Comments Bob Wallace has made

Pompey...

We all live on this planet.  An "America First, Screw the Rest" approach is not going to be our best interests in the long run.

The US had a great run, from the end of WWII to about right now.  We basically controlled manufacturing, trade, and finance.  Now we seem to be on the path to be one of the top players, not the top player.

We can't always have things our way in the future.    On A one-time cheerleader for hyper-consumerism lays down his pom-pom posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

OK, ...

How can you create two million jobs in the next six months or so?

Or do you want to keep a couple of million people on the dole for the next few years while you come up with an idea?

BTW, you seem to have a unique definition of the word "we".  "We" don't want the cars that Detroit, Japan, Korea, Europe make - you think?On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 37 Responses

If you had to purchase...

...a car, a house, anything big for all cash, up front very, very few people could do it.

Borrowing to buy is a way to pay as you go.  You borrow someone else's accumulated wealth and pay them a fee for the privilege of using their money.

The fuel problem is not a "borrowing"/debt problem but a combined resource scarcity and environmental problem.

We have to move to renewable fuel sources.  And we'll have to borrow money to do so.  

And pay for those resources and borrowed funds as we use those new energy sources.On A one-time cheerleader for hyper-consumerism lays down his pom-pom posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

Who't the "me"?

Me, personally?

Or the hundreds of millions of current car owners and the billions of people who want to be car owners?

We can't stop making new cars.  Our existing fleet's lives can be stretched only so far.  Go somewhere that uses salt to de-ice their roads and look at the condition of 10-15 year old cars.

We are going to keep making cars.  The majority of the populace is not willing to look far enough ahead to stop buying and driving cars.

We've just got to make cars in a wiser manner.

(And at the same time improve public transportation and build our communities so that there is less need for transportation other than a decent pair of shoes.)On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 37 Responses

Pompey...

We do build wind turbines and blades.  

We do build solar panels and thin film solar.

We are manufacturing the components for thermal solar.

We may import some of the materials for the new grid, but most of the labor will be performed inside the country.

If dry rock geothermal or slow flow hydro prove out those will be in-country projects.

As we move to more automated manufacturing there is less and less advantage to making things in low labor cost countries.  

When the higher prices for oil return with the economic recovery it will become economically advantageous to make things closer to where they are consumed. On A one-time cheerleader for hyper-consumerism lays down his pom-pom posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

Cars, now and tomorrow...

The world is in terrible danger.

There's the short term danger of a deep, prolonged depression.

IMO, we need to keep car manufacturers in business.  In the US Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all their suppliers employee a very large part of our work force.  We might destroy our economy were we to put all those people out of jobs.

We can (I think) keep those plants viable and make more ICE vehicles while we develop greener machines.  

I don't think we have an alternative.

Then there's that other great danger that's a few more years out.  Global climate change could destroy our way of life and cause incredible suffering.

We don't have a "right now, this moment" solution for cars that solve our personal transportation needs.  We can shift ICE vehicle manufacturing from larger, less efficient models to smaller, more efficient ones.  And we are.

We are just starting to introduce PHEVs to the roads.  We still don't have the batteries that we need to make really usable BEVs.  (But I think we're close.  I suspect that we are within three years of producing viable electric cars.)  

Electric cars are going to bring a new type of manufacturing into reality.  I suspect car manufacturing of the future will something like the manufacturing of desktop computers.

Look at Michaelin's 'motor in the hub' component system.  They make a standalone wheel that contains an electric motor, regenerative braking, and suspension.  They also sell the electronics to make the wheels work.

In the future one could buy their motors/wheels from one company, battery packs from another, buy a generic frame, seats, door systems, etc. from other specialized manufacturers and bolt it all together.  

Of course the big players such as GM can do the same and be very competitive because of economy of scale.  But they won't own the market as they now do.  And that will be a good thing.  Innovation is easier done by smaller companies.  We will see new ideas tried and proved by smaller companies and then the best of those ideas will spread to the larger companies.On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 37 Responses

JMG -

Please load two toddlers, an elderly parent, and a few days worth of groceries on your bike and ride across town.

Then take your bike outside the city and count the number of houses that aren't built in dense, public transportation friendly areas.

Now calculate the cost of abandoning those houses (and businesses) and building new housing in dense cites for all those people so that they won't need cars.

We aren't going to give up personal transportation .  In fact, we'll build more and more of it.  

I've been in Southeast Asia for the last couple of months.  Here people are in the process of moving from bikes (now seldom used) to motorbikes (common in Vietnam) to cars (largely replaced bikes in Thailand).  Then look at what is happening in India and China.

We need to accept the reality that there is enormous resistance to giving up cars.  There is enormous desire for even more cars.  We need to put our efforts into making cars sustainable.

Metal is recyclable.  If we need metal for frames/strength we can use it, melt it down, and reuse it.  We can melt it down using green power.

The rest of the car can be made of plastics.  There are interesting developments in non-petroleum plastics.  

Take a look at Arborform.  Made from wood and can be recycled/reprocess many times.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2608/64/

Build a car, use it for ten years, recycle it into a fresh, new model.   At least ten times.  Use the same pile of wood for 100 years of cars.

Put those together with wind-generated electricity.  We will probably build lots of wind generation as it is the least expensive way to produce electricity.  A lot of that generation will occur when grid demand is low (late night, very early morning) which is perfect for charging car batteries.  And those batteries can provide grid smoothing reserve.

Lightweight cars made of recyclable materials powered by green electricity will give us sustainable personal transportation.  On CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 37 Responses

Details...

Fairly standard system approach for people around here.  Lots of folks whom I know are off the grid.  Power is expensive to run to more remote areas.  It would have cost about $300,000 to bring lines to my property.

I've got 16 75 watt BP panels mounted on two "yard" racks.  I mounted on the ground rather than on the roof as cleaning snow and angle adjustment can be hard to do if the panels are up high.

I'm running a 24 vdc feed to the batteries/inverter.  That allowed smaller wires than 12 vdc.  I could have used even smaller wire by going to 48 or 96 volts.  (I know one person running 96 because it's a long way from where he had to put his panels and his house.)

I stopped at 24 vdc as I could find an inexpensive backup inverter in the event I had to send my big one in for repair.  I found no inexpensive 48 or 95 volts uits.

I'm using a Trace 4000 watt inverter.  The model that I got has a built in battery charger.  I wouldn't recommend getting multi-function units like mine.  My internal charger quit working and I discovered it to be less expensive to buy a separate charger than to ship my unit in and pay for the repairs.

The inverter is large enough to run most everything.  I've got a full woodworking shop and my only limit is I can't run the washing machine and table saw at the same time.

Storage is a dozen 6 volt "golf cart" batteries.  These guys don't last as long as L-16s or specialized "solar" batteries, but doing the math over the long term they are less expensive.  Also, I know a couple of people who have fried a set of batteries.  I'd rather replace a less expensive set if I screw up.

My system runs a standard issue 18 cu.ft. refrigerator.  I compared the price of an Energy Star refer and additional panels/batteries with the super efficient Sun Frost models and couldn't make the math work for the Sun Frost.

Heating the house is done with wood.  Cooking and water heating with propane.  (Solar water heater coming in the near future.)

I've done all the (reasonable) things that I could do to pull down my power needs.  CFLs (LEDs when the price improves), swapping desktop for laptop, "boombox" for casual radio listening, closeline rather than dryer, etc.

We just don't use a lot of the appliances that lots of homes do.  Even when I've had dishwasher I didn't use them, so I don't miss having one.  No garbage disposal, wouldn't use one if I had one, I compost.

No electric toothbrushes, butter warmers, salad spinners.  

Don't need AC where I live, fortunately.  In the event that things heat up as the climate changes I built the dining room so that it can be closed off from the rest of the house and air conditioned if needed during a heat wave.  

I store additional energy by pumping well water only when I've got extra power.  I've got a couple of big water tanks (total 2800 gallons) up the hill about 80' higher than the house.  That gives me gravity flow water and no need to use power for  pumping when it's dark.

Backup by generator.  I would like to add wind to the mix but I can't make the numbers work.  When gas was hitting $5 around here wind was starting to make sense, but now that it has dropped back under $3....

Even though I'm on the top of a ridge I don't have good wind potential.  And my hydro potential is limited.  I could make some power in the winter months with water but I'd have to ship it back a half mile or so to the house.

Enough?

When I first left the grid panels were a lot more expensive and inverters were not On A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no. posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

The Dentist - time for some extractions....

I've been 'off the grid' for the last 20 or so years.

I generate 80%-90% of my electricity from PV solar and the cloudy day stuff with a generator.

For the "sunny months" my generator sits idle and I do everything I need to do with 16 75 watt panels.  

Your "384 200w panels" sounds like what one would do to power a small town.  You're installing roughly 75x my system.

I store my "dark hours" power with 12 golf cart batteries.  They hold enough power to get me through three days of no sun.

You're looking at 45 tons of batteries.  My pack weighs less than half a ton.  That's 100 times smaller than what you purpose.

Perhaps you should take a long, hard look at the consumption part of your system.

At least take a serious review of your math.

I do suspect that you have somehow tapped into a very faulty information stream.  

When you talk about removing coal generation from the grid would take power costs from 8 to 30 cents (wind costs only a nickel), I wonder.

When you talk about how long distance shipment of power would waste 88% (HVDC is very efficient, about 3% loss per 1,000 kM and a 1.5% loss for end/out conversion to lower voltage AC), I worry.

When you advocate more nuclear and I look at the other stuff you've posted, I fear....On A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no. posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

There are deniers, and there are deniers...

The crackpots that toss out the "Algore"-type crap, we should probably ignore.  Lots of them probably don't have the intellectual ability to understand the issues.

I'd be quite happy to see some censorship on sites like this.  When someone drags out one of the tired, old, often-disproved talking points just erase their post and send them a like to the appropriate "How to Talk to" page. *

Then there are the George Will types.  Leaving these people unchallenged can cause problems for the decision makers.  My feeling is if these guys are wrong, then they should be slapped down.

--

* Or hide their post behind a click as is done on Digg.  If someone wants to read their post, let them.  But don't let them muddy the conversation with their crap.On A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 23 Responses

Ford...

... and GM have to build for the mass market.

Boutique companies can build unusual products on a comparatively minuscule scale and make money.

We have a 100 year history with the internal combustion engine.  It's going to take some time for people to accept the fact that we could use electricity to power our vehicles.

Cars like the Tesla and the Aptera can show the way, but for Ford and GM to make those sorts of rapid shifts in their product lines would essentially be suicide for their corporations.On Ford Motor Co. CEO says everything's going to be juuust fine posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

Unfortunately...

"We need small, local energy sources, not large wind developments in rural areas where the energy is often exported to another state.

Ideas?"

We have to harvest energy where it is available.  It does little good to build a hydroelectric dam at the end of a dry canyon.

Wind is the most mature (and inexpensive) of our clean energy options and blows harder in some places than it does in others.  We need to install our turbines where the wind blows strongest and move it to where most of us live.  (Ever wonder why lots of people don't live in the windiest places?)

We're going to have the same issues with thermal solar and PV solar.  Some sites work significantly better than others and the most effective solution is to ship the power from those places to where we need it.

Down the road we may develop dry rock geothermal to the point where it can be installed locally anywhere we need the power, but we aren't there yet.On What are the chances of passing a renewable electricity standard this year? posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 4 Responses

Very interesting Max...

How you go back in time and pick earlier studies that support your unique view.

And then you ignore the latest studies that say that you are clearly wrong.

If your credibility sinks any lower you'll be jab-guy land.On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Hitting the ground running...

And not just running, but taking giant steps.

I listened to Obama's speech about doing away with unnecessary governmental secrecy.  I believe I heard him say that the new openness would apply not only to his administration but would be applied retroactively to previous administrations.

(Looking for a transcript.)

If so, we might find out who helped Cheney set US environmental policy....On Obama's early actions bode well for the environment posted 10 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

Bob's semi-smart grid...

Being off the grid has taught me a bunch about load shifting.

When I designed the system for this house I put a couple of large water tanks up the hill, about 80' higher than the house, one for household use and one for the garden/orchard.

My routine is to fill the house batteries with the first sun of the day and then, if there's extra sun, I pump up from the well to the storage tanks.

If I had to 'pump on demand' I would need a lot more batteries to get the same work done.

Same in the winter.  A nice sunny day means that I can fill tanks and I don't have to worry about pumping during cloudy stretches.

