to one side or the other, that’s when the debate gets “resolved”.
“Resolved” doesn’t mean the losing side is convinced. Even in formal, Oxford-style debates, you never see one side concede the argument. You merely see them lose the vote.
But what I really want to ask you is this: who is doing the characterizing here? Who are the “entire swathes” (your words) that correspond to “some” (my word) in your opinion?
Sometimes, the shoe fits. When somebody complains that the shoe fits him, maybe the cobbler got his measure right.
–TP
thompson: And characterizing entire swathes of opposition to policy X with “some people get positive joy out of merely burning fuel” or similar phrases are not useful to depolarizing the debate.
Debates get resolved by various means, and polarization is one of them. While 10% are for, 10% are against, and 80% are indifferent, there is no polarization — and no resolution either. When the mushy middle “polarizes” to one side or the other, that’s when the debate gets “resolved”.
“Resolved” doesn’t mean the losing side is convinced. Even in formal, Oxford-style debates, you never see one side concede the argument. You merely see them lose the vote.
But what I really want to ask you is this: who is doing the characterizing here? Who are the “entire swathes” (your words) that correspond to “some” (my word) in your opinion?
Sometimes, the shoe fits. When somebody complains that the shoe fits him, maybe the cobbler got his measure right.
–TP
If we are being asked to live in a permanent state of war against climate change on the order of WWII, but no specifics, I suspect an agenda that won’t bear the light of day.
This is so funny (but, obviously, not so funny).
All anyone is asking is that people, unless they have very good reason, do what millions of conscientious people are doing already. Drive minimally in a fuel efficient car. Try to take public transportation, or walk, when that option is available. Wear a sweater. Use energy efficient appliances. Eat less meat. Unfortunately, this can’t be totally “voluntary” because, as mentioned, some people can’t afford some of these things: this lifestyle needs to be subsidized.
And, maybe Congress can quit subsidizing oil, and subsidize alternative fuels. Natural gas (which can be a bridge to renewable energy) can be more heavily regulated so that people have more confidence that their water isn’t going to be contaminated.
Basically the subversive “agenda” is what a lot of people, many of them affluent and extremely comfortable, are trying to do already.
If we are being asked to live in a permanent state of war against climate change on the order of WWII, but no specifics, I suspect an agenda that won’t bear the light of day.
This is so funny (but, obviously, not so funny).
All anyone is asking is that people, unless they have very good reason, do what millions of conscientious people are doing already. Drive minimally in a fuel efficient car. Try to take public transportation, or walk, when that option is available. Wear a sweater. Use energy efficient appliances. Eat less meat. Unfortunately, this can’t be totally “voluntary” because, as mentioned, some people can’t afford some of these things: this lifestyle needs to be subsidized.
And, maybe Congress can quit subsidizing oil, and subsidize alternative fuels. Natural gas (which can be a bridge to renewable energy) can be more heavily regulated so that people have more confidence that their water isn’t going to be contaminated.
Basically the subversive “agenda” is what a lot of people, many of them affluent and extremely comfortable, are trying to do already.
A large segment of the US population was interned and stripped of property for no good reason during WWII.
Given that you are talking to a third generation Japanese American (albeit whose father was from Hawai’i and so doesn’t have a family history of experiencing the internment), I could get in a huff about this, but maybe you didn’t know that and feigned anger at someone’s words doesn’t really accomplish much of anything. But talking about the heritage of the internment with a handle like Thompson does have me raise an eyebrow.
The reasons I’m not fond of the war metaphor precisely because it compels folks rather than convinces them. But McT is constantly invoking name-calling and demonization as these problems that prevent him from signing on to, well, almost anything. bobbyp is spot on when he talks about how debates get resolved. And, what often happens is that the losing side often convinces itself that it really wasn’t on the losing side and didn’t oppose it tooth and nail (cf. MLK) I’ve often wondered in blog comments how we actually move public opinion in a way that minimized polarization, but when you get Brett’s ‘because chicken coop!’ arguments, and you have McT wonder why there is no comprehensive program that he can evaluate and sign on to, it is really hard to see how we are going to move forward without some sort of social opprobrium pushing it.
A large segment of the US population was interned and stripped of property for no good reason during WWII.
Given that you are talking to a third generation Japanese American (albeit whose father was from Hawai’i and so doesn’t have a family history of experiencing the internment), I could get in a huff about this, but maybe you didn’t know that and feigned anger at someone’s words doesn’t really accomplish much of anything. But talking about the heritage of the internment with a handle like Thompson does have me raise an eyebrow.
The reasons I’m not fond of the war metaphor precisely because it compels folks rather than convinces them. But McT is constantly invoking name-calling and demonization as these problems that prevent him from signing on to, well, almost anything. bobbyp is spot on when he talks about how debates get resolved. And, what often happens is that the losing side often convinces itself that it really wasn’t on the losing side and didn’t oppose it tooth and nail (cf. MLK) I’ve often wondered in blog comments how we actually move public opinion in a way that minimized polarization, but when you get Brett’s ‘because chicken coop!’ arguments, and you have McT wonder why there is no comprehensive program that he can evaluate and sign on to, it is really hard to see how we are going to move forward without some sort of social opprobrium pushing it.
My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming.
My sense is that there ought to be one, too, but I don’t think there is.
What does exist are things like:
The obvious things that are missing, as best as I can tell:
The things we’d have to live with to make any of this work would be stuff like:
Basically, there is no serious leadership on the issue by anyone in a position to make anything happen. The stuff we have now – recycle, use CFLs, etc. – are all nice, and useful as far as they go, but (to borrow the WWII analogy again) they are basically like trying to win that war solely by relying on paper drives and saving up tin foil from your gum wrappers.
I’d be interested to know if you find any of the bullet items above remotely palatable.
Basically, what I see is a public who consider American “car culture” a god-given birthright, and who consider any proposal that would have any impact on their lifestyles to be some kind of communist plot.
And, of course, there is the chicken coop and lava lamp demographic, and if you think I’m being unkind I’ll remind you that I did not introduce either example.
So basically I think we’re going to dick around until really bad stuff starts to happen, then we’re going to (likely have already begun to) dick around some more while we pretend that it’s due to anything other than human-induced global warming, then we’re going to freak the hell out and run around like idiotic reactive morons putting stupid expensive half-@ssed band-aids on things, until we run out of money and/or are overwhelmed by events, at which point we’ll be just plain hosed.
By just plain hosed, I mean it will be hard to live in some places where a lot of people live, industries that are in any way dependent on the weather will be massively disrupted, and some fairly serious infrastructure will become very unreliable.
So, for instance, the droughts we’ve seen in the west and plains may be the new normal, with obvious consequences for agriculture.
So, for instance, the snow pack that feeds the Rio Grande and other western rivers that make a lot of the west and southwest habitable may go away, or at least become unreliable.
So, for instance, JFK, SFO, and DCA all have runways near (if not in) the water, and all are at elevations less than 20′. Unlikely that ambient sea levels will rise that much in the near term, but high tides + storm surges may well put a kink in their use.
Just right off the top of my head.
Stupidity, laziness, lack of direction and leadership, then FUBAR.
That’s what my 8-ball tells me.
My sense is that there ought to be a handy, well thought out and comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises we would have to make in our daily lives to fight global warming.
My sense is that there ought to be one, too, but I don’t think there is.
What does exist are things like:
The obvious things that are missing, as best as I can tell:
The things we’d have to live with to make any of this work would be stuff like:
Basically, there is no serious leadership on the issue by anyone in a position to make anything happen. The stuff we have now – recycle, use CFLs, etc. – are all nice, and useful as far as they go, but (to borrow the WWII analogy again) they are basically like trying to win that war solely by relying on paper drives and saving up tin foil from your gum wrappers.
I’d be interested to know if you find any of the bullet items above remotely palatable.
Basically, what I see is a public who consider American “car culture” a god-given birthright, and who consider any proposal that would have any impact on their lifestyles to be some kind of communist plot.
And, of course, there is the chicken coop and lava lamp demographic, and if you think I’m being unkind I’ll remind you that I did not introduce either example.
So basically I think we’re going to dick around until really bad stuff starts to happen, then we’re going to (likely have already begun to) dick around some more while we pretend that it’s due to anything other than human-induced global warming, then we’re going to freak the hell out and run around like idiotic reactive morons putting stupid expensive half-@ssed band-aids on things, until we run out of money and/or are overwhelmed by events, at which point we’ll be just plain hosed.
By just plain hosed, I mean it will be hard to live in some places where a lot of people live, industries that are in any way dependent on the weather will be massively disrupted, and some fairly serious infrastructure will become very unreliable.
So, for instance, the droughts we’ve seen in the west and plains may be the new normal, with obvious consequences for agriculture.
So, for instance, the snow pack that feeds the Rio Grande and other western rivers that make a lot of the west and southwest habitable may go away, or at least become unreliable.
So, for instance, JFK, SFO, and DCA all have runways near (if not in) the water, and all are at elevations less than 20′. Unlikely that ambient sea levels will rise that much in the near term, but high tides + storm surges may well put a kink in their use.
Just right off the top of my head.
Stupidity, laziness, lack of direction and leadership, then FUBAR.
That’s what my 8-ball tells me.
LJ:
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be insensitive. And I didn’t mean it as a flippant remark, but as an example (not even from the distant past) of the depths our government is capable of, and how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I view the internment of Japanese-Americans as one of the darkest actions taken by the US government. I obviously didn’t experience it directly, but I have met and talked someone who was interned and subsequently lost his family farm. And bluntly, that was a conversation that made me ashamed of my country.
I think even people with handles like ‘thompson’ can recognize that it was a horrible injustice.
But I am sorry if I offended you by bringing it up to casually. I was hasty, and that’s not an appropriate way to bring up something of gravity.
The reasons I’m not fond of the war metaphor precisely because it compels folks rather than convinces them.
And it’s always easier to compel people. I won’t disagree with that. I just don’t think its productive, longterm. It just reinforces the ‘us vs them’ mentality and feeds into polarization for the next cycle.
Eventually, you’ll end up with a complete logjam.
it is really hard to see how we are going to move forward without some sort of social opprobrium pushing it.
And we’re seeing the success of social opprobrium with an uptick in the numbers of people that think climate change isn’t real?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion
The problem with social opprobrium affecting change is that it requires social interaction. Since each camp can go to their own corners and mock each other…then spew some talking points on cable news that are fodder for the next cycle of echo chamber fun.
But that’s just my opinion, and I try (not always successfully) to keep hyperbole out of it.
LJ:
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be insensitive. And I didn’t mean it as a flippant remark, but as an example (not even from the distant past) of the depths our government is capable of, and how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I view the internment of Japanese-Americans as one of the darkest actions taken by the US government. I obviously didn’t experience it directly, but I have met and talked someone who was interned and subsequently lost his family farm. And bluntly, that was a conversation that made me ashamed of my country.
I think even people with handles like ‘thompson’ can recognize that it was a horrible injustice.
But I am sorry if I offended you by bringing it up to casually. I was hasty, and that’s not an appropriate way to bring up something of gravity.
The reasons I’m not fond of the war metaphor precisely because it compels folks rather than convinces them.
And it’s always easier to compel people. I won’t disagree with that. I just don’t think its productive, longterm. It just reinforces the ‘us vs them’ mentality and feeds into polarization for the next cycle.
Eventually, you’ll end up with a complete logjam.
it is really hard to see how we are going to move forward without some sort of social opprobrium pushing it.
And we’re seeing the success of social opprobrium with an uptick in the numbers of people that think climate change isn’t real?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-pause-climate-denial-public-opinion
The problem with social opprobrium affecting change is that it requires social interaction. Since each camp can go to their own corners and mock each other…then spew some talking points on cable news that are fodder for the next cycle of echo chamber fun.
But that’s just my opinion, and I try (not always successfully) to keep hyperbole out of it.
how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I said this in the other thread, and I’ll say it again.
If you don’t want big intrusive government telling you what to do, the time to address potential problems is before they actually manifest themselves, not after.
If you want a range of choices and options about how to deal with potential problems, the time to address them is before they actually manifest themselves, not after.
This isn’t directed at you, thompson, you are already on record as finding that to be a compelling argument.
It’s for the chicken coop enthusiasts and the “but tell me what what I must do!” folks among us.
I.e., it’s for the obstructionists.
Don’t like being told what to do? Get your ducks in a row.
When the water runs dry, you will damned well be told what to do. Trust me.
how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I said this in the other thread, and I’ll say it again.
If you don’t want big intrusive government telling you what to do, the time to address potential problems is before they actually manifest themselves, not after.
If you want a range of choices and options about how to deal with potential problems, the time to address them is before they actually manifest themselves, not after.
This isn’t directed at you, thompson, you are already on record as finding that to be a compelling argument.
It’s for the chicken coop enthusiasts and the “but tell me what what I must do!” folks among us.
I.e., it’s for the obstructionists.
Don’t like being told what to do? Get your ducks in a row.
When the water runs dry, you will damned well be told what to do. Trust me.
This isn’t directed at you, thompson, you are already on record as finding that to be a compelling argument.
Perhaps not directed at me, russell, but again I find it appropriate to strongly agree.
This isn’t directed at you, thompson, you are already on record as finding that to be a compelling argument.
Perhaps not directed at me, russell, but again I find it appropriate to strongly agree.
an example (not even from the distant past) of the depths our government is capable of, and how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I view the internment of Japanese-Americans as one of the darkest actions taken by the US government. I obviously didn’t experience it directly, but I have met and talked someone who was interned and subsequently lost his family farm. And bluntly, that was a conversation that made me ashamed of my country.
Just to shake up the bro dynamic here, although I agree that this is a dark action and a “depth”, I also think that it is a huge outlier in terms of what the Federal government has done to the civil liberties of its people. And it’s a ridiculous example to bring up in this conversation.
The fact is, there are things government could do that would further some of the bullet points russell mentioned without affecting most people’s comfort. The “comfort” factor means giving up stuff – and government could either encourage that by making comfort more expensive (which would unfairly punish the poor) or mandate it and subsidize the poor.
Basic things that anyone can do pretty easily, which are helpful but won’t get us all the way there.
There are a lot of basic things that anyone can do pretty easily that would be extremely helpful, and might get us most of the way there, but everyone has to do it, which means gubmt. And, by the way, less meat production would be a significant contribution to that.
an example (not even from the distant past) of the depths our government is capable of, and how readily people are willing to be complicit in action when confronted with an existential threat.
I view the internment of Japanese-Americans as one of the darkest actions taken by the US government. I obviously didn’t experience it directly, but I have met and talked someone who was interned and subsequently lost his family farm. And bluntly, that was a conversation that made me ashamed of my country.
Just to shake up the bro dynamic here, although I agree that this is a dark action and a “depth”, I also think that it is a huge outlier in terms of what the Federal government has done to the civil liberties of its people. And it’s a ridiculous example to bring up in this conversation.
The fact is, there are things government could do that would further some of the bullet points russell mentioned without affecting most people’s comfort. The “comfort” factor means giving up stuff – and government could either encourage that by making comfort more expensive (which would unfairly punish the poor) or mandate it and subsidize the poor.
Basic things that anyone can do pretty easily, which are helpful but won’t get us all the way there.
There are a lot of basic things that anyone can do pretty easily that would be extremely helpful, and might get us most of the way there, but everyone has to do it, which means gubmt. And, by the way, less meat production would be a significant contribution to that.
