Comments GreenEngineer has made

Odd numbers

I'm curious about the numbers cited. They come from the MIT report, but they don't make much sense to me.

The EIA has figures on CO2 and electricity production by fuel here.

According to them, the nation's coal fleet is running about 960 kg/MWh, which is in line with the figures given in the report (since most of our fleet is fluidized bed; i.e. old tech).  But the EIA figures given 600 kg/MWh for the natural gas fleet, much lower than the 832 kg/MWh cited in the report for a combined-cycle plant (i.e. new, efficient technology).  That's a pretty huge discrepancy.

I'm also skeptical of the figures given for the potential emissions of high-tech coal plants.  Since no capture is involved, the improvement in performance MUST come from improved efficiency (i.e. more MWh per ton of fuel).  

The report claims that ultra-supercritical pulverized coal can do 738 kg/MWh.  That's a 40% improvement over fluidized bed technology.  That's ALOT.  That may be feasible, but it strikes me as a potentially over-optimistic estimate.  (I'm not sure if any ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plants have been built.  This number may have been calculated/estimated rather than measured.)

Even weirder, they've got the ultra-supercritical pulverized coal running neck and neck with the combined cycle gas plant.  Combined cycle gas plants are among the most efficient plants out there, in terms of combustion heat per electricity generated.  And coal has about 60% more carbon per unit of embodied energy than gas does.

So in order to achieve the performance they are describing, the ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plant would have be to 60% more efficient than a combined cycle gas plant.  Since CC-gas plants run around 40%, a ultra-supercritical pulverized coal would have to be 65% thermally efficient to perform as they are describing.  As far as I know, solid-oxide fuel cells are the ONLY technology that approaches that level of performance.  So I'm deeply skeptical of this report, or of the subsequent interpretation of it.
On How the new European carbon standard could backfire posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Thanks!

But given the unlikeliness of this, the next best thing was to have a lot of factions canceling one another out, so that the only way to build coalitions was appeal to the greater good, or at least to interests of factions adding up to an majority - which was imperfect, but still useful approximation of that greater good.

OK, I see your point.  It seems to me that the critical element here is citizen involvement.  Equality makes the equation balance easier, and makes the involvement more feasible (in terms of available personal resources, if nothing else).  But a sufficient level of motivation and involvement in the political process will compensate for inequality to an extent, whereas equality, in and of itself, in the absence of a strong ethic of citizen involvement in government doesn't get you much (and probably doesn't last, either).

My sense is that a sustainable democratic political system will require a level of involvement from the average citizen that seems enormous by modern metrics (though perhaps not so large in absolute terms, since any involvement is much more than the current average of ~zero).On Deregulation and inequality are bad for both the economy and the environment posted 1 year, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Sure, but

Agreed on all of the above, Jon.  Especially the employee-ownership part -- that could radically reorganize the corporate landscape.

But I don't see how these measures would address the problem of regulatory capture.  Whether a company is owned by investors, the founders, the VCs, or the employees, it's still going to have an incentive to try to buy legislation that is favorable to it and/or unfavorable to competitors.  That's the question I would like to answer.On Deregulation and inequality are bad for both the economy and the environment posted 1 year, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Another reason

Sean's got it.

In addition, another may be that there are technologies available, right now, that are carbon-free and near price parity with grid power.  If you have a technology that is slightly more expensive (over time), but eliminates carbon emissions, then even a small price on carbon can put you over the line economically.  Whereas I can't think of anything analogous that's available in the transportation arena.  And, no, the Tesla doesn't count -- it's not slightly more expensive.On A price on carbon will not tackle transportation pollution posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

the graph

The graph you posted starts in 2010 and goes from there.  So it's clearly a projection, rather than historical data.  That may or may not represent reality; do you have anything based on actual data?On My worries about PHVs have mostly abated posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

PV study

I don't have time to read and respond to the study in detail right now, but I would point out a few things about PV subsidies:

1. They exist on the assumption that the retail cost of power per kWh is artificially low (which is true) due to the way that the energy and utility markets are structured.

2. Their value is not just in the kWh that they provide, but also in the grid capacity relief that they offer.  Although their production profile is not perfectly matched to the demand peak on the grid, they do provide significant power during the period of time that the grid is most stressed, avoiding the need to run (and to build more of) expensive, dirty, inefficient peaker plants.

3. The cost of PV has dropped as they are more widely adopted, and will continue to do so.  There was a short-term increase in price, driven by the supply-demand imbalance, but that is being addressed on the global market if not in the US.  The long-term trend is for them to get much cheaper, if we continue to support the market.  Supporting them now is an investment towards that end.

4. When I designed PV system, I ran numerous financial analyses.  Without subsidies, a properly designed, sized, and oriented system would break even in about 25 years.  That's not an attractive investment option for individual businesses; thus the subsidies.  But neither is it the 2-4x loss that the linked study claims to show.  But the other thing I learned from this is that it's really easy to pessimise the analysis -- a lot depends on making reasonable up-front assumptions.  I don't have time, as I said, but I would encourage someone to examine the study and take a hard look at the author's assumptions.

how's that?

For example, wind/sunlight can make gasoline for about $8/gallon

Details please?
On Oil economist denies peak oil posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

Bizarre

How is it that someone who is a leader in the industry still does not understand what peak oil actually means.

All together now:  Peak oil IS NOT ABOUT RUNNING OUT OF OIL!!!

It is about the possible rate of oil extraction.  That is partly a function of price, but not exclusively.  Geology and geopolitics play at least as big a role.

Peak oil is the point of maximum worldwide production.  "Peak lite", which is a much more immediate concern, is the point at which the worldwide demand consistently exceeds supply, even if supply is still growing.

The distinction, I'll grant you, is not totally obvious, but neither is it fundamentally hard to understand.  How is it that people who's entire (very well paid) job is to understand these things, fail to do so?  I really don't get it.
On Oil economist denies peak oil posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

heat pumps

That's a good point, Biod.  That's the one way I can see to potentially get useful temperatures at the business end, without letting the panels themselves get particularly hot.  I'm not sure it would pencil out, since the heat pump uses electricity too -- it would depend on the specifics of the heat pump performance -- but it might.  Of course, you're now talking about a very significant cost add.  I can see it being financially feasible as part of an integrated house-wide thermal management system, that also included the AC system.  As a retrofit, though, I think it fails the giggle test (for money reasons, if not technical ones).On Solar PV + waste heat posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

skeptical

This is an elegant idea, and one that I kicked around myself when I first started working in PV.  It's one of those things that is so obvious you have to wonder why it hasn't already been done on a wide basis.  My conclusion is that it is very hard to make it pencil out, for a few reasons:

1) To effectively cool the panels on a hot day will probably require a liquid cooling loop.  Blowing ambient air (which will be pretty warm already in the summer) over the panels is unlikely to be effective.

2)The temperature differential isn't that great.  The panels are probably in the ~120-150F range.  That's not a huge lot of delta T to work with.

3. You have to have a place to dump the heat.  In the winter, this is easy, but I doubt the panels will get hot enough to benefit from the extra cooling under winter conditions.  During the summer, you're kind of stuck: You don't need home heating, and you don't have a coolth source to work with.

4. The obvious idea, merging solar thermal hot water panels with solar PV, won't work unless you're solar hot water is on a flow-through basis (i.e. fresh water coming in all the time).  Solar hot water panels usually recirculate the working fluid in order to get it up to a useful temperature, but for this to work, the panel itself must be hotter than the fluid.  That's fine in the case of hot water panels.  But in the context of PV, that's the opposite of what you want.

The flip side

So in the long-run, a new energy and transportation infrastructure will cost nothing.

On the other hand, the bailout as it is currently conceived must necessarily cost us money.  If it doesn't, it will fail.  This is because the root cause of the bailout is excessive lending: lots of money has been injected into the system which has no wealth to back it up (high leverage ratios), and poor prospects of creating that wealth in the near future (poor lending decisions) even if you ignore the problem of trying to grow the economy while energy supplies shrink.

What we are seeing now is the mother of all market corrections:  We're confronted with the fictitious nature of the wealth created during the housing bubble.  And I think we're still carrying alot of false wealth from the dot-com bubble, which was never allowed to properly deflate (the housing bubble picked up where it left off).

The crisis is the sudden realization that the emperor has no clothes, or more to the point, no money.  It's the abruptness of this correction that makes it so dangerous, and so likely to have long-term impacts on the economy.  A bailout plan that recognizes this essential truth will not attempt to avoid financial pain, or to prevent the destruction of wealth on paper; it will simply try to spread the pain out over a long enough time that it doesn't cripple us in the short term.

However, the bailout as it is being presented is all about avoiding this pain, and trying to get back to business as usual.  This is doomed to fail, because it's ignoring the root cause of the problem, and the essential remedy that is required: real wealth and the money supply must come back to equilibrium.  Any program that tries to avoid this rebalancing, and the pain associated with it, is simply putting the inevitable off to the future.  And as with anything painful that you postpone dealing with, it will be worse later.On The financial crisis, the bailout, and green investment posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Oil shale *rolls eyes*

The absurdity of oil shale development was made clear to me when it was pointed out that unprocessed oil shale has a lower energy density than Capn Crunch cereal.  The same writer went on to comment that burning natural gas to extract oil from shale was like feeding steak to your dog and eating his Alpo.

Of course, if oil shale ever really gets going, it's not going to rely on natural gas.  Probably not coal either -- it'll be all about the nukes.On It's a 1980 flashback, as energy price spikes make oil shale economical once again posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Not the only good Kansas politician

Or, in this case, potential politician.On Gov. Kathleen Sebelius talks to Grist about her fight against coal and her VP potential posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

You know, jabailo

Sometimes you are amusing.  (Very) occasionally you are clever.  Mostly you are annoying.  But sometimes, like now, you are downright loathsome.On Obama reaffirms support for rail and transit posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

turn the question around

You may ask why big oil hasn't gotten around to the 34 billion barrels already available to them offshore, given the staggering price for oil? The answer is pretty much the same reason why the EIA analyst told me that ending the federal moratorium is "certainly not going to make a difference in the next 10 years": It ain't easy being non-green offshore.

This being the case, and given that they already have options for offshore development, why do the oil companies care about opening up more leases?  What is the benefit to them, of having legal access to more oil which they don't have the equipment or manpower to develop?  Are the proposed new leases easier to get to, or in some other way superior to the ones that they already have sitting around unused?
On EIA maintains offshore drilling gains will be negligible posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

critical detail

There's a critical detail that the excerpt above (at least) does not address, which is whether the rebate is in proportion to individual energy use, or if it's flat.

The problem with a carbon tax, or any other form of carbon pricing, is that it's extremely regressive.  The people at the bottom of the socioeconomic pile see their costs rise the most, as a fraction of total income, but are the least able to make the investments required to reduce their energy use (whether that's buying a new car or moving closer to their work).

If the rebate is proportional to use, then I agree with you: the measure shoots itself in the foot by destroying the incentive to conserve.  But if the rebate is flat -- everyone gets the same amount back -- then you're getting somewhere.  Under a flat rebate, the impact of the increased cost of energy to the consumer is softened without destroying the incentive to conserve.  Under such a system, a consumer who uses little energy can actually see a net economic benefit to themselves.On Connecticut wants to hide carbon prices posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Thanks

Is there any fundamental reason that you are aware of that you could not practically liquify coal gas or bio pyrolysis gas (i.e. wood gas, not methane from a biodigester), as we do with LNG?
On Costs for utilities rise faster than politically palatable rate changes can keep up posted 1 year, 4 months ago 28 Responses

Chinese sustainability

If the Chinese had 'learned' sustainable practices and they were wise enough to realize what they had, then how do you explain what is happening now?

Preindustrial Chinese civilization demonstrably knew at least a few critical things about sustainability.  They have rice fields that have been under continuous cultivation for thousands of years.  You can't do that without attending to your nutrient cycles.  Their traditional agricultural model placed a high value on "night soil" for just this reason.

However, I doubt very much that the old model was based on "sustainability" as we understand the concept.  They were just doing what they had been traditionally doing.  And when the communist revolution came along, many old traditions were intentionally purged precisely because they were part of the old order.  I'm sure lots of bad old ideas went down the tubes, but it seems that some good concepts went with them, unfortunately.

The challenge that China now faces with regards to sustainability is of a whole different order: now they need to figure out industrial sustainability.  Towards that end, many of the old concepts (e.g. soil conservation and nutrient cycles) are key, but the traditions themselves are not really applicable: the manual collection of nightsoil, for example, is simply not feasible with their new level of urbanization.On No easy explanation for continued price increases in the oil markets posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 Responses

killing bees

True that, although (as far as I know) the bees being effected are mostly the industrial have-bees-will-travel operations.  These commercial pollinators are essential to the current structure of the industry, and that's a problem.  But they are not, as far as I know, compromising the wild bee population.

Information to the contrary is, of course, most welcome.On The unshelled story on the nutty side of our food supply posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

DNS

I wonder if it was related to the DNS patch push.On Grist downtime posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Water

One factor that I rarely hear brought up in discussions of CSP is the requirement for water for cooling and heat rejection.

The commonest way to make electricity from concentrated solar power is a steam cycle, i.e. rankine cycle, i.e. the same basic cycle used by all thermoelectric power plants (coal, nuclear, whatever).

This cycle requires the ability to reject a substantial amount of heat.  Even after all the useful power has been gotten from the steam, it is necessary to re-condense to water before running it back through the plant.  This is typically done with cooling tower, which lost a great deal of water to evaporation.

If you're planning to locate your plant in the desert, this is a problem.  How much of a problem, however, I do not know: I have been unable to locate a good reference for the water requirements of nuclear vs. coal vs. solar thermal power.  But I know it's an issue, and one that seems to be consistently overlooked. (If anyone has a reference, please let me know!)

There are a couple of ways around the problem.  One is to use the heat somewhere else, in a combined heat and power (i.e. cogen) application.  That's great, if you can do it, because you can get rid of your excess heat and displace boiler fuel in the process.  However, this requires that the plant be located near the load, which is not a feature of most of the "carpet the desert with CSP" proposals that are out there.

The other way is to do a thermal-to-mechanical conversion, ala. Stirling Energy Systems.  These units do not, as far as I know, require active cooling.  However, they are most likely much more expensive per kW and certainly more maintenance-intensive than a large-scale steam-cycle CSP plant.On Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses

wow indeed

"If there's one thing poll after poll indicates, it's that the science is not settled on this issue."

Through imprecise speech, the truth is revealed.On Republican members of Congress do not believe in climate change or deem it a priority posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Questions

Good piece, Sean.  It makes sense, except for one statement you make:
Why did industry double its fuel consumption per kilowatt-hour of delivered electricity over the last century?
I didn't see any support for this statement in your graphs.  I realize that the total delivered energy per BTU of fuel has dropped since the start of the century, but I thought this was because of the dropoff in cogeneration.  Did you mean to say "energy" rather than "electricity"?On Coal is no longer cheap -- so what comes next? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 43 Responses

Sigh...

I used to be a rocket engineer, so this is a subject pretty near to my interests and dear to my heart.  So it makes me very sad to say that the advantages of this scheme are questionable at best; worse, it's simply impossible to make any credible estimate of the cost.

First of all, the advantages are limited:  You get more solar exposure time, and higher intensities of radiation.  I don't have the numbers ready to hand, but I think the advantage over a terrestrial, equatorial PV array located in the desert are about a factor of five.  That's not trivial, but it probably doesn't justify the enormous cost associated with putting the thing in orbit.  And that doesn't allow for losses in the conversion to microwaves, transmission to earth, collection, recovery or distribution.  The real advantage would likely be less than a factor of three.  At that point, you'd be better off just deploying more terrestrial panels (and investing heavily in efficiency).

Another thing to bear in mind is that geosynchronous orbit is a whole different animal than LEO (low earth orbit), where the space station and the shuttle hang out.  LEO is ~200 miles up.  Geosynch is 22,000 miles up.  Getting from LEO to GEO isn't really that big a deal, because as Heinlein said, once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.  But the fact is that we have no roundtrip capacity to GEO currently: we send satellites out there on a one-way trip, but that's about it.  99% of what we do, we do in LEO.

We also have very little experience with on-orbit construction.  Most things are assembled as far as possible on the ground, and then sent up.  On-orbit work is minimized, because it's expensive and dangerous.  Every EVA (spacewalk) is practiced multiple times on the ground (in a neutral buoyancy tank) before it is performed in space.  Imagine building a skyscraper for which every contractor must first rehearse every single move on the ground multiple times before actually performing the work.  Obviously, we'd need a new approach to orbital construction before we could attempt something like this, but the process of developing that expertise would take years, and the cost can not be credibly estimated.

Then there's the cost to orbit.  This is the big one, the first barrier that gets in the way of everything else.  Shuttle rides cost about $10,000 per pound to LEO.  (That was in 1998; it's probably higher now.)  Russian rockets are cheaper, ~2000-3000/pound.  But practical space industry, you need to get it down to around $100/pound or less.  If you want to build the parts on the ground and ship them up, you need to get even cheaper.  (For less than $100/pound to orbit, you're probably talking about a beanstalk, which is a whole other order of project).  The other option is mine and refine an asteroid and fabricate the array in space.  That requires less total lift, but requires building an entire industrial infrastructure in space.

I think that solar power satellites have the potential to be a great source of power for an advanced civilization which has regular cheap orbital access and a developed space industrial base.  There are lots of environmental advantages to putting industry in space: unlimited hard vacuum, plenty of thermal gradients (in the sun, it's HOT; in the shade, it's COLD), lots of solar power, and little concern about environmental contamination.  But as a species, we're not ready to do that yet.  It's cheaper to move our dirty industries to China instead.  If we had stayed on track after about 1970, we might now have orbital habitats and industries, and be ready to seriously consider a project of this sort.  But, alas, we've made no forward progress in manned space development in 40 years; our capabilities to do something like this are substantially LESS than they were 40 years ago.  And when you're staring down the barrel of peak fossil energy is not the time to start down this path -- no matter how much money (and how many lives) you throw at it, it simply takes longer than we have.

Solar power satellites are a technology for an advanced technological civilization.  To get our current, juvenile civilization through the coming crises, we're going to have to focus on more prosaic solutions (and hopefully do some growing up along the way).  But the potential of such technologies is one of the reasons that I don't worry about energy supply in the long term.  The energy's out there -- we just have to go get it.On Can we shoot concentrated solar power down from space? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

application of vertical farms

All other things being equal, vertical farms, like greenhouses, are going to have a higher capital and operating costs and energy consumption, and thus more ecological impact, than traditional farming.  Even if it is possible to avoid the use of artificial lighting, ventilation will be a major energy consumer in these systems.  It is unlikely that the reduction in physical footprint due to stacking would by itself be enough to offset the increased economic and environmental costs.

However, farms of this sort represent a major opportunity to integrate food production with human habitat, provide fresh local food, and reduce shipping and processing costs/impacts.  So I think that it will make sense to implement systems like this for high-value, high-density, perishable and sensitive crops.  So I could see salad, berries, herbs, and some annual vegetables being grown in this context.  The savings due to water efficiency, reduced pest problems, and reduced shipping costs and losses may well justify the investment.  Particularly once people recognize that living next to your food can be a very pleasant experience.

Conversely, it is very unlikely that it would ever make sense to grow grains this way: grains require a lot of space and a lot of sun, and are easy to ship long distances at relatively low energy cost (compare the impact of a rail car full of wheat to that of a refrigerated truck full of salad).On Sustainability a big theme at the World Science Festival posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

Crapping on the porch

This discussion has been interesting (and amusing, thanks!) with good points on both sides.  But I think that Sean's post misses in a couple of spots, and I would like to highlight those.

Argument from analogy is only as valid as the analogy, and I think the "crapping T-bone steaks" analogy while entertaining isn't that valid.

First, it conflates the desired value with the undesired outcome.  I want my steak (electricity/heat).  I don't want the crap on my porch (CO2, sulphur, etc).  By conflating these, you imply that I can't have one without the other.  While that is in large part true at the moment, it does not have to be that way (in fact, that's the point of any carbon policy).  Also, as an individual consumer, I had very little to do with the fact that it is that way currently.