It's all manual now, but automating it is one of this next year's projects.On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 1 week ago 45 Responses

asdf

Toyota already has a recycle program in place for their hybrid lithium batteries.  I don't know how efficient that process is compared to recycling lead acid batteries.

If the lithium is highly recoverable at a reasonable cost then prices will drop.

--

There's a lot of work being done on batteries.  Here's something posted today regarding silicon nanowire with lithium batteries.

Overall, I think we're going to see major improvements in batteries and shouldn't lock ourselves into any expensive infrastructure at this time which could be quickly outdated.

I think the really smart thinking that I've seen lately is Toyota's choice with the new Prius for a design that makes it easy to snatch out the current battery pack and replace it with one suitable for a PHEV.  That's an indication (my guess) that they see better batteries in our near future.On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 1 week ago 45 Responses

And a bit more...

Max says...

"Forget it.  Globally the sea ice has remained fairly constant."

NASA says...

"THE most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.

The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.

Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice."

It seems that most Antarctica sea ice is ephemeral, melting each Antarctic summer and refreezing each winter.  Therefore there isn't a lot of change that could be observed in Antarctic sea ice as opposed to the Arctic area where historically sea ice used to remain year round.

(I suppose we might see earlier annual melting and later freezing of the Antarctic sea.  But that data has yet to be presented.)On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Charging...

A 240v 70amp outlet is the equivalent of two electric dryer outlets ganged together.  

Some of the cities and towns in CA are already installing charge points.  One of our small towns close to where I live provides a free charge point.  Just go by City Hall, sign up and they give you the combination to the lock on the box.

The town eats a few dollars a month but considers it a great investment for the future.

They just rebuilt the aquarium in Golden Gate Park (SF).  Charge points were included.

Hawaii has a number of quick charge stations.  They've got test vehicles using quick charge batteries such as are used in forklifts.

It's happening.On Photos from Plug In America's inaugural parade posted 10 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

Not sure...

Toshiba apparently has a quick charge battery (five minutes) with a ten year life span.

http://www.physorg.com/news116591313.html

Now, if we really do have batteries in the chute that will give us this sort of capability then all we need is some nice big fat wires to plug in to.

Battery switch infrastructure might be an unnecessary expense.  

And remember that exchangeable battery packs would require some sort of build standards to make things work.  We might want our batteries distributed around the car for maximal usable space and best vehicle handling.

Look at that strange looking Tango.  Looks like you could shove it over with one hand.  But because you can get the weight much lower than you can do with an ICE engine it is quite stable.

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/ClooneyTango.html On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 1 week ago 45 Responses

Stop...

Do you produce your own electricity?

If so, please give us a rundown on your system, your cost per kWh, and the amount of time/effort that it takes to keep the electrons flowing.On GOP leader Scrooge Boehner disses weatherizing low-income homes and cutting the deficit posted 10 months, 1 week ago 9 Responses

Exchangeable batteries...

I don't know that we will need to take that route in the long term.  In the short term we're going to be doing things that will seem strange with hindsight.

PHEVs and exchangeable batteries are likely to be transitional solutions.  

PHEVs could cut our personal petroleum use to ~20% of what it is today.  It even makes it somewhat possible to use (non food source) biofuels for those times that batteries won't take us far enough.

If we don't see long range and/or quick charge batteries coming to market in the next few years then we may move to exchangeable battery packs.  Most likely exchanges would be done at "service stations".  Push a button on your dash and the car will find the nearest available charged pack, reserve it for you, and guide you where you need to go.  Drive up and the automated equipment will do the job.

(San Francisco is moving forward with this technology.)

Most people would not need to exchange battery packs at home.  The Tesla can be fully recharged in four hours with a 240v 70amp outlet.  That's not a lot of garage time.  

(And there is no reason why we cannot develop automatic plug in systems.  Much easier to do that the robotic gas pumps that and identify dozens of models of cars, open the filler pipe, pump the gas, and close things back up.)

For those who might actually need to swap out at home, I'm sure someone will make a "robot" that will snatch out the discharged pack, slide in a new one, and start the recharge process.  (I haven't been able to imagine anyone who's lifestyle would require something like this.)On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 1 week ago 45 Responses

dw -

"it is actually less expensive to change out a lead acid pack a few time"

Would you please expand on that a bit?

I'm off the grid, use a bunch of lead acid "golf carts" to carry me between sun rays.  The rule that I've been taught is to not mix new batteries with old, but to replace all at once. On Who's killing the plug-in hybrid? posted 10 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

Wallaby...

Look.  I'm sitting in Bangkok right now.

There is a lot of active site blocking going on in Thailand because there are a lot of political "things" going on at the moment.

I find that I'm having trouble opening a new site.  Once I get on I can update/post/refresh/all that good stuff.  

Now, are the two related?  I don't know.

But I do know that sometimes I can not get certain sites to open and often have to click up to ten times to get other sites to open.

YMMV.

---

Now, is it your opinion that the sun shines differently on different bodies in our solar system?  

Would it not be the case that if the Earth warming that we are experiencing is due to solar influence that other entities being struck by rays from the same star would be also heating, and not cooling, as some are?On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Here, I got another to open...

"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki20 ...

Now there should be joy down under....On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Well, I suppose I miss your point...

The studies you link agree that a significant part of our warming problem is caused by us.  

And we need to get our contribution out of the mix since what we are doing is hanging on to way more heat than we can live with.  A 0.35C change we can live with.  A 6.0C increase will be and end of life as we live it.

Any increase in solar activity is cyclic.  What we are contributing is cumulative.

Perhaps what you're leaving out are the other contributing factors that we're triggering such as loss of albedo and methane release.  Remember, we are definitely reducing snow/ice cover and beginning to measure methane bubble-out in both Arctic Ocean and far northern fresh water lakes.  And obviously the permafrost is melting.

Now, you may be OK with the amount of warming that we may experience between now and the end of the current century.  (I know I will as it's unlikely that I'll make it to mid-century.)  But are you really comfortable being part of the generation that could have stopped the problem when there was still time to do so and didn't?On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Pompey

How many watt hours do those electric haulers carry?

I'm imagining some danged big battery packs....On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 45 Responses

We're the nuclear industry...

"There is the usual BS and hand wringing about near misses which kill no one."

Trust us.

We promise we'll quit sleeping on the job, checking for leaks with a lighted candle, report leaks rather than hide stuff like we've been doing, etc.

In short, we'll quit  being human and not make human errors.  You can rely on us to handle some of the most dangerous stuff in the world.

You have our word.

After all, what's the big deal with a few near misses?

No one has been killed so far.  

(In the US.)On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responses

X

Here's GM's Board of Directors

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/corp_gov ...

And here's Exxon's Board of Directors

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/investor_governance_d ...

See any overlap?

Got any from Big Cars and Big Oil?  (I didn't feel like any more googling tonight....)On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 45 Responses

Wallaby -

Why don't you take your swipes to Joe's blog?

He'll answer you there.  I doubt that he regularly reads the comments on this one.

As for that popularity vote, I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it.  If you at have even a slight understanding of scientific methods you have to recognize that those sorts of polls are generally meaningless. On 'Anti-science syndrome' plagues the right-wing as well as blogosphere posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

Jon - back in the beginning...

"The denser we can make our residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, and the more we can mix those various functions in a smart way, the less energy required for transportation will be necessary."

In light of that statement (which is true, BTW) I thought you might enjoy this....

"Just being in an urban environment, (researchers) have found, impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/ ...On A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responses

ferrariman...

505-horsepower Revenge GTM-R
Zero to 60 3.2 seconds.

All electric Tesla Roadster
Zero to 60 3.0 seconds.

And costs $35,000 less.

The internal combustion engine is so, last century....On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 45 Responses

X - if wishes were horses...

You'll most likely get your very light electric car.  But not quickly.  More likely you'll get it via evolution, not revolution.

We're getting ~40 mile electric range PHEVs.  That we can apparently do with the batteries we have now and with the manufacturing processes we have now.

People are (IMHO) going to love electric.  Lots of people will rarely stop at the pumps.  Only for that once in a while long weekend trip or vacation.

Then they'll start asking for more electric range.  Unless there's a big breakthrough in batteries the way to get more range is to drastically cut vehicle weight.  And at that point will large car manufacturers consider a massive retooling to make vehicles with significantly less metal and more lightweight synthetics.

Now, as for that little group of super-uber-rich folks who run anything.  Sorry, that's some sort of crackpot thinking.  Ownership of big oil and big car and big whatever  is spread over a vast number of owners.  The hired help, the car CEOs will cut the gas CEO's throats if it improves their companies bottom line and the value of their stock futures.On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 45 Responses

Wondering...

Could we have produced a really usable electric car sooner?  Not with pre-2009 lead acid batteries.  Just too heavy.  Just don't endure enough charge/discharge cycles.  The numbers just don't work.

Could we have pushed the development of "exotic" batteries?  Possibly some.  But don't forget that there has been huge demand for better cell phone/laptop batteries and plenty of money has been spent to produce those batteries.  That technology is the same as electric car technology.

Is there some great desire on the part of current car manufacturers to keep producing ICE engines and cause us all to burn lots of petroleum?  Can't imagine why.  What those folks want to do is to sell units.  They don't care what powers their products, just that people buy what they make.

(Check with your doctor, X.  Your anti-conspiracy meds seem to need a bit of adjustment.  ;o)On Automakers parade EVs in Detroit, Ontario Betters itself, and more green auto news posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 45 Responses

My refer post ...

Aimed at jab.

Black Wallaby - when you cherry pick part of the original post you lose your credibility.On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

jab-

Read up on short term cyclical influences like El Nino/La Nina and solar cycles.

Lots of factors can make the upward trend of global warming variable across years.  Clearly a large volcanic eruption near the equator can do so.  It may turn out the the hundreds of fires that burned for months this last year in California served to cool surface temperatures a bit.

Do a bit of researching as to why 1998 was such an large upward spike from previous years.

To argue that if the trend is not consistently higher from year to year shows a lack of knowledge about the complexity of climate.  Global temperature is as or more complex that stock market averages.  While the overall value of the stock market it up over time, no one expects each year to be higher than the previous.On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

GRL - not one option...

"If you believe in many close calls
and, bafflingly, no hits, you were never pronuclear, nor genuinely pro-renewable-energy."

I grew up close to Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility.  I toured the plant back in the 1950s.  I saw what they projected as the future - "the friendly atom" - and I believed that safe, cheap nuclear energy was the world's future.

But over time I became aware of the lack of "safe".  A lot of it came from living downwind of Rancho Seco in the 1980s.  Then, the more I read, the less I believed in "safe".  As far as I'm concerned there is no safe nuclear.  Only a record of one meltdown (and some close calls) and multiple significant leaks to date.

"Cheap" went away for me within the last couple of years as I began to read cost analyses based on inclusive numbers, not the simple-minded "too cheap to meter" PR stuff spouted by industry shills.

Likewise my feelings about renewables evolves over time.  I once thought ethanol was the answer.  Then I saw the math.  Same with hydrogen.  Math kills BS and false hope.

Now what I see is that wind-generated electricity is coming to market at very affordable prices.  Solar PV and thermal are showing every sign of doing the same.  That's where I am with renewables.  

I'm a fact-based believer.

"Similarly, a belief that nuclear power plant waste presents unsolved problems, despite its management so far having been completely successful in preventing harm to anyone, is never found in anyone who isn't trying to direct attention away from carbon monoxide injuries and deaths that are lucrative for him or her."

That's just pro-nuke BS.

It's nothing more than saying the crackhead standing on the sidewalk firing his Glock in random directions is OK because he hasn't hit anyone yet.

Right now we've got spent nuclear fuel sitting in temporary storage in Humboldt County because there is no safe long term solution.  None.  Period.

The same problem exists around the world.

To blame the problems of nuclear waste on people "trying to direct attention" is highly intellectually dishonest and you should be ashamed of having such a statement associated with your name.

 On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 48 Responses

There's change, and there's speedy change...

We were thinking that we needed to get off petroleum because it would run out in X years and off coal because it would run out X years later.

(Fill in your favorite X values.)

But now we realize that we can't wait that long.  We've got to move quicker.

And we can't move instantly from fossil fuels to a pure electric system.  We can't build wind, solar, etc. fast enough and we don't yet know how to build long range BEVs.  So we need bridging technologies.  

