Comments GreyFlcn has made
Actually more specific on the details of what they want. (Rather than the results of what they promise)
Or said another way, they want roughly 56 billion dollars worth of new loan guaruntees.
For another 12 power plants."Alexander said he would increase federal loan guarantees now being offered for the first four reactors to as many as 12 to "jump start" the nuclear revival."
On GOP wants 100 new nukes by 2030 posted 6 months ago 9 ResponsesSomething else to keep in mind.
The atmosphere above the South Pole is significantly different than the rest of the world.http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/how_we_saved_the_ozone_layer/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
On 'Ice People' is packed with plenty of ice, not so many people posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 2 ResponsesAs for "climate policy"
Unlike what Newt Gingrich proclaims, that the "problem" is that we don't have the technology.The technology is fine. The "problem" is financing.
On Climate bill is now a longer shot than 'Mine That Bird' posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses
And the finance world has taken a nose-dive recently.
Perhaps the more prudent method is to focus on federal financing of low carbon infrastructure.Perhaps they should focus on the Regulatory approach for the "worst offenders".
In particular, toss up some more roadblocks on building more conventional coal power plants.
Much simpler to eliminate things that don't exist yet.http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0429-hance_cleancoal.html
Not to mention, it'd have the nice sideeffect of causing the "Pro Clean Coal" lobby to slam on full reverse with the rhetoric, if we play their bluff. All the while playing well rhetorically for Obama and co.
On Climate bill is now a longer shot than 'Mine That Bird' posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 4 ResponsesWell for all the focus that automotive transportation gets.
On 60 Minutes on coal: Dancing around the question posted 7 months ago 9 Responses
Doesn't it only make up 7~9% of the issue?
Perhaps the primary focus should be on electricity, building heating/cooling, agriculture, and tropical deforrestation.Orng,
On Corn ethanol approaches a moment of truth posted 7 months ago 33 Responses
So wouldn't that basically amount to a carbon tariff on imported goods?Yeah, Bachmann never was so great at descibing reality.
http://greyfalcon.net/c14
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2As for the Oregon representative, he's a bit behind the times.
It's not our data doesn't just go back 650,000
We now got it all the way back to 800,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
On Rep. Michele Bachmann says CO2 is 'a natural byproduct of nature' posted 7 months ago 5 ResponsesSo lets say US Debt goes up instead.
With the primary consequence being inflation.
Is that regressive, or progressive?http://libertyminnesota.com/2009/03/inflation-the-ultimate-progressive-tax/
On McCain wants a climate policy that benefits the rich posted 7 months ago 13 ResponsesWell lets say they are right.
The whole premise here is that we'd need to make an extremely harsh dis-incentive against carbon emissions to get the market to artificially value carbon reductions.But what if doing that would have too many social harm side effects, Or would never be strong enough to give it any urgency.
Well then, the only real option left after that is to use the Federal Government spending.
On As biz leaders call for a climate bill, Republicans claim it would kill the economy posted 7 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses
If we can do it for a Wall Street Crisis, why can't we do it for a Planetary Crisis?So basically his argument is that we need to give permits out for free, or else they will actually cost money.
So basically the pollution is free now.
On McCain rails against Obama cap-and-trade plan posted 7 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses
What McCain wants is to keep the pollution free.
Since polluting our environment is a Constitutionally protected right.....Well, the idea that we're complaining about CO2 being carcinogenic is comical :P
On GOP leader: the idea that CO2 is harmful to environment is "almost comical" posted 7 months, 1 week ago 5 ResponsesThe catch being that all of those other things are extremely tangible.
The other trick about those is that they don't have anything analogous to "offsets".So you have something that you can't see, can't monitor, which you have to assume "on faith" that the "market" will solve all problems.
Complexity isn't really the issue. Transparency is.
_
On Myth: Climate policy must be simple posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses
The other issue I guess is that those other programs are relatively simple from a financing standpoint.
You give money to the Fed.
The Fed spends the money."Bush is like a genius artist"
Bailo, always good for a laugh.
On An apology and an explanation for Friedman posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 22 Responses.
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 ResponsesWell then I guess that is the real argument here.
The strategy is to try everything, and see what sticks.
Because the process is basically the same as haggling.
And the first principle of haggling is to ask for more than what the minimum you will settle for.
Fair point.Still though, shouldn't the real argument there though be that it really doesn't matter what the bill is.
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 Responses
And what matters is the prospect of attaching all these other provisions as riders to a main bill that will pass.Well one has to first realize that the way that FUD works is based on the premise of confirmation bias, and apathy.
One also has to realize that the way that FUD becomes truely effective is when any counter-argument is blocked off. To be blunt, we aren't reaching the FOX News viewers. No matter how compelling our arguments are.
One effective way around this though is to use Satire to make a public mockery of the FUD culprits.
The interwebs loves it's grand satire.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mceBUmBK6Hc
On Adventures in the FUD-osphere posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Response
http://greyfalcon.net/ideology.pngWell certainly one does have to wonder.
Powering the West Coast and Midwest with renewable energy is relatively easy.
However, how are we supposed to make that work for the East Coast.(Which basically means we need lots of high cycle life electricity storage)
AA-CAES for instance.That said, devils advocate.
If Germany can be a world leader in solar PV....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yr3xF4J1UVg/SHT_rbLVZ4I/AAAAAAAAAYg/FeDTpSXJD8Y/s1600-h/Germany+versus+US.jpg_
On RPS, EERS and energy politics posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses
Kinda makes me wonder though why anyone would want a PV and Turbine only bill."One big bill"
So basically the same strategy used in the last energy bill?Gobs of pork, with a RES&PTC, minus the RES&PTC
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 Responses"One big bill"
So basically the same strategy used in the last energy bill?Gobs of pork, with a RES&PTC, minus the RES&PTC
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 ResponsesThe problem there though being the "Well you already got your carbon law. Now you say you want more?"
_Also if we're focused on preventing some of the worst behavior, a "carbon-disincentive" might proclude instead using the regulatory approach. For instance beefing up the Clean Air Act of 2005 would have far more potential to deal with coal fired power plants than a carbon disincentive.
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 Responses
Or perhaps a national "low carbon fuel standard" would be far more effective in dealing with Tar Sands.If the whole purpose is to drive long~medium term investment decissions to favor low-carbon infrastructure.
And "carbon dis-incentive" law is going to be entirely weak
Or if it's going to be very risky (piled up like a house of cards, ready to collapse at any moment)Then what's the point?
_Also to be frank. I prefer any carbon disincentive that doesn't include offsets.
Since fake offsets, that are equivalent to fake permits, invalidate the permit market.
If we can get cap & trade without offsets? Then cool beans.
However if we can't. Then perhaps a tax is the better option._
That said, I still question if a broad weak disincentive is more effective than a narrow strong incentive.
On Somebody hide Tom Friedman's ball posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 46 ResponsesMore to the point, for it to be lying, we would have to assume that George Will isn't an idiot.
On Washington Post reporters call out George Will for lying in Washington Post posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 10 Responses
I think we can fairly assume, that a guy this successful isn't a moron.
And frankly, "Lying" versus "Intentionally being highly misleading", is merely a distinction without a difference.The bottom line.
A) If the price/supply of this carbon disincentive is controlled by Congress. We can be pretty sure that the carbon disincentive will never be anything more than just a hollow gesture. Since Congress members are cowards when it comes to inflicting pain on voting constituents.
B) If all the worlds scientific institutions were atleast 90% certain a large meteor was going to hit the earth in 50 years, the last thing we'd be doing is worrying about how to finance dealing with it. We'd just start spending.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses
Perhaps it's time to stop acting like this is some elaborate charade to merely placate the hippies. And start treating is a critical issue of national and global security.Well, not to mention.
Companies are not people.
On Republican enviros challenge Boehner's misinformation posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses
However they are endowed many of the rights of a person.
That said, any entity which is not fully responsible for their liabilities, shouldn't be entirely "free" from regulation.Remind me what's "Fair" about providing an income-taxcut for the rich?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/NRST-percentile.png
http://greyfalcon.net/taxevasion3Doesn't really matter what right-winger it is (Be it George Bush, or Ron Paul), they always seem to get it in their head that they need to make this gap as wide as possible.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses
http://greyfalcon.net/concentrate.pngMany of the world's leading economists would agree that the right thing to do is increase sales taxes and cut income taxes.
Don't you mean increase sales taxes, and cut "payroll" taxes.
Cutting income taxes would be absurd.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/NRST-percentile.png
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 ResponsesWell, I will say this.
One thing that scares me about cap™ is the insistance on having offsets.
Since to me, it's rather distressing to know that if:
1. Offsets are easy to fake
2. Permits = Offsets
3. Permits are easy to fake
_One might even go so far as to question whether we're asking ourselves the right question in the first place?
A. Should the focus be primarily on creating downward pressure for high-carbon industries.
B. Or should it primarily be focused on creating upward lift for low-carbon industries.
And if the answer is "B",
Especially when faced with the prospect that we have politicians who aren't willing to cause "pain".
Then why are we worrying so much about A, and practically ignoring B.
For instance, "Federal Infrastructure Financing" might be what we really should be talking about.
_That said, I don't really have any preference for permits, or taxes. However I do know that I have a strong preference against offsets.
On Myth: Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax is simple, immune to manipulation, & politically palatable posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses
(However a completely seperate federal grant program using the collected revenues, now that I'd be perfectly fine with)Well put it this way
He kinda bumbled it when it came to his CO2 and Temperature chart.
If anything, that's a significant weakness (rhetorically) in explaining climate change.
When what he should have been covering there is Milankovitch cycles.
Instead that just provides raw fodder for people to say he's wrong.
_
Furthermore, I say reputation, because frankly there's no way you can get the right wing to stop blindly hating him. Much in the same way that you can't get them to stop blindly hating Hillary Clinton.
So the more important thing to point out is that
- Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's simply a messanger. (Or if you will, a pundit)
- Scientists are the ones that actually make the analysis.
I believe this is important because the way Skeptics try to argue things, is that they can merely pit Punditry versus Punditry.
Rather than Science versus Science.
-David Ahlport
On He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses- Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He's simply a messanger. (Or if you will, a pundit)
Cognitive Dissonance is nice
But I prefer to look at it as specifically "Confirmation Bias".
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich2Not to mention, the issue that it's simply hard for people to comprehend issue.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm-David Ahlport
On Lessons from cognitive dissonance theory for U.S. environmentalists posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 30 ResponsesMeh
I don't really care about Gore.
I'm far more concerned with the actual science behind his message, than his personal reputation.
-David Ahlport
On He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 10 ResponsesAccording to EPA figures
According to EPA figures, US biodiesel reduced carbon emissions by 11.9 billion pounds. What did grist do lately? Bitch and moan from your lounge chair?
Yeah, we kinda call bullsh*t on EPA figures.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png-David Ahlport
On High energy requirements make the manufacture of algal biofuel prohibitive posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 35 Responses_
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-reality-chec ...
-David Ahlport
On High energy requirements make the manufacture of algal biofuel prohibitive posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 35 ResponsesIt's great
If you're okay with $1200 a barrel.
-David Ahlport
On High energy requirements make the manufacture of algal biofuel prohibitive posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 35 ResponsesNot to mention
The prospect of this gargantuan reprocessing/breeder reactor infrastructure being economically viable is pretty slim.
Especially compared to the trouble conventional nuclear is having, where it can't even get private financing.
-David Ahlport
On Obama budget proposal would cut off funding for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 8 ResponsesOn "Reprocessing"
Official UK plans and strategies suggest that spent fuel from future UK production of nuclear power will be stored directly rather than being reprocessed, and there are no plans for further operations at THORP after 2010/11, when existing reprocessing contracts will be completed. Should the plant be reopened in April, Ms Bjørnøy takes it for granted that any reprocessing activity will be limited to existing contracts and not continued after 2010.
http://www.norway.org.uk/policy/environment/thorp.htmFor all practical purposes,
Nuclear waste without the U238, is just as radioactive as Nuclear waste with it.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4891
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/pages_us_en/document ...Reprocessing isn't a "solution" for waste unless you plan on rolling out a whole fleet of breeder reactors, and running them for a few centuries.
And so far, we don't even have 1 commercial breeder reactor, and none are expected for many decades. If at all.
-David Ahlport
On Obama budget proposal would cut off funding for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 8 Responsesre: JosephThePoet
The delusional demand that we instantly stop all coal usage
No, it's a demand that we stop building NEW coal plants.And then start working on new clean energy, and EVENTUALLY phase out the old ones.
Besides which, it's not like we don't have other viable sources of energy to go after.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarbaseload
http://greyfalcon.net/egs-David Ahlport
On Coen brothers shoot an ad busting the 'clean coal' myth posted 9 months ago 36 Responsesre: JosephThePoet
The real argument is that "Clean Coal" as atleast Obama understands it, means specifically "Coal with Carbon Capture and Sequestration".
And that's what this ad is targeted at.The main reason for the other connotation is mainly because coal advocates tend to switch between talking about Carbon Capture, and Mercury/Sulfur filters; Depending on who they are talking to.
As such it's necessary for this ad to cover both.-David Ahlport
On Coen brothers shoot an ad busting the 'clean coal' myth posted 9 months ago 36 ResponsesSo
So, what's worse to leave to future generations.
Intangible, and reversible Economic damage from deficit spending.
Or Tangible, and Irreversible damage to our Atmosphere from not acting quick enough to create low carbon infrastructure.
-David Ahlport
On Washington's cap-and-trade legislation gutted by Senate committee posted 9 months ago 1 ResponseWhich kinda begs the question
If overly complex and watered down legislation isn't going to cut it. And it's urgent.
Why not just skip the ineffectual bureaucracy and just start spending money.
It's better to leave future generations some intangible and replaceable, than it is to leave them a critically malfunctioning planet.
-David Ahlport
On The projected revenue from cap-and-trade auctions is strikingly low posted 9 months ago 9 ResponsesLol yes, let's start screwing over Lake Chad
What a great idea!
Let's degrade Lake Chad even further!
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/20/lake-chad-now-more- ...On Chad fights charcoal in battle against creeping desert posted 9 months ago 10 Responses
And when I say "All Biomass"
And when I say "All Biomass"
I mean every single photosynthetic organism on US land.
Food, Lawns, Forests, EVERYTHING.
And that still doesn't cut it.
-David Ahlport
On If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it? An intro to biomass cofiring posted 9 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses"Sounds great".....
Now where's this magical source of biomass going to come from?
As is, our energy sector is already larger than ALL biomass from the ENTIRE United States.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits2.png
-David Ahlport
On If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it? An intro to biomass cofiring posted 9 months, 1 week ago 17 ResponsesFurthermore
To Bulk up "Step 3"
I'd also say that prohibitive regulations are rather effective.
For instance the 2005 Clean Air Act's restrictions of mercury, and sulfur pollution are far more prohibitive to building new coal plants, than carbon pricing would ever be.
One could go further and just say that "Hey you want a new coal plant? SURE! But you can't build it unless it's going to be CarbonCaptureSequestration."
Which would have the effect of doubling or quadrupling the cost of the plant.Furthermore, with offsets, you'd STILL have the coal plant. They'd just plant a couple trees and have us "trust" them that those offsets will be legitimate for the next 40 years.
(Which ultimately even if offsets work perfectly, they do NOTHING to reduce emissions, they just maintain the status quo.
Status quo just doesn't cut it.)-David Ahlport
On European climate program reduces emissions posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 ResponsesMethods aren't Goals.
We need to put a price on emissions, period.
You're confusing methods for goals.
And that's the wrong way to go about thinking.What we need is to:
- Get off coal and eventually natural gas electricity
- Get off oil for transportation
- Stop destroying biological carbon sinks
Especially when it starts to get extremely complicated, and is enforced by politicians who are unwilling to inflict pain.
I'm starting to think the more effective way is to
Step 1. Build alternatives via deficit spending
Step 2. Scale them up
Step 3. Simply have the Fed start buying up old cars, and old power plants via buybacks, or perhaps even eminent domain._
Markets are specifically built to solve short term problems. But a "market" approach just doesn't cut it if you're trying to solve a long range problem.
That's why we have government. To do what the market can't do by itself.
(Kind of like how our brain has both long term and short term memory. We couldn't function right without both of them.)
-David Ahlport
On European climate program reduces emissions posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses- Get off coal and eventually natural gas electricity
OMG WE NEED MORE CHARCOAL
We need to start making a gigantic fungible market for charcoal right away!
We can call it "BioChar".On Chad fights charcoal in battle against creeping desert posted 9 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses
As such
We tend to see hydrogen as a technology which is pitched as "environmental" however it's not achieving our goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.
As such, we see it as an poorly spent opportunity cost, that could be put to far better use NOT being spent on hydrogen.
Saying we should "Do everything" is nice, however time and money are two things we are painfully short on. And asking us to waste both of them, we find that offensive.
-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 ResponsesAnd more:
but because of it's inability to charge in a realistic operationally viable time
Batteries can charge quite reasonably given the infrastructure for it.
Even faster than Hydrogen actually.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.pngSure you need a high voltage charging station.
But then again, that's roughly equivalent to the prospect of having extremely high pressure hydrogen filling stations (10,000PSI or more).as well as it's lack of range.
Batteries have plenty of range. The real argument there is simply cost
And considering Hydrogen vehicles cost millions of dollars, you kinda lose that argument.Or a trivial argument about differences in weight. Which in turn has some effect on emissions.
However the inefficiency of adding an extra 200 pounds to a 2500 pound car,
is quite small compared to the inefficiency of storing electricity as hydrogen.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.pngNow the question must be asked, why are you so attached to batteries and belligerent towards fuel cells?
Because Storing electricity as Hydrogen is is many times worse from a thermodynamic standpoint.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.pngAnd the only point where it has any advantage is if we were to vastly expand our use of fossil fuels.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2The people who push for Hydrogen may not neccisarily be "shills".
However, they are certainly not concerned with the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 ResponsesFirst things first
Bio,
I know, I just looked at that chart yesterday. I agree with you on passenger cars. Im consciously asking something different. And I'm showing balance by saying to the hydrogen advocates, "hey maybe if you look over there at those things with wings, maybe that would be more productive and logical market for you".Well,
- If they were going to go down that route, it'd probably be CNG, not Hydrogen. Better compression ratios, and the fuel needs a lot less processing.
- Transcontinental travel is pretty high hanging fruit. Think it'd be better to focus on gasoline/diesel, coal fired power plants, deforestation, and agriculture policy before we even begin to think about air travel.
I'm a little surprised that no one has yet mentioned the Honda Civic GX, the passenger car that runs on compressed natural gas (CNG).
Well I've always kinda wondered how a CNG Hybrid would compare to the Clarity.
Considering they were pretty neck and neck before the Clarity added their regenerative braking.
That said, I wouldn't really paint CNG as the best route forward either.
Since almost all US reserves are in Shale.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...And there's some pretty concerning climate issues with that.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.h ...-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses- If they were going to go down that route, it'd probably be CNG, not Hydrogen. Better compression ratios, and the fuel needs a lot less processing.
Anyways
This article is kind of like how Reagan took credit for the internal collapse of the the Soviet Union.
Conveniently ignoring the gigantic economic collapse, and then claiming crediting the beneficial aspects.
-David Ahlport
On European climate program reduces emissions posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 ResponsesLol
Hydrogen is ready now.
Sure. Aside from the cars, and the infrastructure.A few multi-million dollar test models doesn't really imply "ready".
-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 ResponsesThe better question
Why not just do deficit spending, and focus on on financing and deployment of low carbon infrastructure?
American Revolution?
Deficit SpendingWorld War I?
Deficit SpendingWorld War II?
Deficit SpendingGreat Depression?
Deficit SpendingMoon Launch?
Deficit SpendingIraq War?
Deficit SpendingPretty much any war?
Deficit SpendingBank Bailout?
Deficit SpendingIf this is at all serious, then we should seriously consider deficit spending.
And it's not terribly bizarre that if we're helping future generations, that future generations help pay for it.
-David Ahlport
On European climate program reduces emissions posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 ResponsesShould be interesting
To see coal advocates turning around and saying "OMG COAL CCS DOESN'T EXIST!"
-David Ahlport
On What is the 'best available control technology' for CO2 from coal plants? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 11 Responsesre: National Hydrogen Association
A battery vehicle cannot carry a family for 300 miles on one tank/charge. But Hydrogen can. Today.
Well that one is false.1. Batteries are more than capable, the only question is economics, and economies of scale.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://greyfalcon.net/batterycost.png
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png2. Where's that hydrogen vehicle which family's can buy "Today"? It doesn't exist.
And as the article mentioned, the Clarity would run a "Family" about $2 million dollars each.3. As was mentioned previously, with plugin hybrids, you hardly need any battery range at all anyways, to get the maximum benefit, for the minimum cost.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7$48 billion over the next 15 years. Incidentally, this is also less than incentives currently provided for the development of other alternative fuels
Ethanol and BioDiesel, I think we can all agree is a bad solution. But that doesn't make Hydrogen a good solution either.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/9/13714/29599It's still also dramatically higher than what battery technology gets.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/news_afct_investment.html
http://www.energy.gov/news/5523.htm
(Or solar, geothermal)
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.pngThen there's the emissions. The electricity coming from the national mix with 52% coal would produce more emissions than if the Clarity's hydrogen was made from natural gas.
Well that's a dishonest comparison.If the electricity came from natural gas, and the hydrogen came from natural gas, then hydrogen would be behind.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.pngIf the electricity came 100% exclusively from old inefficient coal electricity, and the hydrogen came from California grid electricity, then hydrogen would be behind. (~Hybrid versus Worse than Gasoline)
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.pngAbout the only reasonable comparison where Hydrogen ever comes out ahead is Coal Electricity, versus Gasified Coal. (36% versus 45%)
(Which is a pretty horrible argument to make in the first place)
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2But most importantly There Is No Good Path For Hydrogen From Renewable Electricity.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 ResponsesFeedbacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
-David Ahlport
On AAAS: Climate change is coming much harder, much faster than predicted posted 9 months, 1 week ago 13 ResponsesHeh
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses$1 billion
$1 billion over 4 years.
Not bad.That's more than Solar gets in 70 years....
-David Ahlport
On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 ResponsesFlip that
A traveling salesman buys a big comfortable car and drives it 200,000 miles per year.
A retired school teacher buys an identical car and drives it to the grocery and church once a week, 1,500 miles per year.
Why do you think they should both pay the same penalty?
Fuel taxes collect fees in proportion to consumption and in proportion to emissions.
Let's flip that around.If you really need a large car for business purposes, I don't really mind that.
If you're just using a large car for small errands, then I'd rather see that be discouraged.
-David Ahlport
On A price signal in the vehicle market is best applied to the vehicle posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 Responsesre: George Will
Lets see how George Will is wrong:
"1970's cooling"
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling2"Downward Trend"
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png"Sea Ice"
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/you_cant_make_thi ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/twits-and-ass-a ...-David Ahlport
On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 ResponsesHrmm
http://i39.tinypic.com/no8pcz.jpg
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1220130236-David Ahlport
On Freaky posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 3 ResponsesAmerican Political Feasibility.
Meanwhile, in Germany, Feed-In tariffs have led to 10 times more carbon reductions than cap and trade.
Which for the most part is a tax on conventional electricity, to pay for deployment of low carbon electricity.And while effective, it does have the effect of raising electricity rates. (Which also may be a significant part of why it is effective. Since it has both push and pull.)
However when it comes to political feasibility, in America.
I'd say that if you consider that nearly every major uptaking of American history has been financed by debt.
it would be more politically feasible to have a similar deployment strategy as Feed-In Tariffs.
However to finance it via debt.Especially when you consider:
- Infrastructure gets a return on investment
- We're helping out future generations, so it's not terribly bizarre to have future generations help pay for it.
-David Ahlport
On Markey on cap v. tax and ways to properly regulate carbon markets posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses- Infrastructure gets a return on investment
The real question I have
Is how prohibitive pricing on carbon intensive infrastructure will ever be made harsh enough, if the ones regulating the pricing mechanism are politicians.
And why it wouldn't be more prudent to focus on deployment of low carbon infrastructure.
-David Ahlport
On Markey on cap v. tax and ways to properly regulate carbon markets posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 9 Responsesre: Hapa, on Machiavelli
Actually his point is quite similar to David Robert's argument.
Entrenched Powers, Interia, Uncertainty of Alternatives.
Meanwhile not much more than a "aspirational goal" from the American people to get off the stuff.
It's most certainly an uphill battle.
-David Ahlport
On Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responsesre: Machiavelli
"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the doubt of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it."
-David Ahlport
On Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 38 ResponsesWell
Pretty much the counter argument to this,
Is this one,
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich2And Lomborg's argument that if you assume the least possible damage from global warming, and assume zero positive fringe benefits from dealing with global warming, that it makes more sense just to nothing.
(Yes, these are the assumptions that go into Lomborg's model)-David Ahlport
On Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 6 ResponsesNuclear Waste?
Why, oh why, are you wasting money on crappy technology like this?
So that we don't have to waste even more on stuff like this.
http://greyfalcon.net/yellowcake
http://greyfalcon.net/dubainukes.zip-David Ahlport
On Biggest California utility contracts for world's biggest solar power deal posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 23 ResponsesNuclear Waste?
Why, oh why, are you wasting money on crappy technology like this?
So that we don't have to waste even more on stuff like this.
http://greyfalcon.net/yellowcake
http://greyfalcon.net/dubainukes.zip-David Ahlport
On Biggest California utility contracts for world's biggest solar power deal posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 12 Responsesre: JMG
Basically, we will never come up with with a carbon policy which is prohibitive enough to be meaningful.
As such, we should set our sights on how to finance low carbon infrastructure.
(Which oddly, is more of a Nordhaus approach, except "Deploy Now" rather than "wait for the perfect technology". Also oddly, may use some of the same financing strategies as Nuclear.)
-David Ahlport
On On the prospects for broad public understanding of climate science posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 10 ResponsesSane?
The only "sane" biofuels policy would start with creating a "sane" feedstock source.
And pretty much the only thing that comes close to fitting the bill is algae.
-David Ahlport
On Is the U.S. ready for sane ethanol policy? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 6 ResponsesThe point being
"Small" won't solve dispatchability, or baseload.
-David Ahlport
On Big is beautiful if it breaks our dead-dinosaur addiction posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 ResponsesGetting a bit tedious
The satellite temperature data accumulated over the past year has now refuted global warming.
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/elninoIt is not only that the temperature of the global atmosphere has been declining for the past 10 years.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.pngThe data now shows that the atmosphere does not display the temperature pattern it would if global warming was heating the earth,a pattern which even the UN's models show would be necessary if global warming were true. Game over. QED
http://greyfalcon.net/trends2.png
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/david_evans_and_t ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesn ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-e ...-David Ahlport
On The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 23 ResponsesHaven't seen?
I have never seen a study claiming that kind of reduction for corn ethanol.
Sure you have, it's called GREET.
The same one biofuel boosters always use.-David Ahlport
On DFHs take over, threaten Big Agribusiness posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 8 ResponsesHey Bill
How much is this going to cost us?
http://greyfalcon.net/dubainukes.zip-David Ahlport
On Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 26 ResponsesContext
And how about some further Context about that last bit about the Middle East.
http://greyfalcon.net/dubainukes.zip-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Joffan
a moderate but limited tax credit is potentially available for the first few years of the first few new-design nuclear power plants.
You do realize is the exact same 1.8cents per kwh subsidy Wind gets, right?And as you say, current nuclear plants get nothing in this line
No, that's as you say.
I still contend that the decommissioning fund loophole has virtually the same effect as an Investment Tax Credit.
Tax free, at the time when it is actually expensed? Sure.
A large portion of the cost of ownership, tax free for 40-60 years, that's disgusting.first few years of the first few new-design nuclear power plants.
Except that they really are merely modified versions of existing light water reactors.And no-one seems to be paying
No-one seems to be paying for nuclear waste and non-proliferation either.
Gotta love this MidEast Nuclear arms race they got going on with the excuse of "Peaceful" Nuclear power, eh?
Wonder how much we're going to have to spend on dealing with that.If only we had a better alternative than "No you can't, but we can" hypocrisy.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Joffan
I'd love to answer but there must be a missing word or something I think. Can you repost?
Basically PTC's and ITC's exist for the purpose of capital recovery.
However it'd be rather silly to argue that a power plant that has recovered all of it's capital cost, should be getting help recovering it's capital cost.
You proclaim "Wow look at Old Nuclear it's not getting help recovering it's capital cost, that means it's less expensive to build New Nuclear power plants"
When that's just silly when you consider all the capital recovery assistance New Nuclear power plants are scheduled to get.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 ResponsesTalking Points
Well then Joffan, (And Karen too)
Why is it your talking point to argue that power plants that have recovered all of their capital costs, aren't presently receiving assistant for capital recovery.
And then therefore equivocating that it's cheaper to build new versions of these power plants.
Even when new versions of these power plants would receive far more capital recovery assistance.
_
You seem to be forgetting that there hasn't been a new Nuclear power plant built in over 30 years.
Where as wind, has has a dramatic increase in installations over 2007.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Joffan
On the other side of the coin, tax expenditure subsidies are larger than R&D expenditures and do not benefit nuclear at all.
If you're talking about tax support that allow for increased capital recovery rates.
All US Nuclear power gets an equivalent of an Investment Tax Credit.
All of their profits that are earmarked for decommissioning are entirely tax free.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...Meanwhile the funds are still freely available for high risk capital investment.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/fina ...One might even say it's even better than what Solar gets, since it's a higher percentage of the total cost of ownership, and it's available for up to 60 years.
Where Solar only get 30% of their profits tax free, for 10 years. (Only 10% for 10 years for Geothermal)
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ..._
On top of which New Nuclear power plants get:
- An Investment Tax Credit (Or equivalent there of what Solar Gets)
- A Production Tax Credit (Equivalent to what Wind Gets)
- A multi-billion dollar cost overrun fund
- The entirety of the financing risk for those power plants being shouldered by US tax payers.
As for conventional light water fission R&D, yeah they have their hands out for that too.
http://inl.gov/featurestories/docs/inl_07-13543_08.pdf-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responses- An Investment Tax Credit (Or equivalent there of what Solar Gets)
I'll bet you
They still didn't cover the El Nino Southern Oscillation cycle, or Milankovitch cycles.
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch-David Ahlport
On Universities hold national teach-in on climate change posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responsesre: stopgreenpath
100% of the US' electricity needs can be met on existing rooftops with super-cheap thin film PV at 10% efficiency
And where does the electricity come from when the sun isn't shining, especially at night?