Which brings me to my second point, which is that
the use of polluting energy is pretty much a necessity of participation in modern life, and this fact is for the most part not the fault of the consumers.  Don't get me wrong: I am sick to death of Americans' wasteful ways and sense of resource entitlement.  And we all do, in fact, bear individual moral responsibility for the negative consequences of our consumption choices.  But that being said, if I want to live a lifestyle that is even remotely normal in this culture, I have to consume oil and fossil-sourced energy.  While I can (and do) minimize my consumption, to avoid it altogether would require unreasonable levels of sacrifice.  And that fact is mostly not my fault: it is the result of historical, economic, and political patterns which are in large part the result of the fossil industries acting to advance their own ends.
So it's not really fair to say that I am a hypocrite for complaining about the crap on my porch, because I actually want the porch crapper to make regular visits.  I don't.  However, I need the porch crapper to come by regularly because currently he is the only practical source for the energy that I have to have to participate in modern society.

Thirdly, you equate a tax or dividend approach to the criminalization of CO2 emissions, based on DR's assertion that the wealth redistribution that is taking place here is morally justifiable redress for harm.  I endorse that element of DR's position, but I do not think that equates to criminalization of the activity.  The goal of these schemes is not to end the production of CO2 overnight, nor to send the carbon producers to jail.  That's not what we want.  The goal is much more akin to what happens in a civil suit: one party harms another, and redress is made.  Rarely, if ever, is the redress sufficient to destroy the entity required to make the redress -- that isn't how that part of the legal system is supposed to work.  (Granted that civil suits against individuals by e.g. the media industries for copyright infringement often lead to ruinous judgments, while companies receive small fines for willfully and knowingly engaging in acute toxicification of places people live, which really ought to be a criminal act.  To my mind, those are symptoms of a broken legal system, but that's yet another subject).
On Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 60 Responses

trust

It seems to me that the entire purpose of certification is to provide a basis for trust at a distance removed.  If you are closely connected enough to your food source, you don't need some third party to assure you that they are acting correctly.  If I bought lumber that was cut and milled by my friend who owns acreage, I wouldn't care that it wasn't FSC certified either.

That said, it's really not acceptable to adopt a label that is specifically owned by a group without actually obtaining the blessing of that group.  It's one thing for a grower to claim "grown with organic techniques".  It would be quite another for them to claim to be "USDA Organic" when they weren't (even if their practices would qualify them, or they think they would.)  More to the point, a grower who claims a more exclusive level of certification, like Oregon Tilth, without actually obtaining said certification, is effectively defrauding both is customers and the standards organization.On If you support the standards but not the certifiers, then what? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

Hehe

Her myspace page says "Education by any means necessary".  Indeed...On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

Anna

Rather than repeat myself, I'll simply reference my comment from that thread.

Gardening is not the be-all, end-all solution, of course (no such thing, anyway).  But it is probably the single most significant thing that someone can do for the earth on a "casual" basis (i.e. no major changes to career or place of residence).  And it's infectious: it tends to be a gateway drug to more intense forms of ecological awareness and involvement.On Pollan envy posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Gardening is a subversive act

I don't know that I agree with your assessment that Pielke, etc are in fact well intentioned but misguided, but if I accept that premise for the sake of argument, I think I understand your point.  

However, even at that point, I have to disagree.  There are a couple of places where the analogy breaks down, in my view.

Pielke and the other techno-optimists argue the position that it doesn't make sense to make major changes, either in our infrastructure or in our personal habits, until better technology comes along (to make those changes painless, in their ideal).  Whereas Pollan suggests specific personal actions that can be taken, right now, to push things in the right direction.  Even if he's not encouraging people to do the very best thing they could do about the problem, he's encouraging them to do something that is good and useful and positive, and that's a whole lot better than nothing.

I also think you are underestimating the power of Pollan's suggestions.  They are presented in a very mild and even-handed fashion, but they are actually quite radical: pull up your lawn, and plant food.  That strikes right at the heart of the American suburban dream.  The lawn is a holdover from the lord's manor house, when a big lawn meant you owned a big herd of sheep (and enough peasants to shepherd them).  Pollan is suggesting disposing of that icon of affluence in favor of something much more practical and real.  That's revolutionary.

Also, I think you are underestimating the personal emotional and psychological impact that gardening and growing your own food can have.  It can totally transform your relationship with your food and with your natural environment.  It is frequently and surprisingly addictive, and it encourages people to pay close attention to elements of the natural world that most modern Americans are disconnected from, like the weather and the insects and what else is in bloom.  It strikes directly at the industrial agricultural system, one of our most insidious and ultimately dangerous dependencies.  It restores a basic connection between people and their environment.  That connection has dominated most of human history, but has been forgotten in recent generations, and I'm convinced that that is part of the reason that people can rationalize the damage that our civilization does to the world: they are ecologically illiterate and they have forgotten that our health and prosperity is ultimately and intimately tied to that of other living systems.  And there are certain crops - salad, artichoke, most berries - where the flavor of fresh-picked simply cannot be equaled by anything from the store.  That in itself is a visceral eye-opening experience.

They say that there is no evangelist as earnest as the converted.  That would be true here, for sure.  I'm an engineer, and someone who until about 7 years ago had no interest whatsoever in gardening, and only a passing and casual interest in the environment.  Gardening has opened my eyes to fundamental relationships that cannot easily be described but that are clearly and obviously true from experience.  It has attuned me to the natural world and taught me to pay attention.  And it has had this effect on others that I have talked to -- this isn't just my experience talking.

Don't underestimate the power of planting a garden.On Growing your own food is fine, but governmental action is needed, and soon posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

BPA

Now what I want to know if whether or not Nalgene is going to stop using polycarbonate for animal water bottles.  You see, pretty much all of the animals used in all scientific studies that involve captive animals, spend their entire lives drinking out of a polycarbonate bottle made by Nalgene.  So basically all animal research conducted in the last several decades has been done on populations that have spent their entire lives consuming low levels of hormone disruptors.  This is not good.On Nalgene dumps estrogenic ingredient posted 1 year, 7 months ago 6 Responses

Gardening can be easy

There is this perception that gardening is hard work, and hard to learn.  It doesn't have to be, though there is a learning curve: failure is part of the process.

One of the most important things for new gardeners to do is to choose their plants correctly: grow what you will eat, and grow things that maximally benefit from being fresh and readily available.  Also, don't get too ambitious.  Tomatoes are one of the "standard" garden plants, but they can be tricky (especially the heirlooms) and they take alot of space.

I always suggest that first-time gardeners start with:

1. culinary herbs (ones you will cook with)
   
2. salad greens
   
3. strawberries

Also, these are all things that do well in containers, so you can grow them on your balcony, roof, concrete patio, etc.  To make your life even easier, try an Earthbox.  These self-watering containers make the whole process very easy.
On A bright trend for dark times: kitchen gardening posted 1 year, 7 months ago 26 Responses

uh, no

Humans have been making ethanol out of wood for, I believe, at least a couple of thousand years - to drink.

Wood alcohol is poisonous.  Non-suicidal humans drink grain alcohol.

Yes, you can make alcohol (methanol) out of wood.  You can even make ethanol out of wood, but it's quite a bit harder.  That is not the question.  The question is whether you can do so in an energy efficient fashion, at a scale sufficient to impact our fossil fuel use.  The answer to that question at this time is "no".  And there are reasons why that answer will likely remain the same, and the problems are not all related to the fermentation challenges.  More here.On Saving ourselves means trench warfare, not waiting for breakthroughs posted 1 year, 7 months ago 16 Responses

traditional journalism is dying

I agree with David's observations, but I wonder to what extent this is simply a reflection of a larger problem, namely the fact that traditional professional journalism is dying.  The newspapers are being pushed out by newer media, the broadcast "news" has been taken over by infotainment in the Faux News style, and while there is a "new wave" of media in the form of bloggers and online journalists, most of those folks are not professionals.  They may (and often are) producing very high quality work, but when you're doing something as a hobby rather than a profession, you're naturally limited in the time and resources you can bring to bear.  The fact that the quality of the media coming from the amateur and semipro community often exceeds the quality from mainstream media is more of an indictment of the state of professional media than anything else.On Green journalists out of touch? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

meh

Only problem is, there is no such thing as a "dry, well-constructed landfill", at least not over the long term.  They always leak, they always leach, and they always get wet (from wet landfill material, if nothing else).

Also, landfills get full, and then there's always a huge problem opening up a new one.  The tipping fees on the previous landfill never cover the cost of the replacement of that space.  Also, most current landfills were put into operation under a regimen of much more lax environmental regulation, and they are grandfathered in, which makes them hard to replace.

Also, I'm no expert in polylactic acid chemistry, but I know that when other organic materials (e.g. wood) degrade in soil, some of that carbon goes to the air, and some goes to the soil (improving the soil in the process).  I just don't know what the proportions are for plastics, but I suspect that when the bioproduct degrades, not all of its carbon is released.

Keeping the biodegradable plastics around as a form of carbon sequestration would require separating them into their own waste stream, so that they didn't wind up in the wet, leaky landfill with the rest of the trash.  On the other hand, some cities now have municipal greenwaste programs and more will get them in the future as landfill space becomes more dear.  Material thus collected gets composted in large, hot piles.  A good bit of the carbon gets released, but a good bit of it also stays behind and becomes a great soil amendment.

It seems to me that the best fate for biodegradable plastics is to go to city greenwaste.  The greenwaste programs make sense on their own merits (especially if you're also collecting food waste, which otherwise turns to methane in the landfill), so there's no additional cost for special plastics disposal.On Biodegrading is cool ... right? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 1 Response

My favorite algae

Growing algae of a specific, high-oil-content strain and keeping it free from contamination without spending a mint on closed bioreactors is tough.  Growing algae -- period -- is as far as I know pretty easy.

So here's what I don't understand.  Why worry about oil content at all?  Why not just grow large volumes of algae, skim it off, press out the water, and pryolise it to make synthesis gas (from which you can make gasoline, diesel, or any number of chemicals)?On Texas forum on what's new, April 10 posted 1 year, 8 months ago 6 Responses

low pH

Low pH may be to blame. During ethanol production, corn goes through a fermentation process that converts starch to dextrose. Cattle fed diets containing low levels of starch experience a decreased intestinal pH. Low pH may affect the survivability and growth of E. coli O157:H7, as most bacteria are killed by acids produced in the stomachs of bovines.

Last time I checked, pH below 7 was acidic, so this statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense.On Canada says no to ethanol waste as cow feed, and more posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Right, and wrong, and right

Sean is correct that there are enormous opportunities for energy efficiency, and that the barriers are more regulatory and cultural than purely technological (which is unfortunate, because purely technological problems are usually faster and easier to solve).

If the problem were merely one of getting the US's GHG emissions down, there's probably enough efficiency headroom for us to flatline our emissions for decades while continuing to grow in basically the same paradigm we have been using.  Unfortunately, the problem is much bigger than that, because the third world is developing and wants our standard of living.  (Or perhaps it is fortunate that we have that problem, because the alternative would be billions locked in poverty.  But it still presents a problem.)

Sachs is right on two counts: Economic growth cannot continue indefinitely (even just in the US) while decreasing GHG emissions -- we will run out of efficiency opportunities.  On a global scale, the problem is more immediate.  Western-style energy and transportation infrastructure in the developing world is generally even less efficient where it exists at all.  But even if it were deployed maximally efficiently, it still represents an absolute increase in the total global GHG emissions.  Efficiency opportunities in western economies run out of steam rapidly in the face of that.

However, Sachs is still wrong.  Next generation technologies can perhaps provide more energy per GHG emission, or can access energy sources not currently available (e.g. methane hydrates).  But within the context of our current paradigm of growth, all this does is push the same problem further into the future.  You still have finite resources trying to meet a demand that grows endlessly.

The only way -- the ONLY way -- out of this bind is to change the way that economic growth occurs and is measured.  As I see it, there are two aspects to this:

1) We must decouple economic growth from increasing consumption of resources.  Ultimately, we must learn to live and do everything we want within the constraints of current solar income and the dividends of natural capital.  This is achievable, and is a technical problem.  But the need is not only for new technology, but also new design philosophies and expectations.  If we accept that we MUST design within these constraints, then we can get down to the problem of figuring out how to do so.  Until we do, we're just spinning our wheels trying to figure out how to be less bad.

This, incidentally, is where efficiency comes in.  And this is why radical efficiency (e.g. 60-90% reduction in resource use) is fundamentally different than incremental efficiency (e.g. 5-30% reductions).  Incremental efficiency just pushes the problem away into the future, because you still have to rely on rather than from fossil solar energy and the liquidation of natural capital to meet your needs.  Radical efficiency opens up the possibility of meeting the remaining resource need from the dividends of natural capital and/or current solar income.

We also have to get away from the religion of the "time value of money" and the discount rate, at least as they apply to physical and energetic resources.  The concept of the discount rate is predicated on the idea that we will have more of X next year than we do this year.  When X is energy or raw materials, this is NOT a valid assumption, so decisions driving by this concept will be invalid.

2) The developed countries need to come up with new ways to measure growth of value.  We have to ask ourselves "What do we want to grow?".  The current metrics like GDP measure economic activity, but they don't measure the quality of that activity or the impact that it has on the lives of the citizenry.  The goal of a democratic nation is, presumably, quality of life for its citizenry.  Once basic needs are provided for, increasing material resources correlate very poorly with actual perceived quality of life.  We have to measure and make policy on that basis.

I focus this second point on the developed countries because, I think, the traditional metrics for economic development correlate fairly well to quality of life in the developing world, although they can be distorted by e.g. gross income disparities.  But when adequate food and water are the biggest problems most of your citizens face, then deploying more resources is generally going to be beneficial.  When your citizen's biggest problems are ennui, depression, boredom, or "what's the meaning of all this?", throwing more resources at the problem doesn't get you very far.On Since when is regulation optimal? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 25 Responses

fix the link

The petition link includes some element that is associated to a particular person, who has already signed.  You need to change the link so that people go to a petition ready to be signed, rather than to a page thanking them for signing.On Rainforest Action Network's new pledge petition posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

decay

Actually, methane is only made in large quantities in anaerobic decomposition, which doesn't generally happen on a forest floor.  Most aerobic processes just make CO2.

Collecting deadfall wood for fuel on an industrial scale is probably not a good idea, since the collection process itself would significantly impact the remaining forest ecosystem.  But we may have to do something about it anyway, for fuel load reasons.On Thoughts from a cellulosic ethanol agnostic posted 1 year, 8 months ago 35 Responses

liability

Of course, the corn farmers would really rather not see this happen.  In addition to likely losing their organic certification, they would also be liable for licensing fees to Monsanto or whoever owns the genes in their no-longer-organic corn.

Of course, widespread testing would probably reveal widespread contamination, which might provide the basis for a class-action suit against Monsanto, etc for loss of income, disruption of business, etc.  Potentially such a thing could grow big enough to really hurt the GMO pushers.  But that's a hell of a gamble, for the farmers.On Farmers and processors organize against genetic contamination posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

the value of value add

Tom,

White's suggestion gives farmers two ways to improve their profitability: selling direct to consumers, and selling value-added products like cheese.

Going the value-added route is obviously more lucrative, but is going to carry up-front costs for both equipment and marketing.

It seems that the easier route for cash-strapped farmers, at least in the short term, might be to hold off on the valued-added part, but immediately start selling fresh milk to consumers.

Is there some reason that that is a bad idea?  Are there regulations that would prevent it?  Or is the additional profit capture potential for direct sales of milk small enough that it's not worthwhile?

On a related note, I wonder about HP Hood.  They are a farmer-owned cooperative, which means that if the farmers, who are the owners, feel that they aren't getting a fair price for their milk (or a fair share of the price hike that HP Hood has gotten), the should be able to do something about it.  Yet they're complaining to Stonyfield.  What's up with that?On Thoughts on the NODPA/Stonyfield debate over organic dairy posted 1 year, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Another nice thing about natural gas

I don't know that this is universally true of all natural gas plants, but I know that at least some types of natural gas generators (specifically microturbines and fuelcells) can be modified pretty easily to run on methane from biofermentation.

Given the enormous investment we already have in a gas infrastructure and the convenience of moving energy around this way, it seems likely that burning some kind of gas will be with us well into the future.On Natural gas utilities are no friends of Big Coal posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Pretty empty

If SFI is interested in establishing themselves as a credible green standard for forest products, they need to realize that, whatever their current status, their history as an organ of the timber industry makes them inherently suspect -- and for good reason.

They could start by addressing the issues raised in the linked Grist article: protection of old-growth forests, protection of biodiversity, protection of sensitive forests overseas, and protection of the rights of native and indigenous peoples.  These issues were also quite true and valid at the time this article was written. Have things changed?

Given where they are coming from, SFI is going to need to work to establish their credibility, not make some vague statements that amount to "something is better than nothing".  Particularly when the fact of the matter is that something is NOT necessarily better than nothing.  A certification standard that lets the uninformed consumer believe they are making environmentally sound buying decisions while failing to provide actual ecological protection is worse than nothing.

Ms. Abusow should consider the possibility that part of the reason such a small fraction of the world's timber is certified may be because only a small fraction of the world's timber production CAN be performed in a sustainable and ecologically sound fashion.On Kathy Abusow of Sustainable Forestry Initiative responds to Grist's green-buying tips posted 1 year, 9 months ago 1 Response

experts

I'm not trying to present myself as an expert, or suggesting that the way to solve these problems is some kind of top-down control. I was just trying to suggest a framework within which to understand the mess we currently find ourselves in.

I agree with Odo: eliminate the externalities, and let the market sort it out.  The biggest problem we have, both economically and environmentally, is living beyond our means.On We've borrowed more than we can afford to borrow, sprawled more than we can afford to sprawl posted 1 year, 9 months ago 32 Responses

wealth

I agree somewhat Green, but I worry about how some expert's (or ideologue's) definition of "real tangible value" interacts with broader (and more frivolous) wealth creation.

I'll freely admit that there are grey areas, but there are also many types that are very clear cut.  We all need to eat.  We need water.  We need clothing and shelter (most places).  If we're a technological culture, we need education.
Other things, we maybe don't strictly NEED, but we really, really want.  Like health care.  Some of these, like education (and health care particularly) are requirements for maintaining an economic state above subsistence.

Think of it as an analogy to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  What is a "need" changes with context.  A tribesman doesn't need electricity, but we certainly do. etc.  The important thing is to keep the reference point in the hierarchy grounded in reality, and that's where I think we have failed.

Wealth creation is real, even when it comes from web searches, iPhones and ringtones.  That wealth can fuel sustainable development ... as we see with Google's energy program.

Is it, though?  Where's that money coming from? Trace it back, and it's coming from advertising, mostly for consumer goods, most of which are clearly luxuries.  (As a consequence, Google may suffer greatly in a real depression, a fact of which I can only hope they are aware.)

Google makes most of their money on advertising, mostly for things that people don't need.  Some of that money gets invested in meeting real future needs (e.g. sustainable electricity).  But what they've done there is capture money from the luxury economy and redirect it to the necessity economy.  Which is a great service, no doubt, but it's not quite the same thing as creating value directly.

Now, Google has without a doubt produced tremendous real value by providing access to information that allow people to be more productive.  But they do that (mostly) through their search service, which is free.  So now you have real irony: They provide a real value, which they give away, then they provide a "fake" value (connecting the buyers and sellers of mostly frivolous goods) from which they harvest money, which they then redirect (partially) into producing real value.  Pretty weird, but it works, and it's definitely a net positive when it's all said and done.On We've borrowed more than we can afford to borrow, sprawled more than we can afford to sprawl posted 1 year, 9 months ago 32 Responses

manufacturing and debt

So, yes, everybody is in debt up to their neck, but when you don't make things, in order to exchange for things, you have to take on debt.  smash!

And, conversely, if you have a healthy, growing manufacturing base, you can afford to go into debt.  It CAN be a good thing, by allowing you to leverage more productive capital sooner, such that you wind up better off down the road than if you hadn't borrowed in the first place.

But in order for that to work, you need to spend the borrowed money on something productive (e.g. factory equipment, not executive vacations) and you need to pay off the debt from your enhanced productivity.

So I'd say we have two problems
1. Irresponsible borrowing and brokering of debt. 2. An economy that no longer produces much of real tangible value.
These are separate, though highly related, problems.

(Note that when I say "healthy" above, I mean economically healthy, and am ignoring environmental constraints on growth for the moment.  Since the growth of our manufacturing base, even when it was "healthy" implied increasing the rate of liquidation of natural capital, that puts a whole other layer of complexity on the problem.  But the basic principle I describe above remains valid.)On We've borrowed more than we can afford to borrow, sprawled more than we can afford to sprawl posted 1 year, 9 months ago 32 Responses

Who?

Who is "Gristmill's most execrable troll"?  I have to admit, I'm curious: I would think there would be alot of competition for that title.