Burning grasses/wood pellets for heat would help as we retrofit ground effect heat pumps.  Joe Average can install a fuel burning stove with hand tools.

PHEVs will let us avoid well over 50% of our petroleum needs for transportation as we improve battery technology.

Cogeneration lets us get more benefit from the fuel we do burn, thus allowing us to burn less.

Hopefully we will look back at these technologies in a couple of decades and ask "Remember when?".On Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 17 Responses

A good point hapa...

Getting the world off of coal quickly is a major undertaking.  Should be plenty of work to go around for quite a while.

--

One thing that I've been wondering about, blade manufacturing.  

These things are huge.  Absolutely huge.

Is anyone considering moving the factories rather than moving finished blades?  If making blades is anything like laying up boat hulls, the big issue is a nice, big building, and not a lot of machinery.  

Buildings can be prefab and movable. Move a blade plant to the wind farm and make the blades needed there, then take it apart and move to the next location.On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 40 Responses

ce -

I get the feeling that your attitude sucks.

What are we testing?  We're doing beta testing, if you please.  Stuff has been designed, various metering systems that allow two way communication between supplier and consumer.  

Twenty years to implement?  Why in the world should that be true?  Give things a year or so to sort themselves out and then we'll see wider implementation.  When we see a major utility company such as PG&E starting up smart meter installation you know we're past the thinking stage.  And PG&E has started.

BTW, ever notice how lots of commercial jets are powered by British made Rolls-Royce engines?  They've been installed into Boeing's 747, 757 and 767.  They are going to be installed the 787.On Small solar needs long-distance transmission as much as big wind posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responses

Pompey...

"If you can't get past the stigma and the stereotypical image of the Appalachian indigenous people...."

Please don't read into me something that doesn't exist.

If Appalachia can reinvent itself into a place that provides good employment for its people, then hooray for it.

All I'm saying is that we've got to get off our jones for coal and if that costs jobs in Appalachia it costs jobs.  We can't afford to destroy the planet just to keep the coal mines open.On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 40 Responses

ce

The smart grid is beginning.  Right now there are smaller scale start-ups in Colorado, Texas, and California in the US.  Possibly other places as well.  Numerous companies are building smart meters, smart appliances and the other hardware/software that will be needed.

We're probably not quite to the point where we should do a widespread build out.  Best to get the bugs out on smaller scales and get standards set.

BTW, the US is not alone.  England, for example, has just distributed a thousand or so "smart" refrigerators that adjust their operation times based on grid performance rather than on signals from "central control".  That's another approach being investigated.

(That's probably a lot more information than your attitude deserved.)On Small solar needs long-distance transmission as much as big wind posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responses

Georgia - you demonstrate your confusion...

with each post.

You don't understand the problem  

You don't even understand who has been trying to explain things to you in the last few posts.

Here's a hint.  It's not Bob....On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

China -

Wasn't that the country that took a look at where out of control population growth would take it and instituted the "One Child" policy?

Why, yes, I believe it was....On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 28 Responses

Ya can call me Bob...

Look, let's get real.  How large are the urban centers in Appalachia?  You have critical mass there to provide large workforce numbers to a company that suspects that it can grow?  How are the rail, freeway, and water routes in and out to major providers and customers?  What economic advantage do you bring to the competitive table?

There in those beautiful hollers full of dogwood and redbud (and long ago fireflies) you've got even more problems than we do here on behind the Redwood Curtain.  We've at least got the ability to ship by ocean.  If we had anything to ship.

Well, since you ship out coal you could probably move raw materials for turbines in and finished unit out, that sort of thing.  But can you really compete to large populations who are closer to source and market?

I'm very sorry for the people living there who depend on coal.  But we can't keep them employed in the mines and keep the planet inhabitable.  That's just the very difficult position we are in.

Life has always been hard in those parts.  My father and his eleven sisters and brothers grew up on a sorry-assed farm that could only be described as growing corn in a gully.  They stayed only a step ahead of starvation.  That's the sort of agriculture the land provides in much of the terrain.

So what is to be done?  Relocate, welfare/make work jobs, be creative in a small scale, or starve. On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 40 Responses

Well Billl...

You say...

"This is a deeply flawed paper. I submitted a review comment to the journal in February 2008 pointing out its many flaws. The journal [JMAC] is dragging out the review process. When it is published you will have an opportunity to comment on it."

Stanford News Service says...

"The findings are published in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology."

Looks like someone didn't take your criticisms seriously....On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

anyone -

Would you please take a second look at the DOE paper you linked?  (And thanks for that link.)

The way I read it the 3 to 6.4 cent per kWh price seems to be the wholesale price and not the price of generation.

The wholesale price would include subsidies (lowering the price) and profits (raising the price) and might even be influenced the price from other sources.  (A lot of inexpensive hydro could deflate the price.)

What's your take?On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

spaceshaper..

I share your concern about the planet.

Please explain to me how we make the American people drastically change their lifestyles if those changes are found by them to be significantly painful.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Here's some Duck a l'Orange for you Bill...

"The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable baseload electric power."

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/wind ... On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

That being the case...

"the plants are designed to contain a meltdown"

Then it should be no big deal for nuclear plants to take out an all-inclusive insurance policy rather than having the taxpayers cover their rear ends, right?On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Wow Georgia!

They gave you a day pass from the home?

And didn't make sure you actually swallowed your meds first?

Sloppy, sloppy attendants working there....On U.N. says ignore the cold, warming is still a problem posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Rod -

Best I can tell Severance reported cost in 2019 dollars - the price expected when a plant started today would come on line.

If you back those numbers back to 2009 using the 3% inflation rate that he used you get $0.019 - $0.23 which are roughly equal to/slightly higher than the MIT, Keystone, and nuclear industry numbers produced over the last few years.

I think Joe made a mistake when he used Severance's 2019 number and divided it by 2009 electricity prices and came up with "3x".  Seems that 2x would be more accurate.  

Of course if we were comparing the cost of new nuke replacing currently cheap coal, which we are considering, then the number might be more like 4x.

----

And this...

"Nuclear fission is up to the challenge of pushing its way into the market. There is no other energy choice that can match its cleanliness, safety, and long term investment performance."

It's just factually incorrect in every aspect.

Nuclear is not safe when compared to other energy sources.  If you like I'll spend time and give you a list of the close calls and significant spills that we've suffered over the years.  We've been riding with a drunk driver that hasn't killed us, yet.

Nuclear is not clean.  Nuclear has a large carbon footprint during construction and a continuing one during fuel extraction.

Nuclear has a lousy long term investment potential.  A huge amount of capital is required and for many years before a revenue stream begins.  During that period and the years it takes to extract the initial investment and deferred earnings the investment is 100% at risk by the appearance of a lower cost competitor.  

Just think what would happen to your invested dollars in the XYZ reactor if hot rock geothermal pans out.  That would mean a quickly installed, close to point of use, 24/365 electricity producer offering power at 2/3rds to half the price of your plant.  Can you say "bankrupt"? On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

Bill-

The "90% nameplate" stuff is bogus and I'm sure you realize that.  Nameplate, when we're talking about wind, is not the important number, what is important is average output.  

Average output is about 33% of nameplate.  And average output wind generated electricity sells for around $0.075 kWh.

What we need to look at in terms of deciding on where to invest our future energy dollars is 1) price, 2) time to bring on line, 3) carbon footprint, and 4) public safety.  

Wind comes in far advance in front of nuclear in all four categories.  (Not that we would build an all-wind system.)

---

Denmark may have stranded wind at this time.  Europe does not yet have its unifying HVDC grid in place.  Once the European grid is complete Denmark will supply wind when it's windy, North Africa, Spain and Portugal will supply solar when it's sunny, Sweden will supply storage, etc.

And France will supply nuclear as it kicks itself in the butt for creating huge messes which will harm the country for decades to centuries.

We have a similar problem with stranded wind now in West Texas.  Because the grid is not capable of delivering surplus nighttime electricity to parts of the country that could use it wind farm operators are at times paying utility companies to use their power.  They are basically sharing the subsidies with them rather than shutting the turbines down.

We will build HVDC lines to connect the country.  We've already got the upper western corner connected to the lower western corner - the Pacific Intertie - which transports hydro power from the Northwest to Southern California.

We need to get serious about a line from the Texas wind farms into the midwest and another from the very windy Great Plains to connect up and bring cheap power to the population centers of the Northeast.  This is the national freeway system of the 21st Century.  

(Where's Ike when we need him?  Oh, yeah, somebody just as good or better is taking office in a week or so.  ;o)

--

Oh, and if you want to level the playing field, I'm all for that.

Require all nuclear plants, including existing ones to take out private insurance policies that would fully cover a Chernobyl meltdown or groundwater contaminating spill.

Deny government loan guarantees for new nuclear construction.  Let them pay full price for their very risky loans rather than having the taxpayer cover their butts.

Put a tax on imported petroleum that pays the military costs for keeping our pipelines open.

Put a tax on coal that covers the health and environmental damage caused.  All the damage.

Along with making the cost of each source of electricity accurate make adequate money available for continued research in all areas of energy production, including nuclear.  

Create startup assistance programs for promising new sources.  Right now dry rock geothermal is very promising.  It's 24/365 power which can be installed close to use and has a very small carbon footprint (close to zero).

Make the assistance long term so that new technologies don't get jerked around as has been done with the wind industry.

I can live with all that as opposed to the pouring money down a rat hole as we now do with nuclear, coal and petroleum.

 On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

No...

Both nuclear and transmission lines will have to deal with the cost of opposition action as they encounter it.  As will wind farms, thermal solar ranches, geothermal plants, ....

I think that there will be less opposition to lines in general than there will be for new nuclear sites.  

Things will vary from place to place in the country.  There may be little opposition to building additional plants along side existing ones, much more trying to place one along the Pacific coast. On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

Broken link?

Has the plant actually begun full scale production?  Last I read they were in the process of scaling up to size.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Blinded by faith....

"There are a few people trying to broaden the view, but they are counterbalanced by the green lampshade set, for whom the purity of analysis trumps any effort to characterize the innovation that is waiting to happen."

Is it not possible that some/many economists, being strong conservatives/libertarians are in  deep denial about the possibility of climate change and the resulting extreme high cost?

Being true believers in everything anti-Gore might leave them doing un-pure analysis which then would lead to faulty conclusions.

Simple decision making theory, when it encounters an outcome so incredibly significant as what global climate change could produce, factors in an even small probability and yields a decision on the side of prudence.On Robert Stavins can't walk and chew gum at the same time posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 40 Responses

Max...

You don't borrow the construction money until you get close to the building process.  You're not going to borrow the entire $X billion the day you start the application process.  During the application process you're paying interest on a small amount of the total cost.

As for regulatory delays, do you purpose that we simply tell large corporations to just "have at it" and build at will?  You really comfortable with relying on the goodness of business?On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

asdf

"Databases like Gar's are fine as projections, but if you try and institute them as plans you will run into major inefficiencies."

Gar's is a vision of where we might go, not a detailed plan to fix everything right now.  The point in presenting it is to demonstrate that we could get from here to a fossil fuel/nuclear free future.

No one is suggesting a radical instantaneous overhaul of the grid.  What will happen is what is  happening and what has always happened.  We will make incremental changes, making the occasional mistake, and learning as we go.

We are bringing wind on line at a increasing rate that will soon equal 1% of total energy per year additions.  We are making the first moves to the smart grid.  We are starting to use load shifting to reduce our peak extremes and to utilize less expensive nighttime wind energy.  We are capturing waste heat, turning it to electricity, and feeding it back to the grid.  We are drilling hot rock and wet rock geothermal holes and adding that power into the mix.  We've got additional solar thermal being constructed.  We're building new CAES and pump-storage to help with peak smoothing.

All this stuff is happening right now.  A few of them go bust along the way as we learn how to do it right.  But at some point we reach a point of development as we have with wind where installation accelerates and each (most likely) becomes a major supply source.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Gas tax...

We'll have to move on past that revenue stream before too long.

Nothing wrong with switching to a "miles driven" tax with a "damage inflicted" adjustment factor.  An 18 wheeler causes a lot more wear and tear on roads than would a lightweight BEV.

Miles driven can be reported on an annual basis (lots of places already require annual inspections).  Other places can set up quick check stations where you don't even have to get out of your car.On Before we debate gas taxes vs. mileage taxes, Oregonians must pay for roads with those taxes posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

Fusion...

Someday, but as said above, not in time to keep us from ruining our futures.