-David Ahlport
On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responsesre: Joffan
Nuclear power - and this is nuclear fission power - does not consume anything like the amount of budget you imply;
But Nuclear projects in general on the DOE payroll do.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Start.htm#Summary% ...And taking your curiously-phrased statement about "federal electricity related R&D subsidies", which in itself is a clear indicator of cherry-picking, it is also false, since nothing like that amount of R&D is spent on nuclear power - noting your use of the present tense.
That's because Nuclear power has gotten over half of all federal electricity related R&D subsidies over the last half century, and individually every year for the last decade.
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch.pngwhat was that corn ethanol remark about?
Federal studies are presently about the only source of publications that say that corn ethanol is at all beneficial from a greenhouse emissions standpoint. Argonne National Labs in particular.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/09/postscript-with-w ...-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 ResponsesThree
It revolves ENTIRELY around the concept of creating downward pressure on Carbon Intensive Infrastructure.
Which would be difficult to imagine it being raised high enough for this impact to be meaningful.
-David Ahlport
On Peter Barnes chats about cap-and-dividend posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responsesre: stopgreenpath
What bugs the snot out of me though is how he acts like local solar panels, wind turbines, do not require a grid.
Which I guess is true if you want to include a large bank of expensive and low cycle life batteries on EVERY house.
But short of that, it's basically saying that a slightly augmented version of the status quo electricity sector is just fine.
When that's suicidal, if one takes global warming the least bit seriously.
-David Ahlport
On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 ResponsesDoes your paycheck influence your point of view?
Do you assume that a group that includes all 12 lab directors
It should be noted that if you include non-proliferation, and R&D. Over 90% of the DOE's annual budget goes toward Nuclear related issues.
And more than 50% of all federal electricity related R&D subsidies go towards Nuclear.That said, from that it's quite possible to make the argument that the current status quo within the DOE is less than objective about Nuclear issues.
What's more, if we took "Federal Labs" at face value, then Corn Ethanol would be considered the greatest thing since sliced bread.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 ResponsesYou would think, but in practice.
The Government CAN NOT USE the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay the damages to the companies for failing to keep to their schedule. It has been specifically indicted against such an action:
However it IS being used to pay for onsite temporary dry cask storage, and NOT long term storage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html?_r=1-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Karen Street
David, er, multibillion dollar contracts have already been signed in and out of the US
Any of which that are near entirely backed by private money?
Contracts that function near entirely outside of Capitalist markets, don't really lend much credibility toward their competence in Capitalist Markets.
Wind still requires a 1.8 cent/kWh subsidy
All US Nuclear power get an Investment Tax Credit.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/2/14493/70469#com ...What's more, Why are you arguing that a fully amortized power plant of any sort should be receiving a tax credit angled at capital recovery? (!) That's disgusting.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Karen Street
Wind still requires a 1.8 cent/kWh subsidy
If you're talking about tax support that allow for increased capital recovery rates.
All US Nuclear power gets an equivalent of an Investment Tax Credit.
All of their profits that are earmarked for decommissioning are entirely tax free.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...Meanwhile the funds are still freely available for high risk capital investment.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/fina ...One might even say it's even better than what Solar gets, since it's a higher percentage of the total cost of ownership, and it's available for up to 60 years.
Where Solar only get 30% of their profits tax free, for 10 years. (Only 10% for 10 years for Geothermal)
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...___
Meanwhile if we want to talk about "New" Nuclear that gets:
- A 1.8 cent per kwh subsidy
- An investment tax credit
- A multi billion dollar cost overrun fund
- Nearly 40 billion dollars worth of loan guaruntrees
- More R&D money than the entire rest of the electricity industry combined.
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responses- A 1.8 cent per kwh subsidy
Financing and Waste
Well the basic issue:
Nuclear power cannot get Private Capital Financing. (And this was the case well before this current loan scarcity crisis) It's the exact opposite of what private capital markets want. The return is too slow, the default rate is too risky, and the size of the loan wager is too bulky. What's more, there's never been a US Nuclear power plant that was built on-time, and on-budget. And France's recent attempts (Federally subsidized all the way of course), are showing that on-time and on-budget can't be expected.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5785236/Nuclear-p ...
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/08/nuke ...
And they still haven't figured out a single thing to do with the waste. ("10 Yucca Mountain size repositories by the end of the century?", and that's coming from a study funded in large part by the nuclear industry itself) We don't even have anywhere near the money for just ONE of these things. And we haven't collected a dime for it since 1998.
http://grist.org/news/2008/08/05/yucca/index.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/18/161052/155
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html
-David Ahlport
On Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan? (Part 1) posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 53 Responsesre: Sindark
Or basically, the argument libertarians seem to like is that they can "disagree with reality" because they don't like the political implications.
http://greyfalcon.net/reality.png
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich2Logically, it's a completely bankrupt argument.
But emotionally, it has some sway.
Especially when you consider Cognitive Dissonance.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_ ...___
That said, most the arguments I've found with Skeptics is to prey on the fact that most people don't understand the climatic impact of the El Nino Southern Oscillation cycle, and the Milankovitch cycle.
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch-David Ahlport
On What do you expect from a party that wants to be more like Sarah Palin? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 3 ResponsesMore to the point
When this is possible, why would you need swapping?
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/quickchargeAnd if you're worried about lack of charging infrastructure, well then aren't Serial Plugin Hybrids a better model? Atleast for the shorter term.
-David Ahlport
On Does anyone think battery swap-out is useful or even needed for electric vehicles? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responsesre: bill fraser
but doesn't encourage moving closer to your job, carpooling, or bicycling.
Yes it wouldn't encourage that, but then again, neither would a weak auction, or tax system either.
So it's a rather moot point.Besides which, the thing that does that most isn't behavior, or price signals. It's urban planning. i.e. Command and Control "Central Planning".
So doubly a moot point.-David Ahlport
On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 18 ResponsesI disagree with that.
Industry and the private sector need a price to incentivize R&D as well as forecast the risk of continuing along a fossil fuel intensive path.
And this is where I'd disagree.
The private sector is already doing plenty of R&D, and what's more, for foundational R&D that's often best served by Federal programs and Universities anyways.
What we need is demand. Not supply.Also the carbon price will never be set high enough to be prohibitive, so that's silly.
-David Ahlport
On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 18 ResponsesSo why not just get straight to the point?
What is most urgent is green infrastructure, and regulations. Carbon pricing is reinforcement.If we can do everything at once, great. But if in the real world of politics some things have to take priority over othes, then Infrastructure and regulation should be the priority.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to focus on promoting federal support for Green Infrastructure Banking?
And Regulations that make things harder for new development of Coal, Shale, Tar Sands, and Deforrestation.
Hell, federal support for Utility Decoupling could go a long way.
-David Ahlport
On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 10 months ago 18 ResponsesThat said
A green tax & rebate program would provide a reliable revenue stream for development of green tech.
My biggest concern with "dividend", is that you'd need to raise the "pricing" pretty high in order to achieve a significant downward pressure on carbon intensive industries.
That said, dividending may be the only politically paletable way to do that.
But I guess the real question is what do we want the policy primarily to do?
Upward pressure on Green Tech
Or Downward pressure on Carbon Tech-David Ahlport
On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 10 months ago 18 ResponsesSo what if
Instead, they merely did a massive roll-out of "Green Infrastructure Loan Guarantees"
Since what we're really after is Green Infrastructure Investment.
-David Ahlport
On Carbon tax is better on merits, cap-and-traders trade away political advantages posted 10 months ago 18 ResponsesWhat is the Goal of the policy in the first place?
Where does he think investments in renewable energy and efficiency go?
To be fair, this is almost identical to Hansen's cap-and-dividend.
And all in all, the effect would serve to increase the marginal cost of fossil fuel sources.
Which would raise the competitiveness of greener sources.
_
That said, the problem I have with this is that I doubt it would be raised high enough to be prohibitive.
_
When really what we should be seeking out with carbon legislation, is to promote investment in new green infrastructure.
I really don't see how weak downward pressure on fossil sources, or paying someone to plant a bunch of trees for offsets is going to achieve that.
_
One might say, if "Banking", is the issue.
Maybe all we really need is Federally backed banking support for green infrastructure.-David Ahlport
On Sen. Bob Corker wants a carbon tax posted 10 months ago 5 ResponsesUhg,
And most astounding of all - the icecap has already started showing rather plain signs of recovery. Yet you, Al Gore and others continue to point to a cooling & regrowing icecap, saying; "Watch it melt!".
What are you talking about?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/you_cant_make_thi ...Yeah 2008 was cold, but that's hardly a "trend".
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina-David Ahlport
On What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change? posted 10 months ago 21 ResponsesWell
Perhaps if the Artic Icecap completely melts away, that might grab people's attention.
-David Ahlport
On What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change? posted 10 months ago 21 ResponsesAs mentioned
No Offsets
No Giveaways
No CeilingsThen you might actually have yourself a worthwhile system.
The real question then is, "What do you do with the auction money".
Dividends?
Carbon Reduction Grants?
Both?-David Ahlport
On There's a reason Republicans stump for a carbon tax, and it ain't to reduce emissions posted 10 months ago 37 ResponsesCoal isn't a renewable energy
It shouldn't be treated like it is:
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png______
Also, frankly, given the fact that it may be half a century before the expense occurs, one might say Nuclear also gets quite a hefty capital recovery mechanism given their tax free profits for anything put into the decommissioning fund.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...(Which of course is freely available for high risk capital investment)
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/fina ...One Should call that an Investment Tax Credit.
_
And for Max Epstein.
While I agree that expenses should be tax free. They shouldn't be tax free, until they are actually expensed.
And given the gigantic difference between those time periods, in effect, this tax loophole has almost an identical effect as an ITC for the purposes of cost recovery.
One might even say it's even better, since it's a higher percentage of the total cost of ownership, and it's available for up to 60 years.
Where Solar only get 30% of their profits tax free, for 10 years. (Only 10% for Geotheraml)
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...-David Ahlport
On House Ways and Means embraces refundable renewable tax credits posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 ResponsesActually
I think the real naming issue is "Those who think we should take action to deal with manmade global warming"
Climate Activist for some reason doesn't quite strike me right.
How about "Climate Realists"
-David Ahlport
On 'Climate change,' 'global warming,' 'climate chaos' -- what terminology fits best? posted 10 months, 1 week ago 34 ResponsesSpeaking of surveys
It turns out that the largest contingent of people who don't admit anthropogenic climate change is happening, are Geologists, and Meteorologists.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwa ...-David Ahlport
On FOX News continues quest to endumben viewers posted 10 months, 1 week ago 7 ResponsesHate to say it
But I think the video would be better without Al Gore.
-David Ahlport
On will.i.am debuts climate change song posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 ResponsesIn short
- Educate/Empower Women
- Contraception
-David Ahlport
On We must strive to meet the U.N.'s low population projection of 8 billion by 2041 posted 10 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses- Educate/Empower Women
So how about
"Carbon Tax&Rebate"
-David Ahlport
On Business/enviro alliance unveils climate plan, attracts critics posted 10 months, 1 week ago 4 ResponsesTo some extent
One might compare the premise of Cap&Trade with the Renewable Energy Credit market.
One of the key complaints being that the requirement of competing in commodity permit markets, means that the barriers to market entry are dramatically higher.
Where as if you had a carbon tax&rebate system, the barriers to getting a rebate would be much lower.
_For instance, getting money for installing insulation.
With an offset mechanism, that'd be near impossible.
With a rebate mechanism, it'd be far easier.
_
The other nice part about a rebate mechanism, is that it shifts the burden of proof, the payment schedule, and allows for variable rebates given the marginal difference between black and green products in different sectors.
-David Ahlport
On NRDC responds to criticism of USCAP's Blueprint posted 10 months, 1 week ago 29 ResponsesK.I.S.S.
If you want to achieve 80% reductions, which is the whole point anyway.
Except that we both know that carbon pricing will never be high enough to be prohibitive to expanding carbon intensive practices.
So ultimately what we're after is how we spur investment in Greener:
-Electricity
-Transportation
-Agriculture
-Forestry
-Cool/Warm BuildingsYou are comparing carbon tax proposals by academics with no need to gather votes, to watered down cap/trade bills specifically weakened to attract moderate votes.
I'm saying a watered down carbon tax, is better than a watered down cap&trade policy.Primarily because of the mere existance of offsets. Which by their very nature, aren't designed to decrease emissions, they are designed not to increase them. To extend the status quo.
A policy where you can build that coal plant, as long as you pay someone somewhere else to maintain a few acres of trees, isn't really something that drives a move AWAY from the status quo.
And I do not think it's politically possible to separate offsets from cap&trade.
Not to mention the whole premise of a price ceiling and allocations essentially remove any benefit you'd get from auctioning.
_
So again,
What I'm saying is that a weak carbon tax, is better than a watered down cap&trade policy, f or the purpose of encouraging investment in changing the status quo.And a weak carbon "tax shift", would be even better.
Not to mention, we already have nearly all the political institutions needed to regulate, oversee, and collect taxes.
We do not have a complex oversight mechanism for auctioning, offsets, and permitting.
_
And of course lastly, given our current economic debackle with a gigantic implosion of speculative markets, a policy which does not have speculative market as it's core function, is most likely the better one.
-David Ahlport
On NRDC responds to criticism of USCAP's Blueprint posted 10 months, 1 week ago 29 ResponsesSo apparently, CNN no longer has a Science Team
So apparently, CNN no longer has a Science Team
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7r8tb/with_the_a ...-David Ahlport
On Lou Dobbs leaves CNN viewers dumber about climate change posted 10 months, 1 week ago 6 ResponsesTrue
Extent in the dead of winter has been rather constant.
Extent in August though, hasn't been at all.
-David Ahlport
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 ResponsesBut if you do
If you do want to focus on Area, and not Volume
Here ya go.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/you_cant_make_thi ...-David Ahlport
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 ResponsesGo to back to Geometry class
The total sea ice trend (Arctic plus Antarctic) appears to remain fairly constant, with major seasonal swings, as always.
Manacker apparently doesn't understand the difference between Area and Volume.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/twits-and-ass-a ...-David Ahlport
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses"Well it's a great plan"
Except for the Price Ceiling, unaccountable Offsets, and Free Allocations.
Which make it a rather bad plan.
_
Oddly this article doesn't even mention those crucial, yet damning details.
It's just a repeated mantra of "This plan will work, trust us." With no real reason why.
_
It seems like that "Sweet Spot" is only merely,
"Sounds big enough, that it rewards congress members for seeming like they accomplished something. But weak enough to make it so that industry knows the status quo won't really be changing."Which while it may accomplish narrow political goals, it doesn't actually do anything.
If anything, it would do a dis-service to the public, by creating a distraction that would entirely prevent support for different legislation.
-David Ahlport
On How the cap-and-trade blueprint fits into domestic and international climate action posted 10 months, 1 week ago 3 Responsesre: Max Epstein
You can't guarantee that a CO2 tax will have a certain CO2 price, or higher.
Why?Say you institute a CO2 tax of $X, rising $Y or Y% every year. You want 80% reduction by 2050 and anticipate, say, a 5% reduction within the first five years. After five years, when actual emissions reductions end up being only around 1% or perhaps as high as 10%, the tax will be changed after the fact.
Ya lost me there.If significantly greater emissions reductions than anticipated happen, or if they happen too fast, the excessive carbon constraint will be seen as a significant competitive disadvantage in the globalized economy and so a political liability likely to be reversed.
And a cap & trade system has that exact same flaw too.
But what a tax doesn't have is offsets, allocations, or highly variable pricing.Remember in 2004 people were talking about a new era of Republican dominance. That lasted for all of two years. I'd take the cap/trade's economic forecasting uncertainty over the carbon tax's political one, hands down.
Republicans are going to call this a tax, no matter how much we try to spin it.
So I don't really buy that argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjvzyFyMO-k-David Ahlport
On NRDC responds to criticism of USCAP's Blueprint posted 10 months, 1 week ago 29 ResponsesHeh
To some extent, I actually agree with those statements.
If they translate into:
"No new coal plants unless they can sequester all their emissions"Lets call their bluff, since I think we all know that either
A. That hurdle is way too high to clear
B. If they do clear it, then would that really be so bad?-David Ahlport
On What Obama's green team has to say about coal posted 10 months, 1 week ago 26 Responsesre: Cost Certainty
if the tax must be adjusted every five years ago to stay on track for 80% reductions, which it certainly would, where's the "cost certainty?"
Simple.
The cost certainty is "It will be the same or higher than it is now".This in turn allows companies to make investments on that baseline.
Cap&Trade on the other hand, with a price ceiling, offsets, and allocations would be "It will be the same or lower than it is now." Not good for investment.
_
I think we can all agree that they aren't going to set prices high enough to be prohibitive.
And if you aren't going to have prohibitive prices, then you might as well have a reliable one.
_The best answer is a strong cap/trade without offsets and free allocation.
Well duh.
But I fear it's impossible politically to divorce offsets/allocations from cap&trade.
Much less this notion of a price ceiling or "safety valve".If we're going for "ideal of what's possible".
I'd almost prefer a carbon tax, with carbon reduction grants. A feebate.
Atleast then you'd get "double" of a relatively small price put toward green investment.
-David Ahlport
On NRDC responds to criticism of USCAP's Blueprint posted 10 months, 1 week ago 29 ResponsesWell
When I hear
"Cap and Trade" that means they want the market to set the price.HOWEVER, USCAP wants a price ceiling, and a majority of the permits handed out for free.
Toss in CDM style offsets, and you got yourself one of the weakest pieces of carbon pricing legislation ever proposed.
_
Frankly, we'd be better off with a Carbon Tax, if these are the games their going to try to pull.
-David Ahlport
On NRDC responds to criticism of USCAP's Blueprint posted 10 months, 1 week ago 29 ResponsesTo be fair
Chu also said:
"Coal is my worst nightmare"
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/11/stev ...-David Ahlport
On What Obama's green team has to say about coal posted 10 months, 1 week ago 26 Responsesre: GlobalWarmingInc
You do realize Oil is a global commodity, right?
http://greyfalcon.net/oilprice.pngMiddle East countries will be able to sell their oil at nearly the same prices, almost no matter what we do.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.pngThe only way to significantly devalue their oil, is to move away from oil.
-David Ahlport
On Half of oil and gas CFOs say we are peaking posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responsesre: BioD
Well the other problem with "Prizes"
Is that you generally wouldn't reach the benchmark needed to win the prize, for years.And by that time, the size of the prize would be a pittance compared to the size of your normal annual profit.
_
Besides which, Prizes make the assumption that we need drastically new technology to achieve our goals.
When what we really need is plain investment.
-David Ahlport
On Newt Gingrich is an idiot posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 7 ResponsesTo be fair
This is probably a good reason why Hansen's Carbon Tax may just work. (Even though it is a "Tax".
_Since "government" isn't left with any of the money.
And because it "Let's the market innovate, rather than government picking winners".
It also provides "Tax Credits" to large swaths of voting constituencies.
-David Ahlport
On Newt Gingrich is an idiot posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 7 ResponsesOr basically
Anybody who calls themselves a "Skeptic", but doesn't care about Objectivity, isn't a skeptic.On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses
Georgia
As Wallace was mentioning, and what bothers me about the term "skeptic" isn't that you aren't skeptical about one side.
It's why you aren't skeptical about the other side at all.
It doesn't matter how suspect the source seems to be, as long as it agrees with your point of view, it's automatically assumed to be legitimate.
Both those last two links you gave, for instance, aren't peer reviewed science.
RuralSoft is a consulting firm.
And as for Tom V. Segalstad, he has the credentials to write peer reviewed physical science papers. So why isn't this published as one? (What's more, the known evidence about climate change has changed quite a lot in the last decade since 1998)
When you assume that Pseudo-Science, and Peer-Reviewed Science are equal, then you aren't truly being "skeptical". You're just being Ideological.
And that can sometimes be rather scary.
http://greyfalcon.net/realityOn U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 ResponsesThis again...
Anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. So says the rocket scientist who developed the carbon accounting model for Australia.
Except that:
- David Evans is not a rocket scientist
- He's not even a scientist (He's an electrical engineer / computer programmer)
- All he really did was create a piece of accounting software with a user interface
- He's bluntly wrong
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/david_evans_and_t ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesn ...5. Not only is he WRONG, but the irony is that this is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence that shows that greenhouse induced global warming is occurring.
___
*The Troposphere (Atmosphere above the surface)
*The Stratosphere (Above the Troposphere)
*The rest is too thin to matterSunlight turns into infrared radiation as it bounces off, and leaves the earth.
Infrared radiation causes heat.
The troposphere has been getting warmer, while the stratosphere has been getting colder.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.pngAs if "something in the troposphere" is increasingly blocking infrared radiation from reaching the stratosphere.
The greenhouse layer is in the troposphere.
If it were the sun increasing it's output, the stratosphere would be receiving more infrared radiation, not less.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png-David Ahlport
On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 28 Responses- David Evans is not a rocket scientist
One came first
If memory serves, the Kyoto Treaty that GW didn't sign specifically allowed poor little third-world China to just exactly that, no? So if Al Gore had been president for eight years, the outcome would have been exactly the same, yes?
Lets see,
China Joins WTO 2001
Kyoto Treaty signed 1997Did China join the WTO before, or after the Kyoto Treaty was signed?
-David Ahlport
On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 28 ResponsesAs I said
The catch is that the greenhouse layer, and the surface are different.
The amount of water vapor in the greenhouse layer is regulated by the temperature there.
Less heat, means more condensation, then it turns to water and falls straight out.
More heat, means less condensation, which means an increasing holding capacity for water vapor in the greenhouse layer.
_
That said, there's already an EXCESS amount of water vapor below the greenhouse layer. So adding more excess wouldn't really make much difference.
What's more, the water vapor cycles such that it only spends a few days in the greenhouse layer so wouldn't really much matter anyways.
"Long Lived Green House Gases" on the other hand spend decades to centuries in the atmosphere. Which gives them plenty of time to accumulate.On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses
Case in point
Sugar Cane is great at solving the EROEI issue.
But it's not good at solving the Lifecycle Emissions, and Resource Scarcity issues.
Not to mention, part of the way it gets that higher EROEI number isn't terribly ethical.
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil4-David Ahlport
On As mandates and government aid ramp up, the case for ethanol runs out of steam posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 6 ResponsesMore like this:
"Infrared radiation doesn't cause heat!"
Uhg...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#HeatThe AGW theory states that the increase in CO2 will cause more evaporation and thus put more water vapor into the air.
Perhaps, but that's not crucially important to the troposphere. Since there's already an excess of water vapor below the troposphere.
The amount of water vapor in the troposphere is dependent on other temperature forcings present within the troposphere.
In effect tropospheric water vapor can't "Cause" warming. All it can do is amplify other warming factors.http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=200 ...
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.pngOn U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 ResponsesHere ya go Georgia
*The Troposphere (Atmosphere above the surface)
*The Stratosphere (Above the Troposphere)
*The rest is too thin to matterSunlight turns into infrared radiation as it bounces off, and leaves the earth.
Infrared radiation causes heat.
The troposphere has been getting warmer, while the stratosphere has been getting colder.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.pngAs if "something in the troposphere" is increasingly blocking infrared radiation from reaching the stratosphere.
The greenhouse layer is in the troposphere.
Now if it were the sun increasing it's output, don't you think that the stratosphere would be receiving more infrared radiation, not less?
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png
___As for your 10,000 year cycle thing.
That's changes in earth's orbit relative to the sun.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitchHowever that's way too slow to explain the last few centuries, much less the last 4 decades.
_____
As for proxy records, take your pick.
http://greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png(Besides of course, Baliunas 2006 which was demolished in open review, or Craig Loehle 2007 which wasn't even published in a Physical Science Journal)On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses
Well
1. As was brought up in the tax versus auction debate, what might be more important is if you put a carbon price on coal, BEFORE it has the chance of being sold overseas.
-David Ahlport
On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 28 Responsesre: Tom Philpott
I still wouldn't get too caught up in the EROEI arguments.
For practical purposes, complaining about EROEI is just a strawman argument since that hurdle is easy enough to cross.
The real issue is:
1. Total Carbon Emissions (Direct & InDirect)
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol10
2. Resource scarcity of Fertilizer, Farm-land, and Fresh-water
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.pngBioFuels are gonna have a much harder time solving those, (If at all).
And unless they can, we shouldn't support anything but their R&D.(Much in the same way that we shouldn't be subsidizing conventional coal. Subsidizing coal sequestration R&D is tolerable.
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png)-David Ahlport
On As mandates and government aid ramp up, the case for ethanol runs out of steam posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 6 ResponsesWhy do Nuclear advocates
Always use the word "Only"?
As if that's their real argument that "No other possible options exist!!!"
Kind of a pathetic argument to make.
(And yet that's the one that they keep using)-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 48 ResponsesI'd like
DEET-free bug repellents
-David Ahlport
On What green products would you like to see Grist review? posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 8 ResponsesIn short
We need to supply China with a viable alternative to electricity creation.
We're already half way there in proving to them that electric cars/transit is the transportation of the future. Not oil.
We need to prove to them that Coal also can be replaced.
And the only way that that's going to happen is if we lead the way.
-David Ahlport
On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 28 ResponsesThe real question of course
Who/What sets the price of the tax?
- Would Congress take a vote every few years?
- Would there be an entirely independent entity formed, like the federal reserve.
- Or would it be something with an automatic percentage increase every year, which is indexed for inflation.
-David Ahlport
On Question of the day posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 15 Responses- Would Congress take a vote every few years?
An interesting knock-on effect
An interesting knock-on effect of levying taxes upstream.
Lets say you have a coal mine, and by issuing this tax, they aren't able to raise their prices, and they just cease production.
Well, by taking that production off the market, you would increase the scarcity of coal.
Increased scarcity = Increased cost
____
That said, one problem which would need to be addressed.
What about Coal exports?
http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvironment08/idUSTR ...An upstream "mine mouth" tax would be pretty easy.
A downstream tax, most likely wouldn't catch it.
And would allow for US coal mines to continue operation (albeit as an export industry).-David Ahlport
On They affect consumers the same either way, and upstream is simpler and more transparent posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 27 ResponsesHate to say it
But it's most likely because taxes don't have volatility.
Similarly, depending on who sets the price on carbon, the price may be lobbied to be kept low.
(Where as that might be harder with am auction set price)-David Ahlport
On Question of the day posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 15 ResponsesWell I can agree there
Upgrading a parallel hybrid to be a plugin hybrid is just an amazingly complex beast.
A common car is already the most mechanically complex consumer item we by.
A hybrid makes that a lot more complex
And adding a rack of batteries, even more so.On the flip side, an electric car, or even a series plugin hybrid on the other hand would be even less complex than a conventional car.
Different architecture.
-David Ahlport
On Consumer Reports knocks plug-in hybrid Hymotion L5 conversion kit on efficiency, value posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 9 ResponsesStill not seeing your argument Sean
Still not seeing your argument Sean
But I can agree with one aspect which you aren't bringing up.
Psychological Impact
By making it so that the party which has the most decision power, is the one who is forced to do the accounting, then they would see that Federal check as a cumulated big red line on their accounting books.
If it were upstream, then that accounting would be out of sight, and out of mind.
_
From a monetary standpoint, I don't really see the difference.
But from a Behavioral Impact standpoint, you may actually have a point.
-David Ahlport
On They affect consumers the same either way, and upstream is simpler and more transparent posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 27 ResponsesOr basically
Batteries, like Microprocessors and Cars, benefit greatly from economies of scale.
http://greyfalcon.net/batterycost.png-David Ahlport
On Consumer Reports knocks plug-in hybrid Hymotion L5 conversion kit on efficiency, value posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 9 ResponsesWell
The Nuclear issue pretty much comes down to cost.
Capital Cost
Decommissioning Cost
Waste Cost
Anti-Proliferation CostAnd as of yet, private industry is unwilling to pay those full costs.
_
That said, Hey Romm, if you're looking for a story.
How about how Nuclear Waste creates Pirates:
http://current.com/items/89693421/nuclear_waste_and_the_t ...-David Ahlport
On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responsesre: stopgreenpath
Would you please quit with that bullshit.
Net Metered Solar Panels need a Grid just as much as anything else does.
Whining and moaning and saying how they magically DON'T is just dishonest, and annoying.
_
Either give us a REAL solution, or shut up.
-David Ahlport
On Obama lays out his economic stimulus plan posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 ResponsesAlso
Looks like the zeal for raw military intervention in Afganistan thing is cooling down a bit.
Perhaps they are showing screenings of Charlie Wilson's War, on how Afganistan isn't something to can deal with with blunt military force alone.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlie_wilsons_war/?crit ...
-David Ahlport
On Commentary Magazine warms to Obama posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 ResponsesI dunno
I kinda like Gates.
GATES: "We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years."
"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security"
http://greyfalcon.net/gates
(Video doesn't really pick up until about 11:00 minutes in)
http://greyfalcon.net/gates2
http://greyfalcon.net/diplomacy
http://greyfalcon.net/diplomacy2
http://greyfalcon.net/peacecorpNot to mention, Accountability is a pretty nice change of pace.
http://www.slate.com/id/2193114/-David Ahlport
On Commentary Magazine warms to Obama posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 ResponsesDishonesty about income and capital gains taxes.
Well yeah.
But then again, you know you're making progress when they've shifted away from blocking every policy.
Towards trying to shape the direction of policy.
Even if they don't agree with it, they would be entirely empty handed if they just sat there screaming that we should "do nothing".
AEI: The most likely candidates for a carbon tax tradeoff would be the corporate income tax (the U.S. rate is currently among the highest in the industrialized world) and payroll taxes, the latter of which would lower the cost of employment and help offset the possibly regressive effects of higher energy prices on lower-income households. But across-the-board income tax rate cuts and further cuts in the capital gains tax could also be considered.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26286/pu ...
Incidentally of course, that quip they have about US having the highest income tax rate is true. "On paper".
But ignores the part that we have so many deductions, tax loopholes, and sheer lack of collection rates.
That we have one lowest income tax rates "In reality".
http://greyfalcon.net/taxevasion2And in cumulative tax rates, the rich still pay a small fraction of their annual income compared to what those who work for them do.
http://greyfalcon.net/taxevasion3_
Recently for instance, Congress is trying to close a loophole where the nation's richest people ex-patriate themselves as a tax dodge.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/15/business/fi-perfi ..._
Also looks like Goldman Sach's current annual effective tax rate is 1%.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/12/18/maddow- ...