I certainly know who I think is the most persistent, and persistently annoying troll.  But execrable?  That's harder.On Gristmill's most persistent troll earns props posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Effectiveness in rebates

I worked in PV design and sales from 2001-2005, so I lived through the explosion that this map depicts.  (It's fascinating to see that the ramp-up really was as fast as it felt during that period.)  I can tell you with 100% confidence that the industry lived and died by two things:

1. The rebate program:  This was key, because without it the systems did not pay back quickly enough to be attractive to any but the rich-and-guilty.  The level of the rebate was important, but equally important was the continuity of the rebate program.  During those years, the rebate fund required reauthorization basically every year, so each year there was alot of uncertainty that our industry would continue to effectively exist.  There was also a period of about 3 months in which the rebate program was spent out and wasn't taking new reservations.  That was a tough time, because alot of small outfits suddenly found that they had no revenue.  Fortunately, that period didn't last any longer than it did.  If it had, the growth of solar would have been badly set back.

2. Full retail price net metering.  This is as important as the rebate, and wasn't explicitly mentioned on the list above.  There are a number of utilities throughout the country that will allow you to connect a PV system and will credit your bill for excess production.  However, most of them credit you at the wholesale rate (i.e. what they pay to their regular generators) rather than the retail rate (which is what the consumer pays).  The retail rate includes transmission and distribution costs, and is about twice or more the wholesale rate.  Since surplus grid-connected PV energy is generally consumed very near the point of generation (e.g. the house next door, that doesn't have solar), it makes sense to credit the producer for the retail price -- unlike the big central generators, they are not relying heavily on the full T&D infrastructure.  It's also essential to the economics of the system.  Time of Use metering is a nice extra benefit, but it's not nearly as important as the basic notion of getting credited for surplus power at the retail rate.

Stuart Staniford's post

I have alot of respect for Stuart Staniford.  He does his homework, and he makes his arguments with numbers most of the time (though I agree with Sharon that he seems to be overgeneralizing in this case).

But the problem I have with his analysis is that he's trying to use the past to predict the future.  And one of the basic things about peak oil is that the past, with regards to oil and energy availability, is not predictive of the future.

We have had oil shocks and price fluctuations in the past, and they have not correlated to the changes in agricultural demographics that (Stuart says) are predicted by the relocalization movement.  But the thing is, these events have been shocks -- they are bounded in time, and of relatively short duration.  Peak Oil, or so the theory goes, won't be like that.

The expectation is that once demand permanent exceeds supply, the limit on the price will only be set by demand destruction, which will push harder ever year as oil production declines.  Sustained over time, that creates a situation utterly unlike any faced by our civilization to date.

It makes sense that, under a circumstance in which the price of oil is merely high (as it was in the 70's, and as it is now), everyone who uses energy (i.e. everyone) will suffer but the little guy, who's operation is more marginal to begin with, who has fewer opportunities for economies of scale, and who has less market power, will suffer worse.

However, if the price of oil get stratospheric ($200+/bbl) and stays there, operations that rely on cheap energy will experience essentially metabolic failure.  This will hit both the big guys and the little guys, but the assumption (a fair one, from my experience) is that the little guys will be able to adapt more quickly to a radically changed situation.

While I think that this logic is fairly solid, I'm not sure that it actually applies to our future.  I'm not at all sure that peak oil will look like the classic "hard peak" scenario that you would get if world production followed Hubbart's curve.  Indications so far suggest that convetional crude production will follow an undulating plateau, which we have probably entered.  Between that, and our willingness to rape entire landscapes for tar sands, oil shale, and corn ethanol, we can probably sustain the price of oil at a high but not stratospheric level for quite some time to come.  And under those circumstances, I think that Stuart's prediction are likely accurate: continued pressure on the small farmers, and continued movement towards consolidation of both land ownership and market power by Big Ag.

One could argue that the world would be much better off if Knustler's worst nightmare happened tomorrow.  A collapse into chaos might be preferable (in the long term, and maybe even in the short term) to a slowly-boiled-frog spiral into corporate industrial feudalism, which will be the end result as a few entities control an increasingly large fraction of a shrinking pool of energy, political and market power.On Will peak oil force the localization of agriculture? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

additionality

Some of the offset funds went to farmers in North Dakota who have been using no-till farming techniques, which retain more carbon in the soil. Critics argue that many of the farmers were already using no-till methods prior to getting the cash due to other benefits of no-till like cheaper fuel costs and potentially higher yields.

Skepticism about carbon offsets is a good thing, and if they are going to be treated truly as offsets (i.e. permission to emit carbon elsewhere) then the additionality test is important.

That said, there is a place for economically supporting good practices, particularly good land stewardship practices by farmers.  While it may be impossible to prove that these measures are "additional" (i.e. would not have happened otherwise), they are still worthy of support because they can improve the overall health of the land and the local environment.

Efforts of that sort are supported, sort of, through various federal conservation programs.  But it would be really helpful if there were some way to channel private funds to support this sort of work.  A company contributing to such efforts would certainly deserve kudos for supporting a healthy environment.  It just shouldn't be tied to carbon specifically.  Unfortunately, that doesn't leave many ways to quantify the effort, in order to monetize it.  If there was a framework for doing so, this kind of investment might do very well as business scramble to look greener than each other.On Efficacy of House of Reps' carbon offsets questioned posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

handouts

why are the industry and its Congressional lackeys focused on getting more government handouts? Is this the way competitive industries behave?

In all fairness, you could direct exactly the same question at the solar PV or wind industries.

I think the reality is that this is how the energy industry behaves, at least in this country.  I can't think of a single significant aspect of the energy industry that isn't either subsidized or regulated in such a way as to protect certain players from competition.

Needless to say, I don't think that the comparison between clean coal and PV is particularly apt, but I think that this is a comparison that will be immediately drawn by someone who isn't already on board with the idea that energy sources without externalities are better than energy sources that have externalities.  In other words, I think that this particular rhetorical point is effective only when "preaching to the choir", which is not what you're interested in doing.  IMO, that's a good reason to find a different rhetorical tactic.On House members ask Bush to shill for clean coal in his speech posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Wow!

Could you possibly make a more useless comment?

(That's not a dare, or an invitation.)On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 45 Responses

javaearth

There are two such programs that I am aware of, both in the Bay Area.  Presidio School of Management and Dominican University.  The Dominican program is run by the same folks who used to run the green MBA program at New College which is (I think) now defunct.

A google search suggests that there are other programs cropping up elsewhere, but I think they are brick-and-mortar schools, not online ones.

Incidentally, if you're looking for entry into the green job market as an employee (rather than an entrepreneur), I suggest either contracting (solar installation and/or energy retrofits) if that's your background, or energy efficiency engineering if you've got the background for that.  Lots of opportunities both places.On The latest eco-buzzword posted 1 year, 10 months ago 17 Responses

On the other hand...

Coal is far more dangerous.On There's coal money and then there's war money posted 1 year, 10 months ago 1 Response

BrianValentine

#  PV is at 15% now in the brightest sun, like 5% average.  30% is all you ever do with silicon, and nobody can do better than 5% with thin film now

Actually, Sunpower panels are a bit over 20% in the field.  Unisolar (1st gen amorphous thinfilm) runs about 8% IIRC.  Multijunction silicon cells have already cracked 30% in the lab, though those products are undoubtedly some time away from commercialization.

# You cannot store PV electricity in anything but heavy duty batteries

By which you mean you cannot store electricity (PV or otherwise) except in batteries.  That's mostly true (though Beacon has a utility-scale flywheel storage unit).  But storing electricity is not the goal -- it's a means to and end.  The goal is to match production to load and you can do that by controlling your load (thermal storage, demand response) or by storing electricity as potential energy (pumped hydro, CAES).  You only need to store enough energy as actual electricity to cover the time required to bring new assets on or off line.

# You cannot put more than 20% renewable on a grid.  Here is why:  A grid is built to maintain frequency.  If you start trying to force wind or solar, you wind up having the grid use more energy than some of the turbines are trying to put into it

The problem isn't with matching frequency.  That's easily done by any number of commodity PV inverters.  The problem is matching load.  That's a legitimate problem, but one that has answers.

# You cannot eliminate the electric grid.  Period.  You cannot eliminate that any more than you can eliminate public water.

You certainly don't want to eliminate the grid -- it has many advantages.  But you can change the design from a 99% focus on centralized generation, to a mix of centralized and distributed generation.  Essentially, break the grid up into a series of islands that can function semi-autonomously (at reduced performance) but that are tied together in normal operation.  That gives you more flexibility and more reliability.

All the issues you raise (except for the frequency issue) are legit issues, but solutions or potential solutions abound.  Things have changed a bit since the 1970's.On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

biofuel != ethanol

And fermentation is not the only way to get there.

To amplify what Tom M. said: we can produce all kinds of interesting chemicals (including fuels) by gasifying biomass and synthesizing what we want from the syngas thus produced.

You can make ethanol, if you really want to.  This is what Range Fuels is doing, I believe.  Much more sensible would be to make syndiesel (and I think you can even make synthetic gasoline this way, but I'm not sure); I assume Range is focusing on ethanol in order to tap the ethanol subsidies, but hopefully the technology they develop will be generalizable.

Gasification systems are apparently capital intensive, but they are a proven technology (unlike biofermentation of cellulose).  Their conversion rate is apparently not very efficient, but on the other hand they can convert the entire plant (including difficult parts like lignin).  The synthesis is a dry process, so there's no distillation energy.  And (I think) the gasification process can be self-sustaining once it's started.  The residue of the process is essentially charcoal, which might be usable in terra preta for agricultural enhancement or carbon sequestration.

The best part is that you can use a range of biomass without much concern for exactly what it is.  This means you can get away from using terrestrial plants altogether, and use algae instead, which is HIGHLY productive of biomass.  The problems traditionally associated with algae for biodiesel production (contamination of the culture with low-oil varieties) go away because you no longer are much about the oil content of your algae -- you just want the biomass.On Thus spake Chairman Peterson of the House Ag Committee posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

well

Whether or not we qualify depends on whether or not we technically live in suburbia.  Our home is a free-standing single family home in El Cerrito, which was once a bedroom community for Berkeley.  But it's been converted into a split-level, and it's right next to a BART station, and the whole region from Richmond to Oakland is now solidly filled in.

Assuming we are in suburbia, though:

• Greywater for laundry water disposal.
  
• Rabbits for meat, and chickens for eggs.
  
• Multispecies annual and perrenial garden that occupies the entire front and back yard.  So, no grass.
  
• Car-free commute: living near BART has its advantages.
  
• Seven distinct diversion paths for solid waste: food for rabbits, food for chickens, food for worms, biostack (all organic matter that nothing else wants to eat), City recycling, city greenwaste (most just for big branches and old lumber), and used coffee (set aside for use as a direct soil amendment.

Yep

Everything you say has, unfortunately, matched my own experience.

Your gutter analogy is quite apt, and I think it's more than an analogy: it's a description of how the existing green constituency was established.  People who are disenchanted with the mainstream political position go looking for a political home.  The Green Party has raised a flag on the radical progressive side of the spectrum, so the liberal politically homeless flock to that.  And each of them brings with them their own personal baggage and pet issues, which is why the party is so schizo.

I really doubt that an effective political party can be crafted from the leftovers in this way.  Some people are outside the mainstream because they have thoughtful, well-considered positions.  But at least as many are outside the mainstream because they are just plain nuts (organic nuts, to be sure, but nuts nonetheless).  And in the inclusiveness and tolerance that characterizes liberalism, all of these viewpoints are assumed to be equally valid.

My sense is that effective progressive political opposition, if it comes at all, is going to have to come from a new party that, as you said, develops a platform that focuses on specific issues.  I don't think that's going to happen within the existing party, because any attempt to impose discipline will be resisted by everyone who's pet issue isn't on the platform.On What is the Green Party up to, exactly? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

Hey Ed,

A friendly piece of advice: Just ignore jabailo.  This community has unfortunately attracted a certain number of persistent trolls who appear to get their jollies by interjecting nonsense into the discussion and sidetracking real dialog.  Jabailo is one of them.

Ignoring them is the best policy.  It doesn't make them go away, but it minimizes their ability to damage the dialog.

By the way, welcome to Gristmill.  This is actually one of the best green communities on the net, trolls notwithstanding.  I appreciate the work you've done in setting a difficult-but-achievable goal with the 2030 Challenge, and I'm glad to see you here.On There is a silver-bullet solution to global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Rob Paul

It's hard to vote for Paul even as political strategery JMG.  He wants to cancel social security.  He is the epitomey of corporatarianism (corporate libertarianism...total liberty for corporations)

Actually, he's not.  He'd be the first to take companies to court for their abuse of the commons.  Certainly with regards to most forms of pollution and probably even with regards to carbon emissions, though I can't say that I know his position on climate change these days.

Paul is a true small-responsible-government Republican -- what used to be known as a "Goldwater Republican" -- which is a rare bird nowadays.  JMG is right: he's a real thorn in the Republican's side, all the more so because many of their base remain loyal on the delusion that the Republican party is still the party of small government.  Putting Paul in contrast to the other contenders emphasizes the fact that this is no longer the case.On Rubber, meet road posted 1 year, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Jon

Yes, the manpower shortage has been a subject of many articles and much discussion in peak oil circles, and I have seen enough references to it in a mainstream industry context that I am 100% certain you are right.

There are many factors which prevent our actual oil production rate from achieving the levels that would be imposed purely by geologic and technical limits.  Geopolitical access is a big one (leading to the "fear premium" on the price of oil), but manpower shortages are a factor as well.

The result is that we will experience an effective peak (peak lite) before we hit the limits of total production.
This is good news, though, because it means that rather a sharp peak and dropoff, such as that dictated by the Hubbart curve, we'll probably see a long plateau where production doesn't grow much (and doesn't keep pace with demand) but doesn't crash either.  It will buy us time -- hopefully enough -- to come up with alternatives to petroleum consumption.On With all the upbeat talk about an environmental labor boom, is rhetoric running away from reality? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

impact of renewable energy

I think the main benefits of a big move to renewable energy will be twofold.

In the short term, the demand for equipment will lead to new opportunities in engineering and manufacturing.  These may or may not be greater than the parallel loss of jobs in the fossil-fuel energy business and the industries that supply them.  However, I would expect it to be greater (i.e. more than make up for the decline of fossilized business) because the fossil industries have had decades to wring out as much efficiency and mechanization as they can and to minimize their employment base.  Renewable energy, being a relatively underdeveloped sector, is not going to operate as efficiently and will probably generate more jobs at least initially.

In the long term, a major shift to renewables will mean a decrease in the externalized costs that fossil energy sources currently impose on society.  This will be a huge win, but will probably take decades before it's fully appreciated.  But it stands to reason that if we can maintain a technological society without poisoning ourselves daily, we'll be better off than an equivalently advanced society in which ubiquitous toxicity is required in order to maintain the technologically elevated status.On With all the upbeat talk about an environmental labor boom, is rhetoric running away from reality? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

media and dissent

but I am concerned that if scientists completely buy into a "consensus" then they will be less likely to speak out if their opinion differs from the mainstream in any way.  Unfortunately, this notion is too subtle to come across in the media, so saying "consensus" is the easiest way to go.

This is unfortunately true. I read about a scientist (I forget the name) who quit the IPCC because he thought that they were critically underestimating the role of urban heat island and other land-use factors in global warming.  He was avowedly NOT denying global warming, nor even arguing that anthropogenic causes were at the root.  He just disagreed about the relative weighting of the causes.  But the media reported him as a "skeptic".

It's good to hear that there is still a lively debate going on about the details of climate science.  The lack of such debate would be a bad sign.  However, I suspect that many scientists may be restrained from expressing dissent, not out of fear of censure by their peers, but out of fear that they will be mis-represented by the media and their reputations thus damaged.On Scientists do not have a financial incentive to settle the climate debate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 30 Responses

And furthermore...

A couple of the better sources I have found for green jobs listings:
Idealist
Treehugger
On Green job planning for 2008 posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

Engineering opportunities

I'm a mechanical engineer, currently working for a small but very busy building commissioning/retrocommissioning company in northern California.

In brief, commissioning is a design review and construction oversight process for new buildings designed to make sure the building gets designed sensibly and built to spec.  Retrocommissioning is a investigative and diagnostic process for existing buildings intended to document the system functionality and identify opportunities for energy savings.

Our small (20 persons) company is INCREDIBLY BUSY.  We've got far more work than we have people, and we're interviewing like crazy.  It's hard to staff up, because we're pretty selective but also because we're competing with other companies in the same field for qualified people.

The upshot of this is two-fold:

1. If you're a mechanical/HVAC/energy engineer in either the SF Bay Area or in the Irvine area (our satellite office just opened there) and you're interested in this kind of work, email me and I'll put your resume in front of my boss.  Experience with this kind of work is helpful but not essential -- management here hires for smarts and commitment first, and experience second.

2. If you're a student, or considering a career change, take a very serious look at this field.  Commissioning is becoming more and more common for new buildings (and is required by LEED).  I expect to see the day very soon when only a crazy person would build anything significant without it.  (That's been true right along, IMO, but has not been been widely recognized in the industry.  That's changing.)  Likewise, there are tons of existing buildings that need to go through the retrocommissioning process, which is heavily subsidized by the utilities (at least in California).  Bottom line: there are lots of jobs in this arena, and there is good reason to expect that will continue to be the case, even in the event of an economic downturn.

Don't feed the trolls

Andrew,

Sadly, trolls don't read, and they don't do homework.   (One sometimes wonders if they can.) They exist to waste the time of otherwise productive members of the community such as yourself.On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

cost premiums

We don't cry from the rooftops about the 6-way electric seat "premium," but as soon as you add "hybrid" to that car with the 6-way electric seats, or to the luxury SUV, things change.

This is very true.  I suspect that the psychology here is that we are willing to pay more for a better service, but we resent paying more for what we perceive as equivalent service.  While the mileage of a hybrid is somewhat better than the equivalent conventional car, the incremental difference probably only justifies itself as "better service" to those who place a premium on fuel efficiency above and beyond the cost of gas (i.e. greens).

In this context, a PHEV may not have to compete on price (at least for the American consumer) if it's marketed correctly.  Being able to fill up at home on wall current, and avoid gas stations nearly entirely, is a type of service that nothing currently on the market provides.  Spun correctly, this should appeal to a whole range of non-green consumers, like the gotta-have-the-new-cool-toy early adopter crowd, and the raghead-hating, oil-independence conservative hawk, just to pick two.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, and if the folks who sell the first production PHEVs don't capitalize on this, then the manufacturer needs to fire their marketing team.On Venture-capital star ain't no clean-tech expert posted 1 year, 11 months ago 54 Responses

Also

You're focussed on commercial/industrial applications.  Don't underestimate residential applications, particularly in high-density urban contexts.  Individual water heaters are a silly way to supply domestic hot water in an apartment complex.  Same for individual furnaces, for that matter.  A unified, building-level heating and domestic HW system using heat recovered from onsite cogen can save a hell of a lot of heating gas.On A plead for utility leadership on climate change posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

what?

co-gen may have niche applications, but it's not going to significantly change power plant efficiency, especially when you account for all the thermodynamic components of efficiency correctly

Please explain what you mean here.  Space heating uses water at 150-180 F and domestic hot water runs around 120F -- well below the exhaust temperatures of most generation systems.  Between electricity generation and heat recovery, you can usually get 75-85% of the fuel heat energy, of which 30% - 60% is electricity.  So your comments don't make a lot of sense to me.On A plead for utility leadership on climate change posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

capital costs

We like the sex appeal of renewables, but we don't much like to own them -- remember, we don't have any financial incentive to prefer low-cost generation.

OK, granted, but it sounds like they don't have any financial incentive to avoid low-cost generation either.  From what you write, it sounds like they are largely indifferent to fuel prices.

So my question: Solar PV has a zero fuel price, but it also has one of the highest capital costs of any generation system.  So by the logic you describe above, utility companies should be all over large-scale PV.  But large-scale PV deployments are relatively few and far between.  That's probably just as well IMO: PV makes most sense distributed in small-scale systems.  But it still begs the question of why.On A plead for utility leadership on climate change posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

consensus

you often hear skeptics make the argument that, "science doesn't work through consensus," and "consensus doesn't prove anything,"

Yeah, I hear that, but I've never understood it.  Peer review is the gold standard for scientific legitimacy.  When all the peers hold similar position, what results could well be described as a consensus.