I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
speaking as a suburban individual home-owner: you’re delusional.
I suspect that, deep in the bowels of some wonkish work paper is an the end game that involves eliminating suburban, individually owned homes, heavy penalties on auto use and who knows what else.
speaking as a suburban individual home-owner: you’re delusional.
Is it time to bring up eating bugs again? ‘Cause that’s my secret agenda. (Shhhh…don’t tell anyone.)
Is it time to bring up eating bugs again? ‘Cause that’s my secret agenda. (Shhhh…don’t tell anyone.)
speaking as a suburban individual home-owner: you’re delusional.
lemme rephrase.
yes, you’re absolutely right. somewhere there is such a paper. just as there are papers that say we must return to the gold standard and abolish the 17th amendment and return this country to a set of values it never had because American Jesus says so.
that doesn’t mean any of that is anything like a plan that a majority of any party actually wants or would tolerate being enacted in its name.
you don’t have to fear the monsters Rush and Sean and Glenn set out. they aren’t real.
speaking as a suburban individual home-owner: you’re delusional.
lemme rephrase.
yes, you’re absolutely right. somewhere there is such a paper. just as there are papers that say we must return to the gold standard and abolish the 17th amendment and return this country to a set of values it never had because American Jesus says so.
that doesn’t mean any of that is anything like a plan that a majority of any party actually wants or would tolerate being enacted in its name.
you don’t have to fear the monsters Rush and Sean and Glenn set out. they aren’t real.
government could either encourage that by making comfort more expensive (which would unfairly punish the poor) or mandate it and subsidize the poor.
sapient,
you have noticed, haven’t you, that pretty much the same group of people a) object to having government force them to make changes in theier comfortable existance, and b) object to having government spend any money, especially to encourage the sorts of things you are talking about. So how do you think we can go about doing either?
government could either encourage that by making comfort more expensive (which would unfairly punish the poor) or mandate it and subsidize the poor.
sapient,
you have noticed, haven’t you, that pretty much the same group of people a) object to having government force them to make changes in theier comfortable existance, and b) object to having government spend any money, especially to encourage the sorts of things you are talking about. So how do you think we can go about doing either?
So how do you think we can go about doing either?
Force.
So how do you think we can go about doing either?
Force.
But before you can use force, you need to convince a lot more people than are convinced so far that something needs to be done. And then convince an even larger number that force is the right approach. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
But before you can use force, you need to convince a lot more people than are convinced so far that something needs to be done. And then convince an even larger number that force is the right approach. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
you need to convince a lot more people than are convinced so far that something needs to be done.
Right.
Actually, I think that a lot of people know that something needs to be done for the planet as a whole. Some just don’t think that they themselves will suffer, because they have the cash to move to wherever. It’s the usual Republican way. If someone [thing] they care about suffers, they’ll change their mind. McKinney had good health insurance so who the f^&k cares about anyone else? It’s when some Republican child gets cancer, and the family goes bankrupt, that Republicans care about health care insurance. When a Republican child breaths particulate air, Nixon can support a Clean Air Act. When a Republican vacation is ruined because of global warming, we’ll get some support from a Republican. In the meantime, 2/3 of people aren’t Republican. We just have to get them to vote.
you need to convince a lot more people than are convinced so far that something needs to be done.
Right.
Actually, I think that a lot of people know that something needs to be done for the planet as a whole. Some just don’t think that they themselves will suffer, because they have the cash to move to wherever. It’s the usual Republican way. If someone [thing] they care about suffers, they’ll change their mind. McKinney had good health insurance so who the f^&k cares about anyone else? It’s when some Republican child gets cancer, and the family goes bankrupt, that Republicans care about health care insurance. When a Republican child breaths particulate air, Nixon can support a Clean Air Act. When a Republican vacation is ruined because of global warming, we’ll get some support from a Republican. In the meantime, 2/3 of people aren’t Republican. We just have to get them to vote.
Not to rain on your prejudices or anything. But some of us life-long Republicans already know that the climate is changing. And that steps will have to be taken to stop it. And that the consequences of not doing anything are unacceptable . . . even if the worst impact will be half way around the world among people we don’t know.
I will grant that most of those who refuse to accept that there is a problem, and that something needs to be done, are Republicans. But then, today’s Republican Party is a far cry from the one I grew up in. (Witness the fact that a Republican politician today who had Ronald Reagan’s record would have to run, hard, away from that record if he wanted to get a Presidential nomination.)
Not to rain on your prejudices or anything. But some of us life-long Republicans already know that the climate is changing. And that steps will have to be taken to stop it. And that the consequences of not doing anything are unacceptable . . . even if the worst impact will be half way around the world among people we don’t know.
I will grant that most of those who refuse to accept that there is a problem, and that something needs to be done, are Republicans. But then, today’s Republican Party is a far cry from the one I grew up in. (Witness the fact that a Republican politician today who had Ronald Reagan’s record would have to run, hard, away from that record if he wanted to get a Presidential nomination.)
To be my cynical self again, the opportunity to hurt the poor could be the one persuasive thing for parts of the obstructionists. Making comfort more expensive and therefore exclusive would add to the appeal. Cars could become again a ‘real’ status symbol for example when the masses get demotorized. And all under the guise of doing good (many rich digestive rear exits would like that).
Btw, I think I have heard of initiatives from Big Fossil Fuel to get subsidies/compensation for not (yet) digging up the dirty stuff and burning it (now). Plus some local ideas to disincentivise renewables through the tax code because of their unfair competition to the traditional energy sources.
To be my cynical self again, the opportunity to hurt the poor could be the one persuasive thing for parts of the obstructionists. Making comfort more expensive and therefore exclusive would add to the appeal. Cars could become again a ‘real’ status symbol for example when the masses get demotorized. And all under the guise of doing good (many rich digestive rear exits would like that).
Btw, I think I have heard of initiatives from Big Fossil Fuel to get subsidies/compensation for not (yet) digging up the dirty stuff and burning it (now). Plus some local ideas to disincentivise renewables through the tax code because of their unfair competition to the traditional energy sources.
Just to shake up the bro dynamic here
Not sure exactly what the ‘bro dynamic’ is, but if the opposite is simply saying ‘that’s ridiculous, don’t bring that up?’, I’ll pass. I think there are actually reasons to explain why internment is not a great example.
The internment is, inarguably, the culmination of the previous half century concern over the ‘yellow peril’ and the ideas about eugenics, notions that still float around discussions from time to time. It is also, perhaps more arguably, a result of the fact that the agricultural land and resources that Japanese-Americans owned was such a tempting target for reclamation that many of the forces that were clamoring for internment, such as local chambers of commerce and Caucasian farmers, were able to force the issue, even though by the time JAs were interned, any possible excuse of military necessity had vanished.
To cite it as simply an example of government overreach fails to take into account how the particular history of Asians in the US fed into and how vested financial interests were able to drive the scenario. In fact, the ability of monied interests being able to affect such an outcome makes me less worried about government overreach and more about how companies and the wealthy can create a playing field that makes it seem like certain actions are appropriate when they are not. This doesn’t meant that I think we should ‘let the market figure it out’, but it does mean that one should acknowledge that vested interests have reasons for enacting policies that may be problematic, as long as the problems are for thee, not for me
Just to shake up the bro dynamic here
Not sure exactly what the ‘bro dynamic’ is, but if the opposite is simply saying ‘that’s ridiculous, don’t bring that up?’, I’ll pass. I think there are actually reasons to explain why internment is not a great example.
The internment is, inarguably, the culmination of the previous half century concern over the ‘yellow peril’ and the ideas about eugenics, notions that still float around discussions from time to time. It is also, perhaps more arguably, a result of the fact that the agricultural land and resources that Japanese-Americans owned was such a tempting target for reclamation that many of the forces that were clamoring for internment, such as local chambers of commerce and Caucasian farmers, were able to force the issue, even though by the time JAs were interned, any possible excuse of military necessity had vanished.
To cite it as simply an example of government overreach fails to take into account how the particular history of Asians in the US fed into and how vested financial interests were able to drive the scenario. In fact, the ability of monied interests being able to affect such an outcome makes me less worried about government overreach and more about how companies and the wealthy can create a playing field that makes it seem like certain actions are appropriate when they are not. This doesn’t meant that I think we should ‘let the market figure it out’, but it does mean that one should acknowledge that vested interests have reasons for enacting policies that may be problematic, as long as the problems are for thee, not for me
“And we’re seeing the success of social opprobrium with an uptick in the numbers of people that think climate change isn’t real?”
Well, yeah. The thing about a real, honest to goodness debate, is that either side can lose one.
“And we’re seeing the success of social opprobrium with an uptick in the numbers of people that think climate change isn’t real?”
Well, yeah. The thing about a real, honest to goodness debate, is that either side can lose one.
And I’d add that, yes, there aren’t a lot of people with lava lamps. Perhaps more people with chicken coops. There are an awful lot of people with closets, of course, or porch lights, or old lighting fixtures where CFL’s go to die.
But the point is, you didn’t much care that there were applications where the incandescent was genuinely better, where the waste heat was actually wanted, or the CFL’s wouldn’t work properly, or so little use was involved that initial cost was more important than efficiency.
You just went ahead and banned incandescents, instead of letting people make choices, not caring that your imposed from above, one size fits all solution would be a bad fit for some people.
Well, it’s not just light bulbs. It’s the EPA banning most wood stoves. It’s telling people with large families they can’t have station wagons. It’s plumbing stopping up in homes that weren’t designed from the beginning for low flush toilets. It’s people getting sick of show heads that just drool on them. It’s a whole host of things, and every one of them ticks a different group of people off, and together, they can easily add up to a significant number of people who’ve had their lives made worse in some way or other by liberals issuing orders.
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic. It’s never a good idea to be indifferent to how many people you’re ticking off, much less to openly express your contempt for them.
And I’d add that, yes, there aren’t a lot of people with lava lamps. Perhaps more people with chicken coops. There are an awful lot of people with closets, of course, or porch lights, or old lighting fixtures where CFL’s go to die.
But the point is, you didn’t much care that there were applications where the incandescent was genuinely better, where the waste heat was actually wanted, or the CFL’s wouldn’t work properly, or so little use was involved that initial cost was more important than efficiency.
You just went ahead and banned incandescents, instead of letting people make choices, not caring that your imposed from above, one size fits all solution would be a bad fit for some people.
Well, it’s not just light bulbs. It’s the EPA banning most wood stoves. It’s telling people with large families they can’t have station wagons. It’s plumbing stopping up in homes that weren’t designed from the beginning for low flush toilets. It’s people getting sick of show heads that just drool on them. It’s a whole host of things, and every one of them ticks a different group of people off, and together, they can easily add up to a significant number of people who’ve had their lives made worse in some way or other by liberals issuing orders.
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic. It’s never a good idea to be indifferent to how many people you’re ticking off, much less to openly express your contempt for them.
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic.
Speaking as apparent sneerer-in-chief, this is a reasonable point.
Were I to have a face-to-face discussion with someone, and were they to say they objected to the incandescent ban because they wanted an incandescent for their chicken coop, or lava lamp, or attic or basement, I actually would not sneer at them. I would say, as I’ve said to you several times, actually incandescents weren’t specifically banned, they simply don’t comply with efficiency standards. And, sufficient exemptions were made to that standard so that you can still readily get incandescents if you want them.
I would also say that you can still get station wagons. No-one has said you can’t, told you you can’t, or made any laws whatsoever about station wagons. They’re less popular than they used to be, but there are also a range of vehicles available that fit the same functional niche – SUVs, minivans, hatchbacks. So, you have more choices now, rather than fewer.
If your shower head is providing insufficient flow, you can replace it with one that works better, for not a lot of money.
Ditto the toilet, although at somewhat higher cost.
I’m not sure what the issue is with wood stoves, I know quite a few folks who heat with wood, either in the form of pellets or plain old firewood. To my knowledge, if you want to heat with wood, there is no lack of choices.
The reason I reply more sarcastically to you, personally, in this context is because you are an obviously intelligent and thoughtful person, and yet appear to be prone to seizing on the most trivial and absurd points to further your argument.
And yes, in a discussion about things like “will large cities in the southwest become unsupportable”, or “will agriculture in CA kind of go away as a major industry”, a concern about being able to get a light bulb for your lava lamp does seem, to me at least, both trivial and absurd.
In short, you’re capable of bringing a better game, so you provoke my personal (and not particularly admirable) tendency to point and laugh.
Last but not least, on this topic anyway, you’re not a guy from whom I’m all that open to receiving a lecture about open expressions of contempt. So, there’s that.
But yes, if the entire debate about climate change takes place at the level of “you are a stupid clownish risible idiot”, we won’t get very far.
QED, I would say.
As far as folly goes, we’ll see where we stand in 20 or 30 years.
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic.
Speaking as apparent sneerer-in-chief, this is a reasonable point.
Were I to have a face-to-face discussion with someone, and were they to say they objected to the incandescent ban because they wanted an incandescent for their chicken coop, or lava lamp, or attic or basement, I actually would not sneer at them. I would say, as I’ve said to you several times, actually incandescents weren’t specifically banned, they simply don’t comply with efficiency standards. And, sufficient exemptions were made to that standard so that you can still readily get incandescents if you want them.
I would also say that you can still get station wagons. No-one has said you can’t, told you you can’t, or made any laws whatsoever about station wagons. They’re less popular than they used to be, but there are also a range of vehicles available that fit the same functional niche – SUVs, minivans, hatchbacks. So, you have more choices now, rather than fewer.
If your shower head is providing insufficient flow, you can replace it with one that works better, for not a lot of money.
Ditto the toilet, although at somewhat higher cost.
I’m not sure what the issue is with wood stoves, I know quite a few folks who heat with wood, either in the form of pellets or plain old firewood. To my knowledge, if you want to heat with wood, there is no lack of choices.
The reason I reply more sarcastically to you, personally, in this context is because you are an obviously intelligent and thoughtful person, and yet appear to be prone to seizing on the most trivial and absurd points to further your argument.
And yes, in a discussion about things like “will large cities in the southwest become unsupportable”, or “will agriculture in CA kind of go away as a major industry”, a concern about being able to get a light bulb for your lava lamp does seem, to me at least, both trivial and absurd.
In short, you’re capable of bringing a better game, so you provoke my personal (and not particularly admirable) tendency to point and laugh.
Last but not least, on this topic anyway, you’re not a guy from whom I’m all that open to receiving a lecture about open expressions of contempt. So, there’s that.
But yes, if the entire debate about climate change takes place at the level of “you are a stupid clownish risible idiot”, we won’t get very far.
QED, I would say.
As far as folly goes, we’ll see where we stand in 20 or 30 years.
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic.
demographic yes, those particular examples, no
And that’s why you’re fools to sneer at the lava lamp and chicken coop demographic.
demographic yes, those particular examples, no
That’s where I went for the 3mm/yr number, although Wikipedia isn’t always a good reference.
The key phrase in my statement was “as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it”. Which restricts our timespan to between now and when there were first satellites with which accurate measurements of absolute sea level could be made. In other words: the last 20 years or so.
Tide gauges only measure relative sea level, which tells you not very much about sea level rise.
Hence my remarks about subsidence. There’s also post-glacial rebound, which further muddies the issue.