(Yeah it's newsbusters, but the message is there, and hey it's got a video.)-David Ahlport
On American Enterprise Institute endorses tax credits for super-efficient, furnace-free homes posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 ResponsesYeah
I thought it was kinda "strange" that CarbonTax.org's "Winning Arguments" section prominently features a report by AEI.
http://www.carbontax.org/winning-arguments/Of course they are talking about offsetting income taxes, not payroll taxes. (Pigs haven't started to fly yet)
But interesting to say the least.
-David Ahlport
On American Enterprise Institute endorses tax credits for super-efficient, furnace-free homes posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 ResponsesLow Sunspots = Iceage?
Lastly, that low sunspots = iceage theory put forward by the likes of David Archibald.
Perhaps we need to mention the value of peer reviewed physical science journals, over "scientific tabloids" like Energy & Environment.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.htmlFor starters, how about spell checking....
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html_
But just in general whenever you hear the argument "some scientists say", rather than actually citing their sources, you know they are bullshitting you.
It's an old Fox News routine,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw-David Ahlport
On Lou Dobbs leaves CNN viewers dumber about climate change posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 ResponsesWell first off
Joseph D'Aleo isn't a climatologist.
He's a meteorologist. And while many climatologists are also meteorologists.
This one certainly isn't.He's just a glorified TV weatherman.
-David Ahlport
On Lou Dobbs leaves CNN viewers dumber about climate change posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 ResponsesWonder if
There was a scarcity of Vanadium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium#Occurrence_and_prod ...-David Ahlport
On VRB's long-life flow battery was a reliable electricity storage alternative for renewable energy posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 ResponsesWell
A safety valve is kind of a "well if it gets expensive or politically inconvenient, then we can just back out of doing it"
So yeah, a safety valve kinda does undercut pretty much all carbon pricing models.
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesAnyways
I think one argument that should be used is that markets are incapable of rationing goods and privileges, if there is no economic cost associated with them.
And because it's not really possible to turn the earth's atmosphere into private property, the ONLY way to deal with this issue is for the government to impose prices/restrictions on the privilege of atmospheric pollution.
(And of course, certain Easements for things like "Breathing")
-David Ahlport
On Wherein I ramble on about markets and regulations posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses"You can't be serious!"
You're talking as if we should fund climate change as if it were a matter of economic and national security.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/20 ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/12/18/10192/710?sho ...
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdfWorld War II, well that was important.
It had a guy with a mustache, doing bad things!
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm
But clearly this isn't anywhere near as important.
Because clearly nobody's going to die from a little heat, right?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/effects-of-global ...
This is merely just supposed to be a bureaucratic gesture to satisfy those hippies and employ a bunch of corrupt scientists, right?
And worse comes to worst, we got 50-100 years to deal with it, right?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0914-01.htm
No big deal, huh?-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesSo what if
We just gave out a bunch of loan guarantees for infrastructure projects?
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesAlthough
Maybe I am off base.
Inflation would probably be regressive...http://ezinearticles.com/?Inflation-and-Social-Security-- ...
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesAlso
It's not really the same as "Printing more"
In World War 2, the put out "War Bonds".
Nowadays, we put out "Treasury Bonds".Notice how WWII hardly even registers on the CPI
http://www.economics-charts.com/images/cpi-1913.png_
Not to mention, at least with Green Energy.
You aren't just throwing money down a rat hole. (i.e. War)You're actually getting a return on investment on infrastructure (i.e. Increased federal revenues), and investment in new technologies, and a strong foothold on a new global economic sector.
_
Taking out a loan, to buy capital, to then get a return on investment from that capital, is business 101.
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesPerhaps
But even then how much could we get away with diverting from fossil fuel subsidies?
Tops, we're looking at 3 billion a year diverted away from Coal.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.pngWhich of course, you wouldn't even get that much, because the "clean coal" people would freak out, and spend a few million on ad campaigns against that.
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesTo address that issue
So why not tie an upstream carbon tax, together with downstream "carbon reduction grants".
(Or your basic "Feebate")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feebate-David Ahlport
On They affect consumers the same either way, and upstream is simpler and more transparent posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 27 ResponsesOr more specifically
The federal government took out loans, through Treasury Bills.
_
Last I checked, there's such a huge demand for Treasury Bills right now, that they are trading at a NEGATIVE interest rate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/09/treasury-bills-t ...-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesYeah
And we basically printed money for the Vietnam war as well.
And for the Iraq war.
And for this current economic crisis.
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesAhh
That makes more sense.
A solar powered car port.
(Likely net metered, rather than battery storage)-David Ahlport
On Is Toyota developing a purely solar-powered car? posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 10 ResponsesCome to think of it.
How did Reagan pay for his defense spending?
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/03/bush-v-reagan-on-si ...
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png(Or Bush for that matter)
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesWell one question.
Carbon tax? Try passing a "new tax" in a recession/depression. Hoover did it, why not try it again?
In the middle of the great depression, how did we pay for World War II?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.pngAlso, since we're only talking about 2% of one year's GDP to finance everything.
If something like that were to pull us out of our current depression a few years sooner than what would otherwise happen.How much is that kickstart to our GDP growth worth?
-David Ahlport
On An open reply to James Hansen's open letter posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 32 ResponsesFair point
But Republicans were also in charge 2000-2006
And 2006-2008 Dem's weren't anywhere near the 2/3rds vote needed to pass anything unilaterally in the Senate.
-David Ahlport
On Wherein I ramble on about markets and regulations posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 14 ResponsesTranslation Error
Likely a translation error involving the fact that "ALL new Prius's will now have a solar panel"
Catch being it's just a tiny panel, designed to improve the battery life, by topping off the batteries with a trickle charge.
It doesn't actually improve driving range. (Much less drive the whole car entirely)
-David Ahlport
On Is Toyota developing a purely solar-powered car? posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 10 ResponsesAnd the other author
Is a Stanford research student, focused on nanotech and fuel cells.
http://www.stanford.edu/~varun/interest.html-David Ahlport
On Newsweek once again deceives its readers about energy alternatives posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 ResponsesWanna know what's even worse?
The author of this article is a Stanford California University Professor who heads their "Program on Energy and Sustainable Development".
http://pesd.stanford.edu/people/davidgvictor/Perhaps someone should email that guy....
-David Ahlport
On Newsweek once again deceives its readers about energy alternatives posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses_
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png-David Ahlport
On Skeptic screed on progressive news site recycles familiar myths posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 ResponsesClimate Primer
What I'm surprised is that there isn't much of a "Climate Science Primer" out there.
(i.e. A barebones need-to-know understanding of some of the key aspects of climate science)For instance,
* For 10,000+ year periods, the primary changes in earth's temperature is caused by changes in the earth's orbit relative to the sun. But that's far too slow to explain the past few decades, much less the past few centuries.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch* How the Sun doesn't explain the bulk of what's going on in the past half century because the region above the greenhouse layer is getting colder, while the region with the greenhouse layer is getting warmer. (If it were just the sun increasing it's output, both would be getting warmer.)
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png* Not to mention, we've had 3 sets of satellites up for the past 40 years, and the solar irradiance has dropped off, but the temperature keeps going way up
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png* How water vapor, while it is the dominant cause of our greenhouse effect, the amount of water vapor in the troposphere is dependant on the temperature of the troposphere. (Not the other way around)
Which means that Carbon based Tropospheric Warming leads to increasing holding capacity for Tropospheric Water Vapor. (i.e. a Megaphone effect)
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
(Which by the way, is that A. Dessler guy who I think it is?
http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=200 ...)* And how 1998 and 2008 can't be meaningfully explained without the inclusion of the El Nino Southern Oscillation
(Followed by the stupidity of basing any trendlines primarily on those years.)
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/enso* 1934 versus 1998 thing was local to the mainland US. Not global.
http://greyfalcon.net/ustemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png* the numbers on the carbon cycle
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2* Aerosols; Cloud Condensation Nuclei, why cosmic ray theory is bunk, and the importance of peer reviewed physical science journals.
(In short, the aersols formed by cosmic rays are way to small, and the rays don't have any meaningful correlation)
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/05/things-heat-up-climate ...
((And any attemps at a correlation focus on timeframes of months, when if there was a real correlation it should come into effect in minutes))
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-int ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/cloudy-day-nexus-6-hav ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/throwing-in-towel-one- ...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/02/from-another-life.html ...* A direct attack on the twin arguments of:
"If ONE variable doesn't explain ALL climate behavior, then it cannot explain ANY climate behavior."
"There are UNLIMITED variables, therefore it's so complex, we can't even begin to understand anything, so we might as well just do nothing."
(i.e. Put Solar+Aerosols+ENSO+GreenHouseGases and even though that doesn't explain things down to the tiniest detail, it does a pretty good job of it)
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png*And of course, put forward the argument that
"Why the earth is warming" cannot be debunked by
"I don't agree with the Science, because I don't like the Political Implications"
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
Or debunked by "Well you can't tell what will happen when/where exactly as a result of the warming, ie Hurricanes, Sea Level Rise, etc"
Because the core thing (for Now atleast) is "Why the earth is warming".
Not "What will happen as a result of warming".* The thing that really has scientists hair on fire:
The prospect of non-linear warming caused by Feedback loops (i.e. thawing ice/permafrost/hydrates).* And of course, lastly I propose labeling ourselves, as:
"Climate Realists"
(Since as mentions, there's a lot of benefit to framing things in the possitive, rather than the negative sence.
Otherwise those ensuring the choice of abortion for women would call themselves the "Anti-Life" movement)
(And sure it's slightly pretencious to say that you're a "Realist". However no more so than to say that "climate skeptics" are the only scientists who are skeptical. All scientists who trust in empirical evidence are skeptical.)Roundup:
- Milankovitch Cycles
- Sun's limited Role: Solar Irradiance versus Temperature doesn't match
- Sun's limited Role: Tropospheric Warming, Stratospheric Cooling
- Water Vapor MegaPhone effect, and why Water vapor alone can't "cause" warming.
- 1998 and 2008 are tied to the ENSO effect
- 1934 wasn't "hottest" globally
- Basic Carbon Cycle Numbers
- Aerosols, Cosmic Ray Theory, and Why psuedo-science doesn't cut it
- Climate isn't determined by 1 variable alone, nor by unlimited primary variables
- "Disagreeing with Reality" because you don't like the Political Implications, is delussional
- Not knowing exactly the outcomes of this warming as we move forward, doesn't mean we can't know the root causes of the warming we've already experienced
- Non-Linear warming can be damned scary : Tipping Points
- "Climate Realists"
(p.s. Hate to use a hobby as an analogy, but I tend to do this whenever I get into a video gaming community, and want to train up some newbies)
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?topic_id=7 ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ns
http://greyfalcon.net/tf2-David Ahlport
On Skeptic screed on progressive news site recycles familiar myths posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses- Milankovitch Cycles
Oh and
Some other useful bits of info:
http://greyfalcon.net/smallgovernment.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.pngBottom Line: RNC Republicans are only for small government spending, when they aren't in power.
Also, for some "strange reason" the economy tends to do better under Democrats:
http://greyfalcon.net/stocks
http://greyfalcon.net/gdp
http://greyfalcon.net/jobgrowth2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mccain5-David Ahlport
On Wherein I ramble on about markets and regulations posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 14 ResponsesCharts are good
http://greyfalcon.net/concentrate.png
-David Ahlport
On Wherein I ramble on about markets and regulations posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 14 ResponsesHeh well true
But then again, that's really why "Who sets the price" is key.
If they had an annual escalator, plus indexed for inflation.
Then it'd be kind of a no-brainer for investors.
-David Ahlport
On Two questions for James Hansen posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 8 ResponsesWell
Perhaps one selling point of a carbon tax angled towards building infrastructure.
Is that you'd be certain of a persistent price shift.
And that persistence builds longer term confidence in the sector.
-David Ahlport
On Two questions for James Hansen posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 8 ResponsesPolitical Will
Yeah, most politicians equivocate electricity and liquid fuels.
Same goes for most NRDC, GreenPeace etc folks as well.
It's stupid, but the public at large doesn't seem to notice the difference...
_
But then again, perhaps thats because the cost of oil is so blatently obvious, where as the cost of electricity is not.
And because there's "evil corporations and countries" involved with oil.
Where as Coal is "American" and has tons of whitewashing commercials.
_
Sadly, without broad understanding of the climate science involved, we're kinda pigeon holed into something which actually has emotional appeal.
If only global warming was caused by killing puppies, then we'd have this thing wrapped up by next Tuesday.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm-David Ahlport
On How green will the economic stimulus package be? posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 ResponsesWell
It doesn't hurt that the Vice President takes Amtrak every day.
-David Ahlport
On Obama's radio address, 03 Jan 2008: renewable energy, no transit posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 ResponsesOh, and
I should have phrased it
Easily Accessible, Portable, Nuclear bombs.Even better :P
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 48 ResponsesHAH!
modularized mass-produced small reactors
Aka. Easily accessible Nuclear bombs.
Great idea!
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 48 ResponsesAlso
If we want to talk about cost overheads.
What about Nuclear Waste, Decomissioning, and Geopolitical/Military cost overheads.
Those keep going up and up and up.
Renewables don't have any of that.If anything, Renewables would actually lower the Geopolitical/Military cost overhead.
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 48 ResponsesProven?
Perhaps.
But not commercially proven.Saying that you can build something with deficit spending, and then run it as a federal monopoly isn't proving much.
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 48 ResponsesSay
Has Grist picked up on this at all?
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4878Natural Gas is seeming like it will be much less of an option in the UK right about..... Now.
-David Ahlport
On Natural gas utility to spend $6.6 million on conservation and efficiency efforts posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 ResponsesCouple unanswered questions
I have a couple questions with the specifics of a carbon tax.
________My main question with a carbon tax, is
"Who would be in control of the pricing"Would it be something where the Congress would vote on it every few years?
Would it be an independent entity, like the Federal Reserve?
Or would it be something like an annual increase, that's also indexed for inflation?
________
One could even question where the tax would be charged.
Would it be charged as a fossil fuel charge at the point of bulk wholesale for oil/coal/gas.
Or Would it be charged one the end products themselves, like a tax on a bag of chips.
________
How would you deal with products shipped in from overseas?
________
Lastly, why would a dividend be more ideal than investment in infrastructure, or preventing tropical deforestation?
________
Lastly, what is the PRIMARY purpose of this carbon pricing mechanism.
Is it to discourage bad behavior
Or is it to encourage good behavior_________
Is the whole purpose of a dividend to make it so that you could raise prices high enough to discourage bad behavior?
-David Ahlport
On Two questions for James Hansen posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 8 ResponsesBasically
Plutonium/Transurenics based reactors
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 48 ResponsesVagueness
A very insightful comment as fourth generation plants can reduce storage time from 130,000 years to 270 years (page 5).
From what I can tell, "4th generation" seems to be as vague a term as "clean coal".
What I think you're specifically talking about is Breeder Reactors / Fast Neutron Reactors.
-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 48 Responsesre: sindark
Yeah, but a lot of biofuel companies have gotten around that with making biofuels that aren't ethanol.
The real hurdle they have to get past is "where do you get all that biomass from".
I'd rather avoid making the discussion all about the other smaller hurdles, because then it provides a false finishing line.
-David Ahlport
On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses*sigh*
Fourth generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support.
Kind of a weird statement.
"Best candidates"
"Although they aren't anywhere near being ready."
"But they could be ready sooner if we give them a lot more subsidies than we already do"Wouldn't that make them "not" the best candidates?
But I guess I can understand couched statements like that as chasing towards the political middle to for the mere purpose of consensus building.
Just kinda of a weird statement coming from a guy who says "We need to act as soon as possible!!!".
When the soonest current 3rd gen Nuclear powerplants are projected is 2020.
And 4th gen and CSS are hardly even in their pilot stages.-David Ahlport
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 48 ResponsesIronically
Milton Friedman's teacher, Friedrich Hayek created the backbone of Conservative economic theory.
He also coined an interesting phrase.
Hayek was highly critical of what he termed scientism: a false understanding of the methods of science that has been mistakenly forced upon the social sciences, but that is contrary to the practices of genuine science.
Usually scientism involves combining the philosophers' ancient demand for demonstrative justification with the associationists' false view that all scientific explanations are simple two-variable linear relationships. Hayek points out that much of science involves the explanation of complex multi-variable and non-linear phenomena, and that the social science of economics and undesigned order compares favorably with such complex sciences as Darwinian biology.
-David Ahlport
On Faster, climate change! Kill! Kill! posted 11 months ago 22 ResponsesOne thing to consider
Tropical forests don't only have to deal with the tree's carbon.
But they also have a large amount of carbon beneath the soil
AND the trees themselves emit water vapor during the day, and not at night. This allows for the region of the earth that gets the most sunlight, to reflect sunlight back out into space.
You get a lot more bang for your buck in tropical regions.
-David Ahlport
On Planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon posted 11 months ago 19 ResponsesAnd more!
Come to think of it,
Wind gets a Production Tax Credit (PTC)
Solar gets an Investment Tax Credit (ITC)_
But Nuclear, gets a PTC AND an ITC.
Their profits are entirely tax free, as long as they "set it aside" to invest in decommissioning the plant. Catch being the company is still allowed to play with the money as they see fit for investment capital.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/fina ...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...(On top of the 100% capital financing, the multibillion cost overrun fund, more R&D money than the entire rest of the electricity sector, and are being allowed to near completely avoid paying into the waste fund.)
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months ago 33 ResponsesAs always
The issue with ethanol isn't the conversion process.
It's the scarcity of raw feedstock.
And scarcity of ingredients to make that feedstock.Just not enough land, water, and fertilizer to do the job.
-David Ahlport
On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 11 months ago 50 Responsesre: Anyone
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ... ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW and this at prohibitively long planning and construction times.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ... ...On the other hand, according to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh.
Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdfKeep in mind though that you'd need 3x the wind turbines to meet 1x nuclear plants, due to the capacity factor difference.
And then a bit more for grid infrastructure.
But even then you'd still probably end up less than $7000/kWOn Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 Responses
Well
Well, perhaps the biggest question mark I have for a carbon tax.
"How would the pricing mechanism be done?
How would the cost of carbon increase?"Would congress have to pass each increase?
Or would it be an automated annual escalator, indexed to inflation.
Or would there be some independent governing body like the Federal Reserve?If you could answer that question, I think a lot of people might be more open to a Carbon Tax, instead of a Carbon Auction.
-David Ahlport
On Will carbon cap-and-trade be the next Ponzi scheme? posted 11 months ago 21 ResponsesI'm no fan of carbon offsets.
I'd far rather two seperate mechanisms:
- Take the money via Cap & Auction.
- Give the money via Carbon Reduction Grants.
-David Ahlport
On Will carbon cap-and-trade be the next Ponzi scheme? posted 11 months ago 21 Responses- Take the money via Cap & Auction.
Charts are good
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png-David Ahlport
On The right questions posted 11 months ago 2 Responsesre:
Also, the PTC/ITC for Wind/Solar only lasts for 10 years.
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months ago 33 ResponsesDetails
No nuclear power plants currently receive anything like the PTC all renewables get, and only the first 8GW of new nuclear capacity will.
- Nor should any power plant, of any type, that's fully amortized it's capital costs.
- Nuclear annually gets more money in R&D than all other electric R&D subsidies combined...
- First the 8GW limit used to be 6GW. What's more, the PTC can be transferred to other future plants. So it's not actually "the first 8GW".
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months ago 33 Responses- Nor should any power plant, of any type, that's fully amortized it's capital costs.
Absolute madness
Subsidies per kwh are an important indicator not because bigger industries deserve more, but because spending $X on several GWh of energy is a much better investment than spending the same $X and getting a few MWh. I am continually amazed at your constant opposition to considering per/kwh subsidies in assessing underlying economic competitiveness.
I still completely disagree with this.
It's absolute madness to compare 1 years worth of subsidies, towards the total generating capacity built up over half a century.
The only reason you would do that is if you want to be intentionally misleading.
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months ago 33 ResponsesPerhaps
We should open up those on-land shale formations, with tons of methane in them...
That sounds like a great idea!
We can call it "The T Boone Pickens Plan"http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.h ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...
http://drive55.org/content/view/82/38/-David Ahlport
On Semiletov tells AGU that, if released, 1 percent of ESAS methane could cause runaway warming posted 11 months ago 9 ResponsesThat said
Perhaps it's time that we stop soft rolling the premise of:
- Hydrogen
- Coal Sequestration
- BioFuels
- Natural Gas from Shale Formations
- Insulation / Conservation
- Deforestation (Especially Tropical)
- Utility Decoupling
- Grid Infrastructure
-David Ahlport
On Memo to the president-elect about NASA posted 11 months ago 5 Responses- Hydrogen
re: Jon Rynn
If you are looking for storage,
I'd keep an eye on "Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage".Basically CAES, except instead of burning natural gas, to create heat, to released the compressed air.
You instead use the heat stored during compression.
_
If that pans out, you might have a killer storage tech on your hands.On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months ago 33 Responses
Good call JMG
I saw the thread title, and that's exactly what I was going to comment on.
_
You'd think the existing level of evidence would be enough, but something like this would remove all doubt.
And that remaining doubt is the main reason we haven't gotten our collective asses into high gear yet.
-David Ahlport
On Memo to the president-elect about NASA posted 11 months ago 5 ResponsesWell
Put it this way
- New Nuclear power plants will be getting far more Federal Support than New Solar/Wind/Geo projects.
- Older Nuclear power plants have gotten plenty of help with bankruptcies, financing, and power purchase agreements.
- The argument that we should be accounting for per-kwh subsidies towards fully amortized power plants of any sort, is entirely dumbfounding to me.
- The R&D budget for solar/wind/geo relative to Nuclear speaks for itself.
- If the Nuclear industry isn't going to fully pay for the real costs of dealing with Waste and Decommissioning, then the US Taxpayer is going to be the one that would end up paying for it.
_
All in all, the usual strawman of comparing annual subsidies to total capacity just bugs the hell out of me.
Because it's simply dishonest.
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses- New Nuclear power plants will be getting far more Federal Support than New Solar/Wind/Geo projects.
Not to mention the whole
Waste/Decommissioning finance issue.
Who's going to pick up the bill on that?
http://grist.org/news/2008/08/05/yucca/index.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/18/161052/155
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/10/fina ...-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 ResponsesNot to mention
The per-KWh subsidies for New Nuclear power plants are already much larger than the subsidies for Wind and Solar.
Getting both a PTC, a cost overrun fund, and 100% capital financing.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 ResponsesPerspective.
The nuclear subsidy per kWh
So you're saying, the bigger an industry gets, the more it deserves federal subsidies?
Also, can we be serious about that?
Nuclear power has gotten more than half of all R&D subsidies for the past half century, and individually for each year for the past decade.
And yet it still can't even provide it's own private capital financing. Much less private R&D financing.
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 ResponsesHeh
Except that Browns Ferry isn't really "New".
The thing nearly had a meltdown in the 1970's, and it was only recently brought back on line.
-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 ResponsesBioFuel issues
Pretty much always come down to scarcity of
- Land
- Fresh Water
- Fertilizers
If we could help these farmers produce biofuels, they could receive more money for their work. And they would become less poor and less hungry.
It also means that the cost of all their INPUTS goes up.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/52073/So if they aren't participating in the biofuels market, or aren't selling that specific biofuel crop, it hurts them.
It also removes the local availability of food, because they are producing a product which is not benefiting from this biofuel boom.
All the while driving the impetus to deforest as much land as possible.
And to farm the land until it's barren, and then move on.
_
It's the same crap as what happened when the World Bank decided to demand that all these poor countries grow coffee.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/ ...-David Ahlport
On What U.S. leaders could learn from a 13-year-old posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses- Land
Subs
That's in spite of the fact that we subsidize the hell out of coal and nuke.
Yeap.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On End of year musings on coal and its competitors posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 ResponsesHrmm
Anyone remember when the Bible was used as justification to block inter-racial marriage?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_lawsWay I see it, if two Atheists can get "Civil Marriages", without any Religious intervention.
Then shouldn't gay people be allowed that same right?
-David Ahlport
On Homo mitigation posted 11 months, 1 week ago 2 ResponsesMan
I really should index this stuff on a webpage rather than just trying to remember it all.
http://greyfalcon.net/etoh2.png-David Ahlport
On What U.S. leaders could learn from a 13-year-old posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 Responsesergh
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol4.png
-David Ahlport
On What U.S. leaders could learn from a 13-year-old posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 ResponsesHere's a chart
Which ironically comes from Argonne Labs.
http://greyfalcon.net/eoth2.png-David Ahlport
On What U.S. leaders could learn from a 13-year-old posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 ResponsesIn short
The question should be:
"Can USA provide the Chinese a viable alternative to Coal"?-David Ahlport
On Post-Kyoto international climate negotiations will depend on China's cooperation posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 4 ResponsesBlame Rachel Maddow :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28202086#28202086 ...
-David Ahlport
On ACCE pulls down clean coal carolers from its site posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 ResponsesWell
The real problem with biofuels in general isn't even economics, or the "energy return on energy investment".
The real problem is fundamental resource scarcity.
You only have so much Arable Land, Fresh Water, and Fertilizer to go around.
For instance, here's one study which Ron Steenblik participated in:
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.pngAnd to be fair, he gives the assumption that all regions of the earth are capable of achieving Brazilian SugarCane equivalent efficiency. Then he assumes that 1/2 of all possible arable land, be used for biofuel production.
And even with those crazy unrealistic benefits of the doubt, it still doesn't amount to much.
-David Ahlport
On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 ResponsesWell I will say this
If Nuclear were to gain serious deployment, it's not going to come from LWRs and PWRs.
-David Ahlport
On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responsesre: vakibs
Dr Jacobson's review is not bad, except for his idiotic assumption of a nuclear-war when considering nuclear power.
Well put it this way.
- It'd be near impossible to tell countries like Iran and North Korea. "No you can't do that".
- Many countries may see this as an arms race and increase their forward leaning military stance.
- At very least it would incur a significant military and geopolitical cost overhead.
there is no way in hell wind+solar can be scaled up to shut down coal plants before 2030
Perhaps, but SolarThermal and EGS Geothermal could do the trick.
Especially considering that they would have a exponential growth pattern, unlike nuclear's linear growth pattern.
-David Ahlport
On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responses- It'd be near impossible to tell countries like Iran and North Korea. "No you can't do that".
Heh
Biofuel lobby wasn't too happy about this Jacobson study either:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/ ...
-David Ahlport
On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 ResponsesLink:
You got a link for that?
Here ya go.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-go ...
-David Ahlport
On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 ResponsesFor instance
This study over here says good sticks are better than good carrots:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-versus-subs ...Also, if the issue is for tipping "The marginal difference between building new power plants".
You only need to shift the marginal different.
Not subsidize the entire cost._
Granted, making carbon prices high enough to shut down existing, fully-amortized power plants would be much higher.
But at first, are those really the plants we want to be going after?
-David Ahlport
On A carbon tax has efficient sticks, but what about carrots? posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 19 ResponsesSo David Roberts
If we had to pick one biase, over the other, you would say that a carbon policy based on good carrots, is better than a carbon policy based on harsh sticks.
-David Ahlport
On A carbon tax has efficient sticks, but what about carrots? posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 19 ResponsesOh crap
"He's working on the Black Mesa Project, oh noes!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGlhgVz5r6E-
Sorry
-David Ahlport
On The Black Mesa nightmare returns posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 7 ResponsesStill doesn't work that well.
There are earthquake, water usage, and aquifer contamination objections to geothermal power production which might be overcome with more R&D and testing.
Well, I'm talking about EGS usually.
And that's a closed loop.Also partially treated waste water is ideal for geothermal. It's relatively clean, but not clean enough to drink.
Most cities make a lot of this stuff.
_
Also consider though for the idea of "centralized electricity storage".
It doesn't make that much sense to go from DC electricity, to AC electricity, to high voltage AC, to long distance transmission, to high voltage DC, back to high voltage AC, to long distance transmission, and then to low voltage AC.
All the thermodynamic losses there really kill the benefit.
_Onsite solarthermal heat storage. You go from heat, to heat, back to heat. With minimal losses.
And thermal storage costs a small fraction of what electrical storage does.
-David Ahlport
On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 ResponsesWell DrX
Unless you plan on attaching a large battery array to your solar panels.
Then you are going to need to rely heavily on the grid for a majority of the year._
That said, something like ESolar's 33MW modular solar thermal power plants. That I can understand.
It is centralized, but less so._
But it just annoys me when you get stopgreenpath blathering on here as if NetMetered solar panels have no reliance on the grid.
That's just moronic.
-David Ahlport
On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 ResponsesWell I do admit
A focus on Efficiency and Conservation would probably create the most jobs, out of that same piles of money.
The question there is, would it be possible to make it so that the materials are sourced almost entirely from US companies.
-David Ahlport
On American Progress' 'Green Recovery' plan posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 21 ResponsesWell
One might ask, what is the primary purpose of creating a climate credit system?
Is it primarily to disincentivize bad things, or primarily to incentivize good things?
-David Ahlport
On CARB does not recognize the meaning of 'maximum emission reductions' posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 ResponsesHrmmm
- Electric Cars
- Deep Geothermal Power
- Solar Thermal Power with Heat Storage
- Anti-Deforestation in Tropical Regions
-David Ahlport
On American Progress' 'Green Recovery' plan posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses- Electric Cars
Heh
The usual arguement is that,
"We have so much coal, therefore we must use coal"When our untapped solarthermal and deep geothermal resources, make coal and all other forms of energy combined look pathetically tiny.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarbaseload
http://greyfalcon.net/egs-David Ahlport
On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 ResponsesWell considering
Well considering we here at Grist don't think too highly of biofuels, I kind of find this position weird to begin with.
But I would argue that the reason for the collapse of the oil price is because of the collapse of speculation.
Speculators would take out a LOAN, and then bet on the price of oil.
But if they can't get that loan, guess what, all the speculation dries up.
_
Actually back to my original point, it's rather annoying how people equivocate Getting off Oil, with Getting off Coal.
Unless we build ourselves a fleet of electric cars, (Or engage in a gigantic Liquid Coal project) then Coal and Oil are almost entirely mutually exclusive from each other.
-David Ahlport
On Is cheap gas OPEC's way of robbing Obama of his clean energy initiative? posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 11 ResponsesSolve the big problems first
Actually solving deforestation is closely linked to providing electricity and clean fresh water.