What do these people think "science" is, anyway?On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Big Oil

In 1998 (when oil was $20 per bbl) congress granted tax and royalty relief for exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. At a time when oil companies were laying off workers and cutting capital programs, this kept energy company investments at home instead of making investments overseas.  Some of those investments (not all) paid off, and prices rose. Now the Democrat Party wants to punish some energy companies for being profitable.

So what you're saying is, Congress gave the oil companies help when they were having trouble.  Now that they're doing well, Congress wants to withdraw their support because it's no longer needed and the funds are needed elsewhere.  How is that "punishing them for being profitable"?On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Reponse

I agree that Jeavon's paradox is widely overapplied.  Alot of doomers apply it everywhere, in order to prove that there's no point in trying because we're all just screwed.

That said, I think you have to look at short-term vs. long-term energy/price elasticity.  In the short term, yes, higher/lower energy prices don't have a big impact on consumer choices.  Over the long term, however, I think you would see a different picture, because now infrastructure turnover comes into play.    The individual consumer or building owner doesn't have alot of options with regards to their energy use: they can tend towards the high side or the low side, but the actual range of their options is dictated by decisions made upstream, at the design table.  I know that in the building industry, the perception that energy is getting more expensive (and will continue to do so) is driving alot of attention towards energy efficient building design and retrocommissioning.  The impacts of this trend won't show up for awhile, but if the trend maintains, the impact over ~10 years is going to be very large.

My concern is that the reverse effect will happen with cheap energy, and I think there is some historical basis for this.  If you look at alot of older buildings, as I do, you will see features like constant-volume air systems and bypass valves in heating/cooling hydronics that generally avoided in modern design.  Doing it the old way was easier and required less design effort (and thus less first cost), but wastes energy for the life of the building.  But when you're talking about a building built in 1960, that wasn't really a consideration.

That said, I agree with your basic conclusion, as I understand it: more expensive energy is NOT the only way, or even the best way, to control GHG pollution.  However, my concern is about what happens if you get only half of what you're asking for: deregulation and an end to utility profit guarantees, but no price on carbon.  That's the scenario in which I see this long-term effect coming into play.  My point is simply that we need to make sure we push for both things together: a price on carbon, and a new utility regulation paradigm.On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Factors driving the cost of electricity

Sean,

So if I understand what you are saying (here and elsewhere) correctly, the cost paid by the utility customer is approximately the sum of:

1. The cost of fuel, with no profit attached.
   
2. Capital cost recovery on generation systems, with a regulated level of profit.
   
3. Everything else, including T&D.  (side note: Is T&D a cost passthrough, like fuel, or a profit center, like generation?)

Comments?On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

The problem

The problem, as far as I can tell, is well identified in Tumulty's article: filibusters are all well and good, but what's being used here is not the filibuster, but the threat of a filibuster: filibuster-lite, if you will.

It seems to me that the rules around a filibuster impose a natural limit on the frequency with which it can be used, based if nothing else on the limits of physical and psychological endurance among a group of 60-something, well-fed, privileged rich dudes.  There's only so many days-on-end debates that a person can stand to have.  Also, they have to keep talking through that entire period, and everything they say is on the public record.  If their position is asnine, they're going to wind up saying alot of asnine things.  Especially after they start to tire.

The filibuster is an extreme option that has some natural limitations built into its structure.  However, the threat of a filibuster carries no consequences if your opponent doesn't have the nerve to call your bluff.

The problem isn't the filibuster.  It's that the Democratic leadership consists largely of invertebrates.On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

So who is this guy?

Or more to the point, what's his vested interest?

Consistently pessimistic estimates of the capabilities of batteries in cars could simply be a matter of conservative engineering estimates.  Too conservative, perhaps, but that's probably better than the alternative.

However, the bit about the RAV4 batteries suggests that there may be some more nefarious motivation. On Menahem Anderman analyzes the state of car-battery technology posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

framing

Yes, I agree entirely Sean.  The issue -- the real issue -- is just what you said.

My point was simply to suggest another possible response when confronting the same old environment-vs-economy line.  It is most correct, but it is not necessarily most rhetorically effective, to try to explode the myth that there is an inherent conflict between environmental and economic goods.

I firmly and deeply believe that this is a myth, and that it needs to be countered.  But different audiences respond to different arguments, etc.

It may well be the wrong way to respond in this particular case.  But it was a something that occurred to me that hadn't occurred before, so I decided to share it.  Like I said, it was a bit off topic.On Coal utilities weigh in on the carbon policy posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

Oh, and let me just add...

It is somewhat incongruous for PSCI to argue as to the best interests of Frankfort. It, nonetheless has helped to make a persuasive showing that that community might be injured by the rate disparity ... While our decision potentially lowering the rates charged to Frankfort is not what PSCI has requested, it should at least assuage its concerns about Frankfort's citizenry.

ROTFLMAO!On Coal utilities weigh in on the carbon policy posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

taxi

you say that taxi operations (ground aviation movements) are fairly dependable and short.

I think his point was that taxi operations don't vary in any predictable fashion, and aren't related to the length of the flight.  They are, however, potentially a big wild card on any given flight.On How much global warming results from air travel? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 8 Responses

Right

In short: they badly need something, anything, to show voters.

So they sacrifice the potential for real policy progress on real problems so that they can pass some feel-good, do-nothing (or worse than nothing, in the case of the ethanol mandate) legislation.

All they've shown this voter is that the Democratic Party has no principles, no spine, and no actual interest in progressive action.  Just like the Republicans, all they care about is remaining in power.  They're just not nearly as good at it.On Why did Dems bargain down the energy bill? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

Without the solar tax breaks

This bill is now utterly worthless.  The progressive community should mobilize to block its passage.  Repealing some taxes on the oil companies, at the price of an ethanol mandate, just isn't worth it.  Plus we need to send a message to the conservatives:  We're right, and we represent the majority position of the population.  If they won't play, then we should kill the bill.On Senate Republican minority blocks energy bill posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

Ah, it becomes clear...

I think I now understand how the serious impacts predicted by the IPCC square with an economic impact of only a couple percent.

These observations confirm evidence reported in the Third Assessment that, while developing countries are expected to experience larger percentage losses, globalmean losses could be 1-5%GDP for 4°C of warming [F20.3].

The developing world takes the brunt of the damage, and they represent only a tiny fraction of the world GDP.  So in an analysis that considers global GDP, they barely show up.

So, if this analysis is to be used to answer the question "Should the United States implement a carbon tax?" in the negative because the net benefit to the world GDP of doing so is very small, then implied reasoning behind that answer is: "No, we should not, because the potential harm to our economy does not justify the cost and risk.  And the (non-economically developed) rest of the world can go to hell."
On Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 29 Responses

A couple more for Jim

the actual carbon tax that a real government passes is very unlikely to be nearly as efficient as the tax swap envisioned by an academic economist.

Granted this is likely true.  It would be politically challenging to implement, and the results will be less ideal than we would like.

And yet, even if such a policy were only 50% efficient, it would reduce the net cost of a carbon tax by a proportional amount, and strongly influence the impact analysis of the net cost of a carbon reduction plan.  And yet no attempt is made to incorporate this into the preceding analysis.

Second, there is an unending set of externalities created by all energy sources, and there is no logical reason to privilege AGW-related costs over any others.

Actually, there is.  By happy coincidence, the severity of externalized cost for most energy sources is roughly proportional to the carbon footprint of that energy source.  As fuels go, gas is better than oil is better than coal.  To some extent, there is a direct connection between carbon content and externalized costs: Coal soot is incompletely combusted carbon.  The higher-energy-density forms of coal also tend to be lower in other pollutants.  In other areas, the relationship is apparently coincidental: the ecological cost of coal mining is higher (per BTU) than the cost of drilling for gas.  Convenient, isn't it?

The GHG cost or (rather dubious) benefit of biofuels would be picked up by this as well, since their fossil fuel inputs would be hit right along with everyone else's.  This doesn't address the other negative impacts of biofuel production (water, soil, food costs), but it does help balance the equation.  (And if it shifts the economically ideal level of fertilizer application -- made from natural gas -- then it does actually address the soil and water concerns to an extent.)

Lastly, there is a compelling social justice reason to "privilege AGW-related costs over any others".  The impacts of AGW are global.  They effect everyone, even those who are distant from the point of use and the associated benefit.  Contrast this with most other fossil-fuel-related externalities, which are localized at least to some extent.  For example, coal mining is horribly destructive to the landscape, but at least it provides jobs within the community it is destroying.  It may be a faustian bargain, but at least it's a bargain that the locals can choose to make or refuse.  A Pacific Islander has no such say in what kind of fuel is used to produce power in the US. On Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 29 Responses

So much for American leadership...

China is being very flexible, and by many accounts positioning itself as a leader for the 21st century.

This is good news, and it doesn't surprise me.  The climate crisis has created an opportunity for any powerful nation that wants to be one of the Great Powers of the next century to rise to the occasion.  Successful leadership on this issue will generate both tremendous global political capital and tremendous economic opportunities.  Whichever nation emerges as the leader in green technology and design will be the America of the next century.

That could have been us (the US).  It still could be, but that window of opportunity is closing day by day.  As it stands, China has an opportunity to do to our entire country what Japan has done to the US auto industry: have a vision, take a chance, and leave the competition with its pants down wondering what just happened.
On Greenpeace India points out the obvious posted 1 year, 11 months ago 14 Responses

Doesn't pass the giggle test

The total costs of global warming are expected to be equal to about 1% of present value of future human consumption.

Let's see: The inundation of coastal areas, and the relocation of 70% of the global population, models out to have much less than (because it's only one impact) a 1% impact on the present value of future human consumption.  Hmmm... Let's think about this.  Does this result make any kind of sense at all?

There is something seriously wrong with his economic model.On Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent posted 1 year, 11 months ago 29 Responses

Yeah, but so what?

I appreciate the perspective that this article presents, and I can't deny that he might be right, and we have passed the point of no return.  Although exactly what "the point of no return" means in this case is unclear: we have certainly passed the point where we could escape all the impacts of climate change, and we probably have not reached the point where climate change will inevitably destroy civilization (and anyone who says we have, for sure, reached that point is claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have).  So we're somewhere in the grey middle zone.  And the future is going to suck, we just don't know how badly.

But the point of my somewhat flip subject remains.  From the perspective of the folks who are already active, already aware, and already working the problem, so what?  We need to localize, decentralize, and decarbonize.  Great.  We (the activists) are pushing just that agenda.  If in order to get buy-in from the public, we need to paint a rosy picture of the carbon-neutral future, fine, so be it.  If the future sucks four times as hard as we say it will, so what?  It'll still suck less if the world moves in the direction that we're trying to push it, than if it does not.

And from the point of the general public, again, is this really productive?  We're not going to enlist the masses of the uninvolved, the apathetic, or those in denial by talking about how bad the future is going to be.  If humans were rational, we would respond to that sort of talk because the followup is how much worse things will be if we do nothing.  But people are not rational in that way.  Focusing on a terrible, tragic future won't get any of those folks on board.

I can see one segment that might potentially be reached by this sort of talk: the folks who are aware of the problem, but who have not internalized the scale of it; and the folks who are aware of the problem, but think that we can technology our way out of it.  For them, a reality check like this may force them to choose between retreating into denial or getting serious about prioritizing an appropriate response to the situation in their personal and business decisions.  If they have enough intellectual honesty that they can't backpedal from awareness into denial, then this perspective could be valuable.

Don't get me wrong.  I think it's a good essay.  I think it's also likely more true than not.  But I'm not sure that it's a useful or constructive truth in most contexts, and I think it's a harmful truth in some: it encourages those in denial to remain in denial, and it encourages those who are aware of the problem to give in to despair.On It's too late to stop climate change, argues Ross Gelbspan -- so what do we do now? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 45 Responses

Relative cause for concern

I'd worry about this particular issue much more if I were a woman who was planning to get pregnant, rather than a man who isn't planning to breed at all.

I would also worry much more about exposing children to these chemicals, than I do with adults: their developing bodies are probably much more responsive to hormones than a mature body is.

Also, bear in mind basic reaction chemistry: The amount of leaching that happens is determined by a rate constant, which is a strong function of temperature.  So I avoid putting hot liquids into plastic (of any sort), and I avoid letting water sit in plastic bottles for long periods of time.

I think that with these measures, whatever exposure I'm likely to get falls below the minimum threshold of my concern.  That is, it may be bad for me, but I've got bigger threats in my local environment.On Ignorance isn't bliss, it's just better than knowing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

filibusters

The filibuster is structurally biased against progressive policy.

Care to elucidate on that?  Traditionally, it's been a mechanism for small-party interests to avoid getting steamrollered.  Like, say, the Democrats in years (recently) past.On Senate Republicans vow to filibuster energy bill posted 1 year, 12 months ago 9 Responses

Also

Renewables aren't chasing a static target.  There's still plenty of room to make coal-fired power (both dirty and clean), more efficient and thus cheaper.  The thermal efficiency of steam and gas turbines keeps going up, for instance.

Improvements of this sort will improve the fuel cost per kWh, but will almost certainly increase the capital cost substantially.  And that's the key issue: high capital cost is the Achilles heel of IGCC coal, and is also a major barrier to deployment of renewables.

After all, it's really hard to compete with the fuel cost for solar panels.On Even in the short term, R&E is a better choice than clean coal for developing nations posted 1 year, 12 months ago 8 Responses

Energy policy strategy

As time wears on, I'm getting less and less impressed with this energy bill.

The good, potentially, includes an extension of the solar tax credit, higher CAFE standards, and an RPS.

The bad includes continuing giveaways to big oil, and (worse, for the precedent it sets) the ethanol mandate.

In my mind, the solar tax credit is the only immediately critical (i.e. high urgency) item here.  The solar industry is finally starting to roll, and a continuation of the existing credit would help sustain momentum at a critical time.

Federal solar legislation seems to have an enormous level of public support, judging by the reaction that was generated when it was removed from a draft version of the bill.  We might be able to pass at least a short-term extension as a freestanding bill, given that level of support.

An RPS is good, but will take time to have any impact.  CAFE standards are also a long-term item, and may not even be particularly beneficial depending on who you talk to.  So both of these measures could be put into a later bill.

What I'm getting to is this: Although I'd probably be willing to swallow the ethanol mandate in order to get the solar tax credit and the RPS, I don't see that it's worth compromising just to get an energy bill passed.  If Pelosi etc stick to their guns, then either Bush has to veto the bill and start the process over, or he has to hold his nose and sign off on CAFE/solar TC/RPS.  If he does veto it, then we try again next administration, probably with much better chances of success.  In the meantime, try to pass a short-term extension to the solar tax credit.

It seems to me that the conservatives have more to lose here than the progressives.  Why not call their bluff and force them to a tough decision?  Can anyone explain why this would be a BAD idea?On White House renews energy bill veto threat posted 1 year, 12 months ago 3 Responses

home heating

Well, if you wanted to heat your home with a biofuel, here's an easier way.  Cuts out about half of the steps you described above.  Still a dumb idea, but not quite as dumb :).On The corn industry hopes Congress will pull its fat out of the fire posted 1 year, 12 months ago 44 Responses

subsidies

So if oil companies paid the same effective corporate tax rate as everyone else, actually paid extraction fees in all states, defended their own pipelines, paid royalty fees, etc. ... that cost would not make it to the pump?

Not immediately.  If these tax breaks were eliminated, the oil companies would do less domestic exploration and development.  This would reduce the supply of oil to the market and cause the price to rise, but it would take some time for the impacts to show up, because it takes 3-10 years to find, develop and exploit a new resource.
These resources would, of course, eventually become economic to develop even without the tax subsidy, but probably not until we're clearly past peak.  So as a side benefit, eliminating the subsidies would probably help flatten the oil production curve and preserve our domestic supplies for when we really need them.

In this sense, the impact of the subsidies to oil are very different from the subsidies to ethanol.  The (direct) ethanol subsidies are production credits, which have an immediate impact.  Not so the oil subsidies.
As a consequence, we'd probably wind up On The corn industry hopes Congress will pull its fat out of the fire posted 2 years ago 44 Responses

the wonderful grid

By comparison with any non-grid source of power, it is a remarkable achievement, and one upon which a modern economy depends.

I think Nucbuddy's point is that this amazing level of service has been bought at the price of enormous waste.  Which is potentially a valid point, although the degree of that waste is hard to establish.  Of course, being part-troll, he also had to take it as an opportunity to slam renewables. Somehow the energy fluctuations from renewables is fundamentally harder to manage than the fluctuation created by user loads going on- and off-line.... But I digress.On Duke wins approval for a $3100/kW plant posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

last question

I don't think I communicated my question correctly.  Perhaps I don't understand your model, and thus my question in inapplicable.  But let me try again.

Imagine a world which is organized along the lines you describe: There are multiple generators, and there are multiple aggregator-suppliers who sign up individual customers, supply them with power and bill them for their consumption.  There is also a grid which is owned by a neutral third party -- say it's city-owned and operated for the public benefit.

Each of these aggregator-suppliers is responsible for making sure that their customers get a reliable supply of power.  To do this, they contract with generators to buy X MWh over a certain period of time.

Obviously, they have to overbuy somewhat, to provide insurance against unexpected demand.  But they don't want to overbuy too much, because that costs them money.  Let's say supplier A (one of several serving the same area) cuts it too fine and underestimates demand.  He buys too few MWh, or pays for too little hot spinning reserve, or whatever.

In a standard market situation, supplier A's customers would find themselves coming up short.  They'd be pissed, and A would either have to make nice with them or they'd take their business to someone more competent.

However, in this case, all the power is coming through a common grid.  Which means that if there is more demand than the grid can supply, everyone gets shafted at least a little bit.  Then everyone is pissed, and the feedback mechanism that would punish supplier A for their error doesn't function.

The obvious way around this would be for the grid operator to be responsible for making sure the resources existed to cover shortfalls.  But now you're back to having the distribution grid owner also selling power, with significant disconnects between their incentive structure and that of the other players.

How do we get around this?  Or am I misunderstanding your model from the word "go"?On Duke wins approval for a $3100/kW plant posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

My thoughts

Thanks for the thoughtful (as usual) reply, Sean.

1. What you said is more or less what I meant: When I spoke of allowing competition only at the generation level, what I was really referring to was the fact that the wholesale price of electricity was deregulated while the retail price remained controlled.  They broke the price feedback loop.  Although I'm no friend of the utilities (particularly PG&E, or "Pigs, Goats, and Elephants" as a former colleague of mine put it), I'm not sure what they could have done to escape from this problem: they were caught at the center of the broken price feedback loop.

2 & 3.  It sounds like what you are describing is a system in which the distribution network is owned by a regulated party (ideally a MUD, but in the case of the gas and phone lines, typically a private company), while the upstream and downstream ends (generation, and end-user metering) are handled by a private company freely subject to competition.  This sounds like a good model.

Questions:
Are the upstream and downstream provider necessarily the same entity?

How is the good behavior (i.e. not favoring one aggregator over another) of the distribution network operator ensured?  The issues here seem very similar to those around "network neutrality" of the internet.

You imply that this model is already used for gas distribution?  Where?  Is this common?  Is this how it works in PG&E-land?

If this is successful in gas, why is it not applied to electricity?  Are there technical barriers, or just political ones?  I can see where the need to keep supply and demand balanced might create a technical barrier, or at least the illusion of a technical barrier: If there's a mismatch (especially oversupply) on the gas grid, this isn't a problem.  On the electric grid, it is.

My last question raises another one, though: If gas providers A & B are using the same gas distribution system to server their various customers (who may be neighbors to each other), and provider A screws up such that they don't buy enough gas to meet their customer's needs, how do you make sure this impacts them (and their customers) rather than sharing the pain throughout the grid?  The gas all goes through the same lines, so it seems any shortfall would hurt everyone equally, regardless of culpability.  Electricity of course would have the same problem.On Duke wins approval for a $3100/kW plant posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

ethanol

I have been told that the ethanol mandate has become a major sticking point in the energy bill, that could hold up the bill long enough to effectively kill it.

I was told this by someone who:

1. Works as a renewable energy lobbyist at the state level (California).
   
2. Really, really hates ethanol (for good reasons).
   
3. Believes that the green community should support removing the solar tax credits and utility mandate from the main energy bill, because the energy bill is contaminated too badly by the ethanol mandate.

1. Is there any realistic chance of killing the bill that contains the ethanol mandate?
   
2. Should the solar tax credit and utility mandate be moved to a different legislative vehicle?  Will doing so increase or decrease its chances?

stopping the plant

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

Here's my worry, and the basis for my concern that the "kill all coal now" attitude may be counterproductive.