Nuclear, not safe and not clean and certainly not inexpensive.

Max, let me ask you to try something.  Put on a new pair of shoes, those of a grid manager who has the task of getting coal out of the mix ASAP.  Say within 10 years.

Operate as if there is a physical impossibility of bringing any new nuclear on line for at least two decades.  

Now, how would you design a system that provided ample reliable power?  

If you need a starting point you could begin with Gar's blog that I linked above and with the excellent links provided by "anyone" a few posts higher.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

asdf

I see few people calling for the closing of existing nuclear plants.  For the most part they are a mess made and as long as they can keep their hot stuff on the inside we might as well use them.

It's coal that we most need to shut down.  Thus the argument over which route to follow, more nuclear or renewables.  When we look at both cost and time to solution nuclear comes up short.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Sorry vakibs...

Karen's reply is lame.  

Natural gas gets no particular criticism because everyone recognizes that the fuel costs are very high and obviously NG generation will be avoided as much as possible.

The reason that NG will stay on stage for the foreseeable future is that 1) the plants are relatively cheap and quick to build, 2) NG gas plants can be spun to full speed quite rapidly making them excellent peaking sources, of which we have too few.

Until we further develop storage solutions such as less expensive batteries to carry us through periods of high demand we will continue to call on NG to fill that void.  

As soon as we have fast responding storage systems we will drop NG like a hot wrench.On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

Interestingly...

The insurance companies, the people who have to pay out when floods happen and big storms occur, were pretty much the first to start talking about the need to deal with global warming.On The real cost is the cost of doing nothing posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

Converting...

I was a bit involved in VW -> PHEV conversions back many years (several decades) ago.

Kind of a simple process.  Snatch out the motor.  Pretty easy with a VW.

Drop in an electric motor using a kit mounting bracket and motor -> clutch adapter.

Weld a set of simple brackets in the engine compartment and bolt in a low horsepower gas engine/generator (genset).

Pull out the back seat and fill the floor space with batteries.

Seems like someone could design a "Civic" package that would be all bolt-in.  It might be a route to getting us to an electric future must faster.  Should be a lot of high mileage compact cars with good, sound bodies floating around.  Get the kit down to not much more than the price of a new factory rebuilt engine and you'd be cookin'.

--

Simplest is something like the Michelin in-hub motor set.  Drive motor, brakes, and shock system come built into each individual wheel.  You also get the battery pack and controlling electronics from them as well.

Build a "box" with windows, steering and doors.  Bolt on the Michelin parts and you've got an electric car.On Consumer Reports knocks plug-in hybrid Hymotion L5 conversion kit on efficiency, value posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

X -

It's an interesting time indeed.  Despite all the squealing from the stuck nuclear shills it looks like we've well passed the crossing point at which new nuclear has been priced out of the market by wind, solar, and other renewables.

Short of the sort of takeover of the US government by the sorts of Bush, Cheaney, and Delay we are not likely to see massive amounts of taxpayer dollars thrown at nuclear construction.  And clearly private money won't even consider 100% financing of new nuclear plants.

At the same time we've got loads of private money flowing into wind and solar, as well as funding startups in other areas such as geothermal.

The market is not always correct or efficient, but it seems to have found a new path toward energy investment.  Look for much more green power coming to an outlet near you.  And worry less about your community glowing in the dark....On Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 69 Responses

It's not cajones...

It's votes.

Politics is not a pure sport.  One must play not to win every battle but play to stay in power.  

Change comes most often in incremental steps, not abrupt turnarounds.

As long as the corn growing states have sufficient votes they will be able to shift taxpayer dollars their way.  We should not look to Obama to right a wrong and possibly destroy himself in the effort, but look the voters of those states to come to an understanding that they are supporting a bad idea.

Lots more voter education seems to be in order.  

Give Obama the ability to pick battles he can win.On On the challenge of cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Helpful...

It would be helpful to understand that behavior rarely changes abruptly, but in small steps.

When a major player makes even a small movement away from a strongly held position it bodes well for future large change.

A tax break for the rich in order for them to increase energy conservation in their mini-mansions is a nice step along the way to getting both sides to start using some tax dollars to improve our energy usages.  By acknowledging that insulation has financial value the AEI has made it a lot easier to discuss government assistance for energy retrofits across all economic classes.

It's like getting out of Iraq.  When the hawks stop talking about staying for a hundred years and start talking about a "respectable withdrawal" the big battle about leaving is over.  Now it's just about ironing out the details....On American Enterprise Institute endorses tax credits for super-efficient, furnace-free homes posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

Fine...

Show us the math.  

Calc out the cost/methods of generating the power we need by "doing it ourselves".  Be sure to include late peak hour supplies.

Oh, and include ideas of how we force people to run their own utility companies when they have no desire and/or ability to do so.

(BTW, I call BS on the birds, bats, groundwater, acres killed part.  We might lose a lot of moths in the area.  But perhaps fewer than we kill via other methods.  I'm not sure the desert is chock-a-block with moths.) On World's biggest solar power tower to open in Spain posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 11 Responses

From the Climate Progress discussion of this topic

"A salt is basically any crystalline ionic compound.

"Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium." So says Wikipedia, anyway."

Extract it once.  Use it forever.  It's not like it gets used up.

As a point of reference the world uses about 200 million metric tons of table salt per year.  That's use it and lose it and extract it again.On World's biggest solar power tower to open in Spain posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 11 Responses

My favorites...

Wind farms.  They currently produce electricity equal to or lower than any new installed production methods.

Inefficient appliance buy-back programs.  Did that in CA long ago and got a lot old energy hog beer refers out of garages and replaced them with models that did the same job while using 50% or less power.

White/light colored roofs and pavements.  Low cost reflecting of heat back out of our atmosphere.  Read Joe's more excellent current article.

PHEVs and PHEV retrofits.  While we wait for  affordable quick charge battery packs so that we can go BEVs.

Serious research/upscaling efforts into thermal solar (with storage), hot rock geothermal, and tide generation.  All have existing proof of concept installations producing (I believe) grid parity electricity.  

Pursuit of non-food land biofuels for long haul transportation systems (planes, ocean freighters, etc.) which may never  be electrified.

Massive conservation retrofits for private and public buildings financed by government money (where necessary) with payback to the government via energy bill savings over time.  No net increase in monthly bills to the owner and eventual decreases in monthly bills.

Widespread "forcing" to CFLs.  Add a tax to incandescents and a subsidy to CFLs to bring about a market switch.  Multiple times a year we can buy new CFLs for $0.50 here in NoCA thanks to utility company support.  How that we're seeing "normal looking" CFLs coming to the market resistance to switch will greatly decline.  Force people to save money by gently pushing them into a better way.

Figure out how to get the cost of ground effect heat pumps down.  A lot.  I just don't understand the current price structure.  Perhaps we need to fund development of "ditch witches" than can cut a 30' deep trench.  The plumbing is minimal and cheap.  Again, use government money if necessary to install the systems for free and use the saved energy differential to pay back the government.

These are the sort of things that I like.  We can do most of them right now.  They will pay for themselves.  None cause people to change their lifestyle in any noticeable manner.

We need more stuff like this.  On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

Sure...

Go to your library and get a basic book on the analysis of human behavior.

Pay attention to response cost and resistance to behavior change.  Also to time to payoff issues.  On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

spaceshifter...

December 30, 2008

WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- Air New Zealand has tested a passenger jet powered partially with oil from a plum-sized fruit known as jatropha, in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and cut its fuel bill.

With its test flight Tuesday, the airline became the latest carrier experiment with alternative fuels, partly due to the threat of rising oil prices but also to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/air-new-zealands ...

50:50 blend of jatropha and jet fuel.  That's a 50% reduction in previously-sequestered carbon release.

Jatropha grows in areas that we would consider "wastelands".  Land on which we would expect to raise a scrawny goat at best.  If we had a lot of acres for that goat to search.

---

"Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, we should consider the energy habits of the american people as perhaps just a little bit more adjustable than the physical laws of the universe?"

Have you ever noticed how many people, around the world, continue to smoke and overeat even though they know it will likely cause problems for them later in life?

Unfortunately too many people get excited about making major changes in the way we lead our lives and ignore the laws of human behavior.

You want to force people to make extreme lifestyle changes against their wills?

Better get yourself a 'green army', and I'm talking a real one with real guns that shoot and everything....On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

Please be careful...

Don't fall off your soapbox and sprain your ankle.

Go out for a few hours and look at how the vast majority of people are living.  Check how many are recycling, using CFLs, cloth shopping bags, turning down their thermostats and wearing a sweater inside.  Sometimes 'us greenies' get confused and think we're 'normal'.  

We aren't.

If we want to change the amount of carbon (and other crap) that we pump into our atmosphere we need to find ways that cause as little disruption as possible to the lifestyles of everyone else.  The vast majority of humans.

We need solutions today.  Not solutions 30 years from now.  If the climate scientists are correct....On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

Biofuel....

1) It does not introduce "new" carbon into the atmosphere as does extracting and burning sequestered fossil fuel.  It's a recycling of carbon already present.  

And using a perennial such as switchgrass actually sequesters some carbon via the root system which is never plowed up.  Same would be true of trees producing nuts. What is left after fuel extraction could be turned into biochar and buried.

2)  Biofuel does not have to be made from food stuff.  We've got multiple plants under study which can nicely grow in places where we can't successfully grow food.
On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

500 mph air travel semi-green soon...

We've got big jets, both commercial and military flying with biofuel.  That's today, which is what concerns me, not 20, 30, 40 years from now.

The vapor problem?  That, to me, is the issue concerning near future jet travel.  Perhaps it is something with which we will have to live and find ways to offset.

Real solutions are ones that people will accept.

People are concerned about global climate change but IMO in no way ready to make major sacrifices in lifestyle.  Maybe in 5-10 years if things get much more obviously worse.....On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 11 months ago 50 Responses

Thanks...

Looks like they've made it to container ships.  The demos I had seen so far were smaller cargo ship platforms and it looked like it would take significant deck space to launch and retrieve.

Too bad Asia is downwind from the US.  Loaded ships require more energy than empty ones.On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 11 months ago 50 Responses

Bill -

Why do You push nuclear?  What is your motivation?

Surely you recognize that we can provide all the electricity we need with non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel methods.

Surely you know that "affordable" nuclear is only a dream at this time.  It's unproven concept and would take decades to implement when we need alternative sources of power now.

Are you capable of sitting down and creating a non-nuclear solution on paper and then doing a cost comparison and time to production comparison?On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 11 months ago 48 Responses

Why don't they?

"Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a "smart grid" deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions."

Perhaps because efficiency, renewables, and the grid have small advertising budgets.

I have to believe that many of the pro-nuclear people who post on these forums are a) paid by the industry or b) somehow locked into the industry via their jobs or investments.  'Teh math' tells a rational person that nuclear is not a solution for our 'next 20 year' energy needs and cutting atmospheric gases Now.

I would expect coal executives see a limited lifetime for their plants.  Feels to me that we've entered the 'end of coal' era.  Advertising in the support of "clean" coal probably serves to extend the use of coal and every year further coal plants are allowed to operate means another year of profits for coal companies.

Putting most of your window on the south and including appropriately sized overhangs when you build has no budget for advertising and lobbying.On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 11 months ago 48 Responses

Biofuels - where we will need them...

Airplanes.

It's going to be a long time before we can plug in a 747 and fly it non-stop across the Pacific.  We need a very concentrated fuel source in this case.

Personal cars, trains, city buses, perhaps even shorter-haul trucks we can power with electricity.

Right now we use about 4% of our oil for jet fuel.  It seems reasonable that we can replace that smaller amount with biofuels without inordinately taxing our available land.

At so many levels biofuel doesn't make sense for personal transportation.On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 11 months ago 50 Responses

Wouldn't you love to smoke the wheels on this one?

"The KillaCycle, ridden by Scotty Pollacheck, made drag racing history AGAIN at Bandimere Speedway October 23rd, 2008. 7.89 seconds @ 168 MPH is a new official National Electric Drag Racing Association (NEDRA) record and makes KillaCycle the world's quickest electric vehicle of any kind in the quarter mile!"

Faster quarter and you're talking exotic fuel dragsters and rockets.

(Got to say, my reflexes are long past the days when I would get off alive.  But one can dream....)On Bush pledges $17.4 billion for auto bailout, with no efficiency requirements posted 11 months ago 28 Responses

Wind - wrong.