I'd say that has more to do with agricultural practices.we need to provide electricity and transport not just to US, China and India, but to the whole world.
Ultimately, yes. However one has to consider that if we can get US, China, and India on board, then getting the rest of the world to follow will be simple.To be frank, the rest of the world could stick with oil and coal, and we'd still be ~80% of the way there toward zero carbon perfection.
-David Ahlport
On Low-carbon roadmap comes into focus -- with some notable gaps posted 12 months ago 6 ResponsesSo?
Does Grist have any decent push back "primer" on this whole "31,000 scientists" argument?
-David Ahlport
On Some final thoughts on Politico, skeptics, and the next con posted 12 months ago 18 ResponsesEver notice
How Republicans always say that dealing global warming would be an "Economic Armageddon"?
And then turn around and say that following empirical science is "hysterical"?
-David Ahlport
On Hansen and Danny Bloom inspire vicious hate speech on web posted 12 months ago 7 ResponsesHeh
Or we could just simplify that down to
Solve Transportation/Electricity for US, China, and India.
And Solve Deforestation for Brazil, and Indonesia.That'd solve most of our problem right there.
_
That said, US has to lead the way.
Lead by example.-David Ahlport
On Low-carbon roadmap comes into focus -- with some notable gaps posted 12 months ago 6 ResponsesLooks good
Only problem I'd say is that #3 could use an example.
-David Ahlport
On The food price blame game posted 12 months ago 1 ResponseWell
How about I toss my hat in the ring with this one.
Looks like the oceans are worse off than we thought.
http://digg.com/environment/Oceans_Ten_Times_More_Acidic_ ...-David Ahlport
On Some leftovers to browse before T-Giving posted 1 year ago 4 ResponsesActually
to ask for your support in the development a flat tax structure to lower the cost on businesses, create jobs and grow the economy."
Assuming they included PayRoll Tax, Income Tax, and (indexed for inflation) Capital Gains Tax, all into one pot, and then did a flat tax on that.
I'd be perfectly fine with a Flat Tax.
http://greyfalcon.net/payrolltaxes.png
http://greyfalcon.net/concentrate.png
http://greyfalcon.net/taxevasion3_
What I'm not fine with is the so-called "Fair Tax", which people like Gingrich and Paul advocate. Which is primarily just shifting the tax burden away from the top 1%
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/NRST-percen ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax_
As Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) mentioned:
"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the States gives him."
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/hes-no-teddy ...Other good quotes here
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roo ...
-David Ahlport
On My robo-call from Gingrich posted 1 year ago 2 ResponsesTrading isn't the problem
Trading isn't the problem.
The problem is offsets.Full Auction Bankable/Tradable Permits however would be ideal.
Then use some of that revenue to create Carbon Reduction Grants.
-David Ahlport
On Carbon trading it too easily gamed posted 1 year ago 12 ResponsesOh
And the fun thing with China and India, is that both governments have strong central governments.
If we can set a good example, then China and India can move rather quickly to copy us.
-David Ahlport
On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 Responsesre: Billhook
=Personally I doubt that the US fixation on Wind & Solar would be as helpful globally as other simpler technologies.=Well, we need electric power for USA, India, and China.
All three countries have large deserts.
Solar Thermal Baseload, sounds like it could do the trick. That or EGS Geothermal.
And for Transportation, all three countries seem to have their eyes on Electric transportation.
_
All you got left after that is basically Deforestation and Agriculture.
-David Ahlport
On Sierra Club win shuts down 30 proposed coal plants at a stroke posted 1 year ago 14 ResponsesThat said
We might not even need a carbon pricing mechanism, if we can just knock out the big problems.
Focus on eliminating the need for coal and gasoline, in USA, China, and India.
And reduce deforestation in Brazil, and Indonesia.
If we could just do that, then we'd have 90% of our problem solved.
_
Just makes me think, if that's our benchmark, then there's probably a simpler way to solve "our little problem".
-David Ahlport
On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 ResponsesBecause
As long as it's very easy to counterfeit Credits.
And Credits are equal to Permits.
Then Permits will be easy to counterfeit._
What's more, it makes a lot more sense to just auction off permits at the point of wholesale of the fuel. Rather than creating a nightmare of buaracracy. And unlike a carbon tax, you end up getting the REAL market price it takes to reach a set target of carbon reductions. (Also I wouldn't trust Congress to rachet up the cost if it were a tax)
Where as the people applying for Carbon Reduction Grants, they have to have all their stuff in order, and the burden of proof is shifted on to them, or else they don't get the money. It also opens up the potential to fund other things with it, like grid infrastructure, and renewable R&D.
And frankly a large portion of this fund will be used for pork. Which is perfectly fine, since that will assure that it actually gets the votes it needs.
_
I think what a lot of people fail to recognize is that what we want is a system which induces behavior change.
And it doesn't need to be nitpickingly exact to achieve that result. We just need a trend away from high carbon, and toward low carbon.
-David Ahlport
On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 ResponsesCap and Permit
What they really should do is have two separate systems:
- "Cap And Permit" (CAP)
- which creates a fund for
-David Ahlport
On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 Responses- "Cap And Permit" (CAP)
That said
I would be nice if they used the revenues collected to issue "carbon reduction grants".
The nice part there being that it shifts the burden of proof, and also may have different payment schedules, and sizes.
Given the relative marginal difference needed to convince someone to do the greener alternative, would vary from industry to industry.
___
However as long as a:
OFFSET = PERMITAs long as it's easy to counterfeit OFFSETs
Then it is easy to counterfeit PERMITsAnd a bunch of fake permits defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.
-David Ahlport
On Bogus offsets merely ease emitter's remorse posted 1 year ago 8 ResponsesThis is why I don't like offsets
This is kind of why I prefer the concept of having a cap-and-trade without offsets.
Just, Full Auction, Tradable, Bankable, Permits.
Purchased at the point of wholesale._
Since ultimately the purpose isn't to provide revenue. It's to reduce the competativeness of high carbon industries, relative to their low carbon counterparts.
-David Ahlport
On Bogus offsets merely ease emitter's remorse posted 1 year ago 8 ResponsesFunny old man
McCain On Obama, Nuclear Power Safeguards:
"Blah, Blah, Blah"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/26/mccain-on-obama- ...
-David Ahlport
On The imminent nuclear revival posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 ResponsesSo
So any coverage of California's prop 10 or prop 7?
Me, I voted against em.
Basically
Prop 10: Give Natural gas vehicles a lot of subsidies.
(Funded by T Boone Picken's natural gas company, and another nat gas company)Prop 7: Disallow California's clean energy requirement from being met by anything but +30MW installations, and allow the 3 major utilities to raise rates 10% permanently.
(Funded by the 3 major utilities in the state)-David Ahlport
On KQED takes a look at California's high-speed rail ballot measure posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 ResponsesOh really?
Nuclear power is the only non fossil technology with the proven ability to supply unlimited amounts of reliable dependable electricity at an affordable cost.
And how is a plutonium based fuel cycle:
- Proven
- Affordable
-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responses- Proven
So what.
Sounds good, mature reactor technology can support 10 billion people for hundreds of years.
And your point?
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 ResponsesUhm Bill
1 Drill, drill, drill. Drill in Alaska, drill offshore, drill wherever we have oil and gas.
We need fuel to keep our economy going so that we can afford to develop the new technologies that the world needs.
Don't you think it's rather silly to conflate electricity with liquid fuels?
One might note, however, the amount of land area needed to produce 1500 Megawatts continuous with solar thermal. Perhaps this is not a fair comparison in some ways, but it goes to show that despite their cost, nuclear power plants do provide a huge amount of power in a very small area
The weakest point about solar thermal / geothermal power is their power density.
Heh, well if that's the "weakest" part, then there's not much to worry about.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra2geothermal power is like fossil water
It should be mined in a very careful way to make this a sustainable energy source. Otherwise, we will extinguish geothermal acquifiers like we have done for fossil water acquifiers.
Are you familiar with the concept of EGS?
http://www.calenergy.com/html/aboutus4b.asp?tour=8
http://greyfalcon.net/egs-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responsesre: stopgreenpath
Just like to mention,
It gets rather annoying when you make the fake argument that solar panels can provide baseload, and would therefore remove the need for transmission.Just thought you'd like to know why noone takes you seriously.
_
Try getting yourself some real solutions.
-David Ahlport
On Municipal property assessment financing for solar and energy efficiency posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responsesre: jimbeyer
So then how about Geothermal, and Solarthermal baseload?
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/ausraAlso, considering the long ramp up time for Nuclear power. Saying that "It's here now" doesn't really mean much. Even the most optimistic utilities don't expect to have a nuclear plant constructed and operating until 2020.
And considering how reliant capital intensive projects are on financing, even that's probably optimistic.
-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responses_
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/mccains-nuclear- ...
-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responseshuh
their only wishes are to control us and to destroy the US. and to divert tax money to their own pockets via subsidies to their money-losing ecological businesses. the only wishes of the econazis are to control us and to destroy the US and to divert tax money to their own pockets via subsidies to their money-losing ecological businesses. there.
Hard to tell if you were being satirical, or serious.
ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/mccains-nuclear-plan-coul_n_126858.html
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 ResponsesAnd of course
The usual argument is "Wow look at the trend line between 1998 and 2008!"
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.pngKind of ignoring that those two years had a rather strong positive and negative el nino cycle.
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina-David Ahlport
On Inhofe digs deeper posted 1 year, 1 month ago 6 ResponsesAs always
The issue with Nuclear comes down to 3 monetary issues.
- Financing
- Waste
- International Non-Proliferation
_
All that is, is proof that Anything can be cheap if you assume that someone else will pay for your liabilities.
-David Ahlport
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year, 1 month ago 43 Responses- Financing
Easy answer
I don't understand the hesitance to use natural gas as a bridge fuel.
Simple answer.
- Because there's never anything so permanent as "temporary". We aren't going to make a gigantic new set of infrastructure, and then rapidly remove it in one year. Infrastructure on average lasts for 30 years. So building new infrastructure and expecting it to go away in 5 years is stupid.
- Even at it's best, it's slightly worse than diesel emissions. And significantly worse than a hybrid.
- As mentioned, above. We don't have enough conventional natural gas to do that. Which of course would lead to increased demand for "alternative natural gas" from shale formations.
- Natural gas from Shale formations would be the carbon emissions equivalent of driving on Liquid Coal.
- Lastly, in order for a "bridge", to be a bridge, it has to kick off the SAME types of products and expertise. If we are going to assume that we need a BRIDGE, and that the end goal is Electric drive. Then our BRIDGE should be Hybrids. Then Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Then Fully Electric Vehicles.
-David Ahlport
On Pickens' natural gas plan makes no sense and will never happen posted 1 year, 1 month ago 16 Responses- Because there's never anything so permanent as "temporary". We aren't going to make a gigantic new set of infrastructure, and then rapidly remove it in one year. Infrastructure on average lasts for 30 years. So building new infrastructure and expecting it to go away in 5 years is stupid.
re: Basic Ignorance of physics: Lethal
Heh, well even better than that is how they conflate that "We need Nuclear power plants in order to wean America off foreign oil!"
_
Unless they plan on a massive roll out of electric cars. (Which would be a great idea. Israel for instance wanted to be all electric by 2013)
_
Otherwise it's blatently dishonest.
-David Ahlport
On The Biden-Obama position on 'clean coal' is not a mistake posted 1 year, 1 month ago 50 ResponsesAnother study
This was also a pretty good study.
But it requires a sub
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/long/2008/31 ...-David Ahlport
On New study finds sun's contribution to recent warming is 'negligible' posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 ResponsesI see home power like this
I see home power like this
When the end goal is "Milk", it's like demanding that every person have their own personal Cow.
-David Ahlport
On Pickens' natural gas plan makes no sense and will never happen posted 1 year, 1 month ago 16 ResponsesClearly
"This calls for more BioFuels!" [/sarcasm]On Amazon deforestation soars, Brazil blames its own land-reform agency posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses
Actually
Even 2x electricity infrastructure wouldn't be the bottom line either.
Since it'd be 2x electric + hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
-David Ahlport
On Electric vehicles crowd out hydrogen brethren at sustainable driving conference posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 ResponsesHeh Bob
Only 2x more?
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.pngAs Earl was mentioning "Aggressive" optimistic scenarios would be 2x. However that assumes quite a lot in favor of the hydrogen vehicle, and related infrastructure. Including of course, regenerative braking with a rapid-charge battery.
It also makes the assumption that you aren't just giving it wimpy acceleration and lightweight materials to put less strain on the electricity demand.-David Ahlport
On Electric vehicles crowd out hydrogen brethren at sustainable driving conference posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 ResponsesHeh
Bob you're only giving those cars a 60 mile range.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105 ...
-David Ahlport
On Electric vehicles crowd out hydrogen brethren at sustainable driving conference posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 ResponsesUhm no...
Romm,
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.You are confusing stated goals, with actual goals.
_
The "real" Pickens Plan is one word: Shale
i.e. Convince Americans to remove any and all environmental restrictions from extracting carbon/water intensive Methane/Oil from Shale formations.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa3kPY1VdjkAnd from a climate perspective this is equally scary as say.... Permafrost, and Methane Hydrates.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.h ...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uoc--lmr05 ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/e ...
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080903/new-report-caculate ...-David Ahlport
On Pickens' natural gas plan makes no sense and will never happen posted 1 year, 2 months ago 16 ResponsesWell
Here's a question.
Asside from the Climate bill add-ons he wants, has McCain actually quantified how much he wants to spend supporting Nuclear power?
All I've seen is that it's just a floating void. Kind of like his "Definition" of Victory and Defeat in Iraq.
(Which of course begs the question, is this a football game, or an occupation)-David Ahlport
On Question posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 ResponsesClash of the Titans!
Well how about we do this all over again with Solar Thermal with Heat Storage:
g) Add The decomissioning costs divided over the plant life time
Thats just silly. It's not contaminated with radiation. You would instead recycle it at a profit.
And if it's out in the middle of the desert, you'd probably just leave it as is asside from scavenging the valuable materials.a) Land lease costs for the construction of wind turbines ?
It's a hot desert. How cheap could you ask for?
Whats more, it doesn't need a 24/7 military grade security guards, and coast guards.*h) Add the operational costs for manpower + cleaning + maintenance
Heh, add the cost of the same, plus fuel for nuclear.c) The amount of transmission cable that needs to be laid.
No real difference here.
If anything, modular solar thermal would allow it to be less centralized, and closer to it's load.f) The amortization costs for this construction
As mentioned. Quick citing, build, and modular installation makes for far quicker Return Rates.
1-5 Return Rates are far more important than 40-60 year amortization rates.b) The amount of steel and concrete needed, and their corresponding costs.
Thats included in the cost of the plant. Whats more, it doesn't require a strict level of machining, and building.
Far less technical labor for construction.e) Similar construction costs for the storage.
Not really, thats built into the cost of the plant, and onsited) Multiply your estimates by the inverse of the capacity factor (If your capacity factor is 1/3, you need 3 times as many wind turbines)
Bit more complex than that.
Ausra figures triple redundancy would give you a 90-93% capacity factor.
And at today's costs, that would be $9000/kW.
Catch being if you account financing, citing, and build speeds.
Which basically boils down to an 5-10 year headstart.
Even at today's costs, Solar Thermal could certainly give Nuclear power a run for it's money.
Although I will now admit it might be slightly in Nuclear's favor.Ausra however figures they can cut that price in half in a few years. ($4500/kW)
Or at very least, far ahead of when a new Nuclear power plant would even start generating a single watt/hour of power.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/files/MillsMorganUSGri ...
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail ..._____
As for standardization.
The real benefit isn't that. It's "economies of scale". And economies of scale are far more beneficial to processes with higher numbers of repetitions.
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesAlso
I'm starting to get the feeling you didn't even read this.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ...
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesOh come now.
breeder reactors also tend to be economically cheaper than renewable power
- Conventional Nuclear is more expensive than Industrial Scale Renewables
- You admit, Breeder reactors would be more expensive than conventional nuclear reactors.
(Especially when we don't even have ANY commercial breeder reactors)
And in the context that "Plant Lifetime" is effectively meaningless.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5785236/Nuclear-p ...-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 Responses- Conventional Nuclear is more expensive than Industrial Scale Renewables
Sitting on our hands was not an option!
One thing a lot of people ignore is that once Bush undid the Presidential offshore
If the Democrats sat there and did nothing, then offshore drilling 3 miles off the coast would automatically be legal on January 1st.
To reinstate the drilling ban Democrats would need to pass a new bill banning it.
And that would include getting 1/3rd of Senate Republicans to agree with the ban. Which would be virtually impossible.
_
So as a compromise, Dems allowed drilling 100 miles offshore, and 50 miles offshore if the state agrees to it.
It ain't perfect, but it's a hell of lot better than what would have happened if the Dems weren't able to pass a bill.
__
(P.S. The Dems also got the Renewable Energy Tax Credits renewed as well out of all this.)
-David Ahlport
On Gingrich's group is flush with victory and flush with cash posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 ResponseAnd of course
I will admit the "baseload/dispatchable" argument is a meaningful one.
However Solarthermal with Heat Storage, and Geothermal however don't really suffer under that.
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesWhachagot?
Well, here's a simple question then.
If we don't care about "plant lifetime", and solar/geothermal "fuel" isn't going to run out any time in the next couple billion years.
And Renewables are Cheaper, Build Faster, and involve less risky investments.
Why would we choose Nuclear Breeder Reactors over Renewables?
(And please don't bore me with the "OMG THE LAND AREA REQUIREMENT" argument.)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ..._
Whachagot?
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesOr ya know what
http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/pagenum/all
-David Ahlport
On McCain and Obama campaigns trade jabs over who's a bigger coal supporter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 ResponsesJoe Biden: "I don't love coal"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_127386.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/biden-off-messag ..._
Perhaps since we got Joe, David, and Kate blogging at HuffPo we could get a "He doesn't love coal, and that rocks!" post.
-David Ahlport
On McCain and Obama campaigns trade jabs over who's a bigger coal supporter posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses"Credible", eh?
Well, you say "credible".
Can you find me even one significant scientific institution in the entire world which says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've seen in the past few decades?
Because I'm pretty sure you can't.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake______
That said,
Lets say we entirely ignore global warming.
Poof Gone.
_Could there possibly be another major reason that we don't want to keep putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere?
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2Like say, avoiding a major collapse of sea life in the ocean?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251 ...
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249-David Ahlport
On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses_
http://greyfalcon.net/92x92
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/10xrange-David Ahlport
On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 ResponsesTechnology.
Oh, And as for "technology".
What makes you think climate change advocates are against technological innovation, and deployment?
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/ausraMeanwhile of course, you have the issue of "level market playing fields".
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses*sigh*
Isn't a hallmark of cultism for cult leaders to make cataclysmic predictions of the end of the world (Al Gore "20 foot sea level rise", and James Hansen - "24-METER rise"!), all the while the IPCC (the most oft-cited "objective" org to study AGW) predicts only 7 to 24 INCHES of rise
...get your story straight if your going to get more to join your cult!IPCC: The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/18/123840/77-David Ahlport
On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responsesre: Vakibs
If EROEI were everything, then Coal plants would be built more often than Natural Gas power plants.
Whats far more important than the size of the return on investment, is the Speed of Return on Investment.
i.e. "Return Rate"
Nuclear sucks when it comes to Return Rates.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5785236/Nuclear-p ..._
The large reason of course why SPEED is far more important than SIZE is because of the cost of financing.
i.e. The Cost of Money.
_
The quicker you can pay back your loan, the better.
_
This if of course why Nuclear power CAN'T GET LOANS.
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesWell
If it helps anything. It's actually 2 years for wind.
Geothermal and Hydro however only get 1 year.
-David Ahlport
On Senate passes renewable tax credits on the ninth attempt posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 ResponsesIndeed
That said, most progressives have a deep commitment to science and are much, much more likely to question conventional opinion when science goes against. The most resistant to scientific evidence will always be "traditional" communities who base their ethical worldview on an explicitly untestable creed.
Yeap.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/the_real_differ.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jA0OVtvqjk-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesSCIENCE!
Well, the answer is fourth generation nuclear power.
The case for breeder reactors is so convincing,
Thats not science. Thats economics.
Even you admit the economic argument sucks.and it is a pity that progressives are unable to penetrate through their emotions.
Actually, it turns out, Conservatives are far more emotionally reactive than Progressives.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering- ...Now THAT is science :P
-David Ahlport
On Palin's climate skepticism is irrelevant posted 1 year, 2 months ago 39 ResponsesOh
And for fun on the "OMG CARBON LEVELS ARE WRONG" issue.
There's plenty of individual measuring stations and ice core records that all agree with each other.
But if you want someone to tell you about it, how about you listen to this guy say:
"Of course, the reason why we have had a rise in CO2 over the past century, obviously, that has been caused by industry."
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon-David Ahlport
On John McCain's environmental record is as bad as climate change denier James Inhofe posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 Responsesre: Snorbert
Lets start off with satellite records only.
You effectively got 2 atmospheric layers that make up the near entirety of our atmosphere.
You got sunlight coming into the earth, and heat reflecting back out into space.
If "something" in the lower layer, were blocking heat from getting to the upper layer; Then what you'd expect to see is that the lower layer would get hotter while the upper layer would get colder.
On the other hand, if increased solar activity were the cause, then the lower layer would get hotter, the upper layer would also be getting hotter.
Well guess what's been happening. The upper layer is getting colder.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png___
-
As for Natural factors.
-
For 15,000+ year time scales, the primary variable to consider is earth's orbit changing.
Catch being it's far too slow to have any meaningful impact on 100 to 1 year time scales.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
-
Natural factors alone do not explain the warming trend we've seen in the past 4 decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
-
The El Nino Cycle however does explain 1998 and 2008.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
-
1934 was not the hottest year "globally"
http://greyfalcon.net/ustemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
-
There are zero scientific organizations, world wide, that say that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past four decades. (And I'd be extremely surprised if you could find even one.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
___Sun spots specficially, you are probably referencing this, right?
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.pngWhere you have Eigil Fris Christensen mentioning that,
Indeed, the lack of correlation demonstrated by Lassen and Friis-Christensen beyond 1985 (omitted in the program) highlights that there must be other climate forcing agents at work.
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html____
As for Svensmark's cosmic ray theory, that doesn't really hold much water.
First he tried high clouds, Then low clouds.
Then he tried a smog filled chamber, and did have some success creating dust particles.
The catch being that these dust particles were far too small for water vapor to condense on them.
Whats more, the salt spray above the oceans would be far more dominant in creating airborne dust than Svensmark's cosmic ray dust.
Lastly of course, Svensmark has no coherent correlation.This here, would be Svensmark's FOURTH paper, each with entirely different methods and supposed mechanisms, but all with the same conclusion.
Which basically points to him attempting to do the scientific method in reverse.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cos ...-David Ahlport
On John McCain's environmental record is as bad as climate change denier James Inhofe posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 ResponsesBailout terms: No oversight, No regulation
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty- secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.htmlDidn't we get into this problem in the first place because of a lack of oversight, and a lack of regulation.
-David Ahlport
On Friends of the Earth says anti-regulation approach causes environmental destruction posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesThis wouldn't be so bad
If it weren't for this.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of- ...Didn't we get into this problem in the first place because of a lack of oversight, and a lack of regulation.
-David Ahlport
On Ramblings on the financial crisis posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 ResponsesSay
Care for some George Lakoff anyone?
http://greyfalcon.net/think.pdf-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 Responses"The Sky is Polka Dotted!"
As for McCain, he's centrist from an AMERICAN standpoint.
Oh come on Mad.
At very least provide some reason why "present day" McCain is a centrist.
Just making unfounded declarative statements isn't going to get us anywhere.
_
The way I see it,
McCain's changed his whole ideology so drastically, that he no longer resembles a centrist.
Such that talking about who McCain used to be, and who McCain is now, is like talking about two entirely different people.
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 ResponsesWell
Pretty much, what he's describing is the Earth Liberation Front style guys.
Or merely those who are parroting their ideals.
But frankly, I think we can all admit that they are pretty far "out there".
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1 ...-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 Responses_
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkmqfXNvdk
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 ResponsesAlthough
I guess you could say that he's not being immoral if he doesn't know his false statements are untrue.
But then again, that implies he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
So you can slice that either way you like, but neither are good.
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 ResponsesMcCain doesn't support those positions.
Resolution 2611 Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs. Republican party opposed it, Democrats supported it, McCain voted for it.
The catch of course he also affirmed the House version of the bill which "omits a guest-worker program and a legalization process for illegal immigrants.".
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/immigration/index. ...So all that bill really was building a border fence, and nothing more.
Whats more, he mentions now, that he wouldn't vote for the immigration part of that bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtHOkSWCr6Q
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310007_____
As for the Stem Cell thing.
You can axe that one too.
(But to be fair, this is a rather recent policy reversal)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem ..._____
As for the increased minimum wage. It's nice that he says he's for it, but frankly he's yet to actually VOTE for it. And arguing that "Pork" is in there is frankly a rather flimsy stance, considering that makes up only a minuscule amount of the federal budget.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/31/mccain-minimum-wage/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeFON3kg5EI'd file that one away into the same category as "I'm for strong regulation against the banking industry".
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/16/mccain-flops-on-regul ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfKPB-AbNts_____
That said, while I agree ad hominem isn't productive, I wouldn't consider pointing out his policy positions to be "bashing".
And whats more, I consider it fair that when McCain makes blunt false statements, that he is being immoral.
_____
But all that said,
You got anything more specific policy positions that points to "present day" McCain being a centrist?
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 Responsesre: Mad
McCain and people like that are much more centrist.
Excuse me,
But in what way is McCain currently a "centrist"?Please be specific.
http://greyfalcon.net/mccain3
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/19/16223/5194#com ...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/
http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain- ...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-issues-a-chall ...-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 ResponsesHeh,
The argument that McCain supports dealing with climate change is just about as comical as expecting him to enforce strict regulations on the banking industry.
(Lol, Keating-Five Scandal / Saving&Loan Crisis)He claims "Obama would raise electricity taxes". Which doesn't indicate much intention by McCain of putting a price on Carbon emissions.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/18/154018/999
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/29/abba-was-right-fool ...McCain's voting record is pretty clear that he doesn't support renewable energy.
For comparison, his voting record is almost identical to Senator James Inhofe.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/8/9910/30616#comm ...And he's said fun little phrases like:
"If you maximized renewable energy in every possible way the contribution that that would make given the present state of technology is very small, is very small. The truly clean technologies don't work!"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/16/164816/035"The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/9/12502/69812His main objective is merely to get an excuse to toss gobs and gobs of pork towards the nuclear power industry.
http://grist.org/news/daily/2005/05/16/3/
http://triplepundit.com/pages/environmental-groups-lead-e ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/mccains-nuclear- ...Haven't you been duped by this before?
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/02/summ ..._
The only reason McCain even has any skin in the game is that he made the McCain-Lieberman climate bill.
The catch being, it's the weakest climate bill thats ever been proposed.
And it was merely meant to be a Republican response to Senator Barbara Boxer's far stronger climate bill.
(BTW, I remember there used to be this spiffy graph that compared a bunch of the climate plans, and what they would achieve over time. Wonder where that is.)
-David Ahlport
On Senate Dems falter on energy compromise bill posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesThank's Coby
Just like to say, I'm glad you're back knocking these myth's out of the park :P
Here's my scribbles on the subject if that helps ya nail some more.
http://greyfalcon.net/climate.zip-David Ahlport
On Summer ice in the Arctic has recovered--Was the Arctic ice retreat a climate anomaly? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 ResponsesCome on Mad, let's be serious.
I DO NOT want to live in a hunter gatherer or post modern society.
No worries there.
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/92x92
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
http://greyfalcon.net/truck3
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/10xrangeI DO NOT want a society with even more governmental say in my life than it already has.
Patriot Act
Iraq War bill
Deficit Spending decreasing the value of the US dollar, and forcing you to pay increased income taxes.
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
Hell, a US dollar is worth even less than a Canadian dollar now.
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Oh yeah, and MASSIVE spending, plus MASSIVE deficits.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.pngOh and of course, McCain would kick the Deficit Spending into freaking overdrive. (!)
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/15/mccain-defic ...Since WHEN have the Republicans the party of "Small government". Barry Goldwater?
___
Put it this way,
Who is going to charge the middle-lower class less taxes?The Republicans, or the Democrats?
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/09/16/mccain-secretly-plans- ...
http://alchemytoday.com/willobamaraisemytaxes.html
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/taxsummary.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeFON3kg5E-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 Responses_
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 ResponsesProve it
Climate change has not been about science for quite a long while now.
Name me one significant scientific institution in the entire world that says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past 4 decades.
Just one institution, and I'll admit that you're right.
-David Ahlport
On Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming posted 1 year, 2 months ago 52 Responsesre: Taser, Depends which Renewable
1 Year for Geothermal
1 Year for Hydro
2 Years for Wind
8 Years for Solarhttp://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/leg/LEG%202008/0 ...
-David Ahlport
On Senate settles on a grab bag of political favors in place of an energy policy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesOkay, so what you got?
I will provide you with the hypothesis refutation data for any current scientific theory you like.
Well then, can you please provide me with a reason why the stratosphere is cooling, in sync with the troposphere warming?
-David Ahlport
On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesIf anything
Atleast there's no Nuclear pork in this bill.
_
It has all the other undesirables though. Like the "Refined" Coal Production Tax Credit, Coal Sequestration Credit, Liquid Coal Credit, and a removal of all taxes on exported Coal.
_
Also looks like I have a better definition of "Refined Coal".
`(7) REFINED COAL-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `refined coal' means a fuel which--
`(i) is a liquid, gaseous, or solid synthetic fuel produced from coal (including lignite) or high carbon fly ash, including such fuel used as a feedstock,
`(ii) is sold by the taxpayer with the reasonable expectation that it will be used for purpose of producing steam,
`(iii) is certified by the taxpayer as resulting (when used in the production of steam) in a qualified emission reduction, and
`(iv) is produced in such a manner as to result in an increase of at least 50 percent in the market value of the refined coal (excluding any increase caused by materials combined or added during the production process), as compared to the value of the feedstock coal.
`(B) QUALIFIED EMISSION REDUCTION- The term `qualified emission reduction' means a reduction of at least 20 percent of the emissions of nitrogen oxide and either sulfur dioxide or mercury released when burning the refined coal (excluding any dilution caused by materials combined or added during the production process), as compared to the emissions released when burning the feedstock coal or comparable coal predominantly available in the marketplace as of January 1, 2003.'.
http://www.treepower.org/section45.html-David Ahlport
On Senate settles on a grab bag of political favors in place of an energy policy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesUhm, vakibs
How do you figure to combine the words "commercially feasible" and "France".