That’s where I went for the 3mm/yr number, although Wikipedia isn’t always a good reference.
The key phrase in my statement was “as long as there has been equipment available for measuring it”. Which restricts our timespan to between now and when there were first satellites with which accurate measurements of absolute sea level could be made. In other words: the last 20 years or so.
Tide gauges only measure relative sea level, which tells you not very much about sea level rise.
Hence my remarks about subsidence. There’s also post-glacial rebound, which further muddies the issue.
Who the heck needs a lightbulb in his closet? Or are we talking about a walk-in? (and I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them but I live in a flat not a house).
Who the heck needs a lightbulb in his closet? Or are we talking about a walk-in? (and I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them but I live in a flat not a house).
What is the rate of recently observed acceleration?
What is the rate of recently observed acceleration?
and I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them
i wondered that too, for a long time, after i got married. but then i stopped thinking about it. because given the choice between me or her clothes, i’m not sure i’d win.
and I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them
i wondered that too, for a long time, after i got married. but then i stopped thinking about it. because given the choice between me or her clothes, i’m not sure i’d win.
My understanding is that sea level rise over the last 20 years has been fairly consistent, at about 3mm / year. So, if we’re confining our discussion to what we can measure with the satellite technology of the last 20 years or so, no particularly noticeable increase in rate.
Sea level rise is not uniform, in some places it’s worse than others, for instance the eastern US, for reasons that are not clear. Sea level rise actually is an issue in the eastern coastal US.
Loss of terra firma in the Gulf is pretty common, but is generally due to subsidence rather than rising sea levels. There are human factors at play there, also, but they are not so much to do with climate change.
I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them
Hartmut, are you married?
My understanding is that sea level rise over the last 20 years has been fairly consistent, at about 3mm / year. So, if we’re confining our discussion to what we can measure with the satellite technology of the last 20 years or so, no particularly noticeable increase in rate.
Sea level rise is not uniform, in some places it’s worse than others, for instance the eastern US, for reasons that are not clear. Sea level rise actually is an issue in the eastern coastal US.
Loss of terra firma in the Gulf is pretty common, but is generally due to subsidence rather than rising sea levels. There are human factors at play there, also, but they are not so much to do with climate change.
I tend to wonder how one can have so many clothes that one needs in essence an extra room for them
Hartmut, are you married?
If you don’t have a walk-in closet, you will get rid of old clothes more frequently than if you did, because you have to.
I use only about 1/5 of the walk-in closet in my bedroom, and am faced with a problem similar to cleek’s. But, even then, I still keep more clothes longer than I would if I didn’t have the space for them. A decent percentage of those clothes never get worn, and simply take up space.
It’s shameful, really.
If you don’t have a walk-in closet, you will get rid of old clothes more frequently than if you did, because you have to.
I use only about 1/5 of the walk-in closet in my bedroom, and am faced with a problem similar to cleek’s. But, even then, I still keep more clothes longer than I would if I didn’t have the space for them. A decent percentage of those clothes never get worn, and simply take up space.
It’s shameful, really.
That’s where I went for the 3mm/yr number, although Wikipedia isn’t always a good reference.
I read the article as implying that the rate of rise is greater now. See also footnote (2).
Thanks.
That’s where I went for the 3mm/yr number, although Wikipedia isn’t always a good reference.
I read the article as implying that the rate of rise is greater now. See also footnote (2).
Thanks.
To come back to lightbulbs, the reason I asked Brett for “applications that need incandescents” was not to justify a ban, but to get him to put on his “engineer” hat and think about the properties of different light sources.
And, as expected, the issues were (a) replacement cost (b) reliability, and (c) getting heat + light.
Incandescents are VACUUM TUBE technology. Anybody here remember how at one point everyone had CRT monitors, then in a (virtual) eyeblink they were all gone, replaced by flatscreens? That wasn’t a government mandate, it was a new technology, with rapidly improvements of capability and cost-effectiveness, pushing aside an old mature technology. So I expect (a) and (b) on the above list to be removed as reasons for using incandescents, in the near future.
I expect LED lighting to do the same to incandescents as flatscreens did to CRTs: in a few years, I expect most people here to be going “oh yeah, incandescents, they bring back nostalgic memories”. [CFLs won’t be missed, however]
Brett may or may not go along with that. I do wonder if he keeps a lifetime supply of RCA pentode tubes in his basement.
To come back to lightbulbs, the reason I asked Brett for “applications that need incandescents” was not to justify a ban, but to get him to put on his “engineer” hat and think about the properties of different light sources.
And, as expected, the issues were (a) replacement cost (b) reliability, and (c) getting heat + light.
Incandescents are VACUUM TUBE technology. Anybody here remember how at one point everyone had CRT monitors, then in a (virtual) eyeblink they were all gone, replaced by flatscreens? That wasn’t a government mandate, it was a new technology, with rapidly improvements of capability and cost-effectiveness, pushing aside an old mature technology. So I expect (a) and (b) on the above list to be removed as reasons for using incandescents, in the near future.
I expect LED lighting to do the same to incandescents as flatscreens did to CRTs: in a few years, I expect most people here to be going “oh yeah, incandescents, they bring back nostalgic memories”. [CFLs won’t be missed, however]
Brett may or may not go along with that. I do wonder if he keeps a lifetime supply of RCA pentode tubes in his basement.
Thompson,
FDR’s incredibly bone headed executive order was in response to a great deal of popular pressure. Your statement takes it out of this historical context and tries to invoke it as as example of a fundamental principle.
Now I’m sure you would not have much trouble convincing me that “the government” does a lot of stupid stuff, but to imply that “the government” is a sentient malevolent force as a matter of principle strikes me as simply tendentious.
A lot of government snafus can be traced to bureaucratic inertia, a trait of all large human institutions. Most of the rest is because We The People demanded they do something stupid, and the politicians running things are generally only too happy to oblige.
I find it fascinating that those who oppose, say, a hefty tax on carbon, are only too willing to throw huge gobs of money at the Department of Defense or squeal that environmentalists seek to reduce our standard of living; and then speak of cutting(always future) Social Security benefits in the context of “we can’t afford it” rather than “let’s reduce the standard of living of future beneficiaries”.
Thompson,
FDR’s incredibly bone headed executive order was in response to a great deal of popular pressure. Your statement takes it out of this historical context and tries to invoke it as as example of a fundamental principle.
Now I’m sure you would not have much trouble convincing me that “the government” does a lot of stupid stuff, but to imply that “the government” is a sentient malevolent force as a matter of principle strikes me as simply tendentious.
A lot of government snafus can be traced to bureaucratic inertia, a trait of all large human institutions. Most of the rest is because We The People demanded they do something stupid, and the politicians running things are generally only too happy to oblige.
I find it fascinating that those who oppose, say, a hefty tax on carbon, are only too willing to throw huge gobs of money at the Department of Defense or squeal that environmentalists seek to reduce our standard of living; and then speak of cutting(always future) Social Security benefits in the context of “we can’t afford it” rather than “let’s reduce the standard of living of future beneficiaries”.
One good thing about rising sea level and increased storm surges… it’s probably going to get a few tidal barrages greenlighted in order to protect low lying coastal regions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26326560
One good thing about rising sea level and increased storm surges… it’s probably going to get a few tidal barrages greenlighted in order to protect low lying coastal regions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26326560
“So I expect (a) and (b) on the above list to be removed as reasons for using incandescents, in the near future.”
If by “near future”, you mean “within a couple of decades”, you’re probably right. But, that’s not when the ban kicked in, was it?
Flat screens replaced CRTs in a real hurry, because they were a genuine improvement on essentially every metric. Without the ban, I expect CFLs and LEDs would have gradually replaced incandescent bulbs, as the technology for both matured to the point where they were actually, rather than theoretically, superior.
The problem was that this wasn’t fast enough for some people.
Something similar is going on with wind and solar right now. As those technologies mature, they would quite naturally displace worse technologies, where they were actually better. Adoption is being forced ahead of this, by subsidies and mandates. The result is higher costs, and problems for the power grid’s stablity and efficiency.
“So I expect (a) and (b) on the above list to be removed as reasons for using incandescents, in the near future.”
If by “near future”, you mean “within a couple of decades”, you’re probably right. But, that’s not when the ban kicked in, was it?
Flat screens replaced CRTs in a real hurry, because they were a genuine improvement on essentially every metric. Without the ban, I expect CFLs and LEDs would have gradually replaced incandescent bulbs, as the technology for both matured to the point where they were actually, rather than theoretically, superior.
The problem was that this wasn’t fast enough for some people.
Something similar is going on with wind and solar right now. As those technologies mature, they would quite naturally displace worse technologies, where they were actually better. Adoption is being forced ahead of this, by subsidies and mandates. The result is higher costs, and problems for the power grid’s stablity and efficiency.
In response to thompson a couple of days back…
The stats. you cite relate to AC power delivered to grid, nationwide.
They are of limited relevance in assessing distributed solar, possibly backed with battery storage (which gets around the whole feed-in tariff tangle), in favourable regions for insolation.
Sure, the US is starting from a low base, but with the right conditions, it is possible to increase capacity very rapidly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Increase_in_german_solar_PV_as_a_percentage_of_total_electricity_consumption.svg
Obviously the US has far lower energy prices than Germany, but it has far better insolation, and PV is much cheaper/efficient than it was five years ago.
The US is (probably) about to build a new battery plant with annual production of battery storage equivalent to around 3% of total national generating capacity:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Elon-Musk-and-Tesla-Plan-Worlds-Biggest-Battery-Factory
That will be disruptive to the existing energy and/or auto markets irrespective of technical breakthroughs like the novel lithium polymer batteries using PFPE-DMC (which still looks pretty interesting to me).
In response to thompson a couple of days back…
The stats. you cite relate to AC power delivered to grid, nationwide.
They are of limited relevance in assessing distributed solar, possibly backed with battery storage (which gets around the whole feed-in tariff tangle), in favourable regions for insolation.
Sure, the US is starting from a low base, but with the right conditions, it is possible to increase capacity very rapidly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Increase_in_german_solar_PV_as_a_percentage_of_total_electricity_consumption.svg
Obviously the US has far lower energy prices than Germany, but it has far better insolation, and PV is much cheaper/efficient than it was five years ago.
The US is (probably) about to build a new battery plant with annual production of battery storage equivalent to around 3% of total national generating capacity:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Elon-Musk-and-Tesla-Plan-Worlds-Biggest-Battery-Factory
That will be disruptive to the existing energy and/or auto markets irrespective of technical breakthroughs like the novel lithium polymer batteries using PFPE-DMC (which still looks pretty interesting to me).
So how do you think we can go about doing either?
Force.
FWIW, I disagree with this.
IMO the basic goal of reducing carbon emissions, specifically, should be achievable through pricing.
So, cap and trade, or carbon tax, or what have you. Whatever approach could actually make its way into law.
We have a pretty good market economy here, pricing in the expected social and environmental cost of carbon should provide a sufficient impetus for private and less-than-federal government actors to find useful solutions.
We’ve had at least acceptable results with this approach in other areas, frex SO2 in the northeast.
And yes, there are lots of places where that would create hardship, so we should mitigate that, including via public action.
And what I’m thinking of in terms of “create hardship” is more along the lines of (for example) helping folks who live in rural areas, and whose primary or only means of getting around is by automobile, and less in terms of further subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
We should have done it 20 years ago. Better late than never.
So how do you think we can go about doing either?
Force.
FWIW, I disagree with this.
IMO the basic goal of reducing carbon emissions, specifically, should be achievable through pricing.
So, cap and trade, or carbon tax, or what have you. Whatever approach could actually make its way into law.
We have a pretty good market economy here, pricing in the expected social and environmental cost of carbon should provide a sufficient impetus for private and less-than-federal government actors to find useful solutions.
We’ve had at least acceptable results with this approach in other areas, frex SO2 in the northeast.
And yes, there are lots of places where that would create hardship, so we should mitigate that, including via public action.
And what I’m thinking of in terms of “create hardship” is more along the lines of (for example) helping folks who live in rural areas, and whose primary or only means of getting around is by automobile, and less in terms of further subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
We should have done it 20 years ago. Better late than never.
Footnote (2) points to a NOAA page that says:
So: 3 mm/year, currently. Perhaps less than that 100 years or so ago.
Footnote (2) points to a NOAA page that says:
So: 3 mm/year, currently. Perhaps less than that 100 years or so ago.
IMO the basic goal of reducing carbon emissions, specifically, should be achievable through pricing.
An eminently sensible approach. A few subsidies here and there and some more aggressive regulation in other areas is also well within the bounds of our political traditions, which see. As a polity, we have provided public subsidies and favors for certain groups since the founding of our nation.
The market has failed dismally to capture the costs of the externalities associated with carbon emissions. This is not to blame markets, but merely to note that in this instance they have failed at a very basic level.
There will be distributional effects as a result. Hashing these out will be a big political question….but hey, if we can recklessly and continuously implement public policies to make rich people richer then altering our goals and directing resources to promote the survival of the human species should be eminently acceptable and not a violation of an asserted “principle” whether it be clothed in the language of “liberty” or naked greed.
IMO the basic goal of reducing carbon emissions, specifically, should be achievable through pricing.
An eminently sensible approach. A few subsidies here and there and some more aggressive regulation in other areas is also well within the bounds of our political traditions, which see. As a polity, we have provided public subsidies and favors for certain groups since the founding of our nation.
The market has failed dismally to capture the costs of the externalities associated with carbon emissions. This is not to blame markets, but merely to note that in this instance they have failed at a very basic level.
There will be distributional effects as a result. Hashing these out will be a big political question….but hey, if we can recklessly and continuously implement public policies to make rich people richer then altering our goals and directing resources to promote the survival of the human species should be eminently acceptable and not a violation of an asserted “principle” whether it be clothed in the language of “liberty” or naked greed.
But, that’s not when the ban kicked in, was it?
Brett, can you buy an incandescent bulb in the US now?
But, that’s not when the ban kicked in, was it?
Brett, can you buy an incandescent bulb in the US now?
For Brett: http://metzerfarms.blogspot.com/2011/09/will-incandescent-heat-lamps-for.html
For Brett: http://metzerfarms.blogspot.com/2011/09/will-incandescent-heat-lamps-for.html
I don’t know what Brett is experiencing (in conservative Texas, as I recall). But here in notoriously liberal California it is entirely possible to buy an incandescent light bulb. So if there is a ban in the US, it is at the state level.
I don’t know what Brett is experiencing (in conservative Texas, as I recall). But here in notoriously liberal California it is entirely possible to buy an incandescent light bulb. So if there is a ban in the US, it is at the state level.
LJ:
I’ll try one more time to express my point, than I will stop antagonizing you. You said:
compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
I took this as an invocation of what we could accomplish when we were unified under a common threat. And there’s a lot to be said for that. During WWII, we built planes and tanks at rates considered ludicrous only a few years before. People united for the war effort. Rationed consumption, victory gardens, war bonds, scrap metal, etc etc. All for the war effort.
And it might be appealing to exert similar levels of social and political pressure to unify under the threat of global warming.
But that level of unity always comes at a cost. You convince people that there is a threat great enough, and they will yield money, rights, and the be complicit in the stripping of rights of others.
I brought up internment because it was the most relevant to your reference of WWII. You point out that that wasn’t just because of the war, but because of existing prejudice and interests. I’d agree but I think the war allowed it to nucleate.