Best sites, best technology wind produces electricity at $0.045 per kWh.  That does not require subsidizes to be profitable, to compete directly with fossil fuel.

Prices for wind production are expected to fall further from their overall average of $0.075 kWh.  

Subsidizes were needed to kick start the technology.  Now that sufficient manufacturing and installation infrastructure has been created the subsidizes are fading in usefulness.

It might, however, be in our very best interest  to keep them in place.  It would aid in our rush away from fossil fuel consumption.

--

The CO2 studies are out there.  Do your homework.

And accept the denier label.  You're just another guy showing up on these sites regurgitating the party line.

Teddy was a huge, huge giveaway.  Anyone who gives credence to that stuff is faith based, not data based.On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

asdf

The Little Ice Age in now believed to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.  There is no evidence of significant temperature decreases in the Souther Hemisphere during the same time period.

BTW, we've observed more heating in the northern pole regions than in the southern regions during this heating period.  Climate averages are averages.

If you've paid any attention to the cause for the 1998 extreme spike then you know that it was largely caused by an extreme El Nino event.

And, including 1998, the current decade is easily on its way to being the hottest decade recorded in history.

Take a look at the graph on this page and see how the 2000s are stacking up.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/16/sorry-deniers-hadle ...

Further, the "leveling off of methane"?  Are up not aware that we are now starting to measure increased methane bubbling both from far northern lakes and the ocean?  First data started appearing in 2006.

The people, the climate scientists who post at Real Climate are not objective?

Sorry, Charlie.  You seem to have been supping from the cup of denial....On Faster, climate change! Kill! Kill! posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

In some areas of investigation...

Control of the independent variables is difficult, if not danged impossible.

Economics questions are difficult to answer using tight methodological design.  As is the case in sociology and astronomy.  

But because it is difficult to randomly introduce a variable does not make rigorous research impossible.  It just requires a different set of tools.On Faster, climate change! Kill! Kill! posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

hapa - i think you've solved it!

it's all those moths.

back in the olden days, when we didn't need government at all and everyone was incredibly wealthy, the moths moved heat to the sunny side of the globe, thus allowing nighttime cooling.

now mankind has screwed up the climate by leaving our porch lights on and disrupting the rhythm of nature....On Planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

adf

"Tell that to the millions of people who drive, modify and enjoy Camaros, Corvettes, Mustangs, Hemi 'Cudas, Challengers, and any other piece of American muscle."

Drive up beside them in a Tesla and lay titles on the hoods.  (That's what the boldest of us used to do.)

One run and no other muscle car owner will be foolish enough to run against a Tesla.  Before long ex-muscle car lovers will start pining for the incredibly powerful hum of their own ass-kicking electric.

Want to beat a Tesla with a production car?  Then be prepared to plop down $1.4 million for a Bugatti Veyron Hermes.  I think that's the only way you pull it off.On Bush pledges $17.4 billion for auto bailout, with no efficiency requirements posted 11 months ago 28 Responses

What about the Mojave?

Don't jump from the discovery that there  is some carbon sequestering going on in places one wouldn't expect to the idea that leaving all our deserts devoid of trees is the best idea.

Remember that there are many deserts that man created.  Think about the "Cradle of Civilization".

Some math will tell us whether it makes sense to return trees to places we stripped.

No one is suggesting we reforest National Parks.  On Planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

Interesting Georgia...

Here's a little tidbit about the little ice age.

Seems like back when the Europeans came to the Americas they bought with them diseases for which the current residents had little to no resistance.  This brought about a huge die-off.  A very large percentage of those living in the Americas perished.  We have know that for a long time.

What we are just realizing is that when all those people died off the land that they had been cultivating fell fallow and returned to forest.

The newly grown forests created a somewhat regional cooling period which we call The Little Ice Age.

Isn't it interesting how mankind has apparently been influencing the climate for a long time?  Most likely starting with the adoption of extensive rice agriculture many hundreds of years ago.

--

Now that carbon/absorption bit....

Problem is not that CO2 increases the absorption of heat from the sun.  (Removed forests, dark rooftops, pavement are the bad guys when it comes to absorption.)

The problem is that we have made our "blanket" of atmospheric gases too thick.  We've pulled on a great, warm down comforter on top of the fluffy blanket that we need to keep us from losing the heat we need to survive.

We aren't allowing enough of that absorbed heat to escape.  Next time you're nice and comfy in your bed add a few extra covers and I think you'll understand the problem before too long.

---

Now as to your "These guys never have to show any analysis or study of any kind. ", you aren't such a silly goose that you believe that we aren't aware of the vast amount of science that backs global climate change?  

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, shall we?  Perhaps you just aren't aware of how much science underlies the issue.  Try spending some time at the Real Climate site and I'll bet you'll be impressed at what climate scientists are doing.

Or go to the NASA (the rocket science guys site) or NOAA or the British Hadley Center site.  From those places you can travel far and wide learning about climate science and start to understand why climate scientists are sounding the alarm bells.  On Faster, climate change! Kill! Kill! posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

asdf

"how on Earth do we reduce fossil fuel emissions by 80 percent in about a generation?"

What's a generation - 20 years?

Let me just talk US for a moment.  We now are capable of installing 0.5 - 1.0% electricity production in new wind farms per year.  We're on the verge of doing the same with thin film solar.  We can cut usage 1% per year for a few years via conservation.

With some not immense effort we should be able to bring more than 2% of renewables on line every year.  Let's say 4% and add in 1% conservation gain.

20 year, 5% says "replaced" to me.  And remember that only 50% our electricity comes from coal.  That's what we really need to get out of our system.  

Same with autos.  Move to PHEVs and our petroleum use drops 80%.  Charge at night with low cost wind power.On Faster, climate change! Kill! Kill! posted 11 months ago 22 Responses

Link please...

PHEVs -  "but US auto maker/government  protectionism has blocked their availability here"On Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol posted 11 months ago 50 Responses

Breaking!

Wind tower topples...

Cows prevented from grazing on approximately 1,000 square feet of land for a week until crane lifts tower....On TVA coal disaster is toxic wake-up call posted 11 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

Time limited...

Me and the globe (I'm afraid)...

Change our ways as quickly as possible.

That's easy to say, but remember that there will be a lot of resistance to change.  First you've got ~10% of the population that are deniers.  They will make personal change only if significantly forced.  

Then add in another probably larger percentage who just don't care, couldn't be bothered, "will get to it tomorrow", ....  And some who are going to chose todays personal income/wealth over what might happen to others sometime later.

Changes that require the least amount of personal sacrifice are much more likely to work.  Those changes that cost now for gains decades from now are going to be harder to implement.

If the general public is adequately educated then resistance will decline.  So far it's not clear that the general public sufficiently understands and is sufficiently concerned.

If changes meet sufficient resistance then the changes we initiate won't be enough.

IMHO it would be foolish to not actively research/develop methods that either reflect additional incoming heat or reduce the insulating blanket that we've added to our bed.

If we come up with techniques that undo damage that we've done and that are environmentally benign, then implementing them now makes sense to me.  

Planting trees pulls down carbon levels that we've been building up for decades.  Converting plant waste into biochar might return fertility to soil,fertility that we've used up and will sequester some of our "before now" carbon.  

Painting flat roofs white reflects off a bit of incoming heat, making the future hurt a little bit less.  Painting roofs replaces some of the reflection that we've removed from the higher latitudes.

And we should have our "environmental chemo" in the cabinet and ready to inject.  Mankind may just be too stupid to fix it now.  It would not be the right thing to leave future generations unarmed.On Desperate enough to contemplate geo-engineering posted 11 months, 1 week ago 22 Responses

X -

The land runs all the way up to the ocean.

I've lost track of whether the Ace article got posted in this thread or not.  That's the one that I've been working from.  His proposal is to use sea water, not fresh water.

--

Everyone else.

I just don't feel that I have any more to offer to this discussion.  

It seems that the same arguments have circled around again devoid of new ideas.

I do wish we had a forum that allowed us to start new threads.  Some ideas back up the page would seem to deserve further contemplation.  

Or perhaps that's just my perception....

 On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

X

Something that I've noticed is that you tend to go to complex solutions rather than seeking the simple.

Why a fleet of ships when we can do the same job with a 50" piece of pipe sticking up from Terra Firma?

--

Might want to hold off on prostletizing for cloud making for a little while.  There's not quite enough "peer review" on the idea yet.

Now, white roofs.  No reason not to move along on that one.  Even if it turned out that for some weird reason white roofs didn't bounce heat back up  to the sun as does white snow, it would at least cut down on air conditioning....

---

I suspect Europe would fund greening N. Africa.

The bigots alone would foot the bill if they thought it would cut immigration....    ;o)On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Breaking out this part..

"And it also seems that THERE ARE NO SUSTAINABLE SUBSTITUTES for our present level of oil use, either currently available or that we can plausibly count on in the future at reasonable levels of cost and volume."

We are fairly sure that we are going to be able to build affordable PHEVs that cut our personal transportation oil consumpting to roughly 25% of what they are today.  

A little less certain, but fairly likely, is the promise of BEVs which will require zero oil.

We will also most likely move some of our rail transport to electricity and a good portion of our shorter airplane travel to electric high speed rail.

Electricity to power transportation of all sorts costs a very small fraction of what we pay for oil at $100 a barrel, which is where the producers want to push it.

We now know how to use residual heat from the ground to heat our houses efficiently which means that we can start moving away from heating oil.

Airlines and the military are moving along with non-food biofuels which will at least partially  replace petroleum.

All of these developments mean very significant drops in petroleum consumption.  And that means stretching supply over longer and longer periods.

I'm comfortable in assuming that people 20-30 years from now will have much better solutions than what we can reasonably purpose today.

"Cling to your hopes of plentiful (and miraculously carbon-free) oil and limitless 10c./kWh electricity if you like. The facts simply point elsewhere."

The facts are that we are making electricity from wind for far less than ten cents.  In fact, 'below a nickel' is where we are headed.

We may be right at the ten cent level with thin film solar. Without including financing and real estate costs we are at seven and one-half cents.  Desert/solar real estate is cheap and capital costs nothing like nuclear engenders.  And thin film should drop in cost to around 1/3rd of where it now is.

Hot rock geothermal is looking very promising and should be ten cent or less power.

How about we point at those facts?On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

hapa...

"this is not an ordinary recession"

Correct.  It appears to be somewhat deeper than those of the recent past.  And it threatens to get much worse if strong measures are not taken.  

---

"oil prices did not drop 70% because of single-digit percentage drop in miles driven"

No,they didn't.  They dropped because what we saw was the bursting of a pricing bubble.  There was no underlying reason for $140 oil.  The downturn in consumption popped the bubble.  

---

"i don't know what's going to happen to oil prices. you do. lucky you!"

I don't know what will happen.  But I do know what is happening.  The bubble popped.  Oil is back to cheap.  Prices that we "would never see again".

I also know that we have learned that there won't be a "run on oil" as demand exceed supply.  There's a price ceiling at which people quit buying, at least in the quantities required to drive prices "way up high".

----

"i never said the suburbs were dying. i said they were being subsidized by means that just stopped being available. you know where is another source of reliable financing. lucky you."

Sorry if I mistranslated this...

"suburban life will become a luxury so expensive we won't be able to bill strangers for it anymore"

---

"and you're bullish on detroit and your tenants appear to be solvent and you can wave your hand to make oil emissions leave the atmosphere and you're really lucky"

No. I think there's a decent chance that GM and/or Chrysler might disappear in the next year or so.  Higher than even chance that Chrysler will be bought up or divided and sold off.

And I recognize that while carbon emissions from cars create some of our climate change problems it seems to me that some people are not looking at the larger problem.  They've forgotten that auto-carbon is a much, much smaller portion of the problem than is coal-electricity.

They respond that as if the only way to save humanity is for all of us to destroy our cars and ride bikes.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

Kinda high?

Wind is about $0.05 kWh at best sites with best technology.  Average wind is about $0.075.

First Solar has brought thin film down to around $0.075 kWh.  (I'm not sure that number includes cost of capital which would drive it up some.)

A six to ten cent subsidy would be giving people power for nothing.  Something closer to the current two cents is most likely enough.

I do like the idea of stimulating ground effect heat pumps.  Low cost loans, even rebates, might be a good move.

And make sure that there is plenty of money for research and test projects for other good ideas.  There's money that will flow to green energy sources once they've been demonstrated to make a profit.  