A Federal Monopoly has absolutely nothing to do with Commercial Competition.
Infact it is the exact opposite of Commercial Competition.
-David Ahlport
On Do we want an economy that's a bit more Belgian or Belgian Congo? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 Responses"They will die in a level market"!!
When you cancel all the government incentives and put these babies out in the open, they will die before the dirty coal.
I highly doubt that.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On Do we want an economy that's a bit more Belgian or Belgian Congo? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesNeed? No, not "Need".
you need fossil fuel to make steel
Check out plasma arc steel processing.
-David Ahlport
On Do we want an economy that's a bit more Belgian or Belgian Congo? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesScience Fiction
we can do it right now, with breeder reactors. We don't have to wait for nuclear fusion, or any other science fiction.
Last I checked, commercial breeder reactors were science fiction.-David Ahlport
On Do we want an economy that's a bit more Belgian or Belgian Congo? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 Responsesre: Coby Beck
First off,
I'd just like to point out that it kicks ass that Coby Beck has started back up with his "How to Talk to a Skeptic" series.Lutz: "In the opinion of about 32,000 of the world's leading scientists, yes."
That said THIS, is perhaps the thing most needed to cover ASAP. Since this is what you usually see tossed around, even though it's BS.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060009(Here's some of my own personal scribbles on climate science in general, if that helps)
http://greyfalcon.net/climate.zip-David Ahlport
On Touting the Volt, GM exec denies anthropogenic climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 ResponsesSimple
Paleocon, well then
So when we want to talk about "Natural" variables.
1. For very large 15,000+ year time scales, what we're dealing with primarily is changes in the earth's orbit. This however is far too slow to be relevant on the 100 to 1 year time scale.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch2. Natural factors alone do not explain the warming trend we've seen in the past 4 decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png3. The El Nino Cycle however does explain 1998 and 2008.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina4. And for kicks, it'd be nice to point out that US Mainland temperatures, and Global temperatures are different things. (1934 was not the hottest year "globally")
http://greyfalcon.net/ustemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png________
As for propositions, how about we attempt to get back down to 380ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. (i.e. The highest we've ever been in the past million years) Both by reducing emissions, and by enhancing carbon sinks.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2For the US, this would probably be best served by putting a point-of-wholesale surcharge on Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas by CO2 content.
And then using that money for grants to purchase low carbon end-use technologies, and grants for large scale carbon sequestration projects.
(Or frankly, I don't really care what gets done with the money. It could also be used to buy a lifetime supply of hookers and scotch for Republican Senators)
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-versus-subs ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_taxWith of course an overall goal towards low cost/carbon electricity, and electric transportation.
Promising technologies for those are:
* EGS Geothermal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6r_3AgI49Y
* Concentrating Solar Thermal with Molten Liquid Salt Heat Storage
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
* PHEVs
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
* Nano Lithium Batteries
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
* Nano Ultracapacitors
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/10/nanotech-strikes- ..._
(Nuclear power of course, isn't low cost electricity. If anything, it's about the most subsidized form of electricity on the planet, and virtually every other nation that does it operates their programs as Federal Monopolies.)
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesWell then
How about we ignore the surface data, and focus entirely on just satellite data.
_You effectively got 2 atmospheric layers that make up the near entirety of our atmosphere.
You got sunlight coming into the earth, and heat reflecting back out into space.
If "something" in the lower layer, were blocking heat from getting to the upper layer; Then what you'd expect to see is that the lower layer would get hotter while the upper layer would get colder.
_
Well guess what,
That's exactly what's been happening.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png-David Ahlport
On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 ResponsesActually
The issue with train crashes is that you personally have no control over the vehicle.
Therefore, whether or not the vehicle crashes is completely out of your hands.
This uncertainty creates doubt.
Doubt creates fear._
It's kinda similar to terrorism.
It's not really a mortal threat at all.
HOWEVER because you have no control over it, and it could theoretically happen at any moment. That seemingly everpresent anxiety scares people.-David Ahlport
On L.A. train collision dismays new riders posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 ResponsesYeap
"The bill does not include lawsuit reform, nuclear energy, clean coal, or refinery provisions."
Yeah I was.
http://www.gop.gov/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.1.111&p ...
-David Ahlport
On House passes an energy bill that combines increased drilling with expansion of renewables posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesOn carbon pricing
What if they just regulated CH2, NO2, CFC's, HCFC's, and certain agricultural/forestry policies etc
_And then slapped a CO2 point-of-wholesale surcharge on Coal, Oil, and Natural gas.
And then be done with it.
No reason to make it a logistical nightmare, fraught with corruption, and needed oversight.
-David Ahlport
On Immelt: yay RPS! posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesSo, Nuclear?
Does Nuclear get that super deluxe unlimited loan guarantees provision in there?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/15/11155/1686
-David Ahlport
On House passes an energy bill that combines increased drilling with expansion of renewables posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesHypocrisy
By capitulating to the Republicans, as he has on other matters, he surrenders moral authority on struggles concerning the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and the environment.
You don't really have much of a say in this considering you helped elect one of the most devastating politicians for the environment in American history.
You'd rather feel good about your ego, than accomplish anything.
But by all means, Good luck with that "Nader Party" getting a 2/3rd's vote in the Senate.
-David Ahlport
On Ralph Nader criticizes Obama and McCain for not standing strong against offshore drilling posted 1 year, 2 months ago 19 ResponsesSince we're talking about Voting Records
The argument that McCain support dealing with climate change, or supports Renewable energy is rather flimsy.
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-agai ...-David Ahlport
On 'Gang of 10' bipartisan energy bill now has double the number of cosponsors posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 ResponseWell consider this
How many big technologies that we use in our every day lives were created because of military or "space race" concerns?
-David Ahlport
On Expanded transit can lead to energy independence posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesSimpler? OK.
Wow, that was coherent?
Fair enough, how about this:You effectively got 2 atmospheric layers that make up the near entirety of our atmosphere.
You got sunlight coming into the earth, and heat reflecting back out into space.
If "something" in the lower layer, were blocking heat from getting to the upper layer; Then what you'd expect to see is that the lower layer would get hotter while the upper layer would get colder.
_
Well guess what,
That's exactly what's been happening.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png-David Ahlport
On McCain's running mate has offered mixed message on climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesFair point
-David Ahlport
On Bike-hatin' DOT head Mary Peters warns of decline in gas-tax revenues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 ResponsesHeh
Just saw this commercial today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UITH_PnWtlQ-David Ahlport
On Big emissions gains require big investments; get over it posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses*sigh*
and the loan-guarantees-are-subsidies lie.
....
I expected better of you Cowan.
-David Ahlport
On McCain's nuclear plan would cost $315 billion, with taxpayers risking over $100 billion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 21 ResponsesNot Insurance. Then what?
Don't tax the insurance. Just charge a mileage fee for road usage.
Well I say to tax the insurance, because frankly, the only other way to do it is to put GPS tracking and reporting inside every car.
And frankly I doubt that would be politically possible, since people would scream bloody murder about "Big Brother" implications to that.
-David Ahlport
On Bike-hatin' DOT head Mary Peters warns of decline in gas-tax revenues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 ResponsesAnyways
On the original topic.
McCain's policy reversal list is a mile long ;D
http://thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops-David Ahlport
On McCain's running mate has offered mixed message on climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesMandatory Nuclear topic response links:
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearsubsidies2008.pdf
http://triplepundit.com/pages/environmental-groups-lead-e ...
http://grist.org/news/daily/2005/05/16/3/
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/8/9910/30616#comm ...-David Ahlport
On McCain's nuclear plan would cost $315 billion, with taxpayers risking over $100 billion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 21 ResponsesArg
Wrong link
This is the correct one.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png-David Ahlport
On McCain's running mate has offered mixed message on climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 Responsesre: mreinbold
So the Statospshere (upper atmosphere) and the Troposphere (lower atmosphere) are the two primary layers of earth's atmosphere.
They represent over 99% of it, the rest is essentially just vacuum.
_
Now can you explain to me why the Stratosphere is getting colder?
Since the way I see it. It's as if there's something in the Troposphere blocking heat from getting into the Stratosphere.
Meanwhile, the Troposphere is heating up.
http://greyfalcon.net/trends2.png
-David Ahlport
On McCain's running mate has offered mixed message on climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesOh yeah
And over 99% of the earth's atmosphere is represented by the troposphere, and the stratosphere.
It's basically a vacuum after the stratosphere.
-David Ahlport
On Is the IPCC so wrong their theories contradict a basic laws of physics? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 ResponsesYes Bailo
The total amount of heat leaving the earth is going down.
Thats why the stratosphere is cooling.
Because there's less heat exiting through the stratosphere at any given time.
Less heat? More Cold.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
-David Ahlport
On Is the IPCC so wrong their theories contradict a basic laws of physics? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 ResponsesSo
One argument I've heard
Remove the gas tax, but create mileage based car insurance, and tax that.
-David Ahlport
On Bike-hatin' DOT head Mary Peters warns of decline in gas-tax revenues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responsesre: Vakibs
It will be the market which picks the winners.
Some how I seriously doubt that.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearsubsidies2008.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png-David Ahlport
On So how much do renewables cost anyway? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 30 Responseswoo
More charts!
-David Ahlport
On A pipe dream posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responsesre: Vakibs again
I think what he's really pointing out is that you are arguing that the technical problems with Renewables are practically insurmountable.
Where as the problems with Thorium Reactors, and Breeder Reactors are so simple, as if they were already solved right now.
Naysaying for one, Handwaving for the other.
-David Ahlport
On So how much do renewables cost anyway? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 30 ResponsesHey Vakibs
Your whole speel about India is kinda moot if this passes.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=india+nu ...-David Ahlport
On So how much do renewables cost anyway? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 30 ResponsesSemantics
Given the Kerry conitation, I'd like to avoid "Flip Flop"
How about we call these "Policy Reversals"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflopsi.e. Reversing nearly all of his non-party-line policies.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesLoans
When capital costs are the primary cost driver, facility lifetime becomes an issue.
Only in so much as it would harm Renewables ability to get private capital financing.
However, Renewables have no problem getting private capital financing.Nuclear on the other hand, couldn't get private investment banks to even look at them. Much less take the plunge for huge risky slow capital loans.
-David Ahlport
On So how much do renewables cost anyway? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 30 ResponsesWell then
How about something like this.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearpowerplantelectrici ..._
Also, to be expected, it looks like the new energy bill in congress right now is considering a whole new boatload of subsidies for Nuclear.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearsubsidies2008.pdf(Ontop of the other huge raft of subsidies and support structures it's already getting)
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On Renewables and the 'Cheap Energy Contract' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 ResponsesTo be expected from a source like that
=New plants cost $4/W to construct, more than modern coal plants.=Thats the overnight cost.
And that does not fully include the cost of decomissioning or waste.
If we want to talk "all in costs" were talking $6/W to $8/W. And rising.
Whats more, 1.7cents per kwh?
Thats merely the operations and maintainence cost.The production cost, including cost recovery etc is closer to 10-17 cents per kwh.
-David Ahlport
On Renewables and the 'Cheap Energy Contract' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 ResponsesAnyways
Say Kira,
Take a listen to this:
http://greyfalcon.net/palin.wmaLemme know what ya think
_
http://greyfalcon.net/palin2
http://greyfalcon.net/palin3
http://greyfalcon.net/palin4
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesApples and Oranges again
The Lasik eye procedures are not covered by insurance, and they have become very affordable because of market competition.
As I said before, just because competition can be beneficial doesn't mean that it's always beneficial.
Similarly, you can't draw a comparison between Medical Practitioners, and Medical Insurance Agencies.
Completely different rule structures and profit motives. And MOST importantly, LOW MARKET ENTRY BARRIERS.
Insurance, by nature, has very high market entry barriers due to it's inherent economies of scale, and banking infrastructure. Deregulating it wouldn't remove those barriers to market entry.
As such, you'd end up with just a couple similar big companies which are effectively a cartel. (although frankly, thats not far off from what we got now)
____
If anything, if you look at the Housing market.
Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac functioned pretty damned well for quite some time. (About 40 years)Then of course, a "deregulation" loophole was created that brought everything crashing down. (Thank Phil Gramm for that) (It basically allowed for high risk loans to be created by Wall Street, and repackaged as low risk loans, which then filtered down into the housing market)
If you know ANYONE who owns a house, they are probably benefiting from a "nationalized" housing loan.
Since they accounted for nearly 80% of ALL US mortgages.
http://greyfalcon.net/oilchart4.png_
Why can't we do that for healthcare?
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesPut it this way
Markets are nice tools.
However, Markets are simply a method of finding the path of least resistance.
Just because a path is efficient doesn't mean it's socially beneficial.
What you're advocating is that because "Competative Sports" has some corruption, we should remove all the Referees and Rules.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesOh
And while we're covering narratives.
Notice how the Republicans are trying to say "We're a difference type of Republican. We want to change and be different than that OLD type of Republican!"
Can anyone say "Compasionate Conservative"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430. ...Or "Kindler, Gentler Conservative"
http://www.google.com/search?q=kinder+gentler+george+h+bu ...___
Old tactics, die hard.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 Responses"Deliberately misleading"
http://www.google.com/search?q=palin+kept+the+bridge
Or maybe "Disengenous".
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesLets compare apples to apples. Ecuador an Orange.
If you want socialized medicine, make sure you know exactly what it is. I lived in Ecuador for six months and saw very substandard care that was available to everyone. The best care was in Quito, and that was in in hospitals that rich people and visiting gringos actually paid money for.
Care to explain why every major developed nation in the world, does nationalized healthcare. AND they get better care, cheaper care, and far less hassle?
http://dreamingup.blogspot.com/2008/07/only-in-america-wo ...
http://www.mnblue.com/node/1877
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors ...Heh, actually one of McCain's "I split with the GOP" arguments is favoring "Importing Cheap Drugs from Canada".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...
_US health coverage sucks compared to every other major developed country that does National health coverage.
The bridge to nowhere bit was not a lie, and it's not a lie because you say it is. It's not a lie because you repeat that it is a lie. She changed her mind. Call her a flip-flopper, but not a liar.
Except that, She kept the money!
She kept the porkbarrel, and spent it.
_Thats not "changing your mind".
Thats outright Dishonesty.i.e. Implying that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did.
_
Either way you want to look at it, that statement was immoral.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesOh
And of course Infrastructure, and Renewable Energy.
_
Now the real question.
What topic of discussion do we really want to be having?
A discussion of ad hominem, or a discussion of judgement, and policies?
_
Since frankly, McCain has a very good shot at winning if we make this a campaign about ad-hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesBy the way
This Palin ticket is folding out just as George Lakoff predicted.
_
McCain's cochair admits he wants this campaign to be about "Personality", not Issues.
And yes, we are diverting the campaign to talk only about Abortion, Oil Drilling, and Guns. And of course, using the familiar narative of "The Unfair Liberal Media".
Meanwhile ignoring the important things, like Education, Tax Policy, Foreign Policy, Health Insurance, Peer Reviewed Science, Social Security, Immigration, Global Warming, Federal Debt, and Upholding the Constitution
_
As Lakoff keeps saying, Republicans are at their most dishonest where they are the weakest.
Aka. Rove Politics 101, "Don't attack your opponent's weaknesses. Attack his strengths."Recently for instance, McCain is even trying to imply that Obama promoted teaching full-on sex education to kindergarteners. When what he was really doing is promoting a program teaching them how to avoid pedophiles and kidnappers.
Thats because McCain and Palin have almost no education policy, or education background.
Palin? An undergraduate degree in Journalism.
McCain? Graduated 5th from last in his class at military college.
Obama, was wildly popular university professor for years, and graduated from Harvard with a masters degree in constitutional law.Palin/McCain of course, want to continue the "No Child Left Behind" program as-is. One which is devesting US student comprehention.
Obama wants to change that broken system.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesAnyways
I need to track it down, but not only does Obama's plan offer more tax cuts for the first 95% of Americans.
But according to one study, it offers that 95% of Americans, 3x more tax cuts than McCain's tax policy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/obama-v-mccain-tax-pl ..._
So if we want to talk about "Who is working hardest for the first 95% of Americans".
Clearly the answer is Obama.
_
If we want to ask, who is working hardest for the top 5% elite?
That, would be McCain.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 ResponsesExcept for the part where Thats Not True.
It would take the choice of which doctors and hospitals everyday, small town folk can go to, reduce competition, and reduce the quality of healthcare. If healthcare were deregulated, competition would drive prices down and quality would be maintained, and all of the working class people democrats claim to care about would have access to great healthcare.
Well lets first consider that:
- It's in the corporate health insurance providers best interest to deny coverage. Therefore they try to make it as difficult, confusing and slow as possible.
- They only want you visiting health care providers within their own network.
- Medicare is the fastest and most ubiquitous form of healthcare coverage.
- And you are able to use it at virtually ANY private healthcare provider you choose. No contracts. Any mixture you choose.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what she said an outright lie.
So what would you prefer: "Misleading", "Dishonest", "betrayal of trust"?Or how about "Knowingly implied that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did"
_Regardless of how you want to phrase it, it is an outright immoral action, and she should be called out for it.
-David Ahlport
On Resentment in partisan politics posted 1 year, 2 months ago 28 Responses- It's in the corporate health insurance providers best interest to deny coverage. Therefore they try to make it as difficult, confusing and slow as possible.
Not just that
It seems like Palin is using State Debt (i.e. Bonds) for ALL state infrastructure projects.
http://greyfalcon.net/palin.wma
http://greyfalcon.net/palin2
http://greyfalcon.net/palin3_
Not only is she anti-renewables.
She's anti-infrastructure.-David Ahlport
On McCain's VP pick has a mixed record on supporting renewables in home state posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 ResponsesThe other thing to mention though
The Oil drilling ban ends in January.
Republicans can get their renewed offshore oil drilling merely by default.
_
So it seems like the goal of the Republicans isn't anything substantive. Instead it's merely to take a swipe at them for the election.
-David Ahlport
On Reid to hold votes on three drilling plans next week posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 ResponsesAs should be mentioned
As should be mentioned every time we talk about Congress.
As we are now,
Democrats need atleast 33% of Senate Republicans to cooperate to pass any laws._
Therefore, if Democrats want anything to happen (i.e. Reinstating the Renewable Energy Tax Credit for Solar/Wind/Geo/Hydro), they are going to have to give atleast a third of Republican Senators something they want (i.e. More Offshore Oil Drilling).
-David Ahlport
On Reid to hold votes on three drilling plans next week posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 ResponsesCan I Has News Coverage?
Perhaps we could shine some light on this:
Previously, Mr. Mustache pointed out that McCain hasn't voted for Renewable Energy at all this year. 8 times in a row.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13friedman.html ...Perhaps the stronger point to make however is that there's more you can do than vote.
- You can sponsor a bill
- You can co-sponsor a bill
- You can make a senate floor speach about it
(Timestart 5:45) http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/podcast?id=5 ...
Obama, of course, has many times.
==
When you consider McCains statement:
"I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time."
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain/Pretty hard to swallow that "McCain supports Renewable energy".
One might say McCain's real energy strategy is "Do Everything, besides Renewable Energy".
____________
Infact it seems like the only reason McCain has any support for dealing Climate change at all, is merely to dole out PorkBarrel for the Nuclear industry.
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/environmental-groups-le ...
http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/05/16/3/-David Ahlport
On Mustache v. Maverick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses- You can sponsor a bill
Heh
Well isn't that a turn of events.
-David Ahlport
On Energy politics take a weird turn posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 ResponsesWhat crisis?
the fact that I remember the global cooling crisis of the 1970's
What crisis?
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling2
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesWell then
If you keep insisting that "We can't possibly know".
Are you arguing "Therefore we should not investigate it further, and we should do nothing significant to prepare for the potential of it being true."?
And to some extent, we reach a point where it's impossible to fully know the future.
And that the concept of scientific "facts" is silly.
All we really have going for us is limited uncertainty.
_
Gravity, for instance, is "just a theory".
-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesIf you're so sure, Name one.
then Tasermons decides that a large government organization cannot possibly be corrupted expresses that I am of low IQ.
Except that it's not just 1 government organization in question.
Because you can't find even 1 significant scientific institution in the entire world that says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittakeTaser is implying that you are saying ALL significant scientific institutions are conducting a gigantic conspiracy.
Is that really the type of statement you are making?
-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesConsider
McCain and Palin will give no money for R&D and expect the free market to somehow solve all the problems.
Well, the market is better at "Engineering".
It's just not that good at foundational scientific research. (i.e. The step before Engineering.)
-David Ahlport
On In her big speech, Palin repeats the GOP's big energy lie -- plus three other energy lies posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesPork Barrel Spending?
http://envirowonk.com/content/view/349/2/
-David Ahlport
On McCain talks energy in his big acceptance speech, but eschews talk of environmental concern posted 1 year, 2 months ago 19 ResponsesIncidentally
Many climate science grants do not give salaries to the researcher. It's assumed that you have a day job as a professor. All the IPCC work, for instance, was all pro-bono.
And whats more, if they were really trying to milk it, then why are they trying to wrap this thing up as quickly as possible? (i.e. Putting themselves out of a job)
http://greyfalcon.net/tobacco4
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.h ...-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesHow about a Deal?
Let's not say that I agree that "climate change" causes "damage." I do not accept the premise. It is BS.
How about this.
Name me one significant scientific institution in the entire world which agrees with you. And I'll agree that you are right.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittakeIf you can't, then you can agree that I'm right.
Deal?
-David Ahlport
On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesLinks
http://www.truthout.org/article/elise-wolf-bush-may-open- ...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn ...-David Ahlport
On In her big speech, Palin repeats the GOP's big energy lie -- plus three other energy lies posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesAs the national academy put previously
As the national academy put previously
None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx? ...Oh, and of course, Baliunas 2006 doesn't count as a "real" study.
http://greyfalcon.net/baliunas-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 Responsesre: JeffId
So then don't use Mann's study.
Pick any study you like, and it'd still show the MWP was colder than today.
http://greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mwp.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mwp-David Ahlport
On Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesOh
Say, not really energy related.
But is anyone covering the issue that Bristol bay represents 1/3rd of America's seafood.
And Palin just Oked dumping toxic mining rubble into it.
-David Ahlport
On In her big speech, Palin repeats the GOP's big energy lie -- plus three other energy lies posted 1 year, 2 months ago 11 ResponsesTrue
Good point
But anyways onto my previous question,
Is there some way that Grist posters could contribute to making the "Talk to Skeptics" list more up to date?
-David Ahlport
On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesMarxist? HAH!
Too bad
she has no chance to beat Ellison, who is a lunatic Marxist. But, I guess, that is the 5th district.
For the sake of argument, lets say you agree that climate change would cause economic "Damage".
Lets also say that you agree that the earth's atmosphere is not private property.
_
Are you telling me that it's "Anti-Capitalist" to be asked to pay money, to use/degrade a finite resource, which one does not personally own?
-David Ahlport
On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesUpdating: How to talk to a skeptic, list?
Say,
So lets say one were interested in updating that Grist "How to Talk to a Skeptic" list.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/22413/741
http://gristmill.org/skepticHow would one go about doing that?
It's been over a year since it's been touched last.
__
Oh, and of course, hotter temps would actually make for worse grapes generally. Since grapes usually need fog to grow right.
No fog? Bad grapes.
http://www.lynmarwinery.com/pdf/articles/FinancialTimes_1 ...
-David Ahlport
On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesWe need better Climate Realism.
I've yet to find a good page which pieces together the whole fraud of the OISM petition.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060009
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/It's been running for so long, and usually you only get tidbits here and there.
_
Not to mention, the "Al Gore's Professor" thing is from Solomon's book of "Manmade climate deniers who don't actually deny manmade climate change"
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned- ..._
And of course, the usual "cooling stage" thing comes from a number of possible sources.
One could be cherry picking 1998 and 2008.
Ignoring the strong positive and negative ENSO's those two years.
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/ensoAnother could be this guy's model, which incidentally is NOT a global model. It only covers one continent. And a rather weak continental model at that.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/glo ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the ...Or it could be way off in right field, and be something like David Archibald. Which isn't even peer reviewed in a physical science journal.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/ ...-David Ahlport
On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 ResponsesHeh woops
Grey, your links aren't working
Lol, GreyFalcon
Not GreyFalonThanks
http://greyfalcon.net/palin.wma
http://greyfalcon.net/palin2
http://greyfalcon.net/palin3
http://greyfalcon.net/palin4-David Ahlport
On Note to media: Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, not an energy expert posted 1 year, 2 months ago 15 ResponsesNot just earmarks
She's also great at blowing public money to buy votes. Meanwhile deficit spending for infrastructure and state needs.
She says she "cares for children", but her whole economic policy is about passing the buck to future generations.
Auctioning off the Future to buy votes today.
http://greyfalon.net/palin.wma
http://greyfalon.net/palin2
http://greyfalon.net/palin3
http://greyfalon.net/palin4-David Ahlport
On Note to media: Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, not an energy expert posted 1 year, 2 months ago 15 ResponsesPalin scares me
Palin scares me...
Like Dick Cheney scary.
http://greyfalcon.net/palin.wmahttp://greyfalcon.net/palin2
http://greyfalcon.net/palin3
http://greyfalcon.net/palin4
http://greyfalcon.net/palin5-David Ahlport
On VP acceptance speech hits on energy issues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 41 ResponsesOr to sum it all up
We should be given an "abatement", for not using oil, at a time when oil is so expensive it's economically impossible to use oil.
_
i.e. WTF
-David Ahlport
On Biofuels: not cost-effective or lucrative for climate change or business posted 1 year, 2 months ago 17 ResponsesOh and
And while we're at it.
_If that 2030 figure methodology is going to be anywhere near to reality.
Then what we should be doing is NOT subsidizing liquid biofuel production/purchasing at all. And simply wait for the ratcheting cost of oil to force their "assumed inevitable" implementation.
_
As for arguing "What is the marginal cost to reduce emissions in the year 2030", we also have to remember that this is McKinsey.
The same guys that in the 1980's said that Cellphones would never take off by 2000, and that AT&T should dump their huge investment in the technology, and focus on land lines.
AT&T lost billions on that study.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2007 ...
-David Ahlport
On Biofuels: not cost-effective or lucrative for climate change or business posted 1 year, 2 months ago 17 ResponsesAnother flaw of McKinsey. It's Methodology.
And while we're at it.
The "cellulosic biofuels" in the McKinsey report assumes that the cost of biofuels infrastructure is $0.
_
It bases this on the assumption that oil will "eventually" be way too expensive by 2030. And therefore biofuels will automatically be the standard of transportation fuels.
And since the further assumption is that the world transportation must be liquid based in 2030, it assumes that creating biofuels will be inevitable.
Therefore, $0 cost for infrastructure for creation, transportation, and use.
_
This of course is highly misleading when you use it to compare infrastructure costs for competing technologies. Especially within a meaningful timeframe of 2-10 years.
One might even say it's intentionally MEANT to be misleading to advocate for biofuels.
-David Ahlport
On Biofuels: not cost-effective or lucrative for climate change or business posted 1 year, 2 months ago 17 ResponsesExcept Jonas
Except Jonas, that the McKinsey report is based off of Michael Wang's study.
And I think we can all agree that Michael Wang's study is essentially scientific fraud.
He's got one of the few studies out there that still keeps saying Corn Ethanol is GREAT for reducing climate emissions.
When clearly thats a lie.
-David Ahlport
On Biofuels: not cost-effective or lucrative for climate change or business posted 1 year, 2 months ago 17 ResponsesComic
http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Doonesbury.gif
-David Ahlport
On A presidential pop quiz on energy, water, scientific integrity, oceans, and climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 18 ResponsesCareful
Careful! with the phrase "Scientific Debate"
It gets kind of annoying when people try to equivocate Political Debate, and Scientific Debate.
Unlike Politics, Science often isn't dependent merely on your personal point of view. And John Q Public and TV Pundits aren't qualified to create their own scientific analysis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/arianna-spars-wi ...-David Ahlport
On A presidential pop quiz on energy, water, scientific integrity, oceans, and climate change posted 1 year, 2 months ago 18 ResponsesHey Romm
Check this out from the AP.
Party Platform, McCain Differ on Immigration, Climate
McCain has said addressing climate change would be a top priority if he's elected. He backs mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions and a cap-and-trade system to help bring that about.http://news.yahoo.com/story//bloomberg/20080827/pl_bloomb ...
_
Smell like BS, huh?
-David Ahlport
On John McCain avoids using the word 'mandatory' when discussing cap-and-trade posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 ResponsesAlaska and Federal Earmarks
McCain: "Earmarks are bad!"
Alaska: "Received $379,669,715 in pork during fiscal year 2008, nearly $100 million more than any other state."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-received-m ...-David Ahlport
On Palin was for the bridge before she was against it posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 ResponsesOn that topic.
While we're on the topic.
How about the most recent Lakoff piece, and how Dems are still getting it wrong on messaging with Palin in the game.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-palin-cho ...As he keeps mentioning. What we routinely miss is to declare our principles and values (i.e. Conceptual Views that don't Change). And why those principles are important.
And then relate those to the "specific realities" at play.
_
By forfeiting debate, and admitting defeat to conservative values/principles, we do ourselves a great dis-service.
-David Ahlport
On Some enviros self-censor, but should progressives? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 29 ResponsesFacts, Yes. Honest Analysis, No.
Please read the report: "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007".
You will see that wind and solar receive massive subsidies.
I have read that report, and frankly I think it's a complete joke.
If you ever looked into it's background, you'd know it was specifically requested by Republican Senator Alexander Lamar. And that he directly instructed that that pathetic benchmark be used.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/appen ...A guy who thinks the Browns Ferry Nuclear Reactor is the best thing since sliced bread.
http://www.cleanenergy.org/mediaroom/index.cfm?pressID=3& ...______
It makes absolutely ZERO sense to take the subsidies that an energy sector has gotten for 1 year, and then compare it to the capacity built up over a half century. (!)
Clearly, all that measurement does is tell you which technologies have been around the longest.
And also insists that the longer a technology has been around, the MORE subsidies it deserves.
_
You can't honestly be saying that that is an impartial way to compare subsidies. It's completely biased.
-David Ahlport
On Bearded freak hippie discusses biofuels with Bill Scher posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 ResponsesJonas. Facts please.