But if you feel that event is too singular and too extreme (and I’ll grant you it’s extreme), I can use another to make my point.
During the cold war, we saw the rise of the MIC, rapid growth of our intelligence apparatus (not always well behaved), proxy wars around the globe, and McCarthyism. All asked for by the people and provided for by a democratically elected government. Because people were afraid, there were parties willing to use that fear to make money or advance their political fortunes, and dissent was often equated with betrayal.
After 9/11, we invaded Iraq on shoddy intelligence, allowed for the rapid growth in the reach of the NSA, utilized drone assassinations of questionable legality (at best), and began an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers (not all of them, just the ones we don’t like). Because people were afraid, and there are people willing to use that fear to advance political fortunes or make money.
To get away from actual wars, what about the war on drugs? Fueled by fear and propaganda, the US population is complicit in a massive prison population (biased heavily towards the poor and minorities) and the growth of a private prison industry.
I could go on, but my point is pretty simple: Existential threats, real or imagined, unite people. There are a lot of benefits to that in terms of dealing with a large problem, but there is always going to be people that are willing to capitalize on that existential threat and the “us vs them” mentality to act on their interests or their prejudices.
For that reason, I am troubled by comparisons global warming to WWII. Or the cold war, or the war on drugs, Or global war on terror, or whatever else.
bobbyp:
FDR’s incredibly bone headed executive order was in response to a great deal of popular pressure. Your statement takes it out of this historical context and tries to invoke it as as example of a fundamental principle.
I’m not trying to strip it of its historical context. And while I am trying to demonstrate a fundamental principle, its not the principle of “government bad.” I mentioned people were complicit, and apparently should have emphasized that more.
My point isn’t just that the government does bad things. But that the populace accepts and sometimes demands the government do bad things because they are afraid. And morals get fuzzy when our backs are against the wall (real or imagined), and it gets really easy to justify ANYTHING when you’re afraid. People shrug and say it was a necessary evil.
Most of the rest is because We The People demanded they do something stupid, and the politicians running things are generally only too happy to oblige.
Agree, and thanks for making my point better than I can.
Regarding taxation on pollution, I don’t have a huge problem with this in concept. The environment is a public commodity. I like having clean air and water. If a manufacturer wants to contaminate the air and the water supply, it makes sense that we, the people, get a say in how much is allowable and are compensated for it.
But, like all things, the devil is in the details.
LJ:
I’ll try one more time to express my point, than I will stop antagonizing you. You said:
compare this to the US in WWII. Was there a comprehensive understanding of the changes and compromises that were required in our daily lives to fight a global war?
I took this as an invocation of what we could accomplish when we were unified under a common threat. And there’s a lot to be said for that. During WWII, we built planes and tanks at rates considered ludicrous only a few years before. People united for the war effort. Rationed consumption, victory gardens, war bonds, scrap metal, etc etc. All for the war effort.
And it might be appealing to exert similar levels of social and political pressure to unify under the threat of global warming.
But that level of unity always comes at a cost. You convince people that there is a threat great enough, and they will yield money, rights, and the be complicit in the stripping of rights of others.
I brought up internment because it was the most relevant to your reference of WWII. You point out that that wasn’t just because of the war, but because of existing prejudice and interests. I’d agree but I think the war allowed it to nucleate.
But if you feel that event is too singular and too extreme (and I’ll grant you it’s extreme), I can use another to make my point.
During the cold war, we saw the rise of the MIC, rapid growth of our intelligence apparatus (not always well behaved), proxy wars around the globe, and McCarthyism. All asked for by the people and provided for by a democratically elected government. Because people were afraid, there were parties willing to use that fear to make money or advance their political fortunes, and dissent was often equated with betrayal.
After 9/11, we invaded Iraq on shoddy intelligence, allowed for the rapid growth in the reach of the NSA, utilized drone assassinations of questionable legality (at best), and began an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers (not all of them, just the ones we don’t like). Because people were afraid, and there are people willing to use that fear to advance political fortunes or make money.
To get away from actual wars, what about the war on drugs? Fueled by fear and propaganda, the US population is complicit in a massive prison population (biased heavily towards the poor and minorities) and the growth of a private prison industry.
I could go on, but my point is pretty simple: Existential threats, real or imagined, unite people. There are a lot of benefits to that in terms of dealing with a large problem, but there is always going to be people that are willing to capitalize on that existential threat and the “us vs them” mentality to act on their interests or their prejudices.
For that reason, I am troubled by comparisons global warming to WWII. Or the cold war, or the war on drugs, Or global war on terror, or whatever else.
bobbyp:
FDR’s incredibly bone headed executive order was in response to a great deal of popular pressure. Your statement takes it out of this historical context and tries to invoke it as as example of a fundamental principle.
I’m not trying to strip it of its historical context. And while I am trying to demonstrate a fundamental principle, its not the principle of “government bad.” I mentioned people were complicit, and apparently should have emphasized that more.
My point isn’t just that the government does bad things. But that the populace accepts and sometimes demands the government do bad things because they are afraid. And morals get fuzzy when our backs are against the wall (real or imagined), and it gets really easy to justify ANYTHING when you’re afraid. People shrug and say it was a necessary evil.
Most of the rest is because We The People demanded they do something stupid, and the politicians running things are generally only too happy to oblige.
Agree, and thanks for making my point better than I can.
Regarding taxation on pollution, I don’t have a huge problem with this in concept. The environment is a public commodity. I like having clean air and water. If a manufacturer wants to contaminate the air and the water supply, it makes sense that we, the people, get a say in how much is allowable and are compensated for it.
But, like all things, the devil is in the details.
OK, I’ll answer my own question.
Manufacture or import of normal 40 or 60 watt incandescent bulbs ended in this country on Jan 1 2014, if I’m not mistaken. Retailers can sell existing stocks until they run out.
100w and 120w were phased out earlier.
Once existing stocks run out, you won’t be able to buy good old bog-standard incandescent 40w and 60w bulbs anymore.
A very wide range of incandescent bulb types are, however, exempted. The list is here, but allow me save you a click:
So, if you need an incandescent for particular applications like closets, attics, basements, outdoor applications, chicken coops, lava lamps, or apparently even black lights, you will still be able to obtain one.
Folks who basically want to flip the bird to Uncle Sugar will probably like the rough service bulbs. They’re functionally identical to plain old incandescents. They cost more, but “cost more” in this case is measured in quarters rather than dollars. And, they last longer, so you’ll probably come out ahead.
And who knows, maybe some clever person will figure out a way to make an incandescent that meets the efficiency standard, in which case bob’s your uncle.
If your issue is incandescent bulbs per se, there is no issue.
If you simply object to the feds making efficiency standards for consumer products, you are correct, they have done so, and you will likely have to live with being offended.
OK, I’ll answer my own question.
Manufacture or import of normal 40 or 60 watt incandescent bulbs ended in this country on Jan 1 2014, if I’m not mistaken. Retailers can sell existing stocks until they run out.
100w and 120w were phased out earlier.
Once existing stocks run out, you won’t be able to buy good old bog-standard incandescent 40w and 60w bulbs anymore.
A very wide range of incandescent bulb types are, however, exempted. The list is here, but allow me save you a click:
So, if you need an incandescent for particular applications like closets, attics, basements, outdoor applications, chicken coops, lava lamps, or apparently even black lights, you will still be able to obtain one.
Folks who basically want to flip the bird to Uncle Sugar will probably like the rough service bulbs. They’re functionally identical to plain old incandescents. They cost more, but “cost more” in this case is measured in quarters rather than dollars. And, they last longer, so you’ll probably come out ahead.
And who knows, maybe some clever person will figure out a way to make an incandescent that meets the efficiency standard, in which case bob’s your uncle.
If your issue is incandescent bulbs per se, there is no issue.
If you simply object to the feds making efficiency standards for consumer products, you are correct, they have done so, and you will likely have to live with being offended.
The thing about regulations is they are usually written for the lowest common denominator of: experience, expectations, creativity etc.
This sometimes make life harder for those who ‘think outside of the box’
Exemptions can always be added as the need can be demonstrated.
The thing about regulations is they are usually written for the lowest common denominator of: experience, expectations, creativity etc.
This sometimes make life harder for those who ‘think outside of the box’
Exemptions can always be added as the need can be demonstrated.
Nigel:
Again, not really trying to be a downer here, but:
First of all, Germany is doing some good things with renewables. They have around 5.3% of their consumption provided by PV right now (an order of magnitude over the US). With projections saying it could be around 25% by 2050.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
While that’s great, I don’t view one of the most aggressive PV programs in the world in a country with high energy costs projecting 25% market share in 35 years as a contradiction that this is going to take time.
They are of limited relevance in assessing distributed solar, possibly backed with battery storage (which gets around the whole feed-in tariff tangle), in favourable regions for insolation.
And I’m all for DG, but there are problems implemented DG on a large scale if its tied to the grid. There’s also problems with backing it with battery tech that doesn’t exist yet.
You point out that one of the richest men in the world is currently building the largest battery plant in the world, and it will equal ~3% of national generation capacity. That’s a monumental achievement and not readily extensible to much higher numbers.
And don’t get me wrong, I think what Musk is doing is great. But notice what he’s doing:
Tesla built a limited run luxury car. And they did that because there was no way to build a huge number of cheap cars. *The technology wasn’t there.* It was a great way to work out kinks in technology while selling to a market filled with equivalently priced cars.
Tesla is expanding, making cheaper models, increasing production. But they are doing it slowly. This let’s them learn and iterate.
Sadly, that’s typically how advances go. Slow and iterative.
Regarding promising battery tech, as I’ve said before: There are promising technologies. There are regularly news stories about them. And there have been for years. It’s really hard to invent a new technology or material and commercialize it.
Some day, one of them is going to make it. And that will be great, and potentially quite disruptive. But that kind of advancement is really hard to predict.
Nigel:
Again, not really trying to be a downer here, but:
First of all, Germany is doing some good things with renewables. They have around 5.3% of their consumption provided by PV right now (an order of magnitude over the US). With projections saying it could be around 25% by 2050.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
While that’s great, I don’t view one of the most aggressive PV programs in the world in a country with high energy costs projecting 25% market share in 35 years as a contradiction that this is going to take time.
They are of limited relevance in assessing distributed solar, possibly backed with battery storage (which gets around the whole feed-in tariff tangle), in favourable regions for insolation.
And I’m all for DG, but there are problems implemented DG on a large scale if its tied to the grid. There’s also problems with backing it with battery tech that doesn’t exist yet.
You point out that one of the richest men in the world is currently building the largest battery plant in the world, and it will equal ~3% of national generation capacity. That’s a monumental achievement and not readily extensible to much higher numbers.
And don’t get me wrong, I think what Musk is doing is great. But notice what he’s doing:
Tesla built a limited run luxury car. And they did that because there was no way to build a huge number of cheap cars. *The technology wasn’t there.* It was a great way to work out kinks in technology while selling to a market filled with equivalently priced cars.
Tesla is expanding, making cheaper models, increasing production. But they are doing it slowly. This let’s them learn and iterate.
Sadly, that’s typically how advances go. Slow and iterative.
Regarding promising battery tech, as I’ve said before: There are promising technologies. There are regularly news stories about them. And there have been for years. It’s really hard to invent a new technology or material and commercialize it.
Some day, one of them is going to make it. And that will be great, and potentially quite disruptive. But that kind of advancement is really hard to predict.
russel, thanks for the list!
“6. Left-hand thread lamps”
They can have my left-hand thread lamps when they unscrew them from my cold, dead, left hand.
You just know that having them on the ‘exempted’ list is a left-wing plot, don’t you, comrades?
russel, thanks for the list!
“6. Left-hand thread lamps”
They can have my left-hand thread lamps when they unscrew them from my cold, dead, left hand.
You just know that having them on the ‘exempted’ list is a left-wing plot, don’t you, comrades?
Thompson, I agree with your point that “the moral equivalent of war” or an actual war or something in-between like the War on Terror gives the government an excuse to abuse its authority. And conceivably this could happen with global warming. If it does–if people are spied on or assassinated or tortured or in some way have their rights violated, then I’ll be there alongside you criticizing whatever is happening. But it seems to be we’re a long long way from anything remotely like that happening. People are much more willing to give the government a blank check to violate rights when it’s a question of scary foreigners.
Thompson, I agree with your point that “the moral equivalent of war” or an actual war or something in-between like the War on Terror gives the government an excuse to abuse its authority. And conceivably this could happen with global warming. If it does–if people are spied on or assassinated or tortured or in some way have their rights violated, then I’ll be there alongside you criticizing whatever is happening. But it seems to be we’re a long long way from anything remotely like that happening. People are much more willing to give the government a blank check to violate rights when it’s a question of scary foreigners.
Donald:
But it seems to be we’re a long long way from anything remotely like that happening.
I’d agree we’re a long way away, left leaning bias on fixture threading aside. I just am edgy when war or “the moral equivalent of war” is brought up and related to current policy discussions.
People are much more willing to give the government a blank check to violate rights when it’s a question of scary foreigners.
I’d say it’s more when they think it isn’t being applied to *them*. Other americans are fair game, as long as it doesn’t effect you or yours. The drug war is a good example of that.
I don’t smoke crack, so why should I care about those sentencing guidelines? I don’t smoke weed so why should I worry about people rotting in jail for it? Or, alternatively, I DO smoke weed, but I do it safely and privately, not like those other people that are reckless and dangerous and coincidentally couldn’t afford the lawyer I can. Etc, Etc.
Or the NSA datamining: Well, I don’t talk to terrorists, so why should I care if metadata is hoovered up? Oh, a friend of Manning is repeatably detained at the airport and has property seized? Well, I don’t like Manning and his friends probably have it coming, isn’t he a traitor after all?
Or broadly, 4th amendment rights. Why should I care about what rights criminals have? It’s not like the police are busting down my door.
Etc, Etc. I don’t think its just scary foreigners.
Donald:
But it seems to be we’re a long long way from anything remotely like that happening.
I’d agree we’re a long way away, left leaning bias on fixture threading aside. I just am edgy when war or “the moral equivalent of war” is brought up and related to current policy discussions.
People are much more willing to give the government a blank check to violate rights when it’s a question of scary foreigners.
I’d say it’s more when they think it isn’t being applied to *them*. Other americans are fair game, as long as it doesn’t effect you or yours. The drug war is a good example of that.
I don’t smoke crack, so why should I care about those sentencing guidelines? I don’t smoke weed so why should I worry about people rotting in jail for it? Or, alternatively, I DO smoke weed, but I do it safely and privately, not like those other people that are reckless and dangerous and coincidentally couldn’t afford the lawyer I can. Etc, Etc.
Or the NSA datamining: Well, I don’t talk to terrorists, so why should I care if metadata is hoovered up? Oh, a friend of Manning is repeatably detained at the airport and has property seized? Well, I don’t like Manning and his friends probably have it coming, isn’t he a traitor after all?
Or broadly, 4th amendment rights. Why should I care about what rights criminals have? It’s not like the police are busting down my door.
Etc, Etc. I don’t think its just scary foreigners.
They can have my left-hand thread lamps when they unscrew them from my cold, dead, left hand.
Actually, this was a plot by the lamp manufacturers, all of whom are headquartered in China, to increase the output of left handed lamps, sockets, and fixtures, and thus their ill-gotten financial swag.