As soon as we are convinced that we can provide all the energy we need from green sources then start turning up the hurt on dirty sources.

BTW, saw this excellent bit on how the grid can easily accept far more wind/solar than the 20% number that's been used for a while.  Try 50% - 70%.

Check out the very neat graph at the bottom right.  Gives one a great feel for how the various types of generation fit together.  It is a beautiful piece of work.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/could-the-elec ...On RGGI auction: CO2 trading at $3 per ton posted 11 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

asdf

hapa - does not compute.

We're in a recession.  We've been in recessions before.  No reason why we shouldn't pull out of this one.  Very unlikely that the question is not "if", but simply "how long".

Oil is still plentiful.  The oil suppliers can't even get $50 per barrel for it.  They're having to cut supply to support $40.  By the time we start sliding off the plateau (which may still be a decade or two away) we'll have alternatives.

We've now acquired evidence that there is softness in oil demand and that the price of oil responds to demand decay.  Until we get BEVs or at least good PHEVs, we'll car pool and sleep under our desks until prices drop once more.

The market for used gas guzzlers may well be shot.  The price of economy cars is most likely rising.

Suburbs dying.  That's K-krap.  No sense going through that one again.  If you believe it then don't put your money in the burbs.  I'll continue to own properties in them.  Bet I win.  Rent checks came in again this month....On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 1 week ago 83 Responses

X -

Around here we still have a bit of logging going on.  We're way, way down from the sawmills that we had 10-20 years ago.

Anyway, wood waste from the mills gets burned in a couple of electricity producing plants.  But the branches, etc. are left in the forests where they are largely piled up and burned once the fall rains start.

There doesn't seem to be enough energy value in the slash (the leftovers) to pay for hauling them to make electricity.  That might hold for making CE as well.

I really wonder if transportation costs won't knock CE out of the picture unless we come up with a 'short haul' method.

As an aside, I worry about pulling all that vegetation off the mountain sides.  From a little that I've heard, growth is dropping with successive replantings.  The soil is losing fertility probably due both to erosion and removal/burning rather than allowing trees to die, fall, and rot.On Cellulosic ethanol's bumpy ride posted 11 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

Actually...

"Even when gas prices were high and the economy was roaring, GM didn't think they would make any money off the Volt."

That's not accurate.  GM stated that it would be about _ years before they expected the Volt to produce a profit.  I don't recall the exact number of years, less than five.

It's not uncommon for a newly introduced product to be marketed at a loss.  It takes a while to build sales to the point where one starts to recover startup costs.

And, yes, they stopped construction on part of the Volt factory.  Does that mean that they have halted production or simply moved operations to another place freed up by downsizing?  Don't think we know that yet.

Offering more than a half-dozen efficient models in this coming year makes them not viable?  How many are BMW and Mercedes offering?

You really think a startup can replace GM inside America?  Do you have any sense of the scale you are talking about?

I don't know if GM can survive.  But I cannot see Tesla or Aptera or ____ growing to significant size in a decade.  

GM closes and some of their business will go to Ford (maybe Chrysler).  The rest will go overseas.On Bush pledges $17.4 billion for auto bailout, with no efficiency requirements posted 11 months, 1 week ago 28 Responses

racc -

Chicken or egg?

People bought minivans for a while.  Then they bought pick-ups.  Then they bought SUVs.  

Were those changes in buying patterns caused by automotive company advertising or did advertising budgets shift with buying patterns?

---

Now, I'm liking the role of GM defender, but...

GM has seven 30+ mpg cars in its 2009 lineup.  Want to buy a new fuel efficient car when the economy comes back in a few months?

GM has the Volt, a very interesting PHEV, about ready for the market.  There are a lot of people who only buy American.  I'd like to see us give them the chance to try a PHEV and they might not be willing to buy a BYD from China.

Let GM go and a sizable portion of American car manufacturing goes.  Not only GM, but tons of companies that supply GM.

Do we really want to send those jobs overseas?

(And please review your union history.  If it weren't for unions you probably wouldn't have the occupational protection that keeps you from working 10-12 hour days, six days a week, Christmas Day off, in unsafe conditions.)

(And please check what the unions have given back.   If you even suspect that GM workers are making $70 per hour....)On Bush pledges $17.4 billion for auto bailout, with no efficiency requirements posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 28 Responses

asdf

"Given what's transpired here, I'll withdraw from posting on cellulosic ethanol. I don't need the frustration."

Seems like you do more comebacks per performance than did James Brown.

--

How about dropping the drama?  

Please.On Cellulosic ethanol's bumpy ride posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

Here's an idea...

"We'd probably have to pay off shareholders in coal companies to accept the elimination of their industry,"

We create a carbon tax.

We allow coal companies to invest the tax money in green energy production rather than write a check to the government.  If needed, we even dollar match with government funds.

In short, we create a financial incentive for coal extractors and coal burners to shift to green production.  Better to spend some extra money helping them morph that spend money fighting them.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

Mitigation...

What will probably work/help (nothing is likely to be the sole solution):

1. White/bright roofs.  

2. Reforestation.  Here's a great read that turned up today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551 ...

Set up reforestation programs along North Africa using solar/wind desalinization and inexpensive labor.  

People with jobs tend to be happier and less interested in killing others. (Side benefit.)

3) Making clouds.  I really resent that "daffy" crap on the link.  When we put unearned adjectives in front of new ideas we skew consideration.

Making clouds is consistent with lowering temps.  One of the problematic feedback loops of global warming is that as surface temps increase clouds thin and are less reflective.  More "heat" gets through.

We could use cheap nighttime (off peak) wind power to pump sea water into tanks/reservoirs and then let gravity create the spray during daytime.  

Since the water vapor needs to be sprayed between 20 and 200 feet from the surface this is not big tech.

Will it work?  Easy and cheap to evaluate.  Set up one spray.  Float an infra-red detector above the spray.  Is a good hunk of what is coming down going back up?  Then do some math.On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

I got a SUV. GM did not con me....

I really need 4wd.  Sometimes I need to haul more than two people.  I bought mine back when gas was cheap.  My SUV is made in Japan.  The Japanese, like GM, made SUVs because a sufficient number of people wanted them.

---

Massive restructuring of the world's transportation systems.  It's a good idea.  Let's do it over the next decade or so.

Up to three million people in the Upper Midwest out of work by the end of January if we don't do something right now.  It's something we really don't want.On Bush pledges $17.4 billion for auto bailout, with no efficiency requirements posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 28 Responses

NEVs and the K-guy...

All you uber-greens with your extreme answers ain't gettin' it. IMHO.

I think I'm pretty much on the same page as you in terms of what needs to be fixed, etc., but I think I'm taking it one more step and trying to think pragmatically about getting change made.

Now you, Jon, live in the heart of New York City, do you not?  Someone starts talking about no more school buses and cars that don't go faster than 30 mph and you go "Why not?".  There are no school buses in your neighborhood and you can't even hit 30 mph in the middle of dense cities.

Say that to someone who lives outside Fargo or  Apalachicola and has school-age kids and they say "Are you F*ckin' Nuts?".  They will take their golf clubs to the barricades before they go down that road.

Start talking about cars that don't go faster than 30 mph and even a lot of your fellow NYCers will think you're nuts.  

They either have a car parked somewhere that they us to dash to the beach/mountains on the weekends.  Or they fantasize about getting a 65 mph car and taking that big trip west.

You want to sell green solutions?  IMHO they have to be priced roughly equal to what is now being done and they can't significantly decrease quality of life.

1) Let's look at what is currently successful:  

The Prius.  

2) Let's look at what is currently not being successful:

NEVs.  
Not owning a car and riding a bike.
Segways.  

3) Let's look at what can be successful:

PHEVs with a 20-40 electric-only range.
BEVs with at least a 150 mile range and rapid charging batteries.

Either of these last two give people the freedom that they either need or think they need to travel as they now travel.  People will willingly move to those options if the price is right.

Try to make people adopt any of the #2 options and you'll get a lot of resistance.  Elected leaders will lose elections.

----

K-guy.

He's a dangerous broken clock.  He makes lots of predictions.  

Many of his predictions are about things which are likely to happen.  Some time.  Problem is, he puts specific dates on them and he is frequently wrong.

The market takes great big downturns at times.  Take your money out when K warns you of an upcoming crash and historically you'll loose your shorts.

Many of his predictions are heavily weighted to "worst case" outcomes.  Feeds into the paranoid culture and scares the timid.  

He's as useless as dentures for a chicken.

Furthermore, dentures would likely be dangerous for chickens.  

(Just some info for you city slickers who don't know how chicken mouths work....   ;o)  On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

Well, LPS...

OPEC is scurrying around like a pack of rabid squirrels trying to hide their nuts, er, cut their production.  Obviously the potential supply greatly exceeds a slightly depressed demand.

We can keep that demand down and cut it further as a near-term solution.  It's highly likely that all we have to do is to push affordable supply forward a very few years and we will have quite workable BEVs.  And we're already building the wind farms.

And did you hear that solar has more or less hit grid parity?

Now the general population might be in for a world of hurt.  But not due to disappearing oil, but changing climate.  

Heard that there's multiple pieces of data telling us that methane has started to bubble up in the far north.  Now, that's some scary stuff.

Cutting  our carbon emissions might not be enough.  We might have to do some geo-engineering/mitigation.  And we really don't know how....On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

Well, John...

"By the way, my understanding is that water is by far the cheapest mode of travel...."

You never owned a sailboat did you?  

Want the experience?  

Stand in a cold shower and rip up $100 dollar bills.  

;o)  It's an old sailboat owners joke....

----

That aside, here's the problem with K-ster's car/oil problem.  

We aren't going to 'hit peak oil', fall off a no-oil cliff, and die.

We will hit a point in the supply demand function where under supply will cause prices to rise and rising prices will cause demand decay.  

Remember a couple of months ago when we had $4 - $5 gas?

And remember how people quit buying big SUVs/pickups and cut way back on their driving?

Near term solutions to expensive fuel are available.  Take the guy paying $4 a gallon.  Put three other 'drivers' in the car and gas drops to $1 for each.  Add a 5th person and each can drive by himself for a 'personal errand' day and fuel is only $1.60 a gallon.

Take the average 12,000 miles per year driven by Americans.  That's 33 miles per day.  

The high range for electric cars is 0.35 kWh per mile.  That's 12 kWh per day.  

(I'm rounding up, not down.  Don't want to push the numbers in my favor.)

US average electricity cost is (I think) $0.10 per kWh. Daily cost of fuel $1.20.

Less as the cost of electricity comes down, as we start paying off-peak prices.

Oh, 33 miles in a 33 mpg car burns up a $4 gallon of fuel in this exercise.

Gas goes to $8 per gallon?  Car pool now pays $2 per gallon - 2006 prices.  

BEV driver goes solo and pays $1.20.  I suppose he could car pool and cut his cost to $0.30....

----

(BTW, don't get too carried away worrying about my emotional state.  I'm having great fun playing ranter.....  ;o)

 On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

Grabbinag something from Peak Oil Debunked...

"Jim got off to a rip-roaring start in April 1999 by predicting that "Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world... I believe [Y2K] will deeply affect the economies-of-scale of virtually all activities in the United States, essentially requiring us to downsize and localize everything from government to retail merchandising to farming... I doubt that the WalMarts and K-Marts of the land will survive Y2K.""

He's made multiple predictions of plunging markets.  And no plunges appeared when predicted.  (They did show up from time to time when he wasn't predicting them.)

He started that stupid "suburbs are going to die" crap that now pops up like Al Gore inventing the internet.

He can't do simple car math.  

Back to small farms?  Don't think so.  While we might get better quality by eating seasonally and eating fresh and eating locally we won't be forced to that style of farming because we run out of oil  If nothing else we can farm with electricity.  That might be one of the easiest of all places to replace oil.

We're unlikely to move to the water for much of our transportation.  It's just to slow.  And the resistance of water against a hull doesn't make for the efficient use of fuel.

Change the way we do retail?  Well, we'll likely do more internet.  But we're not going back the days of the pack trader walking from house to house.  Nor are we likely to give up our big box stores.  Unless someone comes up with an even more efficient way to distribute goods.

We're not going to return to some 18th Century model of manufacturing where our machines are turned by overshot water wheels.  We're learning to make electricity without fossil fuels and make it cheap.

Canned entertainment is over?  Can you say "YouTube"?

Yellow school buses won't run anymore?  We goin' to paint the electric ones green?

Reorganize the medical system?  Well, reorganize the way we pay for our medical services and move some of the nurses away from insurance paperwork and back to nursing.  But the likelihood that we'll give up the doctor office/clinic -> hospital model?

Local heros taking care of local people?  Isn't that what we already have?  Anyone seen the US Hospice Corp driving its tanks down the freeway lately?

How about platoons of uniformed federal food line servers?

This guy writes doomer porn....On Kunstler's tips to prepare for a post-oil society posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 83 Responses

Bill -

I have mixed thoughts, none final, on all that.

Current large crop techniques are incredibly efficient.  I've raised grain (more accurately been around grain raising as a kid) and it works better to have great big machines in great big fields rather than bunches of little machines spending a lot of time turning around.

I think where we could use more small farming is in the creation of "truck farms" close to population centers.  (Re-creation, we used to have them.)  Growing vegetables close to where they are eaten makes sense. Eating fresh, eating in season, providing jobs for those who enjoy that type of work, ....On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Not boxes...

Buckets.  Plastic buckets.  Free from the supermarket bakery.

I even used one dug into the ground underneath a large bush for one summer as my refer when I was first building and had only a very minimal PV setup.

I could keep milk for almost a week.  Made shopping once a week viable....

Lots of things that we think need refrigeration really don't.  I've kept eggs for months on my boat.  Kept mayo without refer just fine, even in the tropics.  Lots of veggies do well if just kept cool and out of the light.

Cheese - wrap it in a cloth lightly soaked in vinegar.

Keep a few small containers of stuff you really like for emergencies.  Then you can open something and use it up in a couple of days.

People who live in places that can lose power should visit their shelves/pantry around Thanksgiving and ask themselves "If I get snowed in for a week or two and have no electricity what will I eat?".  And then stock up on stuff that keeps well and is tasty to eat.On Of ice and biomass posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

X -

I think you greatly underestimate the problems of storing significant energy in batteries.

If a house uses electricity to produce heat in any form (cook stove, space heater, water heater, etc.) just forget about it.

I run a very efficient 18 cu.ft. refer, 1-2 18 watt CFLs, a ~20 watt laptop, and a 4 watt draw radio.  Twelve 6 volt "golf cart" batteries will store about 2 days of power.

Go to a site like Backwoods Solar and do an electricity audit for your lifestyle and see now many kWhs of batteries you would have to purchase to carry you through a few days of power outage.

(Deep cycle batteries are those with much thicker than usual plates.  That allows them to undergo many more deep discharges before they croak.  Normal car starting batteries just won't hold up to lots of deep down cycles.)On Of ice and biomass posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

I've tried it...

I spit it out!  ;o)

Sure, there are reasons why clumping people together works in terms of efficiency.  But that doesn't mean that it's an enjoyable way to live.

I understand that if you love to be able to go to clubs/bars/theaters/galleries at night, hate gardening/mowing lawns, don't mind the lack of privacy once you go outside your door, and aren't bothered by noises then city life could be fine.

But if your idea of a great evening is to watch the sunset and cook up dinner with things fresh from your garden....

It's a different strokes for different folks issue.  And in designing our transition away from petroleum we will probably be most successful if we design for the continuum of human desire as opposed to trying to force everyone into one single lifestyle.

If we were building a country from scratch then a system of "villages" with dense centers giving way to burbs which morph into farms and those village centers being connected with speedy rail would make a lot of sense.  People could titrate and find their density satisfaction location.

But we're basically stuck with what we've got.  So we need ways to move large distances rapidly, ways to move into and out of our dense centers, and ways to get around were our density does not support public transportation.

I hold that it will be much, much less expensive and much, much more politically feasible to design "green" private transportation for people living in the less dense areas than to build new housing for them in the dense areas and force them to move, abandoning their properties as they make their sad journey to the city.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Bit of difference...

"city property, in a well-designed city, is almost always more expensive because it is more desirable, simply because it is in the middle of a well-designed cities"

I would suggest that property values are higher in cites because jobs are concentrated there.  The bright, ambitious kids around here pack it up and head for the big city because they want to "get ahead".  

I wouldn't at all be surprised if a poll wouldn't find a majority of city dwellers to prefer a less congested lifestyle if employment conditions permitted.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Alt se tolerance ...

It's working its way through our society.

When I was growing up homosexuality was never mentioned.  Gays were so deep in the closet that they might as well have not existed.

Kids these days....  

Well, those of the generations more recent than mine have been exposed to out gays, both in entertainment and among their friends.  

The only age group to not vote to continue gay marriage in California were those over ~65.  

Even us old hippies and almost-hippies got the message.  "Whatever floats your boat, man, it's cool with me. I mean, if Keith and Mick want to give it a spin...."On Climate crusader Richard Cizik forced out of evangelical association over gay marriage posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

Aluminum body filled with foam...

Is that enough?

Or do we need something more like a plastic body filled with air bags.

(As I recall one of the big dangers of metal bodies is that they deform and stay deformed.  Plastics, the right ones, can absorb more energy while better keeping their shapes.)

Fix the seats in one position and move the controls back and forth to fit the driver.

Make the ICE a slide in-slide out.  Those who almost never drive more than 30 could leave it in the garage to save weight.  Or even not own one and rent one for the annual vacation.

Tupperwear box with Michelin wheel motors.  Works for me.  Back to the "people's car".  

Make it something that we can fix under the shade tree.  At least unbolt a crumpled body part and bolt another on in a few minutes like the Bug....On Memo to Prius owners: Get the extended warranty posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 12 Responses

One of Obama's stated goals...

Heal the divide and work toward bringing the country back together.

Personally I'm sick of the division.  I know plenty decent people who are more conservative than I am.  And I know a few decent people who are left of me.  I'd like to see us all listen to each other, give a little-get a little, and start fixing our problems.

I'd not be unhappy if the far right and far left would just please STFU.  (If they can't find it in themselves to participate.)

I assume that Obama trusts this guy.  That he sat down with him and they agree on at least most of the things that need to get done.  And I assume that if LaHood doesn't produce for Obama that he will be replaced.  

Remember Obama has been very clear that he sets policy.

That's good enough for me....On Enviros and urban planners puzzled by Obama's transportation pick posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

Well, Mr. Grist...

That's not the important question, IMHO.

The ones we should ask if we're pursing CE are:

1. Where do we find the most available/affordable land to grow our C?  (Along with needed water.)

2. Where/what can we grow without disrupting other activities such as logging for timber/pulp?

3. How can we structure our process so that it is maximally efficient?

It might turn out to be more efficient to use a crop that is close to the final market/point of use than one that required the CE to be transported large distances.

If we were going the CE route (which I doubt) then we might chose switchgrass for Oklahoma City and wood chips for Bangor.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

asdf

"It's why I don't bother reading or posting much here anymore. Closed minds. Closed ears."

"I don't bother reading or posting much on Grist anymore, as it's really too close-minded a community for me"

Shall we now argue the meaning of "is"?On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

If your number one concern is global change...

It's likely that you couldn't have been luckier to have expensive oil and the financial meltdown to happen at the same time.

Reversing a moving ship is harder than one that is sitting still....On CNNMoney reports that electrification is key to Chrysler's bailout pitch posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 15 Responses

We're all just guessers, aren't we?

Here's a guess...

Their market research told them that they would sell more electrics that look like Jeeps than electrics that look like Prowlers.  (Remember Prowlers?

Another guess...

Engineering and Tooling told them that they could produce an electric Jeep months/years faster than they could create a brand new super-lite "whatever".  And Finance told them that time was of the essence.

(And ask yourself.  How many people who bought 4wd SUVs actually needed 4wd or that much interior space?  Seems to me that a lot of the market is not driven by rabid rationality.)On CNNMoney reports that electrification is key to Chrysler's bailout pitch posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 15 Responses

And Karen...

Yes, I am picking on you.  (But it seems that you play a spokesperson role, so it comes with the territory.)   

"Remember, peer means elite, not equals--some farmers tried to assert that farmers are peers of farmers and so could peer review one another's work."

Sorry, that's bogus.  A peer is a person who is of equal standing with another in a group.

Within (probably all) branches of science there are "more respected" peers and "more respected" journals which have higher standards of publication.  

In my field there are journals which one reads with feelings of trust and ones which are best read with strong skepticism goggles in place.  But all are written and edited by peers.

Having grown up on a farm I can assure you that farmers are "peers" when it comes to things farming.  Plumbers and dentists are not farming peers.  Farmers don't ask roofers or investment bankers which variety of seeds works best in the local soil.

Of course, one learns which of your peers to trust and which to ignore....On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

BTW, Karen...

If you had read the Lovins et al. paper that Phil linked you would know that there are supporting findings for Archer and Jacobson from other researchers.  Their findings are not unique.

Let's set a higher standard, please.  Read the stuff presented and point out what you feel to be the weaknesses rather than dismissing it because it doesn't support your personal beliefs.On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

People seem to be treating Chu...

as if he were a Republican neocon.

You know, someone who comes to power with an agenda and bends the facts to support their preconceived beliefs.

I'd suggest that it might be wiser to treat him as a scientist, someone who looks at the data and makes their decisions based on the facts available.

(Lots of us who have been interested in getting our vehicles off petroleum were at one time excited about biofuels and about hydrogen fuel cells.  Then we looked at the data and walked away.  I would expect no less of Chu once he assumes the job of taking broader looks.)On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Of course we can do the job without nuclear....

This is peer reviewed.

"Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms"

CRISTINA L. ARCHER AND MARK Z. JACOBSON

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY NOVEMBER 2007

(Abstracted Abstract)

.... Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves
more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power.

In this study, benefits of interconnecting wind farms were evaluated for 19 sites, located in the midwestern United States ....  It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric
power.

---

This tells us that connecting multiple wind farms we can rely on a minimum of 33% of overall measured output as 100% reliable.  If we had no electricity option other than wind we would need to build 3x as many turbines as our power needs.

(Linking wind farms from other geographic areas would increase the 33%, lower the 3x.)

Given that wind (best sites, best technology) can be produced for $0.05 kWh that would mean that we would need to spend a maximum of $0.15 per kWh to supply our needs.  (And the price of wind generated electricity is expected to fall.)

Of course we don't need to depend totally on wind.  

We have existing hydro, might as well use the nuclear that we have, solar thermal can provide well-priced peak power and solar PV is reaching grid parity.  

There are conservation and load shifting.

And quite promising are geothermal, tidal and even slow flow hydro is quite likely.

None of the above mentioned sources are as expensive as new nuclear.  And none of them bring the same safety/waste disposal problems to the table as does nuclear.

All can be installed much faster than we can build new nuclear, thus allowing us to more rapidly reduce our carbon output.On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

Jon - off topic, but I think very important...

"First Solar has made it to grid parity, according to at least one analyst.

A 12.6-megawatt system installed by First Solar (NSDQ: FSLR) for Sempra Generation showed that the system can produce electricity at below the price of conventional power in the United States, said Mark Bachman, an equity analyst at Pacific Crest, in a research note Tuesday.

The solar power plant, located in the Nevada desert, costs $0.075 per kilowatt hour to install without any subsidies, Bachman wrote. Conventional power fed into the grid costs $0.09 per kilowatt hour."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/first-solar-reache ...

Someone might want to blog this.  The analyst might have produced a bit too favorable a number, but if he's not too far off this seems to be very important.  I didn't expect us to be here for many years.On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Or...

4) Obama knows this guy personally, finds him to be a trustworthy sort.  

Has had a long, frank talk with him about how we need to get our transportation system transformed to something more sustainable/less carbon producing and found that LaHood agrees with him.  

Has decided that he needs a couple of Republicans in his cabinet as part of healing the division between the two parties and feels that LaHood is a Republican guy who will devote himself to getting the job done quickly and efficiently.On Will Ray LaHood be our next transportation secretary? posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

X -

I totally understand PHEVs and BEVs.  

I've spent some time around homebrew BEVs.  

I came close to building a hybrid 30 years ago.  (VW bug, lead acids in place of the back seat, bolt an electric motor to the transaxle, install a small 4  cycle gas engine above.  The donor Bug sat in my garage for a few weeks while I discovered that I really didn't have the time to do the work.)

I know the issues.

I also know that GM was sweating being able to find a usable, affordable battery pack for their Volt.  

Remember that they are the people who built the EV1.  

If simply scaling down the EV1 battery pack would have worked, they wouldn't have been sweating....On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

The question might be...