U.S. subsidies for renewables (including solar and wind) are obscene
Oh come now Jonas, thats not true by any stretch of imagination.
If you want to compare it to Ethanol alone got over 3 billion dollars of subsidy in 2007.
(Although GSI thinks that figure is closer to 7 billion)
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.pngSolar and Geothermal got hardly anything. 14 million each.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.pngMeanwhile if we want to compare that to Coal and Nuclear, now THAT is obscene.
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear-David Ahlport
On Bearded freak hippie discusses biofuels with Bill Scher posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 ResponsesNot a problem.
The Problem With EVs, Isn't range or efficiency or power but that the US still gets too much electricity from coal, natural gas, and oil fired power plants. When we phase out fossil fuels from our power supply I will be a lot happier with electric vehicles.
Even if the car was powered exclusively from the dirtiest coal plants we have available, it'd still be significantly better than a conventional car in CO2 emissions.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7So while it may not be perfect. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Especially since this would allow us to kill two birds with one stone. (Over the longer run)
-David Ahlport
On Showcase offers electric vehicle test-drives at DNC; review of an eBox posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 ResponsesOh
And toss in the "I don't believe in Evolution" bit too.
-David Ahlport
On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 ResponsesWow
Anti Aborbtion
Anti Gay
Pro NRA
Doesn't acknowledge that global warming exists
Huge ties to Oil companiesI swear, it's like she's James Inhofe with Breasts.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/8/inhofe.jpg-David Ahlport
On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 ResponsesMissing the point
Certainly it produces less CO2 than coal when used to make electricity.
Actually, thats the problem.
When it comes from Shale, it might actually be worse than Coal.And the majoriety of the natural gas that Picken's etc is banking on would come from Shale.
Not to mention CH4 leaks from shale formations are 23x more potent as a GHG than CO2. And the study there mentioned that Shale formations are the reason for rapid release of methane and CO2, similar to arctic tundra.
_
In short, this whole windmills thing could merely be greenwashing of a highly carbon intensive approach to transportation.
-David Ahlport
On T. Boone Pickens embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 ResponsesAs said above
The water grab is bad. Morally.
But from a climate perspective, the real terrifying part is the natural gas end of his argument.
-David Ahlport
On T. Boone Pickens embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 ResponsesYouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQGsP8mnHsg
-David Ahlport
On Scenes from Mile High Stadium posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 ResponsesEven conventional
Even conventional natural gas isn't much to cheer about when it comes to CO2 emissions.
It's really no better than diesel. Infact, it's slightly worse.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.pngShale gas, and imported LNG on the other hand....
-David Ahlport
On T. Boone Pickens embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 ResponsesMore than meets the eye.
The whole wind+transmission thing is merely a way to:1. Make a land grab for water rights to the Ogalalla Reservoir. (i.e. Corner the Texas water market)
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1951/2. Promote Natural gas transportation, which he is heavily invested in. (Notice how his "Plan" was launched in July 2008. Notice the direction his stock was heading prior to July.)
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CLNE#chart1:symbol=cln ...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-0 ...
http://investors.cleanenergyfuels.com/directors.cfm3. Which incidentally, natural gas from LNG and from Shale isn't terribly "climate friendly". And thats where a majority of it would come from.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/shell-in-situ-o.h ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.h ...
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/shale-gas-energy-boon-o ...
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/energy/article/0,27 ...
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Oil_Sh ...
http://www.mybelmontheights.org/node/6424.. It doesn't even really make much sense to say that Wind power would replace Natural Gas power, since on average, we generally use COAL for baseload. And Natural Gas for Peaking. And Peaking won't be going away. Especially with a highly variable source of power like Wind.
5.. There's California legislation with Picken's fingerprints all over it. It's basically a seemingly technology agnostic bill (like prop 87), which in reality is actually all about gigantic subsidies for natural gas vehicles and infrastructure, and not much else.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/podcast?id=5 ...
http://www.anthonyrubenstein.com/ARSite/LATimesOpEd.html6. Lastly, as Joseph previously mentioned, this would be direct competition with PHEVs, that the Natural gas would be put to far better use replacing Coal.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/memo-to-t-boone-pic ...____
Now, no doubt, this gets a lot of media support for Wind. But lets not get beyond ourselves and start acting like there aren't any huge ulterior motives at play that totally defeat the purpose of dealing with climate change.
-David Ahlport
On T. Boone Pickens embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 ResponsesMore wordsmithing
How about "Responsible Markets".
-David Ahlport
On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesWell
Once again, another thing I say often.
"Markets are primarily a tool for finding the path of least resistance"
And just as with Fire. Fire can be our best Tool, or our worst enemy.
It all depends whether we control it, or it controls us.
-David Ahlport
On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesOh
And of course when you assume the cost of decommissioning, and waste is "Free".
Since that of course goes straight into the Federal Debt.
-David Ahlport
On A choice of primary energies: clean coal takes the bronze posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 ResponsesNuclear "Economics"? Try Communism.
Having said all that, your idea that new nuclear costs a lot in current dollars is plainly wrong. Granted that nuclear plants take a lot of money to build. But this can be brought down by standardizing design and by mass production of reactors in a factory. Generation 4 nuclear reactors which burn existing nuclear waste (such as the Integral Fast Reactor) can be constructed for as cheaply as 1 billion US $ (in place of 9 billion $ as told by critics).
Countries which employ nuclear electricity have the cheapest electricity in the planet. France has the cheapest rates in the whole of Europe. Why did nuclear work for France, but not for US. One word : standardization of reactor design.
Heh, and we know thats bullshit.
The reason they have the cheapest electricity is Four words.
Federal Monopoly, and Federal Debt.
Anything can be "Cheap" when you assume that the Federal Debt is a magical source of free money that never needs to be repaid.
The cost of the eletricity could be 0.0001cents per kwh for all the French government cares about the repayment period on the Federal Debt.
-
And even with the most lavish support on the planet, French Nuclear is still not cheap, or quick.
As evidenced by AREVA's (French Nuclear Monopoly) so far failed attempt to build a new plant in Finland.
(All of course with Federal Financing from the French Government, and Guaranteed above-market purchase programs from the Finish Government)
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/quickeconfact208.pdf
_As for "Economies of Scale". A process with a high number of reproductions/iterations is far superior for large economies of scale.
And thats the exact opposite of what Nuclear offers.
Where as Renewables have a high number of reproductions/iterations. And can therefore get the maximum benefit of repeated production.
-David Ahlport
On A choice of primary energies: clean coal takes the bronze posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 ResponsesAnyways
Back onto DrX's comment.
What we need to make markets like that function well isn't to say "OMG NO MARKET".
It's to say "OMG WE NEED OVERSIGHT"
How about the phrase: "Transparent Markets"
-David Ahlport
On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesAs I often say
The money collected from the carbon pricing should could be put toward a lifetime supply of hookers and scotch for Congress, and they'd still be doing their job right.
Since it's not about subsidizing renewable energy.
It's about removing the unpaid-externality from high carbon energy, and including that into the cost.
That way low carbon energy automatically gets more competitive.
And according to this study, costing for externalities is far more effective than subsidies.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-versus-subs ...-David Ahlport
On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesWhy StopGap?
Why would it be a stop-gap, if it is one of the most expensive, experimental, and unlikely energy technologies out there?
Might as well have Cold Fusion in the running for 4th place.
_
My personal 3 top technologies are
High Altitude Wind (With rotating Blimps tethered to the ground etc, unlikely, but if they get it to work, that could be pretty impressive)
EGS Geothermal, (i.e. Drill 2-4x as deep, and supply your own water in a closed loop)
SolarThermal w/ Heat Storage (i.e. Heat up molten salt, and then run that heat to make steam whenever)-David Ahlport
On A choice of primary energies: clean coal takes the bronze posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 ResponsesAdvertising
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/ev ...
-David Ahlport
On OMFG posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responsesre: StopGreenPath
- Solar Panels don't work at night
- Wind doesn't do baseload, unless you plan on a gignourmous amount of new transmission, across various locations.
- About the only possible thing left is Geothermal, which frankly, California does have, but that doesn't really help many other states, much less the rest of the world. And last I checked this isn't "local" warming. It's global warming. We need Global Solutions.
That said, about the only thing possible left that meets your specs is High Altitude Wind, if that ever pans out. Which I'm skeptical about.
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/makani.pdfHowever if you are willing to overlook minimal water requirements, (Which may potentially be met by semi-treated waste water i.e. Grey Water)
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS130145+08 ...Then Closed Loop Enhanced Geothermal (EGS) is able to meet your specs.
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6r_3AgI49Y_
But what annoys me is proposing nothing more than a pathetic and expensive augmentation of our existing electrical system; That has zero potential of actually overtaking and replacing our existing global fossil fuel powered electricity sector.
Anything short of that is just insincere flowery BS.
-David Ahlport
On IPCC needs to update projections to include deforestation feedbacks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses- Solar Panels don't work at night
I'm guessing
I'm guessing 6:00pm PST, 9:00pm EST
After people have gotten off work on the West Coast, but before the people on the East Coast go to bed.
-David Ahlport
On Pull the trigger, Barack! posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 ResponsesA chart
http://greyfalcon.net/tarsands.png
-David Ahlport
On Gates, Buffet to invest in massive climate change? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 ResponsesBiden
Can't get much better than Biden.
With a VP you need someone who:
- Can deal with an October Surprise foreign policy issue
- Is an attack dog on McCain's policies
- Can debtate like crazy
- Has experience (More than McCain)
- Was against the Iraq War
So Biden's biggest weakness, isn't really much of a weakness at all.
-David Ahlport
On Everyone's talking about Obama's VP pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses- Can deal with an October Surprise foreign policy issue
Huh
why aren't point of use renewables, brownfields and superfund sites the only acceptable locations for the "renewable energy paradigm,"
Because you only get a very limited amount of unreliable wind/solar there.
And frankly as is, it seems like your plan is to merely slap a few solar panels down in a cloudy area, and then calling the job done.
From an electricity reliability standpoint, thats pathetic.
Thats merely a plan to augment the status quo. To put a green sticker down, and pat yourself on the back.
However it is not a plan to replace and overtake the status quo of electricity generation.
(And you wonder why I keep mentioning that you aren't that serious about dealing with climate change. You aren't putting forward a serious alternative. Get serious.)
____
Anyways the far more interesting quote in there I noticed was:
"Pristine temperate forests stores 60% more carbon than plantation forests"
Guess that puts more fuel on the fire, (heh), to say that we shouldn't be focusing on tearing down forests, and creating CO2 credit plantations.
Especially when we take into account the additional water vapor radiative forcing of tropical forests.
(i.e. They reflect heat at day, and release it at night)
-David Ahlport
On IPCC needs to update projections to include deforestation feedbacks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 ResponsesHE WILL RAISE YOUR CARBON TAXES!!!
"Barack Obama will raise taxes on Electricity, McCain won't."
Ever notice that tag line in McCain's campaign ads?
If you assume what they are talking about is putting a Price on Carbon emissions, then clearly McCain is trying to have it both ways.
-David Ahlport
On In either an Obama or McCain adminstration, climate legislation will be back-burnered posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responsesre: David Blume
Again, it seems like Blume's primary argument is that you can get 7000 gals/acre ethanol yield from cattails.
Which frankly is even better than tropical sugar cane.
1000 gals/acre maybe. But 7000 gals/acre is just stupid.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/18/new-mexico ...
-David Ahlport
On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responsesre: David Blume
David Blume is full of fertilizer.
Then you must not be looking for one.
Since they are all over the place.Little short on time, but I'd like to put forward the second to last comment on this thread:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/st ...For a long winded discussion of just how wrong Blume is, how about this:
http://greyfalcon.net/mythsofbiofuels-David Ahlport
On What it means to put 4.1 billion bushels of corn into our gas tanks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesOh yes
And while we're talking about the concept of "Don't worry, the waste will handle it".
I'd answer, "What Waste?"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/16/112158/855
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
-David Ahlport
On Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 ResponsesEasy
How are you connecting coal and cellulosic ethanol?
Oh, thats actually rather easy.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.pngAlso, for bonus points, you might want to check these out.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/R-squared/~3/367327701/cos ...
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4-David Ahlport
On Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 ResponsesThat said
I'm sure PV is going to play a big role.
As will Dish Solar.However we're going to need a backbone for these variable sources to work off of.
And so far the only renewables that have stepped up to the plate are SolarThermal, GeoThermal, (And to a lesser extent Wind with LOTS of transmission)On Ginormous solar plants to be built in California posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses
re: StopGreenPath
Can you remind me,
What's the Levelized Cost of photovoltaic solar panels?
$0.15-0.20/kWh versus $0.06-0.10/kWh for Baseload Solar Thermal?
As for Feed-In-Tariffs, they work, but in effect here's how they work.
They raise the rate cost on all ratepayers, to pay for subsidizing the cost of installation for solar panel installers.
It works, but it also rapidly jacks up the price for ratepayers.
_
Also as for "It won't require transmission"
Then what do we do during heatwaves, and nighttime.Still needs the same level of transmission, and you also have to include the cost of having a fully redundant second set of infrastructure.
_
I'm just not quite sure you understand the economics involved really don't favor rooftop solar.
And of course, unless you plan on forcing China, India, Russia, and Latin America to adopt the same Rube Goldberg approach, then solving things for the US won't really make much difference.
_____
Bottom Line,
You need to stop focusing on magical ponies, and start focusing on how centralized power can be done with the minimum impact.
Otherwise you will get nothing, and lose everything.On Ginormous solar plants to be built in California posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses
Also
Does getting a public research grant mean that you personally get a fat paycheck? Or not.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.h ...-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 Responsesagain
It is only now that Hansen's original 1988 simulations have shown to be wrong.
cough
http://www.desmogblog.com/climateaudit-endorses-1988-clim ...-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 ResponsesYou know
I sometimes wonder about Bailo
- Does he really believe what he's saying
- Is he just some paid off astroturfer
- Or does he just enjoy annoying people
-David Ahlport
On Fleet of hydrogen concept vehicles crosses U.S. as part of Hydrogen Road Tour posted 1 year, 3 months ago 28 Responses- Does he really believe what he's saying
Oh
And you might enjoy this.
http://www.desmogblog.com/climateaudit-endorses-1988-clim ...-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 ResponsesHeh
The trick there of course, that is specifically talking about only the tropics.
But you are correct, I haven't seen focus on this smaller niche for my tastes.
However it's not that hard to believe that they are wrong considering the two papers in question come from Fred Singer, and Christy/Spencer (i.e. Rush Limbaugh's favorite meteorologist)
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4 ...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072308/conten ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-global- ...
http://greyfalcon.net/christy_
Frankly, to this point, I need to do a bit more digging.
Now clearly Realclimate and such went over Douglass et al 2007, in short. If you cherry pick a trend with no error bars, in a limited noisy dataset, you can come up with almost anything.
However I haven't really seen anything on Spencer et al 2007
And I haven't really seen much in the way of a peer reviewed rebuttal of either.
_
But still of course, aside from the Tropics, the Stratosphere is still cooling.
-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 ResponsesWell then
How about a simple one.
If Increased Solar Intensity were a primary cause of the increased warming we've seen for the past few decades, then the area above the Greenhouse layer should be getting more incoming and outgoing heat.
The area above the greenhouse layer should be getting warmer.However,
If Increased Greenhouse Gases were a primary cause of the increased warming we've seen for the past few decades, then the area above the Greenhouse layer should be getting the same incoming but less outgoing heat.
The area above the greenhouse layer should be getting colder.Care to guess what's been happening to the area above the Greenhouse layer? (i.e. The Stratosphere)
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 ResponsesGuess what
According to congress.
Coal mined from Indian Reservations is considered "Renewable", and given some beefy tax credits.
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...
-David Ahlport
On Tribes gamble on coal, despite climate risks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 14 ResponsesRevolutionary Efficiency
The Smart FourTwo, and the Aptera for instance.
Or even the Tata Nano.-David Ahlport
On Colbert on offshore drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responsesre: David Roberts
everything comes down to the fact that nobody -- outside of rarefied energy experts -- believes that alternatives to fossil fuels are here, ready, and reliable. Everything hinges on getting that message out.
The problem there though is that all the focus is on Hydrogen and BioFuels.
We need to move that focus onto Revolutionary Efficiency, and Electricity.
And frankly the only way thats going to happen is when we start getting the real deal onto the roads.
So sadly, we're kinda stuck in limbo for the next year and a half.
-David Ahlport
On Colbert on offshore drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 ResponsesThe logic
I'm not entirely sure I get the Iraq bit. Is the Obama campaign now trying to cast Iraq as some sort of pampered welfare recipient? I know it now has an oil surplus, but it's not exactly like they're sitting pretty over there.
Yeah, but the argument is "Why are we spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, when they got a $79 billion dollar oil surplus".
-David Ahlport
On McCain economics posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Responsere: David Roberts
The real issue is of course more related to Cognitive Science. Not climate science.
In particular Confirmation Biases created by Cognitive Dissonance.
_
Basically,
People highly question things that tell them that their preconceptions are wrong.
Where as people tend to not question sources that agree with their preconceptions.
_
As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts that lead to only one clear logical conclusion, and yet can still come to completely opposite conclusions.
Because it's not about the facts. It's the Filter of how those facts are viewed. Mix that with no cultural ability to tell the difference between peer reviewed science, and psuedoscience, and you get yourself people who can be thoroughly convinced of things that make no logical sense.
_
What we're really missing is that people don't have a functioning conceptual model of climate change.
And arguably, Gore has done a great disservice by simplifying that model Too Far. Giving the impression of a "CO2 Only" driven climate model.
And whenever you have major factors which go outside that simplified "CO2 Only" model, those who are predisposed to disagreeing, are utterly convinced that this "CO2 Only" model must be incorrect.
It's simple strawman logic.
So you usually see people swing back and forth between the arguments that either
- The climate is too complex, that we can't possibly understand it
- The climate is so simple, that if 1 variable doesn't cause ALL of the climate change, then that 1 variable can't have ANY impact on the climate.
3. We can understand the climate well enough to within a limited error range. And from that we can figure out scenarios of it's risk implications.
-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 Responses- The climate is too complex, that we can't possibly understand it
Hey Bob
Who is Lucia Liljegren?
http://twitter.com/lucialiljegrenWhat's more, have you ever thought to look for evidence which would counter your argument?
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-do ...-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 Responsesre: Seafang
re: Seafang
Can you find me ANY scientific institution in the world which says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.Because I seriously doubt you can.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwoldittakeAnd that even includes the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
-David Ahlport
On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 ResponsesSimple
Because of the Senate Republicans.
They have filibustered more votes this year, than any congress in history.On House Speaker says she's open to compromise on offshore drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses
:O
-David Ahlport
On EEStor founder says things are on track for commercial production in 2009 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 ResponsesHow about this
Looks like Pickens plan wouldn't be direct competition with PHEVs.
It'd be direct competition with rail freight. (A large majority of that freight being coal)
"What I want to do is get the natural gas into the transportation fuel, and then we take the Trucks is where it needs to go, not the personal cars; And so the infrastructure to do that. About 30% of our transportation fuel goes to move goods everyday, in the United States. And those are the Trucks that are moving the goods. So Those are the ones that I want to get on natural gas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mHl5FRYitQ-David Ahlport
On Drilling for Jesus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 ResponsesSounds familiar
And note that this is true even in the idealistic, non-pluralistic version of democracy, because you only get to vote on things that are on the ballot and - for the most part - voters are much more attuned to losses than gains. If I'm the beneficiary of government largesse, no matter how out-dated it may be, I know exactly what I have to lose if it is eliminated. On the other hand, if I am a potential beneficiary of a market that reallocates capital in my favor once government largesse X is eliminated, how would I even know? This creates an innate conservative bias (in the sense of preserving the status quo) in electoral processes that market forces are immune from.
Or to quote everyone's favorite sociopath :P
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly for fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the doubt of men, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.
(Niccolè Machiavelli, 1469-1527)-David Ahlport
On Galbraith on 'the free market' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesSpeaking of Framing
I would differentiate between Conservation and Efficiency.
Since I associate Conservation with Behavioral Demand Destruction.
Where as I associate Efficiency with Technological Demand Destruction.
_
And frankly, I'm not a big fan of Behavioral Demand Destruction.
People are lazy, disengaged, and uninformed.
It's far easier to change equipment than it is to change behavior. Especially when it's so culturally ingrained.
-David Ahlport
On The public's attention, for the first time in ages, is focused on energy policy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 ResponsesQuestion
Could the word "Frame" be equally interchanged with the phrase "Concept Model"?
Since frankly a large problem with understanding Framing, is understanding a clear grasp of what Frame actually means.
Only other simple way I could think to describe it is "Spin" or "Angle".
-David Ahlport
On The public's attention, for the first time in ages, is focused on energy policy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 ResponsesThat conitation doesn't work.
How about simply a market-based economy? I don't think that is too controversial. Then we can argue about the limitations and parameters but the essential character of markets allocating resources is maintained.
Nah I think you'd need to add a clarifier.
Otherwise the default assumption would be "Free" Markets. Since as Lakoff mentions, Republicans have been very effective at getting their concept-models out into society. And not-so-much for the Dems.
What we need to emphasize is that markets NEED regulation. Since markets are "Path of Least Resistance" machines.
Just because a Path is Efficient doesn't mean it's Ideal.
For instance, the most Efficient way for a Tank to drive to a location is to plow straight through a row of houses.
Although it's not that sexy, I think the argument is that we need "Regulated Markets".
_
I think we still need some concept-modeling and word smithing to come up with something that correctly expresses that sentiment.
-David Ahlport
On Galbraith on 'the free market' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesWell true
What I think you're referring to are examples where the "Public Good" significantly outweighs the "Private Good".
Or where the risk of a Return on Investment, and the Rate of Return may be too slow, risky, and large for private business to provide that good/service.
Flu vaccines, Education, Infrastructure, and R&D are good examples.
Where the benefit to the private individual is significantly smaller than the benefit to society as a whole. And as such, it makes sense to subsidize and lower the price of that good/service to match it's public benefit.
_
Another category is for ares which cannot be privatized, such as deep sea fishing, or air quality.
_
If anything, another argument might be made about Deficit Spending not necessarily being "evil", however when it is used, it should be used on things that will achieve a return on investment.
(i.e. Not Entitlements, or Wars)_____
What I was mainly referring to is that I think that competitive bidding to private contractors for Government projects is a good idea.
Even in the area of R&D, Government could still act as if they were a Venture Capital fund.
(Although I would agree, University research, and Endowments are where you get a lot of R&D from)
-David Ahlport
On Galbraith on 'the free market' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responsesre: BigTom
Ditto,
But so far it looks like it could be real.Especially when you take into account the University of Arizona has similar findings, and Lockheed Martin has already purchased exclusive rights for it's military use.
The real Question Marks at play is primarily it's durability, it's economics, and it's ability to scale.
Just because you have a killer technology doesn't mean it becomes a killer economic product. That's the difference between "invention" and "innovation".
-David Ahlport
On EEStor founder says things are on track for commercial production in 2009 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 ResponsesIn short
"Open Markets" would be a more correct term.
i.e. Low trade barrier, and general barriers to market entry.Or "Competitive Markets" with "Level Playing Fields". Since that incorporates both "Unsubsidized Markets" and "Equally Subsidized Markets".
But in general:
Markets are for determining:
* Prices
* MethodsGovernments are for determining:
* Penalties/Incentives
- Regulations/Restrictions
- Oversight
- Ensuring that Damages are paid for
- Regulations/Restrictions
Bottom Line
_____
Markets are simply highly efficient means of finding the Path of Least Resistance, and dealing with Scarcity.
Just like a PowerSaw, Markets are a wonderful and powerful tool. However when you have no control over it, a lot of damage can be done.
-David Ahlport
On Galbraith on 'the free market' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesThe word "Only"?
EVs are going to gobble up more power than CST and PV systems will be able to produce during the day.Clearly then if California wants to electrify transportation, it is going to adopt the nuclear option.
Oh come now Charles, you know that's not true.
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png
http://www.azsolarcenter.com/arizona/images/solmap.gif
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
Whats more, if they were to default Demand-Response into the charging of these cars that stay parked 90% of the time; Then even highly variable sources of power like wind would do the job just fine.
Whats more, you are also forgetting another obvious baseload renewable. Geothermal. Which is readily available in California and nearby states.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/images/geomap2.gif ...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=1723 ...
____
re: Michael Hoexter
As far as energy storage goes keep an eye out for Advanced Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage.
http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/user/Veroeff/EWEC_P ...
http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/konzern/fue/strom/energ ...
-David Ahlport
On Toward the post-oil society posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responsesre: Romm
Watch out, the Pickens zombies are coming!
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...
-David Ahlport
On T. Boone Pickens' plan is overexposed and inferior to Gore's posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 ResponsesRemind me
re: StopGreenPath,
Remind me,
Where does the electricity come from at night?
-David Ahlport
On We campaign continues to shoot itself, and climate movement, in the foot posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responsesre: StopGreenPath
The equivalent of 10% of the public lands of Nevada, isn't "Killing off our deserts" by any meaningful amount.
Especially since all of that land could easily be previously disturbed irrigated farmland.
As for bickering about the footprint of transmision lines. Frankly thats just petty. Since in effect you're arguing about TOURISM, not ecology.
And if you think Aesthetics are more important than saving the world from catastrophe, frankly you don't have your priorities straight.
-David Ahlport
On We campaign continues to shoot itself, and climate movement, in the foot posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses"Small lifetimes"?
I have not mentioned lithium-polymer batteries in my account because they are kind of expensive for some reason, and their lifetimes are very small.
Last I checked, they were about 50% more expensive, but has 2-3x the lifetime than conventional lithium.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/07/autobloggreen-qan ...
Also if we REALLY got serious about this, we could steal the NiMH patent from Chevron.
NiMH is the same batteries that were used in the Toyota RAV-4's and the Toyota Prius.
-David Ahlport
On A three-pronged approach to getting off oil for transportation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 Responsesre: vakibs
Why do people who say "Batteries won't work", automatically assume that we haven't advanced batteries past what they were over a century ago?
As for the "Bulk Range" thing, I'd suggest you take a look at Electrovaya. They are going for the Bulk strategy.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/electrovaya_int.h ...
Now if you REALLY want to kick it up there, then we can talk about nano-silicon conductors.
http://greyfalcon.net/10xrange
But as for quick charge speed, AltairNano and AeroVironment have already done a proof of concept for it months ago.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
But anyways, assuming we do want to focus on Lead Acid, you might want to take a look at FireFly.
They are trying to cut the weight by using lighter weight materials. Sure the battery life sucks, but it's simple and cheap.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=877
-David Ahlport
On A three-pronged approach to getting off oil for transportation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 Responsesre: theBike45
The disconnect on the Nuclear pricing is that you are equivocating Fixed Costs and Variable Costs.
(Aka Total Costs, and Overnight Costs)
http://www.nirs.org/images/fplturkeypointcostchart.jpg
Considering the massive time difference between permitting+construction of these two technologies, that makes a HUGE difference.
-David Ahlport
On AEP demands 45 percent rate increase for Ohio posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responsesre: theBike45
Yeah, thats true.
However we need to put ourselves on the trajectory to reach quick charge electric cars.
Also you don't need a ultracapacitors to do quick charging. Both A123 Systems, and AltairNano's batteries can charge quickly also.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
The other 4th option, ontop of PHEV/Swap/Quick, is of course merely Bulk. If you can give someone 600-1000 miles of range, then it wouldn't really matter if it takes all night to charge.
-David Ahlport
On A three-pronged approach to getting off oil for transportation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 Responsesre: BlogItGreen
What about natural gas as a lower-carbon transition fuel? It's obviously not renewable, but it is by far the most cost-effective of current alternative fuels.. see the charts at Blog It Green.
Well CNG is slightly more CO2 emissions per mile than Diesel.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
However it might make some sense for Class 8 Big Rig Trucks.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/pge-adds-five-c.h ...
As for your charts. It's kinda screwy. To start off with, it says imported natural gas, has less emissions than domestic natural gas. That sounds wrong.
-David Ahlport
On A three-pronged approach to getting off oil for transportation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 Responses"Electrified Roadways"
For "electrified roadways", I'm going to assume he doesn't mean tesla coils under the road.
Probably something more like San Francisco, where they run a lot of their buses off of overhead electric wires.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_sFln9F6sByA/Rt3b1LbynTI/AAAAAAAAAUI ...
-David Ahlport
On A three-pronged approach to getting off oil for transportation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 36 ResponsesI remember this tactic from somewhere.....
Google "radiation hormesis" for an interesting debate, or try this.
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/179/5/1137
"Radiation may actually be good for you; So no need to worry!"
Oh come on.
-David Ahlport
On How much of a subsidy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 ResponsesIs the PPA Worthless? No.
Well, the PAA might not be worth that much, however it's certainly not worthless either.
At the very least, what it's doing is making it so that Nuclear power companies can purchase Limited Liability Insurance, instead of Full Liability Insurance. Which has a significant difference in the rate price.
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/paa/priceandersonsubsidy ...
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/paa/gao2004nrclimitedlia ...
____
But as for Subsidies, you don't really need the Price Anderson Act to say Nuclear gets too much Federal support.
_
Nuclear power gets:
1. PTC secured for 8 years
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-73782 ...
2. Federal Loan Program 3x larger than the entire rest of the electric power industry combined
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclearloans.png
3. A 2 billion dollar cost overrun fund for the first six plants.
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-73782 ...
4. More than half of the DOE's energy related R&D fund (for the past decade, and the past half century)
And it's still begging for more.
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch.png
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2008-02-05.shtml
5. Hasn't payed a thin dime to deal with high level waste since 1998 due to lawsuits that Yucca Mountain isn't open yet. Even though new cost estimates have found Yucca mountain costs over 3x what they previously thought.
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/08/05/yucca/index.html
6. Profits budgeted for the plant decommissioning have Zero income tax.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear ...
And I'm pretty sure some Federal Power Purchase Agreements, favorable transmission, and debt recovery/waiving in there too.
http://greyfalcon.net/parenti
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/quickeconfact208.pdf
_____
If people are so convinced of Nuclear's competitiveness.
Either take away those subsidies/support-structures.
Or give Solar/Wind/Geo, each, a comparable level of Federal support.
_
Since as is, the Renewable PTC program accounts for 87% of the non-RD financing from the fed.
And it was blocked 2000, 2002, 2004, the first three months of 2008, and blocked 8 times so far for 2009.
And can't get any more than a 1-2 year extension.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/28/rene ...
http://gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
If Industrial Scale Renewables with that pathetic level of Federal support, can still go toe-to-toe with Nuclear, and even undercut it, that certainly tells you something about the economic competativeness of Nuclear power.
No small wonder that almost every other nation in the world runs their Nuclear power program as a fullblown Federal Monopoly, eh?
-David Ahlport
On How much of a subsidy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 ResponsesSolar Thermal cost estimate is too conservative.
The modeling for the CPUC puts California solar thermal at 12.7 to 13.6 cents/kWh (including six hours of storage capacity) -- and at similar or lower costs in the rest of the West.
Yeah, but thats curved mirrors, 12-20 foot tall mirrors, using an expensive thermal heat transfer fluid. ;D
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/documents/2007 ...
A bunch of the upcoming solar thermal companies are cutting costs by going with flat mirrors, human sized mirrors for easier construction/logistics, and heating the water directly.
And of course there's multiple types of solar thermal than just troughs. There's Compact Fresnel Reflectors, Towers, and Multi-Towers. (Even Dishes, and Micro-Dishes, and Micro-Troughs if you don't care about storage)
All I'm saying is that that CPUC price estimate is probably off by atleast a factor of 2.
Especially when they start getting into the Gigawatts range, and the economies of scale start kicking in. Since the mirrors and support structure account for nearly half of the plant construction cost.
-David Ahlport
On AEP demands 45 percent rate increase for Ohio posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 ResponsesHeh
Federal protection of Hawaii islands more in theory than actuality.
Sounded out of character for Bush at the time.
Atleast we know now that he's consistent....On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response
The CCS Myth
BUT! if you include CCS technology, which EVERY SINGLE SUBSTANTIAL SYNTHETIC FUELS PLANT IN THE US TODAY IS DOING,
Which is more of a fig-leaf pretense than a serious answer.
_
Can you say over $6500/kW AND cutting down the efficiency of the plant by 20% AND using a liquid CO2 pipeline infrastructure orders of magnitude larger than our existing oil pipeline infrastructure.
And while we're at it since it cuts the plant efficiency by 20%, even if you assume that you can capture 80% of the emissions, that only ends up capturing 64% of the emissions once your done with it. Which isn't even any better than natural gas emissions.
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2
http://greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-h ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/7/65718/52163
http://grist.org/news/2008/01/29/energy_dept/index.html#c ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ccs
-David Ahlport
On The five transport energy solutions and one imperative posted 1 year, 3 months ago 34 ResponsesEnergy Plan: Obama vs McCain
Here's the Obama vs McCain energy programs side by side.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGj1oIfYmFMaIMlkarP4Rq ...
No real reference to how much Federal spending McCain wants to kick into Nuclear/CCS though. Although in the LiebermanWarner bill he was arguing for $500 Billion.
http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/10/30/friends-of-th ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/13/9422/98276
-David Ahlport
On Obama clean-energy ad will air during Olympics coverage posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 ResponsesRepublicans don't
Republicans don't acknowledge the concept of Efficiency.
It's either use a service, or don't use a service.
Nothing in between.
-David Ahlport
On McCain now agrees that inflating your tires saves gasoline posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 ResponsesYeap
Good daily podcasts.
Keith Olbermann
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPod ...
Rachel Maddow
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPod ...
I listen to em every day at work :P
-David Ahlport
On Keith Olbermann on McCain's campaign posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 ResponseActually
That chart only references electricity.
As for refined coal.
I think thats a catchall for Pulverized Coal, and Fluidized Bed coal, and IGCC.
-David Ahlport
On Guess which 'alternative energy' lobby is biggest? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 ResponsesSounds like
Sounds like this article by Daniel Gilbert in the LA Times.
"If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming"
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm
-David Ahlport
On Is tackling climate change contrary to human nature? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 ResponsesLou
The point to be made that the Goldwater concept of a Republican is NOT what current Republicans are today.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
-David Ahlport
On What's the deal with Republican attacks on the tire gauge? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 ResponsesWell the other reason
Filling your tires saves you 3% on fuel costs.
Offshore Drilling in the OCS/ANWR saves you 1% on fuel costs.
_
This concept is a direct attack on the superficial policies that McCain puts forward, because even though small, it is orders of magnitude more effective than McCain's policies.
They NEED to discredit that. Since the DRILL argument is essentially the only sticking argument McCain seems to have on transportation.
Without that, McCain really doesn't have anything left besides the equivalent of turning Coal into Gasoline. Which is a rather flimsy argument if it's given much press.
-David Ahlport
On What's the deal with Republican attacks on the tire gauge? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 ResponsesFun times
And last I checked, if we expanded into a "Nuclear only world" we'd need 9 of these things by the end of the century.On Estimated cost of Nevada nuke-waste dump soars posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses
Yeap
Here's a little chart for ya
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
-David Ahlport
On Guess which 'alternative energy' lobby is biggest? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 ResponsesYeah
"plus the new superconducting ribbon cable"
Say what?
This stuff:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/05/next_ge ...
-David Ahlport
On 'Major discovery' from MIT unpractical, and ignores present advances in solar baseload posted 1 year, 3 months ago 22 Responsesre: Brittanicus
Illegal foreign nationals pay far more taxes than the usual US citizen. I hardly see how thats a bad thing.
http://mediamattersaction.org/reports/fearandloathing/
http://mediamattersaction.org/reports/fearandloathing/onl ...
-David Ahlport
On More drilling in exchange for comprehensive energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 ResponsesTo put it simply
The Renewable Energy Tax Credit (RETC) runs out in January.
Thats over 60,000 jobs, and over 6,000MW of renewable energy development down the tubes if that happens. (Not to mention a brain-drain of the key professionals in this area overseas)
Republicans have blocked the 2009 renewal of the RETC 8 times so far this year.
Republicans have previously blocked it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. (It also lapsed 3 months into 2008) During those years, the market completely crashed.
There are ONLY 3 weeks left in September of this congress session before they close for the rest of the year.
Democrats got 51 votes in the Senate.
Democrats NEED 67+ votes to pass the renewal of the RETC.
_
So the only way that Democrats are going to get the RETC passed is if they give Republicans something they want.
And while that may not be "ideal", thats what we have to deal with.
-David Ahlport
On More drilling in exchange for comprehensive energy legislation posted 1 year, 3 months ago 24 ResponsesSo
Have we had any coverage putting 2+2 together, and notice that right after the RETC failed for the 8th time, that Barack flipped on allowing "some" offshore drilling, if it meant that they'd get funding/support for the RETC.
-David Ahlport
On What power politics looks like posted 1 year, 3 months ago 14 ResponsesPatrick Moore
On Patrick Moore,
I wouldn't really call a 20 year professional greenwashing lobbyist an "environmentalist".
http://www.endgame.org/moore.pdf
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html
Not to mention the fact that he's officially on the payroll of the official lobbying group of the Nuclear power industry, might lead one take his rhetoric with a small mountain of salt.
http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/AbouttheCoalition/CoChairs ...
http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/F6.cfm
Along with another fellow greenwashing lobbyist Christine Todd Whitman.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0203-02.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whitman_Strate ...
That'd be like calling the current head of the EPA an environmentalist.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/25/115623/310
-David Ahlport
On French independent nuclear commission reports four malfunctions in four plants in 15 days posted 1 year, 3 months ago 43 Responsesre: Jonas again
So the Congo needs something like this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080801/sc_afp/brazilenviron ...
-David Ahlport
On Jet Propulsion Laboratory has new climate website that shows global sea-level trends posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 ResponsesHey bio
You had a graph comparing switchgrass and sugarcane energy yields.
Any idea where that got to?
-David Ahlport
On Marketplace commentary gives a misleading picture of government's role in energy use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 ResponsesAlthough
I guess those two graphs aren't identical.
Since the RSS is doing the troposphere, and the GISS is doing the surface.
http://greyfalcon.net/trends2.png
-David Ahlport
On Jet Propulsion Laboratory has new climate website that shows global sea-level trends posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 Responsesre: Bailo
Thats just because of the El Nino in 1998, and the La Nina in 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
http://greyfalcon.net/lanina
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png (for scale)
If you ignore those two unusual years the upward trend is blindingly obvious.
-David Ahlport
On Jet Propulsion Laboratory has new climate website that shows global sea-level trends posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 Responsesintercropping?
-David Ahlport
On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 ResponsesSay
"Mixed Crop Silviculture" is that a correct phrase?
Or is that the wrong terminology?
-David Ahlport
On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responsesre: Jonas
1) Any reasonable person would agree, CSS is no-where near reality. And will most likely be irrelevant given the time pressure we're under.
http://www.greenpeace.org/CCSreport
2) Biochar as you well know is only effective with depleted soils, and makes the unlikely assumption that people won't just sell it as charcoal.
It would be a highly limited solution, at best.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-go ...
3) I have no idea how the widescale practice of turning forests into charcoal and "gasoline", is supposed to make us stop cutting down forests. If anything it would do the exact opposite.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/28/104127/67
4) The logistics and scale of what you are implying for moving and processing biomass would require are completely unrealistic.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
5) Biomass simply can't replace both our electricity and liquid fuels demands. (Much less either one individually if you plan on leaving the forests and roots alone)
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits2.png
6) Photosynthesis is an extremely inefficient way of harvesting sunlight as energy.
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/solarg ...
______
- US, China, and India make up a majority of the carbon emission issue in the first place. And they don't have much in the way of biomass. So we need solutions that work for those countries. (One thing all these countries have lots of though is desert. As such, baseload solar thermal makes a lot of sense as a primary solution.)
- Indonesia, Brazil, and Congo on the other hand are primarily the countries where the main focus should be on figuring out how to compensate them to not clearcut their "carbon sink" rainforrests. (Including both legal and illegal practices)
Heavy reliance on CSS and widescale use of biochar are not realistic answers to this problem.
One should be far less focused on the methods used, than the actual goal of dealing with climate change. And attempt to live up to the statement,
"I'm not biased towards any particular technology or policy".
If anything, what we should be figuring out is an international policy framework to compensate countries with rainforests to leave them standing. Which would be best served by using a portion of the revenues collected from carbon-pricing in America/China/India.
As for increasing soil fertility, that would be best served by REDUCING the commodity price of fertilizers/farmland/freshwater, and promoting local mixed crop silviculture.
-David Ahlport
On Jet Propulsion Laboratory has new climate website that shows global sea-level trends posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 ResponsesAlarm Bells, Sirens, Red Flags, Beep!
-David Ahlport
On McCain adviser Forbes suggests candidate will dump cap-and-trade plan posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 ResponsesWell
He was hinting at it for a while.
Now he all but bluntly saying it.
If "Obama is going to raise your electricity taxes" and supposidly McCain won't. Then the only way that'd happen is if McCain dumps his support for putting a price on Carbon.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/30/beyon ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/30/10147/8387
-David Ahlport
On McCain adviser Forbes suggests candidate will dump cap-and-trade plan posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responsesre: KenG
What made you think T. Boone Pickens wasn't after something entirely different?
His NaturalGas/Wind proposal has far more to do with Water, than anything else.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1951/
-David Ahlport
On Marketplace commentary gives a misleading picture of government's role in energy use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 ResponsesHey
How about some coverage on this
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1951/On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response
re: grenergy,
Or we can just use baseload solar thermal.
(aka Concentrating Solar Thermal with Molten Salt Heat Storage)
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra2
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
It's actually kinda funny though that you insist biomass is such a great way to harness the sunlight. 0.13% solar efficiency doesn't sound too good to me.
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/solarg ...
Sure it can store the energy, but the problem with that is how do you store and transport the raw biomass. The raw logistics required are pretty mind numbing.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
Not to mention, the available biomass resource is pretty tiny.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits2.png
-David Ahlport
On Blogger Nathanael Greene takes on Philpott re: biofuels posted 1 year, 3 months ago 37 Responsesblah blah blah
Piglet,
3 California wind farms featuring OLD turbine designs, with a large variety of heights, and have small quick blades, are the cause of almost all bird deaths from US wind turbines. Altamont Pass alone makes up more than half the deaths.
http://greyfalcon.net/birddeaths.png
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&pag ...
And on top of that, house cats, and buildings make up gigantic orders of magnitude more bird deaths per year.
Should we get rid of those too?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=483 ...On Wind power in China is 'huge, huge, huge' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses
oops
Where they guy who brought us the Ozone hole theory found that the N2O decomposition rate is more than double what was previously thought.
-David Ahlport
On Short, medium, and long-term solutions to phase out oil posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesBioFuels, So while we're at it.
Carbon Cycle, Land Clearing
How about another monkey wrench.
N2O formation.
Where they guy who brought us the Ozone hole theory found that
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
Soy for instance, once you factor in N2O formation makes Liquid Coal look benign.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
And another,
Soil carbon sink exposure to decomposition.
(Which applies to any type of soil, but especially for Peat)
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/peat
-David Ahlport
On Short, medium, and long-term solutions to phase out oil posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesThen again
Is $8000/kW for Nuclear "affordable"?
-David Ahlport
On The cheaper the power, the more we use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 ResponsesForgetting something?
Fission is the only proven technology that can supply sufficient power to eliminate most combustion of fossil resources, and meet the world's energy needs at an affordable price.
Asside from Concentrating Solar Thermal with Liquid Salt Heat Storage.
Which ultimately is Fusion based. Superior, and in this case, cheaper (by a couple orders of magnitude).
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
-David Ahlport
On The cheaper the power, the more we use posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses^ Link for the above ^
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5
-David Ahlport
On Short, medium, and long-term solutions to phase out oil posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesQuick comment on the batteries
Electric car batteries won't be hard to recycle.
- Their raw materials are rather valuable
- They still have 80% of their functional life left after they are no longer suitable for transportation. Wire a couple of these batteries together to pump up the voltage, and you got yourself a valuable grid storage device. (Which can be FULL owned and controlled by the utility, and likely dispersed regionally. Far more viable than V2G)
-David Ahlport
On Short, medium, and long-term solutions to phase out oil posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 ResponsesBailo
We live in an 86 million barrels per day world.
Domestically we're only talking about 1.5~2.5 million barrels thats being squabbled over.
On a global scale, thats only 1.7% to 2.8%.
Not much to make a difference.
Not even enough to counteract changes in demand, OR decreases in our domestic production.
-David Ahlport
On Sierra Club ads defend Dems who are 'standing strong against Big Oil' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 ResponsesSo
Perhaps just like Joseph Romm says we should list individual eletric renewables, and even differentiate between solar photovoltaics, and baseload solar thermal.
Perhaps at the top of that list, we should make a habit of first saying Efficiency.
i.e. "Efficiency First".
Since usually it's just an afterthought.
Efficiency, Baseload Solar Thermal, Solar Photovoltaics, Geothermal, Wind, and Hydropower
-David Ahlport
On There's only one way to get big near-term carbon reductions posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 ResponsesWell apparently
Apparently McCain also isn't in favor of the textbook pigovian tax, the tobacco tax.
He things smoking is bad, but that the tax on cigarettes should be lower.
He cites his primary reason for lowering this tax because the revenues won't neccisarily be spent wisely.
Which is completely ignoring the whole point that if you are trying to achieve a pigovian effect, then the how the revenues get spent really doesn't even matter.
(Or atleast thats what today's 7am NPR podcast said ;D)
____
That said, considering the similarity between the pigovian effect of the carbon "price" and the tobacco tax, it certainly begs the question of how much of McCain's climate proposals are merely rhetoric, or reality.
If anything, one also has to consider that you aren't just electing a president, you are electing a presidential staff.
-David Ahlport
On McCain adviser Forbes suggests candidate will dump cap-and-trade plan posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 ResponsesSince we're talking about nice graphs.
Since we're talking about nice graphs.
How about this one.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
-David Ahlport
On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 Responsesooh
Another good perspective on things.
The Real Question: Should Oil Be Cheap?
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_31/ ...
Well written article thats surprisingly lacking of fluff.
-David Ahlport
On The crucial mistake Dems made in the energy fight posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 ResponsesOr ya know what
Cut that down ever further.
Republicans are against Our Kids Future.
Democrats are Our Kids Future.
Which cuts well for oil depeletion, global warming, and geopolitical tensions.
Pretty much everything.
-David Ahlport
On The crucial mistake Dems made in the energy fight posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 ResponsesGeorge Lakoff rolls over (in his sleep....)
If this were an abortion debate;
We would have the "Pro-life" Republicans, versus the "Anti-life" Democrats.
By accepting Republican talking points, values and mental models as the basis of our discussion, we automatically lose.
____
The debate should be more like this:
We have two options:
- Deeper into dependence on Oil, with High Carbon Fuels, that will Acidify our oceans, Turn our rivers into vast lakes of sulfur and mercury sludge, And cause havoc with our climate. All of which will ultimately cripple our economy, and destroy our standing in the world.
- Progressively and Aggressively Move Away from Fossil Fuels, starting with stimulus checks, higher fuel economy, public transportation that works, and ultimately moving our transportation sector to run on inexpensive and plentiful renewable electricity. Ushering in a new era of stability in the world and utter respect for America.
OR
Republicans have dug us into a hole, Republicans think answer is to dig deeper.
The real answer is that we need to get out, and we need to do it soon while we still can, because it's only going to get worse the longer we wait. Because we can't drill our way out of this.
OR
You have a choice:
- Turn our oceans to acid, destroy our climate, and ultimately cripple our economy, with high carbon fuels.
- Or Save our planet and economy, by progressively moving away from oil, towards plentiful and inexpensive renewable electricity.
OR
There really isn't anything we can do about short term oil costs.If we subsidize oil, then demand will go up, and the price will resume to it's previous level.
And even if we had all that oil Republicans are after, Today, that would only shift things by a couple pennies a gallon.
We can't Drill Our way Out of This.
_______
We need to learn it's not just what we say.
It's how we go about saying it.
The truth will never set you free; If you have to run it through the logic of how Republicans view things.
We need to stop using Republican talking points, values and mental models as the basis of our communication!
-David Ahlport
On The crucial mistake Dems made in the energy fight posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 ResponsesAnd another
And a more general response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBfN-wJQ--U
-David Ahlport
On Could lime absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 ResponsesOne response
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1903/
-David Ahlport
On Could lime absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 ResponsesSo yeah
Just realized.
One of the problems with some acronyms is the mixup between solar/geo heating, versus solar/geo thermal electric.
-David Ahlport
On Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 ResponsesDown the rabbit hole....
Or how about the magically named "alternative fuel production credit".
The largest tax expenditure supporting electricity production from fossil fuels was the alternative fuel production credit, which Treasury estimated at $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.ht ...
* Oil produced from shale and tar sands* Gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations,
and biomass* Liquid, gaseous, or solid synthetic fuels produced from coal
* Fuel from qualified processed formations or biomass
* Steam from agricultural products.(However as of 2007)The credit no longer applies to fuel from qualified processed formations or biomass or steam from agricultural products.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.ht ...
-David Ahlport
On Memo calling for increased offshore drilling and shale development posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 ResponsesSo
I just realized.
New Coal plants get the same PTC as Wind/Geothermal.
It's actually part of the same "Renewable Energy Tax Credit".
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...
Kinda sickening, huh?
_
"Refined" Coal is more commonly known as Pulverized Coal.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/FTROU/3-22-01.html
As for Indian Coal, apparently it's Coal mined on Indian Reservations.
http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=2380
_
Nuclear power gets essentially the same PTC as well.
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-73782 ...
_
Photovoltaics, and Baseload Solar Thermal get a different Investment tax credit. (ITC)
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...
Coal Sequestration apparently gets a similar ITC, as does building the CO2 sequestration pipelines. And apparently "enhanced" oil recovery also get a tax credit.
http://featured.matternetwork.com/2007/10/us-investing-co ...
And apparently a few more coal tax credits floating around for IGCC.
http://www.doe.gov/news/4495.htm
Sure would be nice if we had a way to compare these things side by side.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
_
And I wouldn't be surprised if they have an Oil Shale Tax Credit, or an Offshore drilling Tax Credit floating around somewhere.
-David Ahlport
On Memo calling for increased offshore drilling and shale development posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 ResponsesHow about
SHS - Solar Heat Storage
Gore-voice: "With 'Solar Heat Storage', we can create steam powered electricity whenever we want. Day and Night."
(Another fun thing, there's no "SHS" out there eating up the acronym thought space)
http://www.google.com/search?q=shs
_
By the way while we're word smithing.
One of our gristers came up with a good turn of phrase.
You have your Climate Skeptic.
How about your Climate Realist.
Right now, we don't really have parity with the simplicity of "Skeptics".
-David Ahlport
On Time to stop using the phrase 'renewable energy' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 ResponsesOh yeah, my take
BTW, this article wouldn't be complete with reference to Monckton.
1. As for Monckton posting in a peer reviewed physical science journal. Yes. Catch being it wasn't in the peer reviewed section of the journal. It was in the letters-to-the-editor [b]newsletter[/b] section which [b]is not peer reviewed[/b]. Notice the word "Newsletter".
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton. ...
2. Monckton has no credentials as a climate scientist. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, thats it. Oh, and he's a British aristocrat.
http://www.desmogblog.com/deniers-cock-a-hoop-over-latest ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-fights-for-exxons-free ...
3. SPPI only has 9 members. (All of them career skeptics, a couple of which haven't published a peer reviewed physical science paper on climate science yet though)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Pu ...
4. The least of which SPPI
Aka The Science and Public Policy Institute
Aka Frontiers of Freedom
Aka Center for Science and Public Policy
Is publically funded by Exxon Mobil
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/exxon_still_fundi ...
5. Monckton's analysis is entirely wrong
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/wee ...
The "gavin" guy responding is Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt
A climate scientist who works at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
Comparably, Monckton, has a degree in Journalism and Classical Literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Christopher_Monckton,3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of Brenchley#Biography
-David Ahlport
On Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 ResponsesPaleocon
Equally I'm confused with the term climate skeptic.
That implies that either
- You don't believe that a climate exists
- You are rather conservative in making estimations about the climate using evidence we have.
- That other scientists are not rational skeptics
So either this guy is merely extremely dihonest,
OR suffering from an extreme case of both confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://www.rockridgenation.org/questions/analysis-of-cogn ...
-David Ahlport
On Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 ResponsesJonas, Joseph
Jonas,
Would you please quit assuming that
- CCS is viable
- Carbon fixation for meaningful periods of times MUST involve burning the carbon you're trying to keep from entering the atmosphere.
- That there's even enough biomass to go around
- That most biofuels reduce emissions at all, once you factor in their land use change "carbon debt", and N2O emissions.
Anyways Joseph,
You missed a few things.
One, Algae has problems. At the moment it'd cost about $1200 a barrel to create it.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
There's also the problem to do with phosphorus fertilizers, and in general that "raw biomass" which so many people assume we can just burn.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/13/64820/6921
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/16/112158/855
Lastly, you forgot to mention that due to the scarcity of biomass (especially climate beneficial biomass), and the nonscarcity of coal.
It's kind of a freaky assumption to make that building a gigantic infrastructure of 30-year-finance-schedule gasification solids-to-liquids plants worldwide. And then very likely not having enough solids to feed them.
Given the inherent will to survive of institutions, you would end up with a gigantic Coal-to-Liquids infrastructure, built on back of a message of "Clean and Green" Fuels.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
For instance, as Coskata's CEO mentions quite bluntly, "Will this process ever be used to make fuel from coal? I hope so, it would be stupid not to."
(Start from timemark 2:20, I should probably shorten this myself)
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.pdf
And as James Hansen mentions we CAN NOT shift to liquid coal if we want to have a prayer of dealing with this climate crisis.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/29/81931/9476
-David Ahlport
On Are biofuels a core solution? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 201 ResponsesThanks Sean
The types of power plants I had in mind was Nuclear versus Solar Thermal.
With Nuclear having around a 7-15 year permitting+build schedule.
And SolarThermal having a 1-4 year permitting+build schedule.
If you compare these two technologies purely on Overnight costs, you get a rather distorted view of things due to the time difference.
-David Ahlport
On A brief primer on variable vs. fixed costs posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 ResponsesWell
Here's a quick question.
All-in cost, versus Overnight cost.
Why would Overnight cost be considered appropriate for power plants with long build schedules, especially when compared to other power plant types with relatively short build schedules.
-David Ahlport
On A brief primer on variable vs. fixed costs posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 ResponsesAh Good
- Biodigestion
- Using the leftovers as fertilizer
- Cogen to make bioheat pellets adds a nice touch too.
(As long as they aren't going out of their way to harvest wood at a high rate)
-David Ahlport
On The human-scale, renewable, domestic power systems reviving rural Austrian economies posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses"Yeah but"
in a way, if Germans can't figure out that renewables will work...because they are leaders in wind and solar, it's obviously working for them...although Der Spiegel is rather conservative.
Yeah but, Germany also have quite an extreme solar handicap to deal with.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/07/thats-lot-of-sola ...
Luckily though India, China, US, and pretty much any country that's much of a "climate threat" has ready access to deserts.
-David Ahlport
On Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 ResponsesAnd related to the original topic
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,565704 ...
-David Ahlport
On Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 ResponsesHey Greenpath
Check this, timemark 2:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dqjhlPpFhk
Does that sound acceptable?
-David Ahlport
On Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 Responsesre: stopgreenpath
Guess what.
If we don't build renewable energy, we're going to end up with an even deader ecosystem, except on a far grander scale.
If you think droughts and heatwaves are bad elsewhere. Try deserts.
_
Solar thermal, we're just looking for about 10,000 square miles.
Which may sound big, but frankly thats 1/3rd the area currently devoted to corn ethanol.
And for that relatively tiny spec of land, we get enough electricity to power the entire nation.
_
That said, I really question if as a guy with "green" in your name, if you even take Global warming seriously.
As if ignoring it is a realistic option.
that there is no "cost" to the many millions of acres of intact ecosystems which would be permanently destroyed by building out massive wind and CSP "farms."seems pretty inaccurate, if not disingenuous, after what we've seen from the primary and secondary impacts of lost mangroves, coral reefs, rainforests, old growth, kelp beds, and other ecosystems. floodings, fires, global warming, lost fish, drastic restoration efforts, dead zones, reduced recreation space, species decimation, etc.
Funny how, of that laundry list at the bottom, none of that would happen if we did this.
Also funny how you attribute zero cost to ignoring global warming. Since frankly, not only are we looking at many trillions of dollars of economic damage. But we'd also except to get at ALL of those things you say you want to avoid.
-David Ahlport
On Renewables and efficiency would provide more GDP than fossil fuels posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 ResponsesAnother good Resource
"The Denial Machine"
http://greyfalcon.net/denial
-David Ahlport
On Using doubt to compete with a scientific body of fact posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 ResponsesWolverine
If you want then, you can look at it as "opportunity costs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
Given a finite amount of resources appropriated for dealing with climate change, what way can we do the most good with it.
For instance, I find it a bit sad that Corn Ethanol gets 20x more subsidies annually than Solar.
-David Ahlport
On The Freakonomists weigh in on the effects of warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 ResponsesNow doesn't that beat all.
I need to verify the source, but if this is true, then McCain/Gingrich/Bush's "Drill Drill Drill" mantra is busted.
On Top Dems in Congress open to possible compromise deal on offshore drilling posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses
The federal Minerals Management Service reports that out of the almost 9 billion barrels of oil that are thought to exist offshore, 80 percent of them are already open to the industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/90828/
Hey Romm
I need to verify the source, but if this is true, then McCain/Gingrich/Bush's "Drill Drill Drill" mantra is busted.
On 'Purpose,' McCain's new energy ad, features wind turbines he voted against posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses
The federal Minerals Management Service reports that out of the almost 9 billion barrels of oil that are thought to exist offshore, 80 percent of them are already open to the industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/90828/
Actually
Frankly it really doesn't matter if they take that money collected, and build the world's largest pizza with it.
Or maybe just toss it all into paying off the gigantic federal debt Bush/Bush/Reagan got us.
Really it doesn't matter.
_
What really matters is the pigovian effect.
Or put another way, the important part is correcting the market failure to include the cost of carbon into the operating cost of fossil power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
"Market failures" such as these are largely one of the huge major reasons we have government in the first place.
Because currently the market price of fossil energy does not reflect the damage caused by green house gases.
Once it does, the market should represent a more realistic price, and other new technologies should be able to easily out-compete existing ones.On Conservative blogger thinks McCain is ditching cap-and-trade posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses
Good article
I recently (listened) to Dubner's Freakanomics book.
Good stuff.
_
Now if only they could be less glib about Nuclear power, and focus it's the flimsy Economics it has in an open market.
Bad Return Rate, Bad Investment Increment, Bad Default Risk.
_
That and also consider the "risk" involved with Nuclear power cannot completely be divorced from the risks associated with Nuclear weapons.
Iran for instance just launched a dud long range missile just to show that it has the range to hit.
And even if two other nations besides us get into a shooting war, the rest of the world is gonna have to deal with the nuclear winter.
Consider the United States is still on Mutually Assured Destruction hairtrigger alert, I certainly wouldn't expect any self respecting economist to value that risk at 0.
Unless of course they were being intentionally misleading.On The Freakonomists weigh in on the effects of warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses
Answers, kind of
Well here's a relative assessment on the CO2 levels.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
Particulates, probably pretty significant.
And as for Resource availability.
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
One flaw of course in Picken's plan is that we need that natural gas to run peaker plants. Specifically the ones which need to be operation to cover shortfalls for Wind Power. So the idea that we would not need that natural gas for electric power is a little silly.
However, then again apparently Boone thinks it'd be a great idea to turn the Oil Shale we have into Natural Gas. Which may make it economically recoverable....
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/21/avfi-2008-t-boone ...On Texas oilman unveils Pickens Plan to avert U.S. energy crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses
Which is pretty much
Which is pretty much the same as the GOP Energy Chief's plan.
Except swap Nuclear power for Wind power.On Texas oilman unveils Pickens Plan to avert U.S. energy crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses
Not all deficit spending is bad
Not all deficit loans are bad
If it's put towards INVESTMENTS that yield a return on investment, then it can be a very good thing. Like Infrastructure, Scientific Research&Development and Education.
_
As much as I dislike deficit spending in general, and dislike that the Republicans are blocking this.
I think Democrats are doing a lot of harm by insisting that they can't create deficits for much needed investments.
Specifically in this case, the Renewable Energy Tax credit.On Minority leader proposes spending cuts to pay for renewables tax-credit extension posted 1 year, 4 months ago 1 Response
Fun with charts:P
http://greyfalcon.net/oilchart4.pngOn No easy explanation for continued price increases in the oil markets posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 Responses
Well
Until of course, when these types of things kick in.
http://autobloggreen.com/2008/05/07/who-else-thinks-the-p ...
And there won't really be much of a problem powering em.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.pngOn U.S. driving declines posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses
Joy
I got my chart back!
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png
I like this chart :)On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 4 months ago 35 Responses
Here's a question
- Has McCain voted For the extention of the Renewable Energy tax credit in 2008?
- How many years is the "Clean Coal" Investment Tax Credit authorized for. Since Nuclear power's Production Tax Credit is authorized for 8 years.
If McCain hasn't voted for the Renewable Enerfy tax credits, it's rather hypocritical to say he supports these technologies.On RNC drops $3 million to promote McCain's energy plan posted 1 year, 4 months ago 1 Response
Nifty
Also Gar, last I heard BART for instance, is extremely expensive as normal rail costs goes.
If thats what you're comparing to, I wouldn't be surprised.
On High-speed rail coming to California posted 1 year, 4 months ago 29 Responses
The real issue
The real issue of course is that RMI keeps talking about distributed generation primary as natural gas cogen units.
The problem with distributed Solar is that it doesn't provide reliable power, and it doesn't provide night-time power.
CSP in deserts is both reliable, (Hardly any cloudy days a year), and can provide night-time power (Thermal Heat Storage)
And it can do all that for less than it costs to build new coal fired power plants.On More than half of today's electricity, more than 16 percent of today's energy posted 1 year, 4 months ago 74 Responses
Quite the reverse
But in this difficult and dangerous transition period, we are also going to have to exploit what national reserves we have.
Quite to the contrary.
If we are hellbent on drilling it at some point in time, then we should save it for when we need it.
Rather than just burning it in inefficient SUVs, and saving people less on gas, than McCain's "tax holiday" gimmick.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884, ...
_
Besides which, lowering resource prices, and increasing resource supply are directly opposed to each other.
When resources are cheap, people tend to waste them.
Anyone who knows basic supply&demand should know that.On Drilling offshore vs. fuel efficiency posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses
Meh, Bad link
Thar better.
The title of the presentation is:
Myths of BioFuels
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28739839146032102 ...On Economist says biofuels have pushed up global food prices by 75 percent posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
Hey Tom
Speaking of "relatively" secret.
Got a David Fridley speachified presentation video for ya.
http://video.google.com/?docid=287398391460321023
FINALLY got around to ripping it, re-encoding it, and uploading it.On Economist says biofuels have pushed up global food prices by 75 percent posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
meh
Since this thread is still going
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/glo ...On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses
Thats the other thing
Thats the other thing.
Not only the day to day reliability.
But the day-night reliability with thermal heat storage makes a big difference.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
But you're forgetting
Amazing, you're forgetting. The major benefit to the desert is it's weather.
Most people don't like living near areas which get 300+ days of no clouds.
Cloudy skies mean no power.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
Kaboom
Hey Steenblik, got a 4th of July present for ya:
Biofuels behind food price hikes: leaked World Bank report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/wl_sthasia_afp/clima ...
On Lugar calls for end to tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses
And before you consider
And before you get going on "OMG look some scrub brush!"
Well that probably wouldn't be there if it weren't for the evaporated water coming from the power plant.
If anything, Solar thermal power plants are chosen for areas with the least rainfall.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
No Hacking, No Slashing
Wolverine
You do realize we're talking about deserts, right?
There will be no hacking and slashing involved.
If anything, they are mainly concerned with water use, and paving.
Here for instance is an old style conventional Solar Thermal power plant.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Solarp ...On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses
The issue of course with Unica
The issue of course with Unica
Is that they are equivocating biodiversity of non-endemic species, with biodiversity of endemic species.
"Endemic" species are not naturally found elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemism
The Cerrado has a gigantic amount of Endemic Species.
http://greyfalcon.net/timeOn Lugar calls for end to tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses
doh
As I mentioned over "here" in response
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/01/biof ...On Lugar calls for end to tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses
Cerrado > Amazon
As I mentioned over here in response
____
carlos wutke barwick:
Since most americans don't know nothing about geography, here's a clue. Brazil is not burning the amazon for sugarcane, sugarcane is 1100 mile south of the amazon,mostly in the state of Sao Paulo. They are clearing the amazon so the can grow cattles,chickens and soy, so people like you can eat and get fat.
They are however burning the Cerrado for sugarcane. And the Cerrado is even more endemically biodiverse than the Amazon.
http://greyfalcon.net/time
http://greyfalcon.net/cerrado
And "Unica" Brazil's official lobbyist organization for the SugarCane industry know it.
http://www.openpr.com/news/38986/UNICA-Ban-on-ethanol-pro ...
_
As for Sam's comment on Brazil's offshore oil supply. Yeah, they got a lot of that.
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
http://eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.htmlOn Lugar calls for end to tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol posted 1 year, 4 months ago 19 Responses
As I keep saying
- The collection process should provide a pigovian effect. (Like a tax on cigarettes)
- The collected money should be bluntly used as pork to buy off key senators. While atleast attempting to keep it from going back to the standard operating budgets of the same companies it's being collected from.
(Or put another way, it's to include the externality cost of carbon, to get closer to the "true cost")On What investments should be made with carbon tax revenue? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses
Or not
=McCain has consistently opposed pork of all kinds.=
Except from obvious exceptions, for instance subsidizing Nuclear power to the tune of half-a-trillion dollars.
_
Besides which, the PTC which McCain refuses to authorize has been approved for nearly the next decade.
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-73782 ...
And thats only one of the many lavish subsidies Nuclear power gets.On 'Purpose,' McCain's new energy ad, features wind turbines he voted against posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses
McCain on the other hand
McCain on the other hand
Is just flip flopping on every issue that he personally held, (i.e. No gimmicky "Challenge" involved) that supposedly set him apart from the GOP.
Remolding himself into a lockstep Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=re ...
http://greyfalcon.net/mccain
http://greyfalcon.net/mccain2
Which takes away his "I choose policies that are different from the GOP" supposed "Maverick" stance near entirely.On 'Purpose,' McCain's new energy ad, features wind turbines he voted against posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses
The real irony being
The real irony being how the media is punishing Barack for the "DoubleTalk".
Each of which is
- McCain challenged Barack to take Federal Campaign Funds with Spending Limits. Something McCain was unwilling to do in the Primary.
- McCain challenged Barack to go to Iraq. Something McCain has only done with a whole Batallion guarding him, while claiming how safe the place is.
- McCain challenged Barack to Town Hall meetings. But at the same time he loves the concept of planting audience members to ask softball questions... Something FOX's Roger Aile's came up with as a strategist for the Reagan campaign.
More OISM links
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date= ...
On New global warming denier article in Salon posted 1 year, 4 months ago 22 Responses
re: Georgia
Catch being that "400 prominent scientists" is primarily not scientists. And primarily not climate scientists. For scientists with actual relevant credentials, you get less than two-dozen. Many of which are now career pundits.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warmi ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_BceWzg2oM
The 30,000 scientist thing? To put it simply, it was packaged with raw unscientific propaganda (made to look like it came from the US National Academy of Science), and generally is just a laundry list of whoever they could get to sign it.
Many of which have no recollection of signing it, would disagree with it now, and a significant amount aren't even real. Hollywood Actress Halle Berry, for instance, was on that list as a "scientist". Additionally they keep recycling the signatures from a period of over 10 years ago.
(OISM) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine itself has only 1 paid staff member, yet has over $1 Million dollars in undisclosed sourced funding.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institu ...
_
That said, aside from the obvious 2500 scientist panel on the IPCC.
You also have every National Academy of Science.
And whats more, There isn't a single scientific institution in the world that disagrees. (Association of American Petroleum Geologists was the last institution holdout, and they switched last year.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
Heck, not even the Bush administration, or Newt Gingrich disagrees anymore.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/29/whit ...
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
What's it gonna take?On New global warming denier article in Salon posted 1 year, 4 months ago 22 Responses
Overturned!
On Feds freeze new solar projects on public land, pending review posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses
Solar Moratorium Scrapped,
Bureau Of Land Management To Allow New PlantsBLM's decision to reverse the solar application moratorium comes as the alternative energy industry remains jittery about another issue: a $6 billion package of alternative energy tax credits, including about $1.3 billion for solar, that's gotten stalled in Congress. Reid wants to get that resolved after lawmakers return from the July 4 holiday.
There are currently nine utility-scale solar plants in the U.S. capable of producing a combined 425 megawatts of solar power, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Solar industry officials and environmental groups agreed that BLM, which has granted numerous leases to the oil and gas industry, needs to move faster on the solar proposals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/solar-moratorium ...
Actually
Man-made CO2 contribution is absolutely DWARFED by natural sources.
Actually, that is true.
But it's also irrelevant.
The implied meaning that we aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 levels, which is false.
The trick of course is that even though natural emissions are gigantic. Natural carbon sinks are slightly bigger. Which keeps the system in relative balance.
Manmade emissions tip that balance.
Here's a little video explaining it all.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2
And of course, an admitance from the "Swindle"'s producer saying that "Of course manmade emissions are responsible! How dare you say I implied otherwise." Well something to that effect.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
And if you want a bit more science
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
_
And as you mentioned, the Milankovitch cycles are important for understanding iceage cycles.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
And of course, Natural factors are also very important.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
Catch being they can't explain the warming we've seen in the past few decades. Which is what ALL scientific institutions around the world now agree to. (Yes, I really do mean ALL. American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last one to go.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittakeOn New global warming denier article in Salon posted 1 year, 4 months ago 22 Responses
Heh
youtube.com/watch?v=COQC-eY5RGM&feature=related
Just because something is put on the internet doesn't make it true.
The exact authors who that video references says that the argument in the video is wrong.
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
On New global warming denier article in Salon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 22 Responses
So what about
Ford and Honda?On VW to join Toyota, GM with 2010 plug-in hybrid posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
I wonder
I wonder what would there be any synergistic benefits of hybridizing solar PV and solar water heating?
Would a "heatsink" on the solar panels increase their efficiency significantly?On More than half of today's electricity, more than 16 percent of today's energy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 74 Responses
Stupid yes, but better than that
I love the term you came up with.
AGWers, Warmers, or Climate Activists always had the wrong conitations.
"Climate Realist" is a great term.On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 5 months ago 26 Responses
Heh
And the energy density of lead acid is horrible compared to Lithium Ion.On McCain touts energy plan in another new ad posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses
hmm
Blowing In: What's Behind Duke's Wind-Power Push?
"You can build large utility scale wind farms and power plants relatively fast compared to anything else and build them cheaper than any renewable energy at this stage. That makes wind very attractive to us," [Duke Energy Generation Services president Wouter] van Kempen said in a conference call with reporters.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/27/blow ...
Real push, or Greenwash? Or both?On Billionaires for Obama posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses
Link
Here's the iTunes podcast link to the Commonwealth Club,
And just click on Fareed Zakaria
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPod ...
On Moyers talks to Boxer posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses
Actually
There was a really good Fareed Zakaria interview I listened to yesterday.
Pretty much he was making the observation that the United States should be coordinating with China and India primarily on greenhouse emissions reductions.
That all we really need to do is just set an example of how to create Green Growth, and the rest of the nations will follow suit.
And a concept he was alluding to, but I'd like to reinforce, is that with China and India we have great oppourtunity to shape how their infrastructure is designed.
Since rather than replacing old infrastructure, all we need to do is kick in the marginally increased funds to get them to select the green option, rather than the black option. Which is a hell of a lot cheaper than funding a green option in full.On Moyers talks to Boxer posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses
And in related news
New Bush Directives Exempt Oil & Gas from Environmental Impact on BLM lands06/15/2008 Denver Post
Bush prepares parting shots on National Forests, Parks and BLM lands
The Bush administration is pressing in its waning months in office to implement a spate of rule and policy changes that could reshape the face of the West.
The changes at the federal Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would open tracts to development while removing protections for land and species.
The most visible of the Bush administration moves in Colorado was the BLM's decision last week to open 52,000 acres of the Roan Plateau to oil and gas leasing. The lease sale is scheduled for August.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_9589531
Do I smell hypocrisy?On Bush places moratorium on new solar projects on public land posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses
Oh yes
And of course
5. Give cash prizes that will neither encourage encomonies of scale production or purchase of batteries. And insist that 1 minute to recharge a battery isn't good enough.On McCain touts energy plan in another new ad posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses
Heh
John McCain's Plan:
- Spend Half a Trillion dollars on subsidizing Nuclear power.
- Risk destroying coastal states economies in an attempt to save you a nickel per gallon, twenty years from now. Maybe.
- Killing off 500,000 road maintanence jobs, just to save you a half tank of gas once. Maybe.
- The previous two assumptions assume that oil markets don't slow productions slightly and wipe out any benefit you could possibly get from them, and give a higher profit to oil companies than they are already getting.
"Gimmicks, the false perception of change I hope I can get you to believe in"On McCain touts energy plan in another new ad posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses
Uhm NucB, isn't that obvious?
You would really buy a car with a 40-mile range? Most people wouldn't. 2008 Toyota Camry Solara SE Range: 462.5 Miles.
Heh, well the recharge figure I gave is for 100 miles at highway speed recharged in 1 minute. (Given enough current)
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3
However even if a car, say, the Chevy Volt only has 40 miles electric range, thats what the gasoline generator is for. And the only reason it's 40 mile range, is cost.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins
http://greyfalcon.net/volt
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins6
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
40-60 miles range just happens to line up with the vast majority of normal commute distances. And hence the most electric miles driven per year, with the least battery cost.
I'm kind of surprised you didn't already know this.
Drop down the price of the batteries, and 600 mile electric range would be practical.On Honda fuel-cell vehicle: Not marketable, practical, or environmental posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
The other disturbing part
The other disturbing part about this is that Progressives have such a ripe position of strength to talk about how US Conservatives are largely to blame for shrinking the value of the US dollar.
Due largely to Republican lead deficit budget spending, and the gigantic trade deficit.
And they aren't talking about it.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/im ...
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
_
Similarly they aren't taking the "The OffShore/ANWR drilling wouldn't help us in the long-term or short-term. That it would be a gimmick all around."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/72651-oil-would-be-65-if- ...On Cornucopian thinking about oil posted 1 year, 5 months ago 58 Responses
heh
this made me laugh.
Oh come now, thats easy to top ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G9jA-FGGd8On McCain names his energy plan and bashes Barack Obama while he's at it posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
The scary thing
I thought that was a Youtube only thing made by some blogger.
Until I saw the "Paid for by John McCain 2008".
Message asside, the production quality on that video was horrible.
_
That said, what pisses me off is that Obama is letting McCain get away with this oil drilling fiasco.
Which yesterday McCain (once again) mentioned how his new Oil plan would only amount to a "psychological benefit".
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/24/mccain-psychological- ...
Even though the report put out by the Fed last week or so points that the impact of drilling for oil would not only be non-existent now, but it would be insignificant in the future. And they extend their projections all the way out till 2030!
http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
The thing most Americans fail to realize is that when they say oil is "Trading at $140 a barrel". That that price is GLOBAL. Every country pays the same price for a barrel of oil!!!!
So in order to make a dent in the global commodity price, (For which we pay!) you have to make a supply increased thats larger on a global scale.
And then PRAY that Saudi/Venezuela/Russia/etc don't cut back their daily production rate by the same amount as your increase.
_
This is very similar to McCain's gas tax holiday, except that it's significantly more complex, and less bluntly obvious to be a total gimmick.On McCain names his energy plan and bashes Barack Obama while he's at it posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
What flip?
- Existing Nuclear power plants should continue to operate
- We should spend Federal dollars on Nuclear R&D
- We shouldn't spend Federal dollars on new Nuclear plant finance until they figure out a way to deal with the waste.
No
It's dismissed out of hand because the prospect of doing it would be
- Ludicrously expensive
- Logistically near impossible
- Create a waste repository which requires oversight and specifications that would make Yucca Mountain's radioactive nuclear waste seem like a cakewalk.
- All "honestly" watched for leaks by Coal/Oil companies till the end of time.
As for the SOx/NOx reductions. Thats merely following the 2005 Clean Air Act.
How "generous" of them to follow the law....
Besides which, while nice, SOx/NOx reductions do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
_
Just to consider this.
If you combine one Carbon atom with 2 Oxygen atoms, you end up with a mass which is 3.7x larger.On CNN and clean coal posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses
Forget ShortTerm
What gets me is that "our pundits" keep yielding the point that ANWR/OCS drilling would significantly lower our future prices of oil as well.
When thats not true either. (!!!!!!!)
- To start with, the commodity price of a barrel of oil is the same, regardless of where you buy it from. So in order to reduce OUR price for a barrel of oil, we have to reduce everyone's price for a barrel of oil.
- If we could pumped ALL of the oil in one year from those reserves, we'd increase global oil supplies by 2%.
- The largest oil wells in the world are declining at an average -6% annually.
- Global oil demand is increasing at an average +6% annually.
Acting like our chump change of an oil supply is going to make any sort of price different now, or later is wrong.On My kingdom for a so-called expert posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses
Thats stupid
Thats stupid.
We already have pretty damned good batteries.
The real issue is cost.
And like cars, that price isn't going to come down without significant economies of scale.
_
While McCain's proposal may seem generous, it does absolutely nothing to create a low-risk finance structure to encourage building new battery manufacturing plants, or to create a larger market for purchasing electric cars.
_
"Cart before the Horse" isn't much of a transportation strategy.....On McCain calls for $300 million prize for the designer of a better electric-car battery posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses
Silly time :P
As the United States electricity market expanded to 10 times its present size
Heh, and now you're just trying to be silly and difficult. :)
"CENTURIES AND CENTURIES FROM NOW WE MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM! OOOOH."
_
- By the time your nitpicking would even have any chance to come into play we'd probably be getting more desert. (Good ol global warming, eh?)
- Why would we be using first generation power plants centuries from now?
- Why are we limited to only 1 technology? PV for instance could be dirt cheap by then. Or Hot Rock Geothermal. Or wave power. Or fusion! Or maybe we'll build us a super-cool dyson sphere.
details
The Tom Friedman article says that all oil use in the United States can be economically replaced "tommorrow" with "wind and solar power [...] on your roof."
NucBuddy:
What would plugin-hybrids have to do with this thread, GreyFlcn?
I guess it's not an exact parallel. However if we wanted to. Would could displace a hell of a lot of oil with electricity with plugin-hybrid-retofits.
And it's certainly not "tommorow". However relatively quickly.
And while thats not "all" oil, it does account for almost all of it.On I think Friedman is upset with Bush posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses
Heh
Hrmm, so how do we get plugin-hybrids ASAP?
Probably something along the lines of this:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1649/On I think Friedman is upset with Bush posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses
Well yeah Gar
But then again besides
- Swappable
- Quickcharge
- Long Range
4) Add a small/cheap generator for extended range
:)On Notes from a plug-in hybrid conference posted 1 year, 5 months ago 14 Responses
Links for thought
Links for thought
1) A large part of the increase in oil price has to do with the falling value of the dollar.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296660160455703.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/72651-oil-would-be-65-if- ...
http://greyfalcon.net/oilchart4.png
2) Even if we did drill like crazy, it wouldn't change the price at the pump more than a few pennies per gallon. If at all.
http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/04/opening-anwr-cuts-g ...
3) They already got 68 million acres leased which they aren't drilling
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/thoughtanarchis ...
4) There's a big shortage of offshore drilling boats. And since this is a supply-rate issue, not just a raw supply issue that bottleneck prevent a supply-RATE increase. Even if we did have enough oil to go after.
http://desmogblog.com/cool-it-george-they-just-cant-float ...
4) McCain was opposing offshore drilling 3 weeks ago
http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-dri ...
5) Florida's Mayor was opposing offshore drilling 1 week ago
http://www.nbc6.net/news/16666650/detail.html
6) Cheney and various Republican Senators keep insisting that the Communists are drinking our milkshake! Even though Cheney admits it's false.
http://motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop ...
7) Obama obviously opposes this gimmick
http://boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/obama ...On I think Friedman is upset with Bush posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses
Uhg... we did that already
What would make it more exciting(?) for a lot of people is if there was a working plant with significant heat storage so that electricity could continue to flow after the sun sets.
You mean like this solar power storage plant built in 1981? "Solar Two".
http://ucdcms.ucdavis.edu/solar2/photos
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4989/On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses
Hey Bailo
You know what an endocrine disruptor is, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptorOn California officials yank controversial urban spraying plan posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses
Some math
About 868,000 square kilometers of "Warm Desert" in North America
0.386102159 square miles per square kilometer
335,000 square miles of "Warm Desert" in North America.
_
Is that enough?On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses
Oh noes!
re: Charles Barton
OMG Solar thermal would take 8,464 to 11,600 square miles!
The Horror!
136,000 square miles were devoted to corn planting in 2007. [@]
Roughly 43,000 square miles of which were devoted exclusively to corn ethanol production.
So yeah, it is a considerable area. However it's not like that would be a real limiting factor in any serious discussion.On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses
CSP: An unfortunate acronym
Unfortunately.
CSP can refer to both Concentrating PV, and Concentrating SolarThermal.
CPV, CST would be better acronymns.
However CST, "Central Standard Time" is already kinda taken....On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses
Depends how you do the math
"... can move a ton of freight 400 miles on one gallon of gas..."
Any truth to this?
Depends if you make the assumption that the train is full.
On average, railroads can move one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel. This is a rail industry statistic calculated by dividing the 2006 annual revenue ton miles (1.772 trillion) by the fuel consumed (4.192 billion), which equates to the industry average of one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel. (The 2006 data was the last full year for which total industry data are available.)
Revenue ton miles are those miles for which railroads are compensated for moving freight. (We move empty cars to reposition them, and we move company materials for which we are not compensated). The industry did not include fuel consumed by passenger trains -- just freight trains.
http://lucididiocyblog2.blogspot.com/2008/03/423-miles-ga ...
But then again, thats still a hell of a lot better than 8mpg with a bigrig truck.On Carmaker knows most efficient freight system: trains posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses
Heh
Kinda like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jDk-g02GNwOn Carmaker knows most efficient freight system: trains posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses
Or to reiterate
- Imagine the most expensive electric car you can think of. Tricked out with the best electric motors, nanolithium batteries, and supercapacitors possible.
- Now shrink the battery range to about 40 miles
- Now latch on a glorified natural gas Generator that needs gold and plantinum to run. And breaks down in 5 years.
- Plus a 10,000PSI compressed storage tank, made out of carbon fibre, with more insulation than Santa Claus could ask for.
Now you might ask yourself.
"If I already have step 1, why include step 2,3,&4."
I would certainly ask the same thing.
Especially considering if you have step 1, then you already have a battery setup capable of recharging to 80% in 1 minute flat.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
Compared to 3-5 minutes to fill up with Hydrogen.
Takes a few hours to fill up at home, but then again, the same thing is true with hydrogen reformed from natural gas.On Honda fuel-cell vehicle: Not marketable, practical, or environmental posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
Too bad
More than 95 percent of U.S. hydrogen is made from natural gas, so running a car on hydrogen doesn't reduce net carbon dioxide emissions compared with a hybrid like the Prius running on gasoline.
As much as I love kicking Hydrogen cars where it hurts, I hate to say that that statement might not be correct for this car.
The trick of course is that Toyota gets around this by giving the car the best possible electric batteries, electric motors, and electric super-capcitors one could ask for.
Perhaps the more take-home argument for me is that the only real way it got these advancements were from better technology that would benefit electric cars even more.On Honda fuel-cell vehicle: Not marketable, practical, or environmental posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
re: Darth
Either way you look at it though.
We're not talking about a significant quantity of oil.
Renewables on the other hand aren't so much physical raw materials, as they are design concepts, and policies.
Come up with a killer concept or backed by reliable policy, and it can expand like crazy.
The Prius for instance. It got it's conceptual start in Japan. But it really it got almost all of it's sales globally occurred in California.
Why? Strong Policy.
_
Furthermore, the reason that Renewables have been so much a drop in the bucket has more to do with policy than technology at the moment.
Over 90% of the non-R&D financing comes from either a PTC(Wind) or an ITC(Solar) (Not sure about Geo or Hyrdo)
And the Senate Republicans will only allow 1 year to be approved at any given time.
And each year the respective Tax credit lapses, the snowball effect momentum comes to a crashing halt. Which happened in 2000, 2002, and 2004. And so far, if Senate Republicans like John McCain have their say, it will be blocked for 2009 as well.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/28/rene ...
You can't have scalable growth with policies that are completely unreliable.
Especially compared to other competiting capital intensive technologies like Coal and Nuclear which get their PTC/ITC approved for nearly a decade at a time.
On Conservative arguments to the contrary are intellectually bankrupt posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses
All for pennies....
Hey Bear,
You obviously have no ideal the scale of what you're talking about and how it would translate into prices.
Can you honestly tell me that saving $0.02 cents a gallon, over ten years from now, is worth eliminating species and risking destroying the economic viability of coastal states?
http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
http://motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop ...
http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-dri ...
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/04/opening-anwr-cuts-g ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/thoughtanarchis ...
http://boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/obama ...On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 5 months ago 59 Responses
Yeap
Some links for thought.
http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
http://motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop ...
http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-dri ...
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/04/opening-anwr-cuts-g ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/thoughtanarchis ...
http://boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/obama ...On McCain says he's willing to 'examine' his stance against drilling in ANWR posted 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Response
Heh
Thats just because the general public hasn't been introduced to McCain's new policies.
He's been almost completely out of the press for the past 3 months.
_
Hell, here's a scary one for ya.
If you thought "The Google" and "Internets" was bad enough.
McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he ...On Public trusts Obama more than McCain on gas prices, global warming, energy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses
At this point
At this point, the focus should be on renewing the renewable tax credits for atleast 2009......
Both the PTC for wind, and the ITC for SolarOn Yet another climate bill introduced in the House; greens applaud posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses
Consider this
One-and-a-half minutes in Iraq costs $30 million dollars.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
And thats in addition separate from the $14 billion dollars in annual direct subsidies and tax breaks we give the oil industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18cnd-royalt ...
_
If you are really against Corporate Welfare, then atleast call for it on all sides. Otherwise you are just using that position as a excuse.
Increasing Mileage, far and away, is the best thing we can do to reduce emissions, and from that reduce our oil consumption.
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png
Electricity only costs $0.70 a gallon equivalent, and we got plenty of it.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
_
Then again, I also can't understand why some people believe that paying taxes with high interest foreign loans, is better than paying taxes directly.
It costs more money! And it devalues the dollars like crazy!
And yet because it's more complex, and dogmatically supported by the likes of Reagan, Bush, Cheney, that it's perceived as a "good" thing.
It's horrible.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603On Big Three automakers get plug-in funding from feds posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses
Here
Here's a fun little chart from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
It show that even if you take the extremely optimistic federal studies at face value, changes in fuel economy cause far more dramatic changes.
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol2.pngOn The case for fuel-agnostic efficiency posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses
On perception
One of the real flaws it seems with cap-and-trade though is that lack of certainty with offsets.
The other issue is allowances allow for a huge corruption of the system.
Improper allowance or Improper offsets can both cause the system to fail.
_
That why I would argue for Full Auction of Tradeable/Bankable Permits with No Offsets.
And as for the necessary pork to get it to pass. Pull that out of the slush fund created by the auction revenues.
_
The crucial part being that this is gives the public a system that even with corruption will continue to work.
Since the slushfund isn't what's important. It's fixing the carbon externality price which matters.On The political chances of carbon taxes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses
Bailo
Bailo,
The "Water car" works technically.
But it's extremely inefficient.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-run-car-on ...On Notes from a plug-in hybrid conference posted 1 year, 5 months ago 14 Responses
So
What if you had a full auction permit process with no offsets? Tradeable, with year-to-year banking of course.On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses
Just in general
Everyone should admit that
- The climate has more than one variable affecting it
- 1998 had a lot to do with the El Nino that year
- 2008 had a lot to do with the La Nina that year
- 2008 had a lot to do with the PDO which coincided with the La Nina
- That cherry picking trendlines dominated by either of those two years, and insisting that "Aha! See CO2 rise isn't causing a direct 1-to-1 correlation to temperature, therefore it's wrong." Is absolutely an unscientific argument.
Well
It may seem silly.
But if we want time-of-use to really kick in.
We need to make it so that even if they do plug in during the day. That the car knows NOT to charge until it's nighttime.
Or even better, if the car knew how to charge on a demand-response level.
Considering a lot of these cars will be released in PG&E and SCE territory, it'd be great if they could pioneer this concept, and try to make it a standard.On Notes from a plug-in hybrid conference posted 1 year, 5 months ago 14 Responses
Actually
It looks like the Antarctic is still having problems.
The west side of it is collapsing.
In winter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613104743 ...On Arctic sea ice update: 2008 poised to repeat -- or beat -- 2007 posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses
again
First, I'm not sure where Mr. Romm got $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt from (for the FPL plant), all I keep seeing (in both the FPL request for determination of need, and the Florida Commission document granting it) is $3208 to 4540/kw, which appears over and over again.
http://www.nirs.org/images/fplturkeypointcostchart.jpgOn Nuclear power is expensive posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses
Fun new report out
For those wonkish enough to care about this stuff
http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdfOn Nuclear power is expensive posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses
Yeap.
GreyFlcn wrote: Nuclear power has [...] build-schedules [...] As long as 10-15 years.
Untrue. Where did you get that information?
I'm including the citing and permitting process.On Nuclear power is expensive posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses
As it would have it
If you mean wind and solar, please provide a recent example, with cost. For wind, here is an example from Texas:
a [cancelled, because it was too expensive] 500 megawatt Texas offshore windfarm would have cost "in the billions".
Hehe.
It's funny because you're acting like:
1) Nuclear power plants don't cost billions.
http://www.nirs.org/images/fplturkeypointcostchart.jpg
2) Boone T. Pickens didn't end up buying the wind turbines.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/05/15/t-boone-pickens-orders-2 ...
Well both of those assumptions would be wrong.
And forget 500MW, this guy is going for 1000MW now, and later 4000MW.
Then again, what does Boone T. Pickens know about making money?
_
By comparison, Warren Buffet spent $13 million dollars doing cost estimates on Nuclear power, only to end up canceling the project because Nuclear power is too expensive.
http://www.sunvalleyonline.com/news/article.asp?ID_Articl ...On Nuclear power is expensive posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses