bigTom’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Choosing his battles.

     Thats what I think he is trying to do. Its what I would do in his place, choose which battles to have when based upon his priorities, and his estimates of the political risks/costs. If he starts out guns blazing on all fronts, he could be forced into failure mode very quickly. If he satrts out with a risky issue of middling importantce, think Bill Clinton leading with gays in the military, or Jimmy Carter starting out with water projects, he could squander his political capital for very little gain.

     So yes, his first priority has got to be the collapsing economy. I only hope we don't throw away too much of our investment funds, on things we won't need post peakoil (like extra road capacity, or airport expansions).

     On foreign policy and military spending, he is clearly not risking (at least not early on), challenging the Washington powers that be. I hope this is an ommission based upon a strategy of waiting for the optimum time, rather than a lack of conviction. But I suppose asking him to show his cards wouldn't be a very strategic move?On Future of Obama presidency hinges on ability to adapt to changing circumstances posted 10 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Efficiency programs for small businesses.

    I think some sort of low income weatherization program is in the works. What I hear no discussion of is aid for small and medium sized business conservation. In my opinion this contains a lot of low hanging fruit. The most important reason for energy waste in this sector, is the almost complete ignorance of energy efficiency among the line managers. A program to audit small enterprises, and arrange (and possibly subsidize) upgrades for such businesses would have several economic benefits. The most obvious, is the salaries of the auditors, and any economic activity generated by retrofits. Secondarily, and reductions in operation costs of small businesses via energy savings should make them more viable, and in the process support employment.

    A few anecdotal observations should illustrate some of the potential in this sector. Yesterday morning I made my weekly grocery trip. It was cloudy, and the parkinglot street lights were on, despite the fact that the ambient light was great enough that the lighting caused no detectable difference in groundlevel illumination. A little help adjusting the photodetectors that control the lights would save tens of kilowatt-hours every day, at this single establishment. Go inside, and the freezer are working overtime keeping food in open racks cold. This practice is so common, that I suppose some marketing study must tell store managers that forcing customers to open a cabinet may cause them to avoid a purchase. On a societal level, of course this is clearly a zerosum game. A little bit of regulation and the playing field could be leveled so that all stores use energy efficient cabinets for there cold foods.

     Then a stop in a clothing store. The ceiling is covered with rows and rows of spotlights. The energy cost of this must be enormous. I'll bet the interior designers who specify this stuff are completely clueless.

     Then we have thousands of small shops in hot climates, spending significantly on air conditioning. A few dollars of white (or light colored) paint on their building roof would cut this need substantially. But nearly every manager of such enterprises are clueless about the cost savings potential. Clearly the investment in auditing/consulting services would be well spent. A good way to spend stimulus money, would be to offer such services for free.

     Thinking about the most urgent nearterm energy problem, oil. Note that diesel demand was driving the oil price spike last summer. Diesel prices were higher than gasoline for the first time ever. The US was importing surplus gasoline from Europe. It was surplus, because of the need to refine enough crude to maintain the diesel fuel supply in Europe and elsewhere. So cutting demand for diesel should take priority over cutting demand for gasoline. A few thoughts on some ways to do this follow:

   (1) Truck aerodynamics: At highway speeds, aerodynamic resistance accounts for roughly 65% of the drag on trucks. IIRC a Dutch study showed something like a 15% reduction by adding skirts to trucks. Much greater reductions are possible if "boattail" like extensions could be added to the rear ends of trucks. In addition to cutting our demand for oil, such changes should improve the economics of the industry.

   (2) Partial electrification of short haul trucking, and city buses. The fuel savings per dollar spent on hybrid/plugin/electric vehicle technology per dollar should be much larger here, than for consumer hybrids/plugins. So in addition to reducing the demand for the more critical oil based fuel, the programmatic efficiency (barrels of oil saved per dollar spent) should be higher here, than for tax rebates for hybrids, and plugins.

   (3) Increase the rate of electrification of the railway system.

    btw: I like greenmoms suggestion about truckstops. Assuming drivers would plugin, rather than run their engines all night this could be a cheap way to save diesel, and enhance health. On American Progress' 'Green Recovery' plan posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CO2 is NOT a local pollutant.

    It seems the common thread here, is localities looking for controls on local health damaging pollutants. That issue is orthogonal to the CO2 issue, for which the cap and trade program was designed. Cap and trade (or better a CO2 tax) is ideal for a global pollutant like CO2, but is not the right system for controlling local point sources of pollution. That would be an entirely different program.On Business groups, community activists blast California's cap-and-trade plans posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Lose the management, retain the technical and manu

    Lose the management, retain the technical and manufacturing capabilities. The rescue team needs to understand that the Kondratieff wave that is breaking on our heads is going to seriously change attitudes towards thrift. Even without peakoil considerations, the auto market will not recover to anything like past levels. Gone are the days of middle class families owning four or more fancy vehicles. Any restructuring needs to figure out what to do with the excess manufacturing -and engineering design capabilities. These need to be refocused towards things the nation actually needs, such as trains, electric grids, solar thermal plant design and construction etc. The country does have pressing needs for the millions of workers in this industry, it is just that we have to find the appropriate technologies for them to design and produce, and get to work.On Pearlstein: 'A Detroit bankruptcy beats a bailout' -- but what do you think? posted 12 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RFK is controversial.

  RFK is controversial in scientific circles. Apparently he had sided with some anti-vaccinationists in the past. This is considered to be anti- science by much of the science establishment. For this reason he probably shouldn't be considered for a position overseeing a science heavy agency.On A roundup of possible Cabinet picks for environment-related positions posted 12 months ago 6 Responses