If they build the plant, then they have that generating asset.  It'll be expensive to build, and expensive to run, but it's there to provide power when its needed.  And maybe someday, they'll shut down an old coal plant

If, on the other hand, we stop all new coal construction and don't scale up R&E very quickly indeed, we will eventually hit a point where there just isn't enough generation capacity to go around.  The initial response will be to run the old plants at capacity (which creates more pollution) and use peaker plants as baseload (which is a bad idea).  But eventually things get tight enough, and people are desperate enough, they will build more plants.  And they will be the quickest, easiest, best-understood thing they can build, which probably means old-style coal.

Building IGCC now, while we're still living in times of relative abundance (of both capital and energy) is an investment towards a future that is likely to be rather bleak.  Not nearly as good an investment as renewables, efficiency and smart-grid tech, but quite possibly better than nothing.On Duke wins approval for a $3100/kW plant posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

huh?

Yes, the coal is cheaper to run, but if you're going to run it at lower levels it means that you are lowering equity returns to the coal investors.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this.  Could you explain?

At any rate, my assumption is that the price of gas, like oil, is probably going to rise exponentially over the next couple of decades.  Coal probably won't, unless we manage to force the industry to internalize all its costs (and at that point, we have won and can go home).

Absent gross distortions of economic logic, it simply doesn't make sense to build a clean coal facility.

What do you mean by a "clean coal" facility?  Do you mean IGCC doesn't make sense, or are you applying that statement to the as-yet-unbuilt CO2 sequestering facility?

At any rate, the first three of the four "plausible" arguments presuppose that the gross economic distortions will continue.  Which, I'm afraid, may be the political reality.

On the other hand, the possibility of carbon negative power (by burning biomass rather than coal in a carbon-capture facility) is pretty compelling.  But highly, highly speculative, I admit.On There are some compelling reasons to focus on cleaning up rather than abandoning coal posted 2 years ago 14 Responses

Clean coal

In the context of IGCC, I also want to make the point that nega-CO2 produced by efficiency improvements applies on the generation end as well the consumption end.

If I replace a 30% efficient coal plant with a 60% efficient IGCC plant, or a 90% efficient IGCC + district heating plant, I have effectively reduced my CO2 production, same as if I had reduced my building's energy demand by an equivalent percentage.  (We should, of course, do that too.)On There are some compelling reasons to focus on cleaning up rather than abandoning coal posted 2 years ago 14 Responses

sigh...

As I've shown, however, the lack of debate exists not because of suppression of the skeptics, but because virtually no one will stand up in public and defend the skeptical position.  

Or, as the denialists will spin it, because the skeptics are suppressing themselves out of fear of... something.  headdeskOn Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

ARGH!

Don't feed the trolls!

(Sorry, Andrew, but I just couldn't contain it any longer.)On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

oil price

No, $100 USD oil doesn't make them more money and is quite a pain to deal with.

What makes you say this?  By all reports, they are rolling in (even more) money these days.

There was a period of time when they were very worried about controlling the price, for two reasons:

1. The received wisdom was that oil over $40-50/bbl would crash the world economy.
   
2. They wanted to maintain control over the oil markets for political reasons.

OK, but

I'd suggest that the problem with the Soviet industrial system went beyond its nature as a military-industrial complex.  But leaving that aside for the moment:

The post-war buildout of American industry was entirely under the supervision and at the behest of the military.  Yet we enjoyed 20-30 years of success subsequently.  So I'm having trouble with the idea that the military's involvement was the prime contributing factor.

The financial incentives you cite seem substantially more legitimate reasons, with the obsessive focus on quarterly results being the the most obvious key problem.  That comes directly from the stock market, and the laws that forbid a CEO from seeking any good other than shareholder value.  And yet, are European and Asian markets and laws really so different?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but I figured there had to be a certain degree of parity between our systems and theirs, if only to facilitate multinational business.  My assumption, in that context, is that the short-term-profits obsession and visible-numbers-only management style that has so damaged American business was a matter of culture and expectations more than of financial or legal constructions.

Thoughts?

Incidentally, it seems to me that the entire thesis of your argument hinges on whether or not one believes in the "loss of competence".  Which is a very large assertion to make with very little text (in the original post).  Not that I necessarily disagree, but I'm just saying...On It can happen here posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

Wow.

Assuming that they follow through on what they have described, this project is the Real Deal.  This isn't some piddling 10% energy savings, or a PV system that generates more green press than it does power (are you listening, Google?).  This is industrial ecology.  This is waste = food and use current solar income: the sin qua non of real sustainability.

While I don't necessarily think that this single instance of a company actually acting like they understand what is needful means that we need to raise the bar, I do understand the sentiment in that comment.  Because ultimately, we will have to do just that.  Sustainability is not enough.  Sustainability is the break-even point where our depletion of natural capital no longer exceeds its rate of regeneration.  But given the damage we have done to the biosphere, and the amount of natural capital already liquidated, we're going to have to do better than that.  Eventually we will have to build factories (and farms, and homes, and office buildings) that actually produce a surplus of clean air, clean water, and clean power, that protect and restore habitat, and sequester carbon as part of their daily operations.

Sustainability is where it starts, not where it ends.

Having said that, this is a really bold and visionary plan that goes miles further than almost anything else that I have heard of being done at this scale.  So, BRAVO!On 80% by 2050? Try 2010. posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

question

Just to clarify, I assume that your first two test (about barriers to entry and exit) refer specifically to artificial barriers (e.g. licensing, granted monopolies, etc).  Or does this also include barriers that are naturally part of e.g. any manufacturing process?  It's hard to get into the car business, because car factories are so big and expensive.  Ditto for the chip fabrication business.

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to say that even "natural" barriers to entry will distort the market from its state of "perfection", even though they are unavoidable in any real world situation.  If so, then the "perfect" market not only does not exist, but never can exist, at least for any business producing non-virtual goods.

Thoughts?On Pro-business vs. pro-market posted 2 years ago 14 Responses

renewable portfolio standards

Congratulations.  It's great that you're getting the financial support to move forward with your ideas.

Having said that, I wanted to question whether or not including waste heat recovery in an RPS would really be good policy. On one hand, it's a readily-tapped source of carbon-free energy, and that's all to the good.  On the other hand, from the things you have said elsewhere, my understanding is that the barriers to widescale adoption are not financial so much as regulatory.  That is to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) these projects will tend to pencil out as being profitable, except that various utility regulations either increase the cost artificially (e.g. departing load fees) or effective prohibit the project from happening at all.  In the meantime, these opportunities presuppose the existing wasteful use of fossil fuels, with all the externalities that implies.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, often doesn't pencil out under the existing economic paradigm, but does not impose alot of externalities.  The difficulty making the economic case arises in large part because the costs of the externalities of competing power sources are not being counted, so the fact that solar, wind, etc do not have them (at least to the same extent) does not work in their favor.

From this perspective, it seems to me that the best policy prescription would be an RPS that only counts truly renewable power sources, coupled with a liberalization of utility regulations to remove the barriers waste heat recovery and generation.

Thoughts?On RED positioned to fund $1.5 billion of recycled energy projects posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

Intelligence

It's been well established that about the only thing IQ measures is the ability to succeed in the modern economy.  It correlates strongly to income, and not much else.

That said, every college counselor in the country has been encouraging their best and brightest to go into medicine, law, or technical professions for the last several decades at least.  That's going to have an effect.On Another study shows organic ag outpacing conventional posted 2 years ago 16 Responses

Adequate food supply

So you say.  But I have outlined how, if farmers follow your own model of economic behavior (the applicability of which, you will note, the actual farmers present in this discussion dispute), we will not.  In order to minimize the negative price impact of overproduction in fat years, they would seek an economic optimum average production.  Given the natural and unavoidable variation in production, that means there will be inadequate supplies of staples in lean years.

I realize that what I'm saying violates your model of economic behavior, but unless you can explain to me where my model breaks down, simply asserting that your model is right and mine is wrong doesn't carry much water.

There are ways to avoid the problem I am describing other than price supports.  One would be a diversification of staple crops.  IF in addition to wheat, rice, and corn, we also grew alot of quinoa, amaranth, and other non-traditional grains, the impact of variations in production would be mitigated: a fat year for one crop is probably a lean year for another and an indifferent year for a third.

IMO, that would be a better way to go.  However, it still probably represents a substantial degree of intervention in the marketplace, at least initially.  Our traditional staples are traditional because they are what people are used to.  It would not be economic to grow thousands of acres of quinoa in this country, until or unless a market develops for it.  A variety of factors, including consumer taste but also including climate, the established body of farming knowledge, and the available equipment and material, make the production of a few staple crops economically favorable.  If we want diversity in the face of these pressures towards specialization, we are once again most likely talking about some kind of intervention.

(It's also worth noting that if we did succeed in diversifying our base of staple crops, we would have done something that has never, as far as I know, been done before.  Historically, societies tend to fixate on one or a very few staples.  There's probably a reason for this.)On A response to my critics posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

the next farm bill

As this farm bill bumbles toward its finish, I'm afraid we don't have one.

True, but not surprising.  I'd say that the major triumph of this round was simply in bringing the Farm Bill to the public's attention.  Previously, no one knew what it was.  Hopefully we can build on that next time around, although the five-year period between farm bills is going to make it hard to sustain those gains.On A response to my critics posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

questions

One wonders why, if organic agriculture can be so productive, it is not more widely practiced. I suspect that this is, at least in part, because organic requires alot more care and attention to detail. You have to get the timing and rotation right, and you can't just compensate for careless soil management by piling on the fertilizer. I don't have any proof that this is the reason, but all the descriptions I have read (e.g. Polyface Farms in Omnivore's Dilemma) as well as my own experience support the idea that a carefully managed organic operation can be highly productive, but that a sloppily-managed operation is going to be less productive than a conventional one. This is particularly relevant when one considers that, these days, only a tiny fraction of the population farms any more. I don't know if it's even possible to be a competent organic farmer when you are overseeing tens of thousands of acres.

Thoughts?On Another study shows organic ag outpacing conventional posted 2 years ago 16 Responses

DG states

Sean,

Could you give me a little more detail on what constitutes the DG resource in those other states you mention?  I'm particularly interested in California and Hawai'i.  Do those figures represent industrial cogeneration systems, or what?  What's the most common fuel source?  I don't think they're doing that much logging in Northern California (to refer to the Maine example for comparison).On Interview with smart grid expert Steve Pullins, part two posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

Sean

Wouldn't you say that first we need smarter regulators in order to build a smarter grid?  Granted, the technical barriers are not fundamental - witness Denmark - but that doesn't mean that they don't exist in terms of the grid as it is currently designed.  My understanding is that the grid we have now can handle feed-in energy, but only up to a relatively small percentage of the total energy.  Thus current levels of PV and elevator generation are OK, but that doesn't mean we can scale up arbitrarily.  (Also, wouldn't the energy from a descending elevator likely be used within the building?  From the grid's point of view, it's just another fluctuating load.)

At any rate, we need a smarter grid for demand control and feedback purposes, even if we don't need it to facilitate distributed/renewable generation.  But I suspect we need it for both reasons.On Interview with smart grid expert Steve Pullins, part two posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

efficiency

What is the magic I am missing here?

Another thing to remember is that electric motors are not heat engines, and are not governed by the Carnot maximum efficiency.  Larger commodity-grade electric motors (such as are used in building air systems) are typically 90+% efficient.  In a car, you probably spend the extra bucks to squeeze out a few more percentage points, just because it's cheaper and easier than buying more batteries.

For many years, the greater efficiency of the electric motor was offset by really bad storage losses with lead-acid batteries and the associated power electronics.  Li-batteries and modern inverters have changed that aspect of the picture.

Of course, the electricity is (most likely) being generated by a heat engine, which is governed by Carnot.  But a utility generation plant is a large, high-temperature machine tuned for efficiency and operating at a consistent speed, rather than all over its power band like an car's IC engine.  So that step, while much less than ideal, is still much more efficient than a car.On Delusional Beltway optimism about energy posted 2 years ago 32 Responses

ethanol energy balance

You know, quibbling about whether corn ethanol has a (slightly) positive or a (slightly) negative energy balance is, well, just quibbling.

We crude oil into gasoline at better than a 10:1 energy return ratio.  Pumping the stuff out of the ground in the first place can be 50:1 or higher.  That's the sort of energy return that our industrial infrastructure was built around.  The most optimistic credible energy balance I've seen for ethanol is about 1.5:1, which makes it a complete waste of time even if the proponents are right.On Delusional Beltway optimism about energy posted 2 years ago 32 Responses

gasification?

Could this heavy goo be gasified and used for power production or to synthesize more short-chain products?  It's probably be expensive, certainly more so than just burning the stuff straight-up.  As if the neighborhoods around refineries didn't have enough air quality problems already.On New study finds that pollution from ships kills 60,000 a year posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

Don't feed the troll...

On Drug-addicted philanderer mocks civically engaged young Alaskan posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

unsurprising

Recycling has been part of the picture for a relatively long time -- the current generation grew up with it -- while energy and climate change are relatively new issues in the public awareness.  Those same kids grew up with $20/bbl oil, and climate change viewed as a fringe issue.  So I'm not surprised that we haven't caught up yet.  On the other hand, it's not clear that we have the time to catch up.On Poll: Americans deeply, perhaps irredeemably, confused posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Busted link

Nothing to see here, please move along...On Ad of the day posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

libertarians

Most Libertarians are, in my opinion, hypocrites.  The twin pillars of the philosophy are (or are supposed to be) personal freedom and personal responsibility.  And internalizing externalities is a central requirement of taking responsibility.  Most so-called Libertarians are fascinated with the first, but conveniently ignore the second.  Alas.On 2007: A record-setting U.S. drought year posted 2 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

oh please!

The only reason we are facing a growth problem is because of excessive immigration, and that can be shut down any time we choose to.

And of course the only problems we need to concern ourselves with are land-use and resource-use issues here in the good old US of A.  So if we close our borders, we can stop having to share our 25% of the world's resource pie with an ever growing mass of unwashed immigrants.

Right.

And the rest of the world, most especially China, will just go about their business.

Right.

We are facing a global problem, and its going to have to be solved on a global scale.  The specific solutions will be particular to place, of course, but suggesting that it's any kind of solution at all to circle the wagons and try to shut out the world's problems is extremely foolish and shortsighted.  It's also immoral, given the damage we've done to the rest of the world in the process of enriching ourselves and defending our (perception of our) national interests.On Is the cure worse than the disease? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

for-profit regulated monopolies

The investor-owned utility model is a mongrel of private and public ownership that makes no sense that I can see.  They tend to be schizophrenic, and small wonder -- they're being pulled in opposite directions by the private mandate (profit) and their public mandate (service).  Municipal utility districts, Co-ops and other forms of public ownership of distributions systems make far more sense.  So I think we're on the same page.

However, I think there's a very real difference between an organization that is owned/controlled by a city government, vs. a state government, vs. the federal government, for the reasons I outlined above.  As a general rule, I think public services should be provided by the smallest/most-local level of government that is able to do so effectively.  Scale is absolutely critical.On Moving toward a better energy policy posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Yeah

Even in my cynicism, I am occasionally shocked by statements that I see in the news about how politician so-and-so is doing such-and-such because of the impact it will have on the upcoming election.  Not because it's good policy, or because a constituency needs it, but because it will get them elected, period.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good example of this ready to hand.  I don't go looking for them -- gods know that things are depressing enough -- but I do run across these statements with some frequency.

The shocking thing of course is not that politicians act this way, but that the expectation of a pretense of statesmanship has fallen so far by the wayside that such statements are regularly made in the media, and no one bats an eye.On Fred Thompson half-heartedly justifies flip-flop on ethanol posted 2 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

A couple of articles on China

Although the central government has, in theory, absolute power, the sheer size of the country makes it hard for them to exercise that power effectively.  According to this article, the Chinese government is taking the unprecedented step of supporting and empowering grassroots citizen groups that are investigating and reporting environmental abuses.

On a less-encouraging note, this article explores the failure of China's recent attempts to urbanize their population into ecocities.   Bill McDonough and other green designers have been doing alot of work over there.  Unfortunately, their efforts appear to have been stymied by cultural barriers.  On the other hand, the fact that the government is interested, aware, and trying is encouraging.

My take: China has industrialized so fast that they are now facing environmental consequences on a short enough time scale that they are being forced to deal with them now.  They've got a tiger by the tail, because if their economic boom collapses, so will their government.  On the other hand, they now realize that they can't sacrifice their environment to economic development either.  So they're going to try to keep the ball rolling, but they're going to try to transition to a green economy as fast as they possibly can.

The US and Europe have an opportunity to put themselves on the cutting edge of green economic development.  If either chooses to do so, they will find that they are facing a much easier task than China is.  But if no one else picks up the baton, China will get there eventually.  Eventually may be too late for the planetary ecosystem, or it may not.  But if not, China will be the dominant power of the next century, based on the double-whammy of rapid industrialization and a forced transition to a green economy.On How do you solve a problem like Maria China? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

regulation

I want to point out that while it is true that

Such infrastructure changes historically have required government action, because the infrastructure barriers to entry in those two sectors are so enormous that new technology (and even smart old technology, like combined heat and power) can't compete effectively.

The libertarian solution -- eliminating these government created barriers -- won't work because the system we have was built around these regulatory structures.  Total deregulation would either allow the existing vested interests to capture total control, based on their pre-existing advantage, or would cause the system to fall apart entirely.  And the energy infrastructure has to keep functioning or civilization will, quite literally, collapse.  The challenge is akin to building an airplane in mid-air.

So we can't do it without government intervention and regulation, but we also must remain mindful of the fact that that intervention is the source of a  big part of the problem in the first place.On Breaking the technology breakthrough myth posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

one part, two parts

The focus on high tech solutions is grounded in psychology and economics, and Amazingdrx correctly points out that it is in the short-term best interests of the powers that be to maintain their position of control over our energy sources.

However, he is greatly underestimating the real physical basis of the challenge: We CANNOT maintain our current wasteful, autocentric, go-go-go lifestyle  on current solar income.

At the very least, such a transition would require much more careful engineering of buildings, vehicles and processes.  (The extra design time required would, by itself, tend to slow down the go-go pace.)  Before air conditioning, architects had to design buildings to work within their natural context.  Air conditioning has allowed architects to become (more) arrogant and engineers to be (more) sloppy -- that trend will have to reverse.

Such a transition would also require a shift away from auto-centricism.  The car would still be part of life, but it would be one of a number of transportation options, rather than the central and primary one.  Electric autos are great, but you can't beat well designed rail for energy efficiency (noting that most current American rail systems are not well designed).

Air travel would still happen, but high-speed air travel would be EXPENSIVE, because it would most likely rely on biofuels.  When it comes to biofuels, you can have them sustainable, or you can have them cheap, but you can't have both, because of the fundamental limits on the density of the energy you are harvesting.  Most likely, most air travel would ultimately have to be by airship, which is much slower but can readily by powered by solar energy.

Personally, I see a civilization powered by current solar income being much more calm, tempered, thoughtful, careful, and centered on the needs of people (as opposed to corporations and other "big bodies").  I think it would be a better world to live in.  But it would undoubtedly be a different world, and that in itself is a cause for fear to many (most) people.

My point is: a high-tech civilization supported by current solar income is both possible and desirable, and the vested interests that Amazingdrx points out are definitely one of the things holding us back.  But there are many other factors at play, not the least of which are the limits that living within our energy means would entail, and (more importantly) people's psychological reaction to them.  Bottom line is, it's NEVER" exactly that simple".  And people who have thought about this to the extent that Amazing obviously has should understand this.On Techno-obsession posted 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

Reasons

Well, the obvious reason is cost, and the obvious culprit is solar PV.  In many people's minds "renewable energy" == PV.  And PV is pricey.

The less obvious but probably more real reason is technological maturity.  If you think about it, we have lots of very sophisticated technology that is ubiquitous -- cars, aircraft, computers, whatever -- that are much more complex than a PV module or a windmill.  The difference between a computer chip (complex) and a PV cell (simple) is that the computer technology is mature -- it's been subject to a broad-based, long-term development effort.  Its uses and integration into other systems are relatively well understood.  This makes a big difference when you're trying to penetrate a conservative industry like the power industry with a new technology: if they don't know what to do with it, or what to expect from it, they get scared of it.

Of course, the irony is that the only way a technology ever becomes mature is that it undergoes serious development and enjoys widespread adoption.  So that's a catch-22.