You might also recall the quite disappearance of the two pronged electrical socket. Who needs a damned ground anyway?
They can have my left-hand thread lamps when they unscrew them from my cold, dead, left hand.
Actually, this was a plot by the lamp manufacturers, all of whom are headquartered in China, to increase the output of left handed lamps, sockets, and fixtures, and thus their ill-gotten financial swag.
You might also recall the quite disappearance of the two pronged electrical socket. Who needs a damned ground anyway?
Thompson–You’re right that it’s not just scary foreigners. I agree with all you say there. Again, though, I have a lot of trouble imagining when or how those sorts of governmental abuses ever being applied against people in the name of fighting global warming. I suppose it could, but we are so far away from taking climate change seriously this possible form of government overreach is somewhere around number 5,000 on my list of political concerns.
Thompson–You’re right that it’s not just scary foreigners. I agree with all you say there. Again, though, I have a lot of trouble imagining when or how those sorts of governmental abuses ever being applied against people in the name of fighting global warming. I suppose it could, but we are so far away from taking climate change seriously this possible form of government overreach is somewhere around number 5,000 on my list of political concerns.
Some grammatical errors in my previous post-I wish there was some sort of edit function. Anyway, my meaning is probably clear enough, or as clear as my meanings ever are.
Some grammatical errors in my previous post-I wish there was some sort of edit function. Anyway, my meaning is probably clear enough, or as clear as my meanings ever are.
Thompson,
Thank you for the reply.
As to post WWII developments you list, I tend to see this in the context of our supreme power position as we emerged from the war, the Cold War, and subsequent events. Institutional overreach in the context of geopolitics, history, and the long tradition of American exceptionalism goes a long way toward analyzing how we came to this pass.
We have chosen to be the way we are. We can chose differently going forward.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as Rand Paul who offer a few limp wristed critiques of our intelligence program and cry “Liberty” or “States Rights” all the time. Historically such people have been diametrically opposed to the concepts we hold dear (cf. Civil Rights), and “going soft” on drug policy is not going to overcome our disgust for their politics and their standard advocacy that we protect, if not expand the power of the already powerful.
Thank you for your time.
Thompson,
Thank you for the reply.
As to post WWII developments you list, I tend to see this in the context of our supreme power position as we emerged from the war, the Cold War, and subsequent events. Institutional overreach in the context of geopolitics, history, and the long tradition of American exceptionalism goes a long way toward analyzing how we came to this pass.
We have chosen to be the way we are. We can chose differently going forward.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as Rand Paul who offer a few limp wristed critiques of our intelligence program and cry “Liberty” or “States Rights” all the time. Historically such people have been diametrically opposed to the concepts we hold dear (cf. Civil Rights), and “going soft” on drug policy is not going to overcome our disgust for their politics and their standard advocacy that we protect, if not expand the power of the already powerful.
Thank you for your time.
Hi thompson, no worries, you’re not antagonizing me. I appreciate the time you take to set out your points.
I’d just echo what Donald and bobbyp pointed out and add this. If you accept that anti-Asian sentiment and monied interests provided the foundation for the internment, by making government action the target of your ire rather than dealing with those foundational causes, you are basically fighting in the last trench. And the big problem I have with that is that a lot of other people in that trench are in there because they don’t want to fight over dealing with scary foreigners, or worrying about vested interests, but want to convince themselves that they are for justice and the American way. You are basically being taken for a ride and you are signing up for approaches like building a wall on the border and accepting that driving while black is probable cause. You can say ‘oh no, I don’t believe anything like that’, but a lot of the folks in that last trench with you are there specifically because they don’t want to be in the other trenches.
And if the main way that we have to deal with it is ridicule, name-calling and social ostracization, you are going to end up with them. I don’t particularly wish that on anyone (though there are exceptions) but I wish it the least on those who understand how problematic the first two trenches are.
Hi thompson, no worries, you’re not antagonizing me. I appreciate the time you take to set out your points.
I’d just echo what Donald and bobbyp pointed out and add this. If you accept that anti-Asian sentiment and monied interests provided the foundation for the internment, by making government action the target of your ire rather than dealing with those foundational causes, you are basically fighting in the last trench. And the big problem I have with that is that a lot of other people in that trench are in there because they don’t want to fight over dealing with scary foreigners, or worrying about vested interests, but want to convince themselves that they are for justice and the American way. You are basically being taken for a ride and you are signing up for approaches like building a wall on the border and accepting that driving while black is probable cause. You can say ‘oh no, I don’t believe anything like that’, but a lot of the folks in that last trench with you are there specifically because they don’t want to be in the other trenches.
And if the main way that we have to deal with it is ridicule, name-calling and social ostracization, you are going to end up with them. I don’t particularly wish that on anyone (though there are exceptions) but I wish it the least on those who understand how problematic the first two trenches are.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as …
This lefty is deeply suspicious of the collusion of government with corporations and the people who run them.
People being shipped off to government-run concentration camps under color of “addressing global warming” doesn’t seem very likely, to me.
Nor, really, anything approaching that.
The place that “intrusive government” is going to show up is if the predicted effects of climate change begin to appear, and we haven’t done anything to prepare for them.
At that point, government will intrude by popular demand.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as …
This lefty is deeply suspicious of the collusion of government with corporations and the people who run them.
People being shipped off to government-run concentration camps under color of “addressing global warming” doesn’t seem very likely, to me.
Nor, really, anything approaching that.
The place that “intrusive government” is going to show up is if the predicted effects of climate change begin to appear, and we haven’t done anything to prepare for them.
At that point, government will intrude by popular demand.
So: 3 mm/year, currently. Perhaps less than that 100 years or so ago.
I can accept that, and 20 years is not a very big data set, high noise to signal ratio, etc. However, please note that most of the extrapolations specifically ignore as yet unknown feedback effects….but to clarify, the feedbacks are not unknown, but the extent of their possible impact is undoubtedly guesswork at this point.
I would wager that, absent serious climate policy changes, we are in for a ‘fat tailed’ series of future events, demonstrating that we most likely all fall abysmally below the bell curve.
A sad state of affairs indeed, but not totally unknown.
So: 3 mm/year, currently. Perhaps less than that 100 years or so ago.
I can accept that, and 20 years is not a very big data set, high noise to signal ratio, etc. However, please note that most of the extrapolations specifically ignore as yet unknown feedback effects….but to clarify, the feedbacks are not unknown, but the extent of their possible impact is undoubtedly guesswork at this point.
I would wager that, absent serious climate policy changes, we are in for a ‘fat tailed’ series of future events, demonstrating that we most likely all fall abysmally below the bell curve.
A sad state of affairs indeed, but not totally unknown.
Donald:
Again, though, I have a lot of trouble imagining when or how those sorts of governmental abuses ever being applied against people in the name of fighting global warming.
We’re talking about potential sea level rise, shocks to the food market, strain on the water supply, increasing energy prices, etc etc. If any of that materializes, or people are convinced it will, I can readily see fracture lines in this country between areas that have more and less water, between coastal and non coastal, and of course, rich vs poor.
I suppose it could, but we are so far away from taking climate change seriously this possible form of government overreach is somewhere around number 5,000 on my list of political concerns.
I’d agree. It’s not right up there on my list either. But I responded to a comment looking for a WWII-level response. It doesn’t get much bigger than that, and sharply curtailed liberties for far less.
Although, I’m beginning to think I may have misunderstood LJ’s original point.
LJ:
Ok, I think I see where you are coming from (I think, if I get it wrong, let me know).
by making government action the target of your ire rather than dealing with those foundational causes
So, I have 2 problems with this.
(1) I have a lot of ire to go around. In your trench example, I’d view a defense in depth as the right strategy, not focusing on any one trench. I focus on the “last trench” in this case because that’s where we differ?
(2) Those specific interests are gone, but there are more. And IMHO, there always will be more. There is always going to be people or organizations with influence. And those players should always be combated directly, but I don’t view that as sufficient.
But what many (not all) of them have in common is that they are greatly enabled by the government (and by government I’m not trying to refer to an evil villain living in a volcano somewhere, but a democratically elected government subject to popular pressure).
It’s a part of democracy: If something terrible is going to happen, or we think it will, we’ll give power to the government. And if an interest group can ride that wave of popular demand for action, they can benefit and other groups can suffer.
Upping the rhetoric to a point where this is possible, and the results of doing so, are demonstrated in the wars and “the moral equivalent of wars” (I like that phrase) in our past and present.
You are basically being taken for a ride and you are signing up for approaches like building a wall on the border and accepting that driving while black is probable cause.
And here’s where I get completely lost, so if I miss something, sorry, let me know.
I’m lost because those are examples of *exactly what I’m arguing against.*
Populist fear: immigrants are stealing our jobs and are criminals. Government response: Spend ridiculous sums of money “securing” the border, loosen constitutional protections near the border, and engage in fairly extreme LE activities.
Populist fear: Minorities commit crimes. Government response: DWB because he looked suspicious I swear or he left his blinker on to long or whatever BS excuse is needed.
The government (in response to populist pressure) is securing the border and pulling over minorities. That populist pressure is helped along by inflammatory rhetoric.
You can say ‘oh no, I don’t believe anything like that’, but a lot of the folks in that last trench with you
And this I flat out object to. If I am in a trench (based on what, exactly, my belief that the government is used as a tool by the rich and connected?), I lose standing because *other people* that I might agree with *sometimes* have other beliefs that I disagree with?
If that isn’t “us vs. them” being taken to new and dangerous locales, I don’t know what is.
And I want to again reiterate, if I’m responding to a misinterpretation of what you’ve said, let me know. But my interpretation of what you said is basically I can’t be (more) concerned about government overreach, because some other people that are concerned to a similar level are racist (or otherwise stupid).
And if the main way that we have to deal with it is ridicule, name-calling and social ostracization, you are going to end up with them.
Well, if you ostracize me (your right, certainly), I probably would just go somewhere else. Hell, if you asked me politely, I’d go somewhere else. Not looking to antagonize, just enjoy the conversation.
And bobbyp, last but not least:
We have chosen to be the way we are. We can chose differently going forward.
I’m not arguing that we should do MORE of those things.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as Rand Paul who offer a few limp wristed critiques of our intelligence program and cry “Liberty” or “States Rights” all the time.
I get that, but I’m not Rand Paul and that’s why I’m trying to show a more moderate face to libertarianism.
expand the power of the already powerful.
You’ll find I’m quite against powerful interests, and yes, I realize the government is often required to combat them. I draw a distinction, however, as I’m sure you do, between the government being necessary to promote the general welfare and finding it a zero sum game: e.g. not every government power is used “fighting the good fight”.
Donald:
Again, though, I have a lot of trouble imagining when or how those sorts of governmental abuses ever being applied against people in the name of fighting global warming.
We’re talking about potential sea level rise, shocks to the food market, strain on the water supply, increasing energy prices, etc etc. If any of that materializes, or people are convinced it will, I can readily see fracture lines in this country between areas that have more and less water, between coastal and non coastal, and of course, rich vs poor.
I suppose it could, but we are so far away from taking climate change seriously this possible form of government overreach is somewhere around number 5,000 on my list of political concerns.
I’d agree. It’s not right up there on my list either. But I responded to a comment looking for a WWII-level response. It doesn’t get much bigger than that, and sharply curtailed liberties for far less.
Although, I’m beginning to think I may have misunderstood LJ’s original point.
LJ:
Ok, I think I see where you are coming from (I think, if I get it wrong, let me know).
by making government action the target of your ire rather than dealing with those foundational causes
So, I have 2 problems with this.
(1) I have a lot of ire to go around. In your trench example, I’d view a defense in depth as the right strategy, not focusing on any one trench. I focus on the “last trench” in this case because that’s where we differ?
(2) Those specific interests are gone, but there are more. And IMHO, there always will be more. There is always going to be people or organizations with influence. And those players should always be combated directly, but I don’t view that as sufficient.
But what many (not all) of them have in common is that they are greatly enabled by the government (and by government I’m not trying to refer to an evil villain living in a volcano somewhere, but a democratically elected government subject to popular pressure).
It’s a part of democracy: If something terrible is going to happen, or we think it will, we’ll give power to the government. And if an interest group can ride that wave of popular demand for action, they can benefit and other groups can suffer.
Upping the rhetoric to a point where this is possible, and the results of doing so, are demonstrated in the wars and “the moral equivalent of wars” (I like that phrase) in our past and present.
You are basically being taken for a ride and you are signing up for approaches like building a wall on the border and accepting that driving while black is probable cause.
And here’s where I get completely lost, so if I miss something, sorry, let me know.
I’m lost because those are examples of *exactly what I’m arguing against.*
Populist fear: immigrants are stealing our jobs and are criminals. Government response: Spend ridiculous sums of money “securing” the border, loosen constitutional protections near the border, and engage in fairly extreme LE activities.
Populist fear: Minorities commit crimes. Government response: DWB because he looked suspicious I swear or he left his blinker on to long or whatever BS excuse is needed.
The government (in response to populist pressure) is securing the border and pulling over minorities. That populist pressure is helped along by inflammatory rhetoric.
You can say ‘oh no, I don’t believe anything like that’, but a lot of the folks in that last trench with you
And this I flat out object to. If I am in a trench (based on what, exactly, my belief that the government is used as a tool by the rich and connected?), I lose standing because *other people* that I might agree with *sometimes* have other beliefs that I disagree with?
If that isn’t “us vs. them” being taken to new and dangerous locales, I don’t know what is.
And I want to again reiterate, if I’m responding to a misinterpretation of what you’ve said, let me know. But my interpretation of what you said is basically I can’t be (more) concerned about government overreach, because some other people that are concerned to a similar level are racist (or otherwise stupid).
And if the main way that we have to deal with it is ridicule, name-calling and social ostracization, you are going to end up with them.
Well, if you ostracize me (your right, certainly), I probably would just go somewhere else. Hell, if you asked me politely, I’d go somewhere else. Not looking to antagonize, just enjoy the conversation.
And bobbyp, last but not least:
We have chosen to be the way we are. We can chose differently going forward.
I’m not arguing that we should do MORE of those things.
It also helps to understand that many lefties are deeply suspicious of folks such as Rand Paul who offer a few limp wristed critiques of our intelligence program and cry “Liberty” or “States Rights” all the time.
I get that, but I’m not Rand Paul and that’s why I’m trying to show a more moderate face to libertarianism.
expand the power of the already powerful.
You’ll find I’m quite against powerful interests, and yes, I realize the government is often required to combat them. I draw a distinction, however, as I’m sure you do, between the government being necessary to promote the general welfare and finding it a zero sum game: e.g. not every government power is used “fighting the good fight”.
“Populist fear: immigrants are stealing our jobs and are criminals. Government response: Spend ridiculous sums of money “securing” the border, loosen constitutional protections near the border, and engage in fairly extreme
LE activities.”
Actually, the government’s response has been to refuse to secure the border, regardless of popular demand for doing so. About the most glaring example of democracy failing you could imagine.
“Populist fear: immigrants are stealing our jobs and are criminals. Government response: Spend ridiculous sums of money “securing” the border, loosen constitutional protections near the border, and engage in fairly extreme
LE activities.”
Actually, the government’s response has been to refuse to secure the border, regardless of popular demand for doing so. About the most glaring example of democracy failing you could imagine.
Well, thompson, you are relatively new around here (nothing wrong with that), but you came in on ‘climate change is the height of government overreach’ rather than any of those other points of dealing with racism, drug legalization, etc. It may be that you are equally exercised about those things, but for me to deduce that would be to assume from something you haven’t written yet. I see attempts to disenfranchise minorities, unequally applied drug laws and all that happened after 9-11 as serious problems, and I accept that you do as well. I just can’t draw a line between those and incandescent bulbs or higher CAFE standards.
And, right on cue, Brett comes in to defend the border. In fact, Brett is so exercised about it that he didn’t close his tags, so I had to drop into superuser and close them for him. The general pattern for him is ALL CAPS followed by italics to let us know how important these things are. Brett’s in that last trench with you, and everytime we try to talk him out of it, he goes to LAVA LAMPS and chicken coops.
I mean, you can be concerned about government overreach, and the fact that you are doesn’t mean that you are racist or stupid. I know lots of people like that. But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I mean, I agree that not every use of government power is fighting the good fight, and government has to have limits, but grasping at straws like solar flares against the background of actual goverment action on these does not make me think that this is one of those times.
I’m not trying to ostracize you (or Brett even, though I don’t hold his viewpoint in very high esteem), and my discussion about that was how this works on a society wide basis, not within this blog. If I have some problem with what you wrote, I’ll try to be as straight up as possible. Promise.
Well, thompson, you are relatively new around here (nothing wrong with that), but you came in on ‘climate change is the height of government overreach’ rather than any of those other points of dealing with racism, drug legalization, etc. It may be that you are equally exercised about those things, but for me to deduce that would be to assume from something you haven’t written yet. I see attempts to disenfranchise minorities, unequally applied drug laws and all that happened after 9-11 as serious problems, and I accept that you do as well. I just can’t draw a line between those and incandescent bulbs or higher CAFE standards.
And, right on cue, Brett comes in to defend the border. In fact, Brett is so exercised about it that he didn’t close his tags, so I had to drop into superuser and close them for him. The general pattern for him is ALL CAPS followed by italics to let us know how important these things are. Brett’s in that last trench with you, and everytime we try to talk him out of it, he goes to LAVA LAMPS and chicken coops.
I mean, you can be concerned about government overreach, and the fact that you are doesn’t mean that you are racist or stupid. I know lots of people like that. But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I mean, I agree that not every use of government power is fighting the good fight, and government has to have limits, but grasping at straws like solar flares against the background of actual goverment action on these does not make me think that this is one of those times.
I’m not trying to ostracize you (or Brett even, though I don’t hold his viewpoint in very high esteem), and my discussion about that was how this works on a society wide basis, not within this blog. If I have some problem with what you wrote, I’ll try to be as straight up as possible. Promise.
LJ:
If I was lost before…I don’t even know what I am now.
but you came in on ‘climate change is the height of government overreach’
I think, to be historically accurate, I came in on the ‘ACA is the height of government overreach’. And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything approaching that phrase. I believe my regular point at the time was more that I didn’t think it would work, although there are definitely individual liberty impacts as well.
But my points on climate change have been: renewables are promising tech, wind is price equivalent to carbon, PV is on its way, we should bridge the gap with fission so we can wind down coal sooner. Also technology isn’t magic, and it takes time to develop and deploy. I think sooner is better, because at some point extreme action will be taken and that’s not great for liberty. I don’t think spite-hummers are really the problem and I think war rhetoric can be dangerous to personal liberties. That last one led us on a tangent, and I should have chosen a better example for it.
I understand you may disagree with most of that, but I hardly think that qualifies as:
But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I’ll admit I probably have more sympathy for Brett that most of the commentators here, but seriously? On this topic, one the first exchanges was me disagreeing with Brett. And I’ve continued to disagree with him at various points throughout the thread.
I have, at various points on multiple threads, agreed and disagreed with Brett. I suppose I could go dig through them and find a list of agreements and disagreements, if I thought that I needed to quantify or justify when and to what extent I agreed with Brett.
And you even noted Brett, just now, disagreeing with something I’ve said.
And, to be clear, I don’t view anything wrong with agreeing with Brett, its not a cardinal sin in my book, nor a sacred requirement. Honestly, there are few things that influence my beliefs less than “Hmm, what does Brett think about this?”
But because I have sometimes, not all the time, agreed with someone you disagree with, I am saddled with “disdain for (my) views”.
This strikes me as a great example of an “us vs. them” mentality. IMHO, I am not fan of that.
To be clear, I’m not asking you to be a mind reader, nor do I mind the occasional misattribution. I’m not that great of a writer (one of the reasons I thought I should start commenting. Learn from my mistakes). And I’m sure my mistakes in expressing myself contribute to people not understanding what I think (obviously).
I mean, I agree that not every use of government power is fighting the good fight, and government has to have limits, but grasping at straws like solar flares against the background of actual goverment action on these does not make me think that this is one of those times.
So, to be clear, I’ve never said anything about solar flares. So, not sure where that’s coming from. But it seems like you agree on the point I did make…so, ok, I guess?
Maybe I’m not differentiating the concepts enough, because there were several disparate things I was commenting on? I don’t think the government is taking a lot of invasive actions now (well, not in this regard). But I think there is great potential for it to do so. Especially if there is repeated flooding, or shocks to the food or water supply, or the broad impression that there will be.
I’m not trying to ostracize you…and my discussion about that was how this works on a society wide basis, not within this blog
Sorry, I connected that thought with the earlier ones directed at me. I didn’t (still don’t) feel ostracized. I just thought you were saying that’s what you would have to resort to if you were tired of my crap and wanted to give you another option.
Society wide, sure, ostracizing people can be a very powerful tool. I’d be hesitant to deploy it now, for reasons I mentioned above (echo chambers, etc). I just don’t think its going to work.
PS: Brett, sorry, I wasn’t trying to bag on you. You were just the example that was used.
LJ:
If I was lost before…I don’t even know what I am now.
but you came in on ‘climate change is the height of government overreach’
I think, to be historically accurate, I came in on the ‘ACA is the height of government overreach’. And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything approaching that phrase. I believe my regular point at the time was more that I didn’t think it would work, although there are definitely individual liberty impacts as well.
But my points on climate change have been: renewables are promising tech, wind is price equivalent to carbon, PV is on its way, we should bridge the gap with fission so we can wind down coal sooner. Also technology isn’t magic, and it takes time to develop and deploy. I think sooner is better, because at some point extreme action will be taken and that’s not great for liberty. I don’t think spite-hummers are really the problem and I think war rhetoric can be dangerous to personal liberties. That last one led us on a tangent, and I should have chosen a better example for it.
I understand you may disagree with most of that, but I hardly think that qualifies as:
But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I’ll admit I probably have more sympathy for Brett that most of the commentators here, but seriously? On this topic, one the first exchanges was me disagreeing with Brett. And I’ve continued to disagree with him at various points throughout the thread.
I have, at various points on multiple threads, agreed and disagreed with Brett. I suppose I could go dig through them and find a list of agreements and disagreements, if I thought that I needed to quantify or justify when and to what extent I agreed with Brett.
And you even noted Brett, just now, disagreeing with something I’ve said.
And, to be clear, I don’t view anything wrong with agreeing with Brett, its not a cardinal sin in my book, nor a sacred requirement. Honestly, there are few things that influence my beliefs less than “Hmm, what does Brett think about this?”
But because I have sometimes, not all the time, agreed with someone you disagree with, I am saddled with “disdain for (my) views”.
This strikes me as a great example of an “us vs. them” mentality. IMHO, I am not fan of that.
To be clear, I’m not asking you to be a mind reader, nor do I mind the occasional misattribution. I’m not that great of a writer (one of the reasons I thought I should start commenting. Learn from my mistakes). And I’m sure my mistakes in expressing myself contribute to people not understanding what I think (obviously).
I mean, I agree that not every use of government power is fighting the good fight, and government has to have limits, but grasping at straws like solar flares against the background of actual goverment action on these does not make me think that this is one of those times.
So, to be clear, I’ve never said anything about solar flares. So, not sure where that’s coming from. But it seems like you agree on the point I did make…so, ok, I guess?
Maybe I’m not differentiating the concepts enough, because there were several disparate things I was commenting on? I don’t think the government is taking a lot of invasive actions now (well, not in this regard). But I think there is great potential for it to do so. Especially if there is repeated flooding, or shocks to the food or water supply, or the broad impression that there will be.
I’m not trying to ostracize you…and my discussion about that was how this works on a society wide basis, not within this blog
Sorry, I connected that thought with the earlier ones directed at me. I didn’t (still don’t) feel ostracized. I just thought you were saying that’s what you would have to resort to if you were tired of my crap and wanted to give you another option.
Society wide, sure, ostracizing people can be a very powerful tool. I’d be hesitant to deploy it now, for reasons I mentioned above (echo chambers, etc). I just don’t think its going to work.
PS: Brett, sorry, I wasn’t trying to bag on you. You were just the example that was used.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make my comments ‘directed at you’. They were directed at your trenchmates, basically. In trying to explain why a belief of the government taking steps to deal with climate change is government overreach can be linked to a lot of other problems, it may have seemed like I was attributing all of those things to you. I’m not, and I apologize, that is not what I intended. I take it on faith that even though you are deeply skeptical of government taking power, you abhor racism and the influence of vested interests in the political system. I hope that you are not objecting to government stepping in to deal with systemic problems like racism or problems of vested interests, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I’m just trying to explain why you may have gotten some flak, that’s all. If you reread this
But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I got the impression that you were feeling the weight of several commentators emphasizing similar points and I was just pointing out where that may be coming from. This is not to stop you from agreeing with whoever you like, I’m just trying to explain the dynamic. As I said, if I have a problem with what you say, I’ll try to make sure you realize it. If you have to think ‘was that aimed at me’, it probably wasn’t.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make my comments ‘directed at you’. They were directed at your trenchmates, basically. In trying to explain why a belief of the government taking steps to deal with climate change is government overreach can be linked to a lot of other problems, it may have seemed like I was attributing all of those things to you. I’m not, and I apologize, that is not what I intended. I take it on faith that even though you are deeply skeptical of government taking power, you abhor racism and the influence of vested interests in the political system. I hope that you are not objecting to government stepping in to deal with systemic problems like racism or problems of vested interests, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I’m just trying to explain why you may have gotten some flak, that’s all. If you reread this
But what I’m saying is that piping up every time Brett comes in to explain why he may have a point may have you treated as part and parcel which is why you may be feeling a bit of disdain for your views.
I got the impression that you were feeling the weight of several commentators emphasizing similar points and I was just pointing out where that may be coming from. This is not to stop you from agreeing with whoever you like, I’m just trying to explain the dynamic. As I said, if I have a problem with what you say, I’ll try to make sure you realize it. If you have to think ‘was that aimed at me’, it probably wasn’t.
“In fact, Brett is so exercised about it that he didn’t close his tags,”
In fact, I was trying out my new smart phone, and thanks to my cataract surgery, I can’t really read the screen. Told my wife that a tablet with VOIP would be more practical…
“In fact, Brett is so exercised about it that he didn’t close his tags,”
In fact, I was trying out my new smart phone, and thanks to my cataract surgery, I can’t really read the screen. Told my wife that a tablet with VOIP would be more practical…
Sorry to hear that Brett, I’ve had similar problems since my detached retina surgery last year. I couldn’t imagine trying to comment on my smart phone.
Sorry to hear that Brett, I’ve had similar problems since my detached retina surgery last year. I couldn’t imagine trying to comment on my smart phone.
I’m somewhat philosophical about it; I got the cataracts thanks to chemo, but the chemo was successful. It seems rather ungrateful to complain about the side effects of having my life saved.
Anyway, the reading glasses I’m now forced to wear occasionally have taken the place of coke bottle glasses I formerly wore all my waking hours for extreme nearsightedness. I suppose I’ll always miss being able to read microfilm unaided, but on the whole it was a change for the better, even if I’m now fixed focus.
I’m somewhat philosophical about it; I got the cataracts thanks to chemo, but the chemo was successful. It seems rather ungrateful to complain about the side effects of having my life saved.
Anyway, the reading glasses I’m now forced to wear occasionally have taken the place of coke bottle glasses I formerly wore all my waking hours for extreme nearsightedness. I suppose I’ll always miss being able to read microfilm unaided, but on the whole it was a change for the better, even if I’m now fixed focus.
I got the impression that you were feeling the weight of several commentators emphasizing similar points and I was just pointing out where that may be coming from.
Oh, no. Not at all. Well, a little, but I get that. I know where and why I get flak. Like I told bobbyp, I’m trying to show a more moderate face to something you, and others, don’t agree with. I feel like flak is part of deal of the deal.
I thought you were broadly justifying that sort of transference as not just understandable, but as a good thing. Like, really, there are 2 trenches, and if you’re not in mine, you’re in theirs. But it seems like I just didn’t understand what you were saying.
So, yeah, sorry I didn’t get it, a lot of comments now seem unnecessarily harsh.
I got the impression that you were feeling the weight of several commentators emphasizing similar points and I was just pointing out where that may be coming from.
Oh, no. Not at all. Well, a little, but I get that. I know where and why I get flak. Like I told bobbyp, I’m trying to show a more moderate face to something you, and others, don’t agree with. I feel like flak is part of deal of the deal.
I thought you were broadly justifying that sort of transference as not just understandable, but as a good thing. Like, really, there are 2 trenches, and if you’re not in mine, you’re in theirs. But it seems like I just didn’t understand what you were saying.
So, yeah, sorry I didn’t get it, a lot of comments now seem unnecessarily harsh.
Hi, thompson. Thanks again for the response.
And I’m all for DG, but there are problems implemented DG on a large scale if its tied to the grid. There’s also problems with backing it with battery tech that doesn’t exist yet.
Of course there are problems – not least that DG terrifies the current power utilities: 5% solar in Germany has played havoc with their pricing.
The battery tech does exist – you can order solar plus storage today, but subsidised feed in tariffs and high cost make it fairly unattractive to domestic customers (whereas industrial customers will probably install quite a bit over the next couple of years).
While that’s great, I don’t view one of the most aggressive PV programs in the world in a country with high energy costs projecting 25% market share in 35 years as a contradiction that this is going to take time.
That’s history, and in any event I don’t regard any 35 year technology projection as meaningful. The difference between how Germany got where they are today and where the US is starting from now is substantial.
Photovoltaic systems are dramatically cheaper and more efficient than even 5 years ago – partly thanks to Germany pioneering the market for mass scale domestic installation.
As far as battery storage is concerned, even without dramatic tech breakthroughs, it’s not unreasonable to assume that energy densities will improve at the historic average of a around 8% pa (doubling every nine years). A doubling of energy densities coupled with a halving of costs would (for example) obsolete the internal combustion engine quite quickly.
You point out that one of the richest men in the world is currently building the largest battery plant in the world, and it will equal ~3% of national generation capacity. That’s a monumental achievement and not readily extensible to much higher numbers.
I think you are wrong here. Nissan has already got a couple of new plants up and running for the same reasons as Tesla. Some of the big components manufacturers have seen the writing on the wall:
http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=6653&tk_id=107
The growing size and potential of the market means commercial research spending is accelerating. As production costs drop with economies of scale, demand increases.
Lots of plant are going to get built over the next decade.
I never claimed this would not take time, but I think you underestimate how quickly the car market in particular is going to drive the process over the next 10 years.
