Capster
The Basics
- Name: Capster
Capster’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
The problem with natural gas...
OK, I see two problems:
- The cost right now is very high (about $12, it's basically doubled over the past year - just like oil). More demand = higher prices. And transporting gas is not nearly as easy as shipping oil, so supply issues would be problematic. Thus, you have the same cost problems with oil or worse. Note that increased demand for gas will raise electricity prices, home heating costs, industry costs (they use a lot of nat gas). The issues with gas production are similar to oil production - it's getting harder to find and get out of the ground. I think a shift to gas creates a whole new set of big problems.
- There are decent alternatives to natural gas cars now. Hybrids, plug-ins, mass transit - all are better alternatives. I think it highly unlikely that there will be a massive investment in natural gas supply infrastructure for cars/trucks/etc only to have that become useless in 15 years - which it surely will. No one will be willing to make that investment, because I don't think anyone should.
- The cost right now is very high (about $12, it's basically doubled over the past year - just like oil). More demand = higher prices. And transporting gas is not nearly as easy as shipping oil, so supply issues would be problematic. Thus, you have the same cost problems with oil or worse. Note that increased demand for gas will raise electricity prices, home heating costs, industry costs (they use a lot of nat gas). The issues with gas production are similar to oil production - it's getting harder to find and get out of the ground. I think a shift to gas creates a whole new set of big problems.
Click here to view comment in original post
The truth, another take
As someone who lives in DC (please, no stones) my take is that many here are actually reasonably well informed about these issues. It's just hard to push through something that will raise prices on consumers, or allow high prices to continue, because, let's be honest - the american people are pretty short-sighted. There's not much incentive for a politician to take the long view, which you need with climate, when s/he is really concerned with getting re-elected in 2 years. Every 2 years.
Also, there's not much elasticity in rising gas prices. I am fairly confident (but welcome dissent) that the consumption of gas has not gone down materially while prices for gas have doubled in the past few years. That begs the question with politicians - if price increases don't appear to work, should we support price increases? The answer is "yes", because at some point they do work, but it will take some time to get there. Shifting behavior, shifting our economy - as many have pointed out, it won't be easy.
David, I agree with you - our country is pretty deluded. I hope that enough leaders in congress stand up to make these changes. But to be crystal clear, it won't happen this year. It will be 09 or 10 before a bill gets passed, regardless of who is in the WH. On Democrats are undermining the strongest message behind climate policy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
I get your point..
..and understand what you're saying about both the allocation and the selection of winners. I would suggest, however, that it's not quite as "black and white" as you make it seem. There are some technologies that will not get gov't funding that will still be successful. Will it help to get gov't funding? Absolutely. But a good idea is a good idea, and VCs and other folks out there are scouring the marketplace for good ideas in which to invest. So I think that there will be some support for clever inventors, just not always from the big gov't pool.
But you make a very good point about the selection of technology. If I had my way, like you, I would have the bill focus on goals, not the path to the goals. The use of collected funding for things other than R&D is, my guess, some sort of political math. I would bet that to get someone's support, they needed to throw in some funding for good ideas like those you outline even if they are not tied to GHG reductions directly. I have no way of knowing if this is true, it's just my guess. I suppose I should be pleased that at least the things they chose seem reasonably worthy to me, but you are right - 42 years is a looong time.
In the end, I think the bill will be edited, at least somewhat, finally passed in 2010, and be in effect in 2012. And then there will be constant efforts to reshape it over the years. I tend to be a "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" kind of person on these issues, so I'll be pleased to finally get something in the books. I'm more than willing to keep taking runs at it in the ensuing years. On Lieberman-Warner criticism, Part 2 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 18 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Peak anything
Joe, I'm with you on most of this stuff, certainly I agree with the broad theories you advance. But I question peak oil and coal - we've been hearing about peak oil for decades. What happens? Oil technology gets better (horizontal drilling, shale oil, tar sands, etc.) and whammo, the peak is pushed off. I suspect the same would be true for some crafty coal companies - if the price is right, they'll get the damn coal. It's not a pretty thought, but it is the historical truth.
Moreover, your scenario leaves out many alternatives, which I firmly believe will be in play in 2020 - fuel cells, solar thermal, geothermal, etc. etc. - all of which you know, since you post on this stuff regularly. Both distributed gen and centralized gen technologies will improve. So while your models are fine with the many assumptions you make, they ignore a lot of stuff. I'm not sure you can draw a conclusion when so much is left out of the analysis. Perhaps you have plans to address this in future posts. On What is the impact of peak oil and peak coal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Sean
I have a couple of questions for you. I don't see the bill, specifically the provisions to which you allude, exactly the same way that you do, but it's also possible that I don't fully understand them either.
If you are an inventor, and you come up with a fantastic idea for reducing carbon emissions via some new widget - you seem to imply above that you have no incentive to deploy your technology because it's not listed in the bill. OK, two questions:
- Why not? Why wouldn't some company, XYZ Industries, who is facing a cap on their carbon emissions, buy the widget from you? Regardless of what the bill says, all they want to do is reduce emissions, and if they can do that cost effectively, well that's terrific. So if your idea is a good one, companies will come clamoring for it, won't they? Am I missing something? Isn't this the market at work?
- I seem to read the bill a little differently, and it hinges on a few words. The first bucket of money you describe above, the Energy Technology Deployment Fund, seems to leave some pretty big windows. I completely agree re: goals instead of paths, but I don't think they are ruling anything out by saying "sustainable energy technologies" (that's a big category) and "low carbon electricity technologies" (another big category). Right there you cover most of what is out there, and it seems that you could tuck inventions into either one of those categories.
Please let me know if I'm missing something here.On Lieberman-Warner criticism, Part 2 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 18 Responses
- Why not? Why wouldn't some company, XYZ Industries, who is facing a cap on their carbon emissions, buy the widget from you? Regardless of what the bill says, all they want to do is reduce emissions, and if they can do that cost effectively, well that's terrific. So if your idea is a good one, companies will come clamoring for it, won't they? Am I missing something? Isn't this the market at work?