In my opinion, though, the real reason for this phenomenon is one part physics and two parts psychology.
The physics part has to do with energy density.  Solar energy, at a maximum of 1 kilowatt per square meter, is less dense than fossil fuel energy (which is essentially solar energy distilled by time and pressure).  Other forms of renewable energy are able to concentrate the insolation somewhat, e.g. wind.  But it's still hard to compete with oil, at ~6 kilowatt-hours per pound.

The two parts psychology is simply our expectations, which have been set by a recent history of easy, cheap energy in vast quantities.    The thing about renewable energy is that you have to collect it, and its diffuse nature means that the cost of the collection infrastructure is relatively high per unit of supplied energy.  The integrated cost over time is  low, because this infrastructure, once built, will collect alot of energy over its lifetime.  But the immediate payoff per unit investment isn't as good as what we've become accustomed to with fossil fuels.

This reality is immediately obvious to a corporate accountant type who is trying to decide where to invest the company's money.  I think it's also something that's understood, albeit very vaguely, by many members of the public.  And because, as a culture, we have such great faith in technology, the reflex reaction is: oh, it's not very good now, but it'll get better once the technology arrives.

And that's true, to an extent.  And it's happening now, to an extent.  But I don't think we're ever going to get to the point where the technology is getting good enough, fast enough, to support exponential growth in both population and per-capita use/waste of energy.  Which means that a certain degree of disappointment is inevitable.

Don't misunderstand me: I think we can gather enough renewable energy to maintain a good standard of living for ourselves and ultimately for the rest of the world.  But we're not going to gather enough that we can afford to waste 2/3 of it.  We're going to have to change our thinking about energy, about its value, and about how readily we can afford to waste it, before we can hope to satisfy our needs with renewables.On Techno-obsession posted 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

What Adam said

My thoughts exactly.  So exactly, in fact, that it's kind of eerie.  Although I don't know that they need to "sharpen their thinking on policy" so much as they need to be more attuned to how what they are saying is interpreted.

I read the essay in the same way that Adam did; having read N&S's response to NRDC, I see that what I heard initially was not what they intended.  Be that as it may -- and granted that it is hard to communicate subtleties of emphasis without getting totally didactic -- the thing that matters in these essays is not the message that was intended, but the message that was received.
On Ted Nordhaus responds to NRDC's Dave Hawkins posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

not quite

Again, if we immediately start building a bunch of IGCC plants, we will have irrevocably committed to CCS. We will have to make it work, no matter how much public money it costs.

Not quite.  We can also shut down the old, existing coal plants and keep the more efficient IGCC units running.  Of course, we will have to replace the lost generation capacity somehow, but we're going to have to do that one way or another.  In the meantime, those IGCC plants -- which are quite expensive -- will have to compete on a capital cost basis with renewables.  That probably means that relatively more wind, and relatively less coal, get built.

We might, just might, get five or ten years down the road with no net increase in coal generation.  We aren't going to phase out coal entirely, though, for quite some time.  If the plants we build now are IGCC, and we put a cost on carbon, then the incentive  to shut down old coal is relatively greater, even if we don't have CSS.

In the short term, I'm not at all convinced that a total moratorium on coal plants (which is what a CSS requirement is, effectively, at this point) has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming policy.  A requirement for coal to be IGCC might, though.  I'd rather see a policy that handicaps new coal vs. renewables, and improves the overall quality of the coal generation assets, that actually has a chance of happening; rather than a policy which is better environmentally but has no real chance for survival in the political process.

Remember, the ultimate question is not what the candidate promises, but what we think they can actually pull off.On Why Edwards' 'ban' on coal plants does little good against climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

switchgrass to fuel

It can be done now, using the same basic techniques required for coal-to-liquids: gasification, followed by F-T synthesis.  However, the capital costs of BTL are for some reason much higher than for CTL.  So says Robert Rapier, anyway.  I don't know why this would be, although I can speculate: BTL uses the same science at CTL, but the technological details and challenges will be different.  CTL has a big lobby with deep pockets to support it.  BTL does not, so the work hasn't developed to the same level.  But that's a guess.)On Notable quotable posted 2 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

RECs vs. offsets

if renewable power is unavailable in your area -- renewable energy credits or green tags, and (c) buying offsets for your remaining emissions.

I often hear RECs and offsets lumped together in the same category, both by supporters and (more often) by detractors.

There is a difference between them, in how they are generated.  I personally think that this difference translates into a difference in their economic and climate impacts.  Apparently you do as well.

Care to expand on that theme?  In particular, I can see that RECs and much better than tree-based offsets, because RECs go straight to renewable energy (which is relatively easy to quantify and clearly reduces carbon), while tree offsets suck.  However, the difference between RECs and offsets based on renewable energy projects is less clear, and would be the basis for an interesting article, or at least a post.On On how electric utilities should become carbon neutral posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

other works

I'd be happy to know about any work you know of that moves outside the boundaries of neoclassical economics to try to understand economies in a more sustainable manner.

Natural Capitalism.  It's not strictly focused on economics, by any stretch, but there's alot of good stuff there.On A review of Peter Barnes' Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons posted 2 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

Slippery politicians

Mainly I wanted to note that I think Edwards' campaign is being a little slippery -- they mean mandating IGCC but they leave the distinct impression that they're mandating IGCC + CCS.

Yeah, well, being slippery is what he does.  He's a politician, after all.

OTOH, if you believe that his real position is to mandate IGCC, then you could turn this around: he's winning the support of the miner's union based on supporting the continued use of coal, but he's attaching a condition that would make it economically unattractive to do so, but that subtlety is probably lost on the average union worker.

On the gripping hand, Jeff Goodell is right: there are ways, at least in theory, to capture carbon from old-style plants.  So it's important to clarify exactly what Edwards is talking about here.  If he means IGCC + hypothetical future carbon capture, that's at least something.  If he means purely theoretical future carbon capture from any old coal plant, then he's really saying nothing at all, and is just painting green over an old black heart.On How does Edwards' union support mesh with his ambitious climate-change platform? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Oil availability

Of crude + condensates has been declining for two years now.  Total liquids production has been flat since mid 2006.  Abiotic oil, nuclear refining (oh, please!) and Mr. Fusion-is-just-around-the-corner isn't going to going to cut it: We're there now.

Furthermore, there's the net exports problem: when a producing country's production declines at X% per year, and their domestic use grows at Y% per year, the rate of decline of oil available for export (i.e. for the US, etc) declines at greater than the sum of X% + Y%, and that rate of decline accelerates as the years go by (even if the component rates X and Y don't change).  This effect only shows up if the producer in question is already using a significant fraction (more than about 30% IIRC) domestically.  But most of them are, with the exception of a few underdeveloped nations like Nigeria.

Yeah, it's a weird thing and I didn't believe it either.  But it's really easy to set up a spreadsheet and prove it to yourself.On A gaggle of URLs posted 2 years, 2 months ago 24 Responses

Doesn't work that way

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function"
  -- Prof. Albert A. Bartlett

Apparently he was talking to you, Nucbuddy.

We can't supply-side our way out of this.  Certainly not with more fossil fuels.  Run the numbers.On A gaggle of URLs posted 2 years, 2 months ago 24 Responses

Sigh...

Yeah, odo, that is a really unfortunate confusion.  What we're talking about is the end of cheap oil.  The lack of clarity on this issue as peak oil percolates into more widespread awareness does tremendous damage to the idea's credibility, because it turns peak oil into an easily-dismissed straw man.

That said, the end of cheap oil is effectively the end of oil as it has been understood for the last ~100 years, as a linchpin of our economy.  Our relationship with the stuff is going to have to change tremendously.  But that doesn't excuse rhetorical sloppiness. On A gaggle of URLs posted 2 years, 2 months ago 24 Responses

good but not great

Compare to the Energy Star fridge list, which lists volume and annual electricity use.

I recommend the excel version so that you can sort the columns by size or whatever.On Smeg me posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Coal welfare queens

That's a sharp, pointed bit with enough barb to stick under the skin of the free-market rhetoric.  Inasmuch as the conservative public is the most likely to be skeptical of climate change and most likely to support coal (in all its forms) as a path to domestic energy security, the most effective way to reach them may be to emphasize the many levels of subsidies involved.

The Right spent alot of energy demonizing the welfare state.  Let's capitalize on that work, and turn it to our own ends.On Liquid coal coalition gears up to suck from the public teat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Sunflower

Sunflower:  Yes, the story we need to tell is fiction.  There are individuals who are living ecologically-conscious lifestyles, and their stories are being told (though perhaps not enough).  But that is not what I am talking about.  The story we must tell is the story of an ecologically-conscious culture and society, and the story of life within an ecologically-sound technological infrastructure.  What would that look like?  No one knows, because it's never existed.On Fear of death leads to authoritarianism, not sustainability posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Moving forward

So (getting away from philosophy and discussions of human nature): Environmentalists can't effectively motivate people with fear or force, at least not in a good direction.  So what do we do?

We have to offer them a good story, a vision of what a better world looks like.

That's easy to say, and really hard to do.  I know for sure that it doesn't play to my strengths.  I'm not a story-teller, though I may have to become one.

In the meantime, let's look at why it's so hard to do effectively.  There's no question in my mind that we can build a world that is much richer, cleaner, and more just by changing our relationship with nature from one of exploitation to one of cooperation.  But it's very hard to tell a convincing story about that, one that is credible, believable and engaging.

Part of the reason that this is hard, is that it's always hard to write good fiction.  But it's particularly hard to write good fiction that is based on a set of perceptions that most of your audience lacks.

Modern people are very much cut off from nature.  They don't know where water, food, or energy comes from.  Nature and natural forces, and the web of life are strangers to them.  They are much more familiar with and comfortable with technology and human artifacts, because those have been the predominant forces for the last two generations at least.  Note that they don't understand technology, for the most part, nor do they need to.  But they are comfortable with it, and they believe in it.

It seems to me that one of the basic questions that confronts the would-be teller of a green future is this: For an audience that is saturated with technology, and basically unfamiliar with the ways of the natural world, how do we make the idea of a prosperous future based on ecologically-sound choices believable and attractive?On Fear of death leads to authoritarianism, not sustainability posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

David

My point (perhaps poorly made) is that we have alot of illusions about human behavior and decision making, many of them centered around the "rational actor" fallacy.

My point is that adults do act like (stereotypical) children much more of the time than we would like to admit, and that this is simply an aspect of human nature that we have to managed and deal with, rather than deny.

The crack about Americans was neither here nor there.  I didn't actually mean that we are fundamentally less rational than, say, Europeans, though perhaps our internal story is less aligned with reality than that of some other cultures.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that environmentalists, or any other group, are immune to these realities.  Some are perhaps more aware, and thus more able to compensate (and thus act more "grown up" more of the time), but that's a second-order effect at best.  We're all monkeys in the end, and we're each of us less in control of ourselves than we would like to believe.On Fear of death leads to authoritarianism, not sustainability posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Previous link

Rereading my last comment, I see that my description of link to The Happiness Hypothesis could be misinterpreted.

To clarify: The book is not summarizing research in human behavior per se.  Its primary thrust is to examine the validity of 10 "great truths", ideas which appear in similar form in a variety of different world philosophies/religions.

However, the context of this examination is recent research into the psychology and neurophysiology of human behavior.  It is the most readable and yet accurate summary of this research that I know of.  And this, in my mind, is the book's real value to the Gristmill crowd.  It totally demolishes a number of widely and dearly held beliefs about how people make decisions, and how much control each of us really has over our own behavior.  It provides some critical clarity about what really drives behavior, which is critical if we want to present our case in ways that will actually be persuasive.On Fear of death leads to authoritarianism, not sustainability posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Figure out how to not use electricity.

No, we need to figure out how to not need to generate so much electricity (about half is from coal).

Since 2/3 of our primary electric generation energy is wasted in generation and transmission, that shouldn't be so hard.
On MTR activists don't expect progress until the Bush administration is gone posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

For what it's worth

Submit comments on the MTR rule via Environmental Action here.On MTR activists don't expect progress until the Bush administration is gone posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

view from a scientist

I asked a friend of mine, who is a graduate student in behavior neurendicrinology (studying rodents) what she thought of the article.  Here's what she said:

This article does a pretty good job of dealing with a scary topic where not much is known.  In other words, endocrine disruptors are so universally present that it is nearly impossible to know what to blame on them.  The few studies that have been done paint a scary picture, but nobody knows quite what they can cause.  Rise in obsesity?  Diabetes?  For all the things that are on the rise in modern society there are 10 possible explanations and people fighting over which one is the real one.  But there will be many components, and it will take a long time to figure them out.  I won't be the least bit surprised when they figure out ED is responsible for parts of many modern problems, but I don't really know which ones it will be (besides the already demonstrated roles in reproductive changes).

I think one of the things that's hard with endocrine disruptors is it's not clear where one is getting most exposed.  City water?  Plastic packaging? Air quality? Chemicals in food? I've already stopped drinking out of plastic bottles since that's a known source, but I'm not really sure where most people get exposed.  If I did, I'd probably pay more attention to that thing.

You can't have it both ways

As we all know, power corrupts.  And the malfeasance of the Army Corp long predates the Bush Regime.

My opinion:
The reason that we have a corrupt federal government is that we have little citizen engagement.

The reason we have little citizen engagement(aside from the state of perpetual overwork and distraction that characterizes the modern life) is that the federal government is too big, too abstract, and too obtuse for the average person to get engaged with.  In fact, as far as I can tell, much the same problem exists (to a lesser degree) at the state level.  The only place that I have seen the level of citizen engagement required to effectively guard against corruption is at the local level.

The only solution that I see is to take as much power as possible away from the feds and the states, and restore that power to the level of local governance.  Of course, this would make it even more complicated to impose sensible environmental policy, because environmental issues cross political boundaries.  But it's the only way that I can see to restore citizen engagement in the political process: make politics happen on a level where the average citizen can see it, experience it, be involved in it, and influence it.On Reversing Reagan's joke posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Irony

Isn't it ironic that the environmentally conscious speak of "consumers" and "consumer choices" as if they are a monolithic entity, while the rapacious marketing machine has them divided and subdivided into a vast array of "target market segments".  So in a sense, the marketers have put more of a specific human face on the "American consumer" than the greens have.

I realize that this was not the main point of the article, but it was an incidental issue that the article really highlighted for me.On Here comes the science! posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

agreed

Absolutely true.  As with most sustainability questions, the answer to "what is the most ecologically-friendly way to eat?" is "it depends".

That said, I would like to make a couple observations.

Most of the "eat local" buzz I hear is directed at consumer choices, not (yet) at policy.  While reducing energy or carbon is a good target for policy, those elements are usually hidden from the consumer (often deliberately).  So the consumer must, of necessity, look at secondary indicators.  Of those, food miles is far from perfect, but is pretty good if it's applied with some common sense.

Also in the context of "eat local buzz", most of the focus seems to be on vegetables, fruits, and meat.  These are high value products, often perishable, not commodities like grain.  And perishable foods are worth prioritizing for localization, because the energy cost for maintaining a controlled climate during shipment (or warehousing) is substantial.

It's also worth noting that eating locally means local in time, as well as in place, i.e. eating seasonally.  This is obviously easier to do in California than in, say, North Dakota, but it's worth keeping in mind wherever you are.  Possible negative health impacts aside, there is no environmental downside to seasonal eating.

Aside from a few extreme localvores, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should get all their food from nearby.  And many of those more extreme folks are doing what they are doing as a form of personal practice, or to demonstrate that it is possible, rather than as a prescription for others.

Which brings me to my real point: I think the "eat local" movement is, for the most part, at the stage of increasing awareness and getting people to think about what they are eating, rather than just following immediate convenience or advertising.  And in that respect, I think it's an unmitigated good.On Think again posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

embodied energy

But buyers of hybrids especially should know that half of all the energy a car will ever use has already been used by the time you buy it.

Embodied energy is a critically important issue, but I have a really, really hard time believing that it is equal to the gasoline that a car will chew through in its lifetime.  I wonder if this figure is based on the widely-discredited study that "found" that the lifecycle energy impact of hybrids are no better than that of an SUV.On The green cartopia ain't likely to happen posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Huh.

It was interesting how different that was from an ad for American audiences.  It was long, slowly paced, and took a long time to get to the point.  Very different.  I wonder if European television is like that generally.On Wind: YouTube edition posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses

drag

As usual, jabailo is full of **it.  Yes, there are big differences between subsonic, transonic, and  supersonic aerodynamics.  But these differences are a result of the compressibility of air.  As the vehicle travels closer to the speed of sound (i.e. the maximum rate of movement of the air molecules), the effective compressibility of the air changes and shockwaves form (thus sonic booms).  But the speed that a car travels are all firmly in the subsonic realm, whether it's 20 mph or 80 mph.

And, yes, I are a rocket scientist.  (At least, I used to be.)On Airliners are shaped the way they are for a reason posted 2 years, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Gravel

Senator Gravel says that we should tax consumption, rather than income.  In other words, make it cheaper to employ people (the worker gets the same take-home income at less cost to the employer) and make it more expensive to buy crap.  This isn't quite the same as the idea, put forth in Natural Capitalism and other places, of shifting the tax burden away from labor and onto resource use, but it's close.

what's loopy about that?
On Lots of good answers posted 2 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

gardening

We don't till, we sheetmulch.  This was some years ago, back when we were first figuring out what we were doing.  We built beds from compost and we overapplied blood meal (a very high nitrogen source which, unlike most organic but like most artificial fertilizers, is water soluable and thus highly available).  The result was that we burned down a 9" layer of compost to a 3" layer in a couple of months.  I'm attributing it to the fertilizer because I've built similar beds since, with much more modest fertilizer applications, and not had the same effect.  But it could be some other factor -- we're not running a controlled experiment here.

There's also alot of talk in organic circles about how destructive chemical N2 is to the soil, particularly the organic matter content.  But like Tom, I haven't been to Iowa (at all, in my case), so I haven't seen it first-hand.  Thus my question.

nd the corn/soy rotation mimics the composition of native grasses and legumes that were important components of the tall grass prairie.

Incidentally, this is a poor imitation at best.  The tall grass prairie had a high proportion of perennials, which tend to build soil rather than depleting it.  That's why The Land Institute is trying to develop cultivars of perennial grasses.On Philpott on the ground in corn country posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

this is good, even if it's silly

The decision was hailed by animal rights groups for setting a precedent allowing states to protect species that the federal government no longer deems in peril.

This is a victory for state's rights, and the ability of the state to pass laws regulating things that the feds don't see fit to address.  Like, say, GMO foods, for example.

The particular issue at hand seems pretty goofy, but the legal precedent is probably good news.  (But IANAL so YMMV.)On Court upholds ban on kangaroo-hide sneaks posted 2 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses

doomerism

Toby Hemenway (author of Gaia's Garden the best book on gardening ever) has a number of articles on his website that address the question of doomerism vs. optimism.  This one is particularly good.  They are focused on peak oil doom, rather than climate change doom, but many of the points carry over well.On Al Gore does both posted 2 years, 4 months ago 6 Responses

safety valve

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) introduced legislation this month with a "safety valve" that puts a $12 per ton ceiling on the price industries must pay during the program's first year when emitting carbon dioxide. But opposition to that specific approach remains strong among environmentalists and key lawmakers, and Lieberman and Warner are likely to be on the lookout for other ideas.

I'm not sure why enviros have a big problem with this idea.  Practically speaking, it's essential that the price of carbon not go up too quickly right out of the gate.  If it does, they'll rescind the bill rather than let it wreck the economy.  An effective price scheme needs to start low, and ratchet up in a steady and predictable manner.

I think that, in reality, we'll be lucky to get anything that has teeth in the first five years of it's existence.  If the safety valve clause only applies in the first year, I'd be thrilled.On But what will it look like? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

three words

Rabbits are yummy!On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

Rune

We have increased energy efficiency by many orders of magnitude over time, and at each turn the ultimate result is that we find it attractive to use more net energy per period of time doing more things with our energy slaves than was attempted in the past.

Actually, we have not "increased energy efficiency by many orders of magnitude", at least not in this century.  Many orders of magnitude is at least a 1000x improvement, and we haven't seen that.  In most sectors, we've managed at most less than one order of magnitude.

And that matters, I think, because there's a big difference between the impact of a small improvement vs. a big improvement over time.  Small efficiency improvements can (and often do) encourage the perpetuation of the same fundamentally destructive patterns; it let's them continue for longer, but doesn't change the story.  Big improvements (factor 4, factor 10, or better) over a short period of time do allow you to change the story, because they enable fundamental changes that would otherwise not be possible.