Germany went from 0.5 to 5% in around five years with favourable pricing – but much crappier technology. I think the US has much more headroom.
I’m not in the least Panglossian about this, but it seems pretty obvious that the necessary technical breakthroughs are going to made long before any political ones (certainly in the US).
The rest of the world is less insulated from the consequences of their actions, so things might pan out different elsewhere.
Hi, thompson. Thanks again for the response.
And I’m all for DG, but there are problems implemented DG on a large scale if its tied to the grid. There’s also problems with backing it with battery tech that doesn’t exist yet.
Of course there are problems – not least that DG terrifies the current power utilities: 5% solar in Germany has played havoc with their pricing.
The battery tech does exist – you can order solar plus storage today, but subsidised feed in tariffs and high cost make it fairly unattractive to domestic customers (whereas industrial customers will probably install quite a bit over the next couple of years).
While that’s great, I don’t view one of the most aggressive PV programs in the world in a country with high energy costs projecting 25% market share in 35 years as a contradiction that this is going to take time.
That’s history, and in any event I don’t regard any 35 year technology projection as meaningful. The difference between how Germany got where they are today and where the US is starting from now is substantial.
Photovoltaic systems are dramatically cheaper and more efficient than even 5 years ago – partly thanks to Germany pioneering the market for mass scale domestic installation.
As far as battery storage is concerned, even without dramatic tech breakthroughs, it’s not unreasonable to assume that energy densities will improve at the historic average of a around 8% pa (doubling every nine years). A doubling of energy densities coupled with a halving of costs would (for example) obsolete the internal combustion engine quite quickly.
You point out that one of the richest men in the world is currently building the largest battery plant in the world, and it will equal ~3% of national generation capacity. That’s a monumental achievement and not readily extensible to much higher numbers.
I think you are wrong here. Nissan has already got a couple of new plants up and running for the same reasons as Tesla. Some of the big components manufacturers have seen the writing on the wall:
http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=6653&tk_id=107
The growing size and potential of the market means commercial research spending is accelerating. As production costs drop with economies of scale, demand increases.
Lots of plant are going to get built over the next decade.
I never claimed this would not take time, but I think you underestimate how quickly the car market in particular is going to drive the process over the next 10 years.
Germany went from 0.5 to 5% in around five years with favourable pricing – but much crappier technology. I think the US has much more headroom.
I’m not in the least Panglossian about this, but it seems pretty obvious that the necessary technical breakthroughs are going to made long before any political ones (certainly in the US).
The rest of the world is less insulated from the consequences of their actions, so things might pan out different elsewhere.
In general, you are seeing something that I have noticed myself. If one is mildly libertarian (especially if only on some issues) two things happen.
First, those who see themselves as truly libertarian will denounce you as not of the true faith. In this, like many political ideologies, it bears a remarkable resemblance to the way religions react to heretics.
Second, those who disagree will persist in assuming that you actually agree with the most extreme libertarians that they have encountered. Even though you try to make clear that you do not.
In short, both sides seem to feel that the division, between libertarian and not, is an absolute hard line, with no nuance allowed — or even concievable. On this forum, at least, you get a little acceptance that grey exists. More than most places, but still not much.
In general, you are seeing something that I have noticed myself. If one is mildly libertarian (especially if only on some issues) two things happen.
First, those who see themselves as truly libertarian will denounce you as not of the true faith. In this, like many political ideologies, it bears a remarkable resemblance to the way religions react to heretics.
Second, those who disagree will persist in assuming that you actually agree with the most extreme libertarians that they have encountered. Even though you try to make clear that you do not.
In short, both sides seem to feel that the division, between libertarian and not, is an absolute hard line, with no nuance allowed — or even concievable. On this forum, at least, you get a little acceptance that grey exists. More than most places, but still not much.
“In short, both sides seem to feel that the division, between libertarian and not, is an absolute hard line, with no nuance allowed — or even concievable.”
True. Something similar happens on the left between, for lack of better terms, the left and the further left. It generally pops up on subjects having to do with whether Obama is right or wrong on a particular issue, or sometimes on whether the Democrats are right or wrong. Lines are drawn, poles are duly polarized, nuance goes out the window, you are either for us or against us. I see this mostly at other blogs, but of course we do it a little here too. Often the issues are ones where the further left types align with libertarians, actually.
“In short, both sides seem to feel that the division, between libertarian and not, is an absolute hard line, with no nuance allowed — or even concievable.”
True. Something similar happens on the left between, for lack of better terms, the left and the further left. It generally pops up on subjects having to do with whether Obama is right or wrong on a particular issue, or sometimes on whether the Democrats are right or wrong. Lines are drawn, poles are duly polarized, nuance goes out the window, you are either for us or against us. I see this mostly at other blogs, but of course we do it a little here too. Often the issues are ones where the further left types align with libertarians, actually.
wj:
I don’t disagree.
On this forum, at least, you get a little acceptance that grey exists. More than most places
That’s why I’m here and not at Balloon Juice. 🙂
Nigel:
The battery tech does exist – you can order solar plus storage today
I didn’t say the tech doesn’t exist, I’m just skeptical that production can be ramped in a short amount of time to really impact the grid.
Around 40,000 MWh of battery capacity was produced last year? Global energy demand is around 150,000 TWh. That’s like 0.00003%.
Obviously you’re not talking about being able to fully supply world energy demand for a year off of a battery stack, so that comparison isn’t the best. But if we split that into daily energy demand we get to around 0.01%? And let’s say we need to meet around 20% of daily capacity to which brings us to 0.05% of required capacity?
I did that all rough in my head so I might have gotten something wrong, but I don’t see battery tech ready to sweep in and allow for grid stability if we are powered largely by non-dispatchable sources. The scale is just too far off.
Expanding production to meet that demand is hard, and I’m skeptical that will be close to true in 10 years, say.
I could be wrong, and I’d be happy to be wrong. And I might have gotten the math wrong.
seems pretty obvious that the necessary technical breakthroughs are going to made long before any political ones
Yeah, I’d agree. I actually am an optimist about technology. I think, long term, in terms of decades, our power will come from renewable sources. Right now, we have to decide how we want to transition to that future.
I’m just not quite as bullish as you on battery tech.
wj:
I don’t disagree.
On this forum, at least, you get a little acceptance that grey exists. More than most places
That’s why I’m here and not at Balloon Juice. 🙂
Nigel:
The battery tech does exist – you can order solar plus storage today
I didn’t say the tech doesn’t exist, I’m just skeptical that production can be ramped in a short amount of time to really impact the grid.
Around 40,000 MWh of battery capacity was produced last year? Global energy demand is around 150,000 TWh. That’s like 0.00003%.
Obviously you’re not talking about being able to fully supply world energy demand for a year off of a battery stack, so that comparison isn’t the best. But if we split that into daily energy demand we get to around 0.01%? And let’s say we need to meet around 20% of daily capacity to which brings us to 0.05% of required capacity?
I did that all rough in my head so I might have gotten something wrong, but I don’t see battery tech ready to sweep in and allow for grid stability if we are powered largely by non-dispatchable sources. The scale is just too far off.
Expanding production to meet that demand is hard, and I’m skeptical that will be close to true in 10 years, say.
I could be wrong, and I’d be happy to be wrong. And I might have gotten the math wrong.
seems pretty obvious that the necessary technical breakthroughs are going to made long before any political ones
Yeah, I’d agree. I actually am an optimist about technology. I think, long term, in terms of decades, our power will come from renewable sources. Right now, we have to decide how we want to transition to that future.
I’m just not quite as bullish as you on battery tech.
The esential problem here, is that for intermittent sources, such as solar or wind, you need some multiple of the nameplate capacity in generator, plus the battery. While for reliable sources, you just need the generator. Anything that doesn’t run close to 100% of the time starts at a substantial disadvantage.
The esential problem here, is that for intermittent sources, such as solar or wind, you need some multiple of the nameplate capacity in generator, plus the battery. While for reliable sources, you just need the generator. Anything that doesn’t run close to 100% of the time starts at a substantial disadvantage.
I’d say there is room for intermittent sources, even as a major component of the potal power generation capacity. It just depends on what your demand pattern looks like. For example, if you are in the Southwest, there is a serious peak demand for air conditioning which occurs during the day. Especially when (as is usual) the sun is out.
For that kind of peak demand, there is an obvious benefit to having a large amount of solar power generation. Not, obviously, for the entire power generation capability. But for that big daily peak, it is a far better choice than building a lot of extra power plant to be able to meet peak load. Which will end up far less than 100% used for most of the day.
Clearly a different situation obtains in places where the largest demand is for winter heating, rather than summer cooling. But all that means is that there is no one perfect answer that will work optimally everywhere.
I’d say there is room for intermittent sources, even as a major component of the potal power generation capacity. It just depends on what your demand pattern looks like. For example, if you are in the Southwest, there is a serious peak demand for air conditioning which occurs during the day. Especially when (as is usual) the sun is out.
For that kind of peak demand, there is an obvious benefit to having a large amount of solar power generation. Not, obviously, for the entire power generation capability. But for that big daily peak, it is a far better choice than building a lot of extra power plant to be able to meet peak load. Which will end up far less than 100% used for most of the day.
Clearly a different situation obtains in places where the largest demand is for winter heating, rather than summer cooling. But all that means is that there is no one perfect answer that will work optimally everywhere.
I find myself in near-complete agreement with Brett’s 12:52 column. Storage capacity is critical to making so-called renewables practicable on a large scale.
Renewables as an adjunct to nonrenewables presents small problems. Renewables being shifted to e.g. more than a percent or so of demand requires a lot of storage.
That storage doesn’t necessarily mean batteries, but it has to be some means by which energy can be stored and retrieved with reasonably small losses incurred in the process. There’s gravity-potential storage, mechanical-potential storage, thermal-potential storage, and electrical-potential storage. That covers all the means of storing potential for generating electrical power on demand that I am aware of.
I find myself in near-complete agreement with Brett’s 12:52 column. Storage capacity is critical to making so-called renewables practicable on a large scale.
Renewables as an adjunct to nonrenewables presents small problems. Renewables being shifted to e.g. more than a percent or so of demand requires a lot of storage.
That storage doesn’t necessarily mean batteries, but it has to be some means by which energy can be stored and retrieved with reasonably small losses incurred in the process. There’s gravity-potential storage, mechanical-potential storage, thermal-potential storage, and electrical-potential storage. That covers all the means of storing potential for generating electrical power on demand that I am aware of.
Slarti, don’t forget chemical storage on that list. There are numerous options under research there (hydrogen is just one and not necessarily the best).
Slarti, don’t forget chemical storage on that list. There are numerous options under research there (hydrogen is just one and not necessarily the best).
Storage Methods
Storage Methods
Sure; good point. Chemical storage tends to be just a fancy way to store electrical potential, though. As in: batteries. But there are other ways to store energy potential that don’t simply give you back electropotential.
Thanks for the link, CharlesWT. That’s what happens when I post before Googling.
If you like reading about these issues in blog format, I (again) recommend Engineer-Poet, who is STILL writing on energy issues. Some (from my perspective) very good technical treatment of power generation, energy storage, etc. He wrote a bunch of articles about corn(grain)-based ethanol that convinced me that it was not only not a winner, but an outright loser.
In between articles on those kinds of topics, he also discusses the Fukushima Daichi incident fallout, so to speak.
Sure; good point. Chemical storage tends to be just a fancy way to store electrical potential, though. As in: batteries. But there are other ways to store energy potential that don’t simply give you back electropotential.
Thanks for the link, CharlesWT. That’s what happens when I post before Googling.
If you like reading about these issues in blog format, I (again) recommend Engineer-Poet, who is STILL writing on energy issues. Some (from my perspective) very good technical treatment of power generation, energy storage, etc. He wrote a bunch of articles about corn(grain)-based ethanol that convinced me that it was not only not a winner, but an outright loser.
In between articles on those kinds of topics, he also discusses the Fukushima Daichi incident fallout, so to speak.
Slart:
Thanks for the link to engineer-poet. Look’s really good, I’ll add it to my reading list. Anybody that spreads the anti-gospel to corn-EtOH, especially if they did it early on, strikes me as someone that has a good head on their shoulders.
I’d like to say that I don’t view any of these problems as insurmountable challenges. We’ll increase our storage tech, we’ll develop dispatchable or close to dispatchable renewables, and we’ll restructure our grid for distributed generation. It’ll take time and iteration.
Corn-EtOH is an example of why I try to be bearish on new technologies. It’s not that great of a technology, and we invested in it heavily and early on (for political reasons, I get that).
But as technologies develop, it becomes easier and easier to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and potential role. If we focus our energy on a specific technology to early in the cycle, we run the risk of investing in technology before we fully understand it along with potential downsides.
Slart:
Thanks for the link to engineer-poet. Look’s really good, I’ll add it to my reading list. Anybody that spreads the anti-gospel to corn-EtOH, especially if they did it early on, strikes me as someone that has a good head on their shoulders.
I’d like to say that I don’t view any of these problems as insurmountable challenges. We’ll increase our storage tech, we’ll develop dispatchable or close to dispatchable renewables, and we’ll restructure our grid for distributed generation. It’ll take time and iteration.
Corn-EtOH is an example of why I try to be bearish on new technologies. It’s not that great of a technology, and we invested in it heavily and early on (for political reasons, I get that).
But as technologies develop, it becomes easier and easier to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and potential role. If we focus our energy on a specific technology to early in the cycle, we run the risk of investing in technology before we fully understand it along with potential downsides.
I would say rather that ethanol, per se, is a so-so technology. But corn ethanol is a boondoggle which never made sense, technologically or economically. (It is, however, a great financial benefit to corn farmers. Especially corn farmers which are big businesses. And to the politicians who are supported by them.)
I would say rather that ethanol, per se, is a so-so technology. But corn ethanol is a boondoggle which never made sense, technologically or economically. (It is, however, a great financial benefit to corn farmers. Especially corn farmers which are big businesses. And to the politicians who are supported by them.)
But the downside to it was that it drove up food prices. Or so I hear. Farmers went with a higher-value not-for-food crop, which made actual food crops harder to obtain. Drove up the price of everything, because guess what eats corn besides us? Our food animals do.
Well, my dad’t grain-fed turkeys, chickens and sheep do anyway.
But the downside to it was that it drove up food prices. Or so I hear. Farmers went with a higher-value not-for-food crop, which made actual food crops harder to obtain. Drove up the price of everything, because guess what eats corn besides us? Our food animals do.
Well, my dad’t grain-fed turkeys, chickens and sheep do anyway.
Politicians like Bob Dole knew from the start that ethanol was a bad idea except being a great idea politically.
Politicians like Bob Dole knew from the start that ethanol was a bad idea except being a great idea politically.
I did that all rough in my head so I might have gotten something wrong, but I don’t see battery tech ready to sweep in and allow for grid stability if we are powered largely by non-dispatchable sources. The scale is just too far off.
“Sweep in” is a bit of a mischaracterisation. The battery technology is there; the production capacity isn’t. Yet.
Another way of looking at the figures is this. Current US electrical generation (around 4000 billion kWh pa) is approximately equal to the energy consumed burning gasoline. The US renews its vehicle stock just about every 15 years (around 250m vehicles on the road; annual sales c. 16m).
Assuming we replace the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles (and we can argue about how quickly that might happen) the required battery production capacity compares rather neatly with that required for domestic electricity.
Whatever else, it’s not an insurmountable industrial challenge; the scale is not that far off.
And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that DG is the only solar technology which will replace fossil fuel generation.
I did that all rough in my head so I might have gotten something wrong, but I don’t see battery tech ready to sweep in and allow for grid stability if we are powered largely by non-dispatchable sources. The scale is just too far off.
“Sweep in” is a bit of a mischaracterisation. The battery technology is there; the production capacity isn’t. Yet.
Another way of looking at the figures is this. Current US electrical generation (around 4000 billion kWh pa) is approximately equal to the energy consumed burning gasoline. The US renews its vehicle stock just about every 15 years (around 250m vehicles on the road; annual sales c. 16m).
Assuming we replace the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles (and we can argue about how quickly that might happen) the required battery production capacity compares rather neatly with that required for domestic electricity.
Whatever else, it’s not an insurmountable industrial challenge; the scale is not that far off.
And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that DG is the only solar technology which will replace fossil fuel generation.
wj:
It is, however, a great financial benefit to corn farmers. Especially corn farmers which are big businesses. And to the politicians who are supported by them.
Color me surprised.
My point wasn’t so much that its value stood up to a careful analysis at any point, but if you move quickly, you don’t give a lot of time for multiple independent parties to perform that careful analysis.
Let alone get that information disseminated to the public.
And once a policy is in place, its really hard to unwedge.
wj:
It is, however, a great financial benefit to corn farmers. Especially corn farmers which are big businesses. And to the politicians who are supported by them.
Color me surprised.
My point wasn’t so much that its value stood up to a careful analysis at any point, but if you move quickly, you don’t give a lot of time for multiple independent parties to perform that careful analysis.
Let alone get that information disseminated to the public.
And once a policy is in place, its really hard to unwedge.
For large scale storage in the multi-mW range, I quite like this technology, which is designed to use the ‘waste’ heat from thermal plants:
Air liquefaction
http://www.highview-power.com/technology/
For large scale storage in the multi-mW range, I quite like this technology, which is designed to use the ‘waste’ heat from thermal plants:
Air liquefaction
http://www.highview-power.com/technology/
Nigel:
I think we may be dancing around vague terms like short term/long term rather than having any real disagreement.
But a couple of notes. You draw equivilence between gasoline burned and energy use in the US. Great, I’m onboard. And you say this:
Assuming we replace the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles (and we can argue about how quickly that might happen) the required battery production capacity compares rather neatly with that required for domestic electricity.
Still on board except for the noted disagreement which I’ll get to.
The market share of EVs in the US is:
“The market share of plug-in electric passenger cars increased from 0.14% in 2011, through 0.37% in 2012, to 0.62% of total new car sales during 2013.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#United_States
So, looking at our battery consumption just in vehicles, I’m still looking at less then 1% currently, which, in my mind, is not really encouraging. If we can maintain exponential growth, yeah, 15 years seems reasonable.
I’m skeptical we can maintain exponential growth in battery production, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Whatever else, it’s not an insurmountable industrial challenge; the scale is not that far off.
I actually just said to Slarti: “I’d like to say that I don’t view any of these problems as insurmountable challenges.”
So, agreement.
And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that DG is the only solar technology which will replace fossil fuel generation.
Yeah, I understand you are not, I was just trying to make the math easier. I was using DG-PV as a proxy, there are a host of other technologies both distributed and centralized.
It’ll be a mix. I think it should be a mix. I think we can get a substantial amount of our energy demands from renewables within a few decades. I think EV sales are going to continue to climb at a dramatic rate.
I still think current tech fission would be a good idea to bridge the gap and unwind coal faster. In my mind, it is by far the easiest, most guaranteed way to shift off of coal within a decade.
Except the politics of it are crap, and it’s not going to happen.
Nigel:
I think we may be dancing around vague terms like short term/long term rather than having any real disagreement.
But a couple of notes. You draw equivilence between gasoline burned and energy use in the US. Great, I’m onboard. And you say this:
Assuming we replace the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles (and we can argue about how quickly that might happen) the required battery production capacity compares rather neatly with that required for domestic electricity.
Still on board except for the noted disagreement which I’ll get to.
The market share of EVs in the US is:
“The market share of plug-in electric passenger cars increased from 0.14% in 2011, through 0.37% in 2012, to 0.62% of total new car sales during 2013.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#United_States
So, looking at our battery consumption just in vehicles, I’m still looking at less then 1% currently, which, in my mind, is not really encouraging. If we can maintain exponential growth, yeah, 15 years seems reasonable.
I’m skeptical we can maintain exponential growth in battery production, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Whatever else, it’s not an insurmountable industrial challenge; the scale is not that far off.
I actually just said to Slarti: “I’d like to say that I don’t view any of these problems as insurmountable challenges.”
So, agreement.
And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that DG is the only solar technology which will replace fossil fuel generation.
Yeah, I understand you are not, I was just trying to make the math easier. I was using DG-PV as a proxy, there are a host of other technologies both distributed and centralized.
It’ll be a mix. I think it should be a mix. I think we can get a substantial amount of our energy demands from renewables within a few decades. I think EV sales are going to continue to climb at a dramatic rate.
I still think current tech fission would be a good idea to bridge the gap and unwind coal faster. In my mind, it is by far the easiest, most guaranteed way to shift off of coal within a decade.
Except the politics of it are crap, and it’s not going to happen.
Looks promising.
Looks promising.
assuming we find a wonderful replacement technology(ies) for coal | oil | natural gas…
how do we persuade the fossil fuel industry to leave the stuff in the ground?
the leases they hold on unextracted liquid dinosaur makes up something like 60-80% of the book value of those companies.
assuming we find a wonderful replacement technology(ies) for coal | oil | natural gas…
how do we persuade the fossil fuel industry to leave the stuff in the ground?
the leases they hold on unextracted liquid dinosaur makes up something like 60-80% of the book value of those companies.
You persuade them, by your wonderful replacement technology being cheaper than coal/oil/natural gas. So that they stop extracting it because they have to sell it at a loss if they do extract it. The value of those leases varies with what they can get for the stuff when they dig it up. If the price drops, (Relative to extraction expense.) the value of those holdings will drop, whether they like it or not.
I think the problem here is attempting to define “wonderful replacement technology” without regard to cost.
Like any limited resource, the cost of fossil fuels is destined to rise over time. As alternate technologies improve, their costs will drop. As the two curves cross, society switches over. Quite automatically, without mandates, subsidies, or bans.
You persuade them, by your wonderful replacement technology being cheaper than coal/oil/natural gas. So that they stop extracting it because they have to sell it at a loss if they do extract it. The value of those leases varies with what they can get for the stuff when they dig it up. If the price drops, (Relative to extraction expense.) the value of those holdings will drop, whether they like it or not.
I think the problem here is attempting to define “wonderful replacement technology” without regard to cost.
Like any limited resource, the cost of fossil fuels is destined to rise over time. As alternate technologies improve, their costs will drop. As the two curves cross, society switches over. Quite automatically, without mandates, subsidies, or bans.
so, for purposes of addressing carbon emissions in anything like a useful near term, we have to add a requirement for a replacement technology.
whatever it is, in addition to its other virtues it needs to make fossil fuels unattractively expensive in comparison.
do we include in that calculation whatever externalities we expect to see from carbon – i.e., whatever costs we think continuing to put in the air will incur?
and if so, what is the mechanism for pricing them – the externalities – into the cost of fossil fuels?
so, for purposes of addressing carbon emissions in anything like a useful near term, we have to add a requirement for a replacement technology.
whatever it is, in addition to its other virtues it needs to make fossil fuels unattractively expensive in comparison.
do we include in that calculation whatever externalities we expect to see from carbon – i.e., whatever costs we think continuing to put in the air will incur?
and if so, what is the mechanism for pricing them – the externalities – into the cost of fossil fuels?
Serendipity alert: New Yorker on the Iter project (fusion). Plenty of stuff for both sides.
ps. if this comment goes through, it suggests that the problem with Chrome, not with type pad
Serendipity alert: New Yorker on the Iter project (fusion). Plenty of stuff for both sides.
ps. if this comment goes through, it suggests that the problem with Chrome, not with type pad
ITER? I’d settle for the thorium cycle getting off the ground. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_cycle
Technology like ITER is the definition of disruptive. If they get it to work (big if), everything changes.
ITER? I’d settle for the thorium cycle getting off the ground. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_cycle
Technology like ITER is the definition of disruptive. If they get it to work (big if), everything changes.
I’d say technology like Focus Fusion would be extremely “disruptive”, or what General Fusion is doing. What ITER is doing is extremely unlikely, IMO as an engineer, to be cost effective, even if they get it working decades from today.
And, that’s when it will be available, if it works. Not tomorrow, not ten years from now. If ITER works out, (In 2027!) then they build DEMO, which is intended to test out features needed for actual power production. DEMO is expected to be running in the late 2030’s, more likely the 2040’s.
THEN, based on how DEMO works out, they start building actual generating stations. Some time around 2050 or 2060, you might see fusion power hitting the grid.
About as disruptive as continental drift, if you ask me. But, it does give some people an excuse to oppose fission plants you can break ground for tomorrow.
I’d say technology like Focus Fusion would be extremely “disruptive”, or what General Fusion is doing. What ITER is doing is extremely unlikely, IMO as an engineer, to be cost effective, even if they get it working decades from today.
And, that’s when it will be available, if it works. Not tomorrow, not ten years from now. If ITER works out, (In 2027!) then they build DEMO, which is intended to test out features needed for actual power production. DEMO is expected to be running in the late 2030’s, more likely the 2040’s.
THEN, based on how DEMO works out, they start building actual generating stations. Some time around 2050 or 2060, you might see fusion power hitting the grid.
About as disruptive as continental drift, if you ask me. But, it does give some people an excuse to oppose fission plants you can break ground for tomorrow.
“whatever it is, in addition to its other virtues it needs to make fossil fuels unattractively expensive in comparison.”
And quite properly. Price is a summation, in a market system, of the cost of everything you have to forego to get something. When an energy source is expensive, you have to give up a lot to get it.
EROI, Energy Return On Investment. Price is a good proxy for this. If you have a high EROI, you only need to spend a little bit of the energy you get from a source keeping it working. If you have a low EROI, you spend most of the energy you get keeping the generator running.
The nice thing about price, is that it includes other things in the calculation, besides energy, like human time and effort.
If you try to base a society off a source that’s expensive, it’s like a man being pressed to death under a heavy boulder, all your energy is expended just staying alive, nothing left over for living.
We will, inevitably, be poor, if our energy sources do not have decent EROI. If we chose expensive energy sources, it is a recipe for poverty.
So, yeah, unless you really want poverty, it matters how expensive the energy is. A lot.
“whatever it is, in addition to its other virtues it needs to make fossil fuels unattractively expensive in comparison.”
And quite properly. Price is a summation, in a market system, of the cost of everything you have to forego to get something. When an energy source is expensive, you have to give up a lot to get it.
EROI, Energy Return On Investment. Price is a good proxy for this. If you have a high EROI, you only need to spend a little bit of the energy you get from a source keeping it working. If you have a low EROI, you spend most of the energy you get keeping the generator running.
The nice thing about price, is that it includes other things in the calculation, besides energy, like human time and effort.
If you try to base a society off a source that’s expensive, it’s like a man being pressed to death under a heavy boulder, all your energy is expended just staying alive, nothing left over for living.
We will, inevitably, be poor, if our energy sources do not have decent EROI. If we chose expensive energy sources, it is a recipe for poverty.
So, yeah, unless you really want poverty, it matters how expensive the energy is. A lot.
Do you think the price to consumers of fossil fuels currently reflects their total cost?
Do you think the price to consumers of fossil fuels currently reflects their total cost?
I think that depends on what you mean by “total costs”.
Does imported oil incorporate into it’s price the military cost of keeping the Middle East from melting down to the point where oil can’t be extracted? The political cost of having to suck up to tyrants? The social cost of subsidizing a particularly nasty strain of Islam?
Nope.
Neither has it incorporated into it’s price the benefit of longer growing seasons, and fewer winter deaths from exposure to cold. (My way of reminding you of the difference between proving that something causes warming, and proving that we’re already warm enough.)
Do “renewables” incorporate into their price the cost of using the utility grid for their load leveling? Disposal of panels incorporating toxic elements like Cadmium?
Nope.
I think that depends on what you mean by “total costs”.
Does imported oil incorporate into it’s price the military cost of keeping the Middle East from melting down to the point where oil can’t be extracted? The political cost of having to suck up to tyrants? The social cost of subsidizing a particularly nasty strain of Islam?
Nope.
Neither has it incorporated into it’s price the benefit of longer growing seasons, and fewer winter deaths from exposure to cold. (My way of reminding you of the difference between proving that something causes warming, and proving that we’re already warm enough.)
Do “renewables” incorporate into their price the cost of using the utility grid for their load leveling? Disposal of panels incorporating toxic elements like Cadmium?
Nope.
So, if the price to consumers of fossil fuels (and/or anything else) doesn’t reflect the actual cost, how can we rely on market forces to automatically price the stuff we don’t want to use out of the market?
So, if the price to consumers of fossil fuels (and/or anything else) doesn’t reflect the actual cost, how can we rely on market forces to automatically price the stuff we don’t want to use out of the market?
Hypothetically, you could attempt to price it in. Charge, for instance, a military expenses surcharge on imported oil, dependent on source. Require solar panel manufacturers to pay into a decomissioning fund, the way nuclear plant owners do.
Hypothetically, you could attempt to price it in. Charge, for instance, a military expenses surcharge on imported oil, dependent on source. Require solar panel manufacturers to pay into a decomissioning fund, the way nuclear plant owners do.
I haven’t read the ITER article in detail, but it sounds a lot like magnetic confinement fusion, which has always had issues beyond the plasma-stability problem.
Like: how do you introduce new reactants and remove reaction products?
Also, I haven’t been keeping up with advances in superconduction for a while, but it seems like a near-pervasive issue was that superconductors tend to lose their superconducting properties all of a sudden when the magnetic field (or was it current?)density gets too great. At that point, they would (I would guess) self-destruct in a spectacular manner.
Not saying these problems are insurmountable, but these same methods of achieving fusion have been around for about four decades. People have been working to solve these same problems for decades. I would caution optimism, but a guarded kind. Breakthroughs do happen, but they’re extremely difficult if not impossible to predict.
I am not, just to be clear, advocating giving up; that’s the highest-probability path to not solving the problem.
I haven’t read the ITER article in detail, but it sounds a lot like magnetic confinement fusion, which has always had issues beyond the plasma-stability problem.
Like: how do you introduce new reactants and remove reaction products?
Also, I haven’t been keeping up with advances in superconduction for a while, but it seems like a near-pervasive issue was that superconductors tend to lose their superconducting properties all of a sudden when the magnetic field (or was it current?)density gets too great. At that point, they would (I would guess) self-destruct in a spectacular manner.
Not saying these problems are insurmountable, but these same methods of achieving fusion have been around for about four decades. People have been working to solve these same problems for decades. I would caution optimism, but a guarded kind. Breakthroughs do happen, but they’re extremely difficult if not impossible to predict.
I am not, just to be clear, advocating giving up; that’s the highest-probability path to not solving the problem.