How many years before China pulls ahead of the US in green power production?

They've revised their "two year plan" and now they're beating that more demanding two year plan for installing wind.

They're starting to crank up the PV production.

Notice how their government scientists are talking "truth" about sea levels and warming while our are wearing their Republican muzzles?

Were we looking at four years of McCain/Palin I've no doubt that China would leave us behind in the(our) smoke.

If we don't step on it we'll be buying our green stuff from China....On Post-Kyoto international climate negotiations will depend on China's cooperation posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

racc -

Those who wish to live outside cities and spend some of their money to own a car can do so.

Those who wish to live in densely packed cities and not own a car can do so.

Ain't that freedom?  If not, don't know what is...

(Oh, and be careful not to feed your horse too much oats.  Make 'em flounder....)On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Or we could install "robot chargers"...

There are some gas pumps that can recognize individual car types and automatically open the gas cap, insert the nozzle, pump the gas, close the cap.  

If we standardized charge points on electric cars it would be easy to design an arm that reached out from a "parking meter", plugged in the car, and retracted.  Build in a no-start feature until the charger is out of the way.

No loss.  No radio reception via your fillings.

One could have the same sort of device in their garage.  Just drive in....On After Poland talks, a new reality starts to set in, says McKibben; 350 ppm must be the goal posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 22 Responses

Where you live Sam?

You think those of us who live in California and use some of the lowest amounts of electricity per person, pay some of the most reasonable kWh rates, are reading by candle light tonight?  Got our computers hooked up to hamster wheels?

Look back at what Karen wrote.  She got it mostly right.  Except that CFLs for us CA citizens now cost $0.50 thanks to our utility companies. On Why the much-ballyhooed utility decoupling is inadequate posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 16 Responses

Jon -

I'm not sure that people enjoy driving cars as much as they enjoy the freedom and convenience.  

I really don't think many of the young/urban/biker folks quite "get it".  I suspect that many of them can't appreciate what it means to move a family around.  

I just want to tell one to - Put a couple of kids along with your senile grandfather on your bike, head across town to do a week's worth of grocery shopping and get back to us.  Oh, and wear this "leg stiffener".

And I don't think the "I love city life!" people at all understand those of us who hate it.

I do realize that packing us all together like sardines and having us all walk everywhere we go takes fewer resources than letting those of us who want some space around us live in the burbs or country.  I just think we can have both options. We don't have to settle for Sardine City.

I don't know whether things will turn out well or not.  I don't think the real danger revolves around cars.  I think it's a question of whether we will move fast enough to get us off fossil fuels and/or find some yet to be discovered way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Right now, I think fueling BEVs is not a problem that we have to worry about at all.  Wind is our cheapest way to bring non-fossil fuel electricity to the grid.  And since we would build wind for daytime/peak hours we'll end up with way-plenty of cheap electricity at night.On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Because of American TV?

I don't think owning a car is about imitating Americans.  I think it's the same reason that Americans fell in love with cars - personal freedom.

(BTW - which city built around an airport?  

Aside from the question, don't forget that tourism is a very major source of income for Thailand.)

Cars/houses in the burbs.  Ultra-greenies might think them foolish beyond foolish, but let's face facts.  Lots of people want them.  Those that have them won't give them up without a fight.

I think our best way of getting from where we are to a sustainable future is by finding green ways to give people what they want.  And if we can't give them what they want, give them something as close as possible.

Will batteries become as cheap as ICEs?  I don't know, but I suspect they will.  If nothing else, the fuel for ICEs will likely to keep increasing to the point where it's cheaper to buy a battery pack and suck up some cheap nighttime wind power.

(Most automobile manufacturers seem to be thinking that affordable batteries are in the tube.  Nissan says 2010, for example.)On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

So Karen -

You're a pro-nuke person?

Someone who has yet to understand that we can solve our energy problems without building new nukes?

Probably solve them faster and for less money by not including new nukes?On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

racc...

So here's what I'm thinkin'....

You're a 20/30-something with no kids or disabilities to make biking around your urban setting difficult.  You don't have a job that requires you to move anything larger than a daypack around during the day.

And you don't often venture out to the mountains, ocean, or desert (where we'll probably never get public transportation).  And by "ocean" I don't mean the boardwalk at Jersey City.

--

Yes, we need high speed rail.  But that's going to take many years to build.  And, yes, we should have started yesterday.  But we didn't.

And yes, we need more and better public transportation.  But it also takes years to install things like lite rail and subways.

In the meantime we need better options for private transportation than what we now have.  That's the area where we can start making significant changes the quickest.

If you think the climate is getting away from us and/or you think that we need to quit purchasing as much foreign petroleum then you should agree that time is of the essence....On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Plugin hybrids years ago...

Please identify the supplier who could provide adequate affordable batteries for a >20 mile range PHEV "years ago".

And not some ultra-light car, but something like the Prius.

Then please review vehicle sales history in the US over the last few years and tell us what sort of demand there was for something like a PHEV.  As I recall, the Prius wasn't a big seller until gas prices started rising....On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Electric?

"My bet is that we can conquer the battery issue long before we make hydrogen fuel cells economical."

Seems like you're winning your bet.

Nissan has announced that they will start mass production of an all-electric with a 100 mile range in 2010.On Oliphant and Washington Post ignorantly smear GM and plug-in hybrids posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

Know of anything post 2005?

A bit of googling on my part turned up only some statements that he made back 3 years ago.

He didn't deal with the financial aspect of new nuclear.  I'm not sure that we realized how expensive new nuclear would be back then.

And I don't think we realized that we could get our baseload from wind for about the same price as new nuclear while avoiding the problems with nuclear (which he does recognize).  The Stanford baseload study has only been out since 2007.

Wonder what he's thinking these days?
On No. 1: 'It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal' posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

Those transportation casks...

This summer a truck carrying some overturned about two miles from where I'm sitting right now.

Luckily they were empty.

Pro-nuke people tend to talk in "best case" terms.  They seem to want to overlook the doofus effect.

Anyone who has any real world experience in building and running complex operations knows that one is always likely to be blind-sided by some unexpected screwup.

(Remember a few months back when a spot check found all the night security at one US reactor asleep?)On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responses

David - your link...

Pretty much sums up the problem.

Biomass OK in a few places under the right controls.

Now, back to wind....On Cellulosic ethanol ranks dead last posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 31 Responses

asdf

Wallaby - I've read some of your stuff.

You're about as useful to a rational discussion as tits on a boar.  You and jabailo....On Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

Which planet you live on?

Down here on planet Earth temperatures have been rising during the last 11 years.  We had one weird  high spike back a few years ago when we had a very usual el Nino event, noise happens.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gi ...

BTW, if you go to the first page of this site and look toward the bottom you'll find "How to Talk to a Denier".  All your 'stuff' answered there....)
On Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

From the Lawrence Livermore study...

Here's the part I don't understand...

"Afforestation has been promoted heavily in mid-latitudes as a means of mitigating climate change. However, the combined carbon/climate modeling study shows that it doesn't work. The albedo effect (the process by which less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed by forest canopies, heating the surface) cancels out the positive effects from the trees taking in carbon."

They're saying that trees absorb more heat from sunlight than do bare rocks and soil?

I can accept that they might absorb/reflect about the same amount.  But the trees then capture some carbon from the atmosphere and store it below ground in the form of roots.  

Rocks don't.

And a lot of our mid-latitude forests are now timber farms.  We're sequestering a lot of tree-captured carbon via construction.  And (unfortunately) burying a lot of it in landfills.On Doubts Chu's ease of transition from the 'academic world to the administrative world' posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

Gas vs. diesel

Quick look at percentages from a barrel (rounded and incomplete)...

Gas   19%
Diesel 9%
Jet Fuel/kerosene 4%
LPG (propane) 2%
Heavy fuel (heating fuel) 2%

Anyone know if we can change the cracking proportions?  Can we make more jet fuel and less gasoline, for example?  Or are we roughly locked into that distribution....On NYT: Temporarily relax regulations to allow Big Three's European models in the U.S. posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

We'll all move north...

Some will move south, but take a look at a planet map and notice how South America and Africa get narrower as they approach the pole.

OK, guy from Minnesota, happy that your neighborhood is not as freaking cold?  (And I understand that, having lived for a while in Michigan.)  How much you going to enjoy it when your temperate climate attracts a few hundred million people from South America, Central America, Mexico, the Southern US States?  Not to mention the hundreds of millions of people flooded out in Bangladesh and forced out by drought from Nepal and India....

And that new farming area that we're opening up in the far north - any top soil there?  Or are we going to be trying to feed billions while farming on rock and swamp land?
On The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

A few points...

$70 per hour is a bogus number.  Someone made a math error early on which involved adding in the cost of retiree benefits into the hourly rate.

"Non-union autoworkers in the South earn less than union autoworkers, averaging an hourly wage of $25.65 to $36.34 for union autoworkers, the newspaper said. However, so-called legacy costs for the Big Three bring United Auto Workers compensation costs up to around $70 per hour."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/04/Dixie_welcomes_non ...

In fact, non-union workers who make cars for foreign car companies sometimes make more per hour than Detroit union workers.  In 2006 non-union Toyota workers averaged $30 per hour.  Detroit union workers averaged $27 per hour.

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_ ...

Note: Use $27 per hour as a Detroit wage until you find something more accurate.  $70 per hour is very incorrect.

-----

Don't forget that if we start using a lot of diesel for personal transportation in the US and suffer an increase in the price of diesel it will start increasing the price of large truck shipping.  Everything that you buy is going to get more expensive.

(Yes, we should be shipping more by rail. But we don't yet....)

------

Imported cars - fleet averages.

Hard to believe that only US manufacturers are controlled by mileage standards.  You mean BMW, Mercedes, Kia, and all those other manufactures who do not make cars in the US get a free ride?

I really doubt that.  Please back up your claim, I've done enough googling for one post...On NYT: Temporarily relax regulations to allow Big Three's European models in the U.S. posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

Let's see...

Apple brought us the personal computer (along with some other companies that largely fell by the wayside).

Wang (who used to own desktops) resisted, said that there was no role for computers on desktops, failed.

IBM resisted for a long time.  Then got smart and prospered.

Same will happen with other established corporations.  Some will get it, some not.

BTW, Exxon has a division working on batteries for BEVs....  On City announces plan to develop next-generation electricity grid posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

Well, we're eight years behind...

in terms of implementation of many good things.

But luckily we didn't mothball our thinking for eight years.

Get ready for some great leap forwards....On City announces plan to develop next-generation electricity grid posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

Actually, I don't...

I'm not that old.

We've already got commercial "ice men" delivering.

Some buildings make ice/cold water at night which is then used to assist AC during the peak hours.  (I think I've seen a residential version being advertised, not sure.)

jimbeyer's problem with the smart grid seems to be centralized control/top down/big brother stuff.  

I just don't see how we get around some input from above.  The utility company is going to know that power is going to be cheaper between 01:15 and 01:55 and then spike up for a hour or so tonight.  

That there's a system approaching the wind farm and power is going to be very cheap about three hours later.

That's the information the "ice man" needs to save us money.

jimbeyer seems to want to set his timer manually and take his chances that he can guess the sweet spots....On City announces plan to develop next-generation electricity grid posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

X - you drinkin' tonight?

Your post makes no sense to me....
On City announces plan to develop next-generation electricity grid posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

That arctic ice site you link...

Can you say "bogus"?

I thought you could.

2007 was a very unique, and very scary, year when it comes to Arctic ice.  The 2007 melt off was very extreme.  Unlike anything we had ever seen before.

There has been an observed downward trend in the amount of ice that lasted through the summer for the last several years.  2007 was one of those points that one sees in essentially any "noisy" graph.

The 2008 melt off was bad, very bad, just not quite as bad as 2007.  

Take a look at 2007 and 2008 vs. 1979-2000 average.

http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200812_Figur ...

Notice how Mr. Bogus cherry-picked an August date when the difference between 2007 and 2008 was, in fact, quite less by the end of the summer?

Here's the December 3 update from the folks who take the data....

"The period of very rapid ice growth that characterized October and early November has ended. The rise in ice extent over the past three weeks has been much slower, and should continue to slow until the expected seasonal ice extent maximum is reached sometime in March.

Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean stayed well above average during November, partly because of continued heat release from the ocean to the atmosphere and partly because of a pattern of atmospheric circulation