For example: If you reduce the energy consumption of an office building by 15%, you reduce power bills, CO2 footprint, etc.  But you're still basically burning the planet to keep your box cool.  You can install solar panels, too, if you want to, but they aren't going to offset most of your usage.

If you reduce the energy consumption by 95% (which is challenging, but technically achievable), it's now possible to change the story.  It becomes possible to power the building from current solar income, which is one of the benchmarks of true sustainability.  This is why radical energy efficiency is fundamentally different from incremental improvements.

contrary to your mechanistic and psychologically and spiritually void analysis, there may well be a lot of value in discussing inevitable or highly probable doom

Ah, sure, if what you want is an emotional support group, then that's great.  If you're actually interested in understanding and solving the problems among a community of people who already understand that we have a problem, then it's not so useful.

It is unfortunate that I am an engineer, and not a storyteller.  I think sometimes that telling the story well is the more difficult and more essential task.  So I do the best I can, but it's less that perfect, and perhaps is seems emotionally and spiritually bereft.  So let's go to the source: Watch this and then tell me if what I am talking about is "psychologically and spiritually void".On How to talk about the future without depressing everyone posted 2 years, 4 months ago 54 Responses

Zonbu

With some amusement, I just realized that JMG himself posted the early article about Zombu.

It's really odd to me that you recognize the potential upside for a product of service like that, and yet claim that economic growth is a sure and certain path to doom.  If Zombu is successful, they will generate economic growth decoupled from increased material and energy consumption.  And isn't that just what we need, to escape from the trap you describe in your comment?On How to talk about the future without depressing everyone posted 2 years, 4 months ago 54 Responses

Designing for nature and humans

I'm going to repeat a comment I made in an earlier thread, which is pertinent to my point #4, above.

Any time one of us is confronted with an apparent conflict between the needs of nature and the needs/wants of humans, it is imperative to step back and consider the fact that this perceived conflict is likely just that: a perception.

If you are faced with this sort of dilemma, try asking the question a different way.  Try looking for ways to serve both groups simultaneously.  If you keep coming up against unresolvable conflict, keep turning the problem over, looking for connections you might have missed.  If ultimately there is no practical solution that supports the needs of both humans and nature, then see if you can think of an impractical solution: i.e. one that perhaps can't be implemented in the current context, but would work under a slightly different set of constraints.  Oftentimes, considering such an impractical solution will lead you to a practical solution.  And even if it doesn't, it's a good mental exercise.

This is an important form of mental discipline for everyone who cares about the environment to cultivate.  We have been so heavily conditioned to assume that we must either ride roughshod over nature, ignore human desires, or reach some kind of lose-lose compromise, that we rarely seriously look for other possibilities.  But the possibilities are there, if we look hard enough.  And learning to see these possibilities takes practice.  We must all become designers.  Start practicing now.On How to talk about the future without depressing everyone posted 2 years, 4 months ago 54 Responses

revenue neutrality is key

I'm pretty sure that revenue neutrality is the only hope for a plan like this.  The only way that I can see the American public supporting a tax on their god-given right to waste energy, is if it comes off their income tax bill (which is probably the most-hated tax in our culture).

Dingell must understand this.  So why isn't he doing it this way?  The obvious assumption is that he is trying to poison the whole idea, but I suspect that the real reason is more subtle and political.On It's not optimal, but he says he's serious about it at least posted 2 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

From the article

In a bid for attention for another of its projects, Planktos said earlier this month it would offset the Vatican's carbon emissions by donating credits from trees being planted in a Hungarian national forest. The company said it would make the Holy See "the world's first carbon-neutral sovereign state."
[...]

Other groups have looked on the company with less indulgence. The Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study, an international research group, said last month that "ocean fertilization will be ineffective and potentially deleterious, and should not be used as a strategy for offsetting CO2 emissions."

Oof.  Terrible pun.  It's particularly bad given the association that has been made between carbon offsets and medieval indulgences.On The new alchemy: Turning iron particles into gelt posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Yeah, and...

This is one of the reason that the various gasoline-replacement fuels are bad news.  Petroleum from oil sands adds about another 20-30% on top of regular gasoline.  If you get your liquid fuel from coal, it's about another 60% (and that's losses in production; it doesn't include the fuel expended mining the stuff).On Why bicycling is 25 percent better than you thought posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

the nature/human conflict

amc89 is quite correct.  It's what I think of as the real Golden Rule: What you do unto others, you (ultimately) do to yourself.

My ultimate point is this: Any time one of us is confronted with an apparent conflict between the needs of nature and the needs/wants of humans, it is imperative to step back and consider the fact that this perceived conflict is likely just that: a perception.

If you are faced with this sort of dilemma, try asking the question a different way.  Try looking for ways to serve both groups simultaneously.  If you keep coming up against unresolvable conflict, keep turning the problem over, looking for connections you might have missed.  If ultimately there is no practical solution that supports the needs of both humans and nature, then see if you can think of an impractical solution: i.e. one that perhaps can't be implemented in the current context, but would work under a slightly different set of constraints.  Oftentimes, considering such an impractical solution will lead you to a practical solution.  And even if it doesn't, it's a good mental exercise.

This is an important form of mental discipline for everyone who cares about the environment to cultivate.  We have been so heavily conditioned to assume that we must either ride roughshod over nature, ignore human desires, or reach some kind of lose-lose compromise, that we rarely seriously look for other possibilities.  But the possibilities are there, if we look hard enough.  And learning to see these possibilities takes practice.  We must all become designers.  Start practicing now.On And a bit of introspection posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

visuals?

I think the dead zone is a little-known (outside of these circles) consequence of industrial agriculture.  One way to make it more accessible to people would be through visual aids.  How about a map or image showing the projected size of the dead zone and/or the size of previous years' zones?

Pictures like this one are powerful.On Thanks in part to that 'green' fuel, corn-based ethanol posted 2 years, 4 months ago 32 Responses

Because

Because executives who purchase multi-(hundreds)$million aircraft make their decisions based on rational metrics like operating cost.  American consumers do not.On Boeing's new Dreamliner plane boasts increased fuel efficiency posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Right then

This is what we've been waiting for.  So why am I getting any email from MoveOn about any subject at all other than this proposal?!

Priorities, people...On He proposes a carbon tax, assuming it will fail posted 2 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

German workers

Do those figures (for the US) include the cost of healthcare?  If so, then the Germans are WAY ahead of the game, because their compensation figures presumably do NOT include healthcare, if it is paid by the state.On Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

Duh

I have a number of friends who are university biologists, and some of them work in genetic engineering (of bacteria, for research).  To them, the idea of non-separable, non-isolated genes falls firmly in the category of what I like to call "the science of No Duh!".  It seems to be widely understood among scientists that the model we have of genetics is broken. However, it's the only model we have, and it sort of works much of the time.  So the publication record supports it, engineers use it, and non-technical folks readily believe that it describes what's really going on.On Why we may one day bitterly regret GM crops posted 2 years, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Natural gas abundance

I second Colin's question: It is my understanding that the general consensus is that North American natural gas production has peaked, but it's not a subject that I have personally researched.

And I concur that it is an important question.  We will need fossil fuels through the transition, and we're going to be much better off with gas than with coal.  If Monbiot is right, and we have to stop using fossil fuels NOW to survive... Well, then we might as well all party, because we're toast.On Parsing 15 years of electric data posted 2 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

JMG

Not to split hairs, but I think that Sean's statement that simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward. would be more precisely stated as "these investments have always been the way that the science  moves forward, and that science is what drives and permits technological development."  Stated that way, he's largely correct, at least for the last 200 years or so.

Most of your counterexamples are, in fact, technological developments.  The scientific advancements on your list were, for the most part, accomplished back in the day of the gentleman scientist, which unfortunately no longer really exists.On Voters like it, but how to do it well? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Apollo

If the initial goal was to enable us to colonize space and/or create a business case to do so, the Apollo program is a colossal failure.  But if we simply say that the goal was research for research's sake, with the hope - but not the promise - that something good will result

In reality (as I suspect we all already know), the goal of the Apollo program was none of the above: it was to beat the USSR and establish American dominance.

What is less well known is that the Apollo program not only failed to establish a business case for space exploration, it actually damaged that possibility.  NASA was working on a reusable spaceplane that, had it succeeded, would have established the first critical precondition for space development: cheap access to orbit.  But there was no way that it was going to come together in time to win the "space race".  So that approach was dropped (with the X-15 being the last major project in that direction), in favor of big, dumb, throwaway boosters.  (Which are, incidentally, great for launching warheads, but lousy for cheap space access.)  NASA got an enormous infusion of resources and became huge overnight.  But when the race was run and Apollo was shut down, NASA became a huge bureaucracy with no clear mission, except to perpetuate its own existence.  And American rocket engineers were left with this huge body of experience with throwaway rockets, rather than reusable spaceplanes.

I mention this because it illustrates one of the potential dangers of government intervention, and particularly crash programs.  Of course, the program did what it was supposed to do, but it severely retarded our long-term prospects in space.

It makes me wonder what the unintended consequences would be if the Apollo Alliance does succeed in motivating a program of similar magnitude...
On Voters like it, but how to do it well? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

How to...

So how can we design policy that invests in the transition to a new energy economy, in a way that tangibly benefits (or at least impresses) voters, without it becoming nothing more than corporate welfare?

Fund demand-side solutions, rather than supply-side solutions.  Demand reduction measures are necessarily more distributed, so the benefits (both the energy savings, and the taxpayer largess) get spread around more.On Voters like it, but how to do it well? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

stupid consumers = stupid media

Dana Milbank speaks of the burden of having to listen to an erudite speaker drone on. Far more refreshing and relaxing to listen to the malapropisms that come tumbling out of Bush's mouth, perfectly reflecting the dysfunction and chaos behind his dull eyes.

This gets at an issue that is, to me, one of the most difficult conundrums of a free society.

We have a free (as in speech) press.  But there is no such thing as a free (as in beer) press.  So the media is run by corporations, and they want to make a profit, and they do this by providing goods that the market will pay for.  In this case, the good is information, but the most profitable information is not the most useful information.  People will pay to be entertained, and will pay for perspectives that reinforce their existing beliefs.  The media conglomerates respond to this.

I have no doubt that there is a degree of corporate agenda-setting that influences the media.  But at the end of the day, if the media companies are providing what the consumer wants, they prosper; if they don't, they fail.  The problem is, what the media consumer wants, and what they need (in order to be effective citizens of a democracy) are not the same thing.

I really don't see any good resolution to this, other than to have a educated, engaged citizenry (and wouldn't that be nice; I'd like a personal immortality too, while we're dreaming).  But as long as we have a market that demands pandering, drivel, and stupidity, that's what we'll get, and no amount of regulation, anti-trust action, or other forms of regulatory or legislative tinkering will change that fundamental reality.On Remember when stupidity was something to be ashamed of rather than a point of pride? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Yeah^3

I also completely agree with you, Sean.  Frankly  (and not to diminish the importance of what you are saying, or the fact that you're saying it) it's pretty damn obvious to anyone who works in the energy industry.  (I think most supporters of renewable energy understand that the big barrier to adoption is the unlevel playing field; they focus on getting subsidies for their technologies because it is perceived to be easier than eliminating the other guy's subsidies.)

But all this begs the question: If it's so obvious, why has this particular meme been so long in coming, and been so hard to propagate?  I can think of a few reasons, but I'd like to hear what you think the primary barriers are, and how we might overcome them.On Don't call it a subsidy posted 2 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

spirit and matter

To me, the meaning of "respecting the relationship between spirit and matter" is a matter of acknowledging Einstein's dictum that "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Spiritual matters are hard for designers to grapple with, and in our techno-reductionist perspective, we are often tempted to dismiss those things we we know on some level are important but cannot easily fit into our preferred framework for knowledge.  McDonough is saying, basically: Don't do that.On File under: dubious accomplishments posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Grrr

For some reason, the embedded Youtube isn't coming through.  Here's a link instead.On File under: dubious accomplishments posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

levers?

Is there any effective way for the public to lobby Peterson and Harkin if you don't happen to live in their district.  Obviously, we can send letters, but is that a waste of time for non-constituents?On Now is the time to harangue your reps about farm and food policy. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

McDonough video

Yay!  I actually was the one that ripped that video from tape and encoded it.  I didn't put it on YouTube, though (it wouldn't take it, the time I tried).  I'm really pleased to see that it's making the rounds.On That's what his support for CTL shows posted 2 years, 6 months ago 74 Responses

nature of the hazard

So the first question I have is whether the danger is one of chemical toxicity or is more "mechanical" in nature?  If it's a chemical interaction, then there's a strong basis for banning the stuff altogether.  However, the problem might be more like silicosis or asbestosis.  Those are problems caused by inflammation due to small particles lodged in the lungs.  If the raw diacetyl is a fine powder, say, then the problem might really be just confined to the factory, rather than posing a chronic low-level hazard to the consumer.On Orville Redenbacher must be stopped posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Yup

The conversion you ask for is fairly straightforward, but I don't have time right now to run down all the numbers.  Maybe I'll do it later if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

From a GHG perspective, this is likely a pretty decent deal: for each unit of methane thus generated, not only do you offset the burning of an equivalent amount of natural gas, but you render that methane into CO2, which has 1/22 as much GWP as the methane.  (That's assuming that the manure decomposing under natural conditions, would produce a similar amount of methane, just over a longer period of time.  That may not be a correct assumption.)

I agree, though, that this is a highly suspect bill.  For one thing, it really favors CAFO production methods over free range grazing.  (On the other hand, I know that the Strauss dairy in Marin County has a methane digester and generator that produces a surprising amount of electricity, and they are a free range operation.  So it can be done.)

A better bill would provide a more substantial one-time tax credit (or even a rebate) for the construction of the facilities.  The amount of the incentive would be proportional to the design capacity of the facility, and would be contingent upon measured production at a reasonable percentage of design capacity over a period of at least a year.  That way, you're encouraging the switch from open manure ponds to close biodigesters (which are a good idea, even if you just flare the gas) without actually distorting the price of the fossil fuels.On A bill to subsidize making biogas from cow manure posted 2 years, 6 months ago 26 Responses

small government

for conservatives, the size and power of the government is an ideological matter; shrinking the gov't is a goal in and of itself.

Judging by their actions, the dominant conservative agenda is to grow the size and power of the government, particularly the executive branch.  By repeating statements like this one, David is accepting a false frame.

But there is clearly a component of the conservative movement, the part that is more closely aligned with the libertarians than the authoritarians, for whom this statement is true.  And in that, they follow in the footsteps of those early American statesmen who understood that the government that governed best was the government that governed least.

There is a legitimate reason to prefer a small government, and to view with skepticism solutions that rely on expansion of its powers.  The reason is very simple: The government is nothing more, and nothing less, than the institution sanctioned by society to initiate the use of force in resolving conflicts.

The military, the police, the courts, and the tax system are all functions that are grounded firmly in the ability to coerce and control.  By association, most other government functions, including welfare and environmental regulations, also rely on the government's ability to coerce.  These are necessary and useful functions, but they do ultimately emanate from the barrel of a gun.  As such, they present a potential danger of corrupt power run amok, one much be weighed against the intended good that these functions provide.

I am not advocating anarchy, and I am not advocating that we shrink the government into irrelevance.  I certainly don't support the neocon agenda of "starving the beast" through tax cuts -- the failure mode in that case is not a graceful one.  I am simply saying that government regulation is a very powerful tool, one which should be used judiciously and with caution.  We should not eschew it, but neither should it be the first place we look for solutions.  Governments throughout history -- even nominally democratic ones -- have abused the power they have held, in proportion to the amount of power they have held.  In that sense, the conservative fear of "big government" is well founded and worthy of consideration by progressives.

Just because "they" are the "opposition" does not mean that they don't have a point.  (Although, as I noted, they are enormously hypocritical about practicing what they preach.)On It's not an alternative, it's a subset posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Background

And I am perfectly willing to believe everything you say here is true, David.  Nevertheless, without the full background, and without Inslee being able to produce specific evidence of malfeasance on this issue, he still comes across as a bully.  For whatever that's worth.On A smackdown in Congress posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Zacaroni

If you read my comment carefully, you will realize that I am not saying that green ideology and libertarianism ideology are opposed.  Libertarian ideology correctly interpreted does not conflict with green ideology.

Unfortunately, the reality is that 90% of the Libertarians I have met (including myself, once upon a time), and ALL of the prominent Libertarian thinktanks, are firmly stuck in the mindset that environmental protection is (a) not a priority and (b) conflicts with their values (personal freedom and economic prosperity).  It is a most unfortunate form of blindness, but it is quite consistent in my experience.

If you can offer up counterexamples, I'd love to hear them.  As far as I know, John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) is the only prominent Libertarian to take what I would consider to be a reasonable "green libertarian" position.  And I know that he has taken alot of heat from the Party "mainstream" for his views.On Technoscientific and ... not posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

and there's already a business model around it

EpridaOn Charcoal carbon sequestration -- birth of a new CO2 removal wedge? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

But

You're a scientist.  We can't have you running things!

:)On Technoscientific and ... not posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

Both

It's very clear that the solution has to come from both individual action/motivation and changes to industry/infrastructure.  It's a false dichotomy to claim that it's one or the other, but it's a useful division to make, because they are distinctly different things with distinct dynamics.  Thing is, they feed back on each other.

Brown is right: there is no point in people feeling guilty about their unavoidably destructive lives.  They should feel bad, and act to change, those aspects of their lives that are both grossly and avoidably destructive.  But beyond a certain point, there is very little that an individual can do to eliminate their negative impacts.  The critical changes have to come from industry and the infrastructure.  However, those bodies will only respond to pressure from large numbers of individuals.  That pressure can be political, economic, and and philosophical.  That's why CFLs and Prius sales are so important: green consumer products will not save us.  But successful green consumer products will:

1. Change the perception of what is politically feasible.
   
2. Place pressure on industry to respond to market demand by becoming more green.
   
3. Change people's consciousness, awareness, and focus of attention.  If people are getting excited about, and paying attention to, energy conservation instead of (or in addition to) American Idol, that makes an enormous difference.

Scientific reductionism is a powerful tool, that has made technological society possible.  But it has also done great damage to our thinking, but training us to focus on small, tractable, static systems and ignore the complex dynamics of interaction.  This is a terribly dangerous error, and it's overwhelmingly common, even within the green community (as much of this thread demonstrates).

Nature is all about dynamics, feedback loops, and relationships between elements.  It's the same thing here.On Technoscientific and ... not posted 2 years, 6 months ago 35 Responses

the difference

As an industry, information technology accounts for 2 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, placing it in the same club as the aviation industry.

However, unlike the aviation industry, the IT industry has the potential to reduce these contributions by an order of magnitude or more.  The industry has developed very quickly, such that future costs are heavily discounted (even more so than in our culture generally).  The premium has been on deploying new capability right now, and to hell with the long-term costs.

That seems to be starting to change, and there are many opportunities for energy savings, both in computer hardware design and data center design.  RMI published a thorough (though now slightly outdated) book on the subject.

Airlines, on the other hand, are up against basic physics.  Drag goes as the square of velocity, so you can be fast, or you can be low-impact, but it's fundamentally hard to do both.  There is room for incremental improvement, certainly, but an order of magnitude improvement is probably not physically possible without changing approach (e.g. switching to airships).On Information technology accounts for 2 percent of world's CO2 emmissions posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

chill out, drx

"Traitor" is a strong charge, which should carry a correspondingly high standard of evidence.  Having a difference of opinion, even about a very serious subject, is not grounds for such accusations.

I happen to think that Brand and Lovelocke are dead wrong, but not necessarily for their position on nuclear power.  I don't like nukes, personally, but I recognize that the subject is extremely complex and I don't have enough information to perfectly evaluate whether it is an appropriate and/or necessary part of the solution.

Brand and Lovelocke are wrong because they have taken an extreme position supporting a single technology as a solution to our energy and climate problems.  Any problem this complex will have a solution that is correspondingly complex, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.  But that alone is not grounds for excommunication.

Now, if you can find the paper trail showing that they have taken money or other favors from interest groups to lend their reputations in support of bad ideas, then fine: call them traitors, whores, sell-outs, or whatever.  Or call them Patrick Moore, if you wish.

But a difference of opinion is not a sound basis for accusations of treason.  It's long past time that the green movement understood this.On What was it like 430 million years ago posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Al Gore had no impact...

Pangolin, what planet are you posting from?  Clearly it's not the same one I am sitting on.On Is the starfish story really just bunk? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 19 Responses

tico

It depends on the bulb's color temperature.  The commonest types are on either end of the range:
2700K bulbs tend to be warmer, but have a red or yellow tinge that I find unattractive.
5500-6500K bulbs are the ones that give a "cold, white" light.

I like bulbs in the 3000K-3500K range.  Unfortunately, they are generally hard to find.On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

the other half of the discussion

In the thread on the "I got mine school of environmental leadership," a number of people said in a number of ways that my calling attention to this one thing -- jet travel by a handful of enviros attending an outdoor leadership school -- was counterproductive or just plain stupid, because the impact of that travel is trivial compared to other negatives affecting climate.

Well, that was one line of argument from that thread.

The other line of argument is that the benefit to the environment (in terms of raised consciousness, awareness and motivation) offsets the environmental harm.  There's alot of power in that perspective, and its one that you seem to have entirely ignored.On Is the starfish story really just bunk? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 19 Responses

Brands?

Can people who have used CFLs, and are happy with them, post information about the bulbs they like?  In particular, manufacturer and color temperature (if known).

Personally I am using TCP (Technical Consumer Products) bulbs.  I am moderately happy with them.  They start up instantly and warm up fast, but they are prone to humming, especially in multi-bulb fixtures.  The main thing I like about them is that I can get them in my preferred color temps (3100K - 3500K), though I had to special order them.

I have used TCP bulbs before, and been happier with them in the past.  This latest batch has a slightly different shape, and appears to be of lower quality overall: I'm guessing that they switched to a different factory (probably in China somewhere) and/or a different design, producing a lower quality product more cheaply.  Next time, I'll try something else.

A couple of side notes:  A prominent architectural lighting designer of my acquaintance has told me that the straight-tube CFLs are superior to the spiral CFLs, because the straight tubes allow for more even vaporization and distribution of the mercury.  Ideally, these bulbs are mounted nearly horizontal, with the tubes pointing slightly down, to facilitate the mercury vapor distribution.

He says that spiral CFLs tend to burn out faster because the gas distribution isn't as good.  And that matches my experience, with spiral bulbs turning black near the base, before they burn out entirely.

This same fellow recommends GE CFLs.  I haven't tried them yet, but I will the next time I have to change out my bulbs.On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

oops

$50/lb would break the economy in a hurry!  I meant to say $50/ton, a bit under $0.03/lbOn Why we should ban compressed chemical dusters posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

global warming potential

As noted on the wikipedia link above, the GWP of HFC-134 is 3,300 on a 20 year timescale, but only 1300 on a 100-year timescale, because it has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere (~14 years).  For what it's worth, the LEED system uses the 100-year number.

But HFC-152 is still a much better deal, with a lifetime of ~1.4 years and a 100-year GWP of 120.On Why we should ban compressed chemical dusters posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

impacts

It turned out to be pretty much what I assumed -- a biofuel mimic of existing schemes like USDA Organic, LEED, Forest Stewardship, the EPA green vehicle guide, and shade grown coffee certification.

[...]

All the above programs combined have barely made a measurable dent in the unsustainable juggernaut consuming the planet's biodiversity and resources.

Not true, at least with regards to LEED.  LEED has, in less than 10 years, jumpstarted a revolution in the building industry (one of the most staid and conservative industries in existence).  LEED rated buildings are a small fraction of buildings now being built, but that's not the point.  By creating an objective (albeit imperfect, but evolving) standard for assessing the greeness of a building, they have created a demand that has moved into the mainstream services and products that were essentially unknown a decade ago.

Compare an issue of ASHRAE Journal, or Construction Specifier, from a decade ago with an issue now.  The advertising content and the articles both reflect a huge shift in consciousness.  Yes, a good bit of it is greenwashing.  Yes, it is absolutely not enough.  Yes, even LEED Platinum buildings are not sustainable (although LEED has set the stage for a truly sustainable building standard to be developed).

It's not enough.  But it's something.  It's alot, in fact, relative to where we were a short time ago.  Don't be so quick to dismiss it.On Biofuel rating system may be premature posted 2 years, 7 months ago 24 Responses

getting rid of it

until someone figures out how to neutralize HFC-134a (doesn't seem too likely, does it?).

I know that freon (the old ozone-depleting CFC) is required by law to be captured when servicing the A/C system of a car.  Apparently those rules apply to the HCFCs too.  What happens to it then is unclear.  Likely it can be filtered and dewatered and returned to service.

So there is probably a way to dispose of it without releasing it, though you might have a tough time convincing them to take seriously such a small quantity of the material.
On Why we should ban compressed chemical dusters posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

Doing harm while doing good

At some point, people who profess concern for the environment have to stop helping to screw it up in the name of consciousness raising.

As I'm sure you are all aware, it's quite thoroughly impossible to participate in modern society without externalizing costs and ecological damage left, right, and center.

You can minimize your personal contribution, of course.  But once you have eliminated major systematic contributions, like daily car commuting or a 3-meals-a-day McDonalds habit, such efforts become an exercise in making a very, very small contribution to the problem ever so slightly smaller.  In the meantime, we each have to live our lives, do our work, and keep ourselves sane and happy enough to be functional in the midst of a world going mad.

The (il)logical extension of the principle I quoted above would have those who are most concerned about the environment undertake a lifestyle of minimum negative impact, which in the context of our current infrastructure equates to minimum activity, minimum travel, minimum communication, and minimum participation in the mainstream society that we are trying to change.

In the meantime, the world continues on its merry way, destroying itself microscopically less quickly thanks to the silent sacrifice of the eco-hermits.

Personally, I think that it is far more important to make as much positive impact as possible, whether that's on the design of infrastructure (my work) or the way that people think about the natural world (NOLS's approach).  If this activity  leads to a greater-than-minimum negative impact, that's acceptable (within reason).

If anything is going to save us, it will be the positive impacts of caring and involved activists (using the term very broadly).  Those impacts will include persuading mainstream citizens to reduce their own most egregious impacts.  But arguing that the first duty of every environmentalist is to make their personal impacts an absolute minimum is a good way to get tied up in irrelevancies.  It also sounds very much like the "hair shirt" school of environmentalism, the problems of which have been discussed at length elsewhere in Gristmill.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

Web of life

I try to make a point of engaging environmental skeptics whenever I can.  It's a good way to hone arguments and to understand the opposition.  Yes, I am a glutton for punishment, why do you ask? :)

Note that by "skeptic", I don't mean "global warming skeptic".  I mean someone who is skeptical that we have cause for any sort of environmental concern, who either believes that we are not damaging the ecosphere, or that it doesn't have any ramifications for the future of humanity.

I know that this is a hard perspective to wrap one's head around, for those of us who live with environmental bad news day after day.  But I can see where it comes from.  Until recently, environmental issues were not front-page news in the US, and even now those headlines are all about global warming, which is a uniquely difficult issue.  Someone who doesn't seek out news about the environment, and who has an ideological or economic stake in believing that environmental concerns in general are overblown, can readily delude themselves into thinking that we do not, in fact, have a crisis of planetary health on our hands.

Stories like this are compelling, especially when they are supported by publications in reputable scientific literature.  But to really get an appreciation for the state of the world, one has to be exposed to many such stories, until one realizes that this is not a case of a few isolated crises, but part of a larger fabric of devastation.  I have certainly run across a large number of such stories over the course of time, as we all have.  But it's hard to transmit the gestalt experience of that knowledge to a skeptic, because the stories are not all assembled in one place.

So, my point: I would really like to see a repository of good, high-quality scientific results (or stories backed by published science) that highlight two points:

1. Anthropogenic environmental destruction is widespread and systemic.
   
2. In many cases, it has clear negative implications for humanity's future prosperity.

Yep

I run into this all the time.  I'm subject to it some of the time, but I do try to keep the urge under control. :)

Certainly this tropism is partially because it's much more pleasant to consider a technological solution than a behavioral one.  Even if one personally would rather see our culture change its ways, it's easier to believe that we will accept a tech solution than one that requires us to act differently.  It's easy to be optimistic about technology.  It's hard to be optimistic about people getting a clue.

However, I think there's another reason why technology keeps creeping into these discussions, and yet is such a persistent red herring.  Technology is a piece of the puzzle, without doubt.  But the real key is how we apply the technology.  Technical practitioners must develop a design philosophy grounded in cooperation with and respect for natural forces, as outlined by Bill McDonough and also by the permaculture movement.

Since the solution is not purely technological, but is technology-related (in application and design), discussions of technology will never be far from the conversation.  But they shouldn't be the centerpiece.On The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

So

If they succeed, the big producers will make worse chocolate, using less cocoa.  Thus they will purchase less cut-rate chocolate from exploited farmers, and their product quality will suffer.

In the meantime, the premium chocolate companies will probably capture more market share, as the difference between their products and the mass produced crap becomes more obvious, and thus the demand for good quality, carefully grown chocolate will increase.

What's the downside here?On ADM gets its filthy paws on an immaculate confection posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

No comment possible

You do realize, I hope, that you have pre=emptively killed the discussion by violating Godwin's Law. :)On Mitt Romney (R) endorses Hitler's energy policy!!1! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Hehe

If AEI wants to support Grist, that's great. It's not like they're going to persuade any of your regular readers.On AEI brings us the good news on climate posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

ivory

The logic behind a blanket ban is to eliminate the trade in "legal" ivory, which exceeds the actual legal ivory harvest by a couple of orders of magnitude.  A better method would be to institute a supply chain tracking system for legal ivory, and assume that anyone without the proper paperwork is trading illegally.  Of course, that requires money for enforcement.  On the other hand, so does a blanket ban.

I don't think it's a good idea, either, but that's the logic behind it.  It's not completely stupid.On Controversy in Kenya posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

market adjustments

In later years corn production will increase to meet demand as in all markets.

Except that that production will come at the cost of production of other grain products.  And with an enormous ecological price tag as well.  Corn is one of the worst food crops in terms of impact per acre.  The last thing we want to do is grow still more of it.On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

Trees

To paraphrase McDonough's commentary about efficiency: when looking at a cherry tree, the "efficient" designer asks "How many blossoms does it take?" and would suggest that Mozart would be more efficiently performed by hitting the piano with a 2x4, so that you get all the notes at the same time.

Efficiency is an entirely context-dependent measurement.  And if the context does not consider the actual desired outcome, then being efficient becomes counterproductive.On Indirect greenhouse-gas savings posted 2 years, 7 months ago 41 Responses

Google's working on it too

They're just being alot quieter about their environmental initiatives.  Not sure why; I agree that it's odd.On Yahoo! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses

gah!

That last line is a stub of another piece of writing.  Please ignore.On Good framing from Friedman posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

odograph,

Where did you get those numbers from?

I wonder how those numbers shift for food that has to be refrigerated.  I suspect that local suddenly becomes a whole lot more important, from an energy point of view with fresh/perishable foods.  Never mind nutrition and taste.

But, yeah, grain and such should be grown where it makes ecological sense to do so and moved to market in bulk.

There's another aspect to the concept of local food that isn't often explicitly addressed: Many conventional foods, especially processed ones, make multiple trips from farm, to processing center, to factory, distribution center, and back to the consumer.  I have, no kidding, in California bought a bottle of crushed garlic that was grown in California, processed in Florida, and then shipped back to the store in California.  That's just dumb.  Buying local doesn't always have equal impact, depending on the food involved, but it is an effective means of boycotting the infrastructure that incorporates so much senseless extra shipping.On Good framing from Friedman posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

funny

I searched on John A Bailo and followed the second hit.

LOL!

It looks like some online communities are less tolerant than Grist of jabailo's time wasting and trollishness.On A reintroduction posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

*chuckle*

I like your style, David.On Good framing from Friedman posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

Well

They article doesn't supply detail, but the smart way to build a system like this would be to use the solar troughs to pre-heat the working fluid, before sending it to the gas boiler.  Since heat transfer is a function of temperature differential, you'll get more useful heating from the solar concentrator -- which probably has a lower working temp than the natural gas fire -- by starting with a cool fluid.

The 50MW solar figure is no doubt a peak output rating for an average day.  But it will get higher than that, on some days.  So the plant may be able to produce more than 10% of its power from solar energy, when all is said and done.  And perhaps once they get comfortable with the solar system, they'll expand it.  Gods know they have the solar resource.

Another way of looking at this is to think of it as a solar peaker plant: output goes up (or gas consumption goes down) on hot sunny days, when you need it most.

And I'd rather they build natural gas infrastructure than oil or coal.  Oil is peaking, and coal is evil.  Natural gas is peaking domestically, but you can produce a pretty decent substitute from anaerobic digestion of various wastes.On Hybrid power plant posted 2 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

multiple vs. single causes

Modern bee colonies are under alot of stress from a bunch of different directions: several varieties of mites, fungus, africanized competitors, climate change, and being moved all over the country increasingly often.

Cell phones may be contributing to the problem, but it seems likely that they are, at most, just one more stress on an already stressed system.  It's possible, but I think unlikely, that the problem is attributable to a single cause.  But that won't stop people from looking for single causes, and overlooking the gestalt impacts of multiple stressors.On Is the information age killing off honeybees? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 17 Responses

California experience

Yeah, something kind of like this happened with the California Solar Initiative, the new/current rebate program.

There was already a rebate program in place, but it was unsteady, because it required reauthorization of funds every year or two.  Then there was a bill called SB-1, which would have created a 10-year declining-schedule rebate program.  It had great public support, and the Governator was prepared to sign it.  But the IBEW (electrician's union) decided that it had to die (for reasons that are still unclear to me).  They arranged for the 11-hour insertion of a "poison pill" measure, requiring union labor on PV installations (union rate is about 3x the standard, non-union PV installer's rate, and significantly more than I make per hour as an engineer).  The bill would have killed the economics of solar, had it passed, so it died in the legislature.

But the popular support for solar was so strong that the Public Utilities Commission, essentially by fiat, created a 10 year rebate program on the SB-1 model and called it the California Solar Initiative.  This is something they would not have dared do, except that everyone wanted SB-1 to pass except for a few special interests.

(As an afterword, the bill was reintroduced in the next session, with the objectionable measure removed, and it passed cleanly.  This was necessary because the CSI was able to implement most, but not all, of SB-1's features, due to limits on the power of the PUC.)On Ahh, democracy posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

global threats

also don't forget that technological society, aka the western world, is consuming the lion's share of the world's energy and resources!

Like I could forget.  Even for a moment.

My point is that simple environmental sustainability isn't enough.  There is no such thing as sustainability, over the long term, without a stable population.  We need to achieve global prosperity, sustainably.On Somehow, I don't feel that bad for you posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

TV for birth control

My comment was partly joking, partly serious.  The decline in fertility in developed countries is documented, but the reasons for it are not so clear.  Certainly education is part of it.  Empowerment of women, and access to birth control, is also huge.  But the choice to breed is famously not a decision that many people make rationally.  I suspect that there are other factors at play here, specifically that life in a technological society give provides forms of entertainment besides the ancient standby, and forms of personal fulfillment beyond raising children.  I can't prove that, of course, and didn't mean to imply that I could.

The take-home point is that prosperity is good for population control over the long term (and that appears to be demonstrably the case, though we do not understand the mechanism).On Somehow, I don't feel that bad for you posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

Mmimika

The key for me was when I realized that there were effective solutions that didn't involve returning to a 7th Century lifestyle.  Check out the bibliography and the video linked from my blog profile.  Try to get your your dad to read some of that, and make sure he watches the McDonough video.On Somehow, I don't feel that bad for you posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

population

Of course one of the biggest environmental pressures is overpopulation. I don't understand why people don't talk about that more.

Mostly, I think, because acknowledging overpopulation as a problem strikes directly at a very powerful, biologically programmed drive to reproduce.  If humans (and other animals) did not have the drive to breed under even (or especially) the most horrible circumstances, we would not have survived this long.  But now that we have achieved technology and effective world dominion, that same impulse may yet kill us, if we don't learn how to manage or control it.

The other, possibly closely related reason, is that for most people, accepting that overpopulation is a problem is tantamount to accepting that coercive population controls are inevitable.  That's simply unacceptable to most people, so they don't go there.

Personally, I find the idea of the government deciding who can breed horrific.  Granted, there are lots of people who are parents who should not be.  But who/how do you make that sort of decision in a remotely just and fair fashion?

Fortunately, I don't think it's ultimately necessary.  Coercive measures are one approach.  The other way to reduce fertility is to urbanize people and introduce television (and other distractions), and a high standard of living generally.  Of course, doing it this way requires prosperity and a technological culture.  If we lose that, coercive measures (and starvation) will be the only options left.  Ugh.
On Somehow, I don't feel that bad for you posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

Stephanie

As GreyFlcn already noted, the overarching problem is not related to the oil/gas industry at all: they just happen to be offering one of the high risk/high pay options.  One might argue that the safety standards are lax, or are being ignored.  This may or may not be true, relative to other jobs of that sort in our culture.  I'm personally agnostic on that question -- I just don't know.

But I think it's important for folks in our culture to remember that there's getting screwed, and then there's getting screwed.  The worst injustices that we permit to be inflicted on our own people are nothing to the injustices we actively inflict on people in developing countries in the process of pursuing our lifestyle.On Roughnecks have it really rough posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

Jabailo

S/He posts all the time, rarely adding anything meaningful.  As long as he's ignored, he's harmless, but if you pay attention to him, he will sidetrack the discussion completely.

The only thing I can't figure out is whether he's a paid shill, or just gets off on being annoying.On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

Thanks Lawrence

Unfortunately, you're replying to someone who has a demonstrated record of ignoring information inconvenient to his position.  But the rest of us do appreciate the reality check.On Trains are the forgotten mode of transport, at least in the U.S. posted 2 years, 7 months ago 52 Responses

ahem

cost, time, and comfort are all maximized up in the air.

Spoken like a not-tall person.

As a side note, does anyone have any figures for the level of subsidy received by Amtrack, vs. the level of subsidy received by the airlines in this country?  Please include subsidies associated with airport operations, IER waivers, and airline bailouts.On Trains are the forgotten mode of transport, at least in the U.S. posted 2 years, 7 months ago 52 Responses

question for Samuel and Stephanie

Although organic agriculture is still only a small percentage of the total, my sense is that it is on the verge of taking off and really entering the mainstream (e.g. Walmart, CostCo).

While organic's roots are with the sustainable agriculture movement, it's current legal definition essentially means farming without inputs of synthetic chemicals, fertilizers, or antibiotics.  My perspective is that, while that limited definition is very far from being "sustainable", it's an immense improvement over current practice.  That being the case, I think the cause of sustainable agriculture might be best served by a two-pronged approach:

1. Accept that "organic" != "sustainable" agriculture, but that it's far better than conventional ag.  Defend the current standards from dilution while encouraging the mainstreaming of that sort of ag practice.  Stop trying to force "organic" to be a much higher standard than it currently is (that is, fight to maintain its integrity, but don't try to make it something it's not).

2. Develop a new term and a new standard that looks at sustainable agriculture from a much broader perspective, explicitly including soil, water and energy conservation, social justice issues, and possibly localism as well.  That then becomes the fringe-edgy-foodie-radical standard that organic was, back when it was first getting going.

I don't think there's any way that our agricultural system is going to make the leap straight from current practice to true sustainability.  But if organic becomes the new conventional, and truly sustainable farming becomes the new organic, that looks to me like a potential path to a real sustainable ag system over the long term.On Organic coffee deep-sixed posted 2 years, 7 months ago 40 Responses

question for Samuel

The linked article suggests that "organic coffee" == "shade grown coffee".

Is that:

1. Always or usually true?
   
2. Required by the regulatory definition of organic coffee?
   
3. Required by the practical necessity of cultivating that particular crop without chemicals?

watch out!

Hey, jabailo, you couldn't be a little bit more vague could you?

Don't tempt him.  He might spontaneously generate a black hole of vagueness, which sucks in all sense and spits it out in some other universe.

The really tough thing, of course, would be figuring out where the damn thing is. :)On How can 3 percent be important? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 22 Responses

the problem

Actually, to be precise, we have two problems: Energy capture, and energy storage.  And the energy capture problem is really a matter of capturing high quality energy (electricity or high-temperature heat) that is useful for something.  Capturing low-grade heat is, of course, so easy as to be unavoidable.On A cool video posted 2 years, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Green buildings, green clients

Spaceshaper, you are absolutely right.  The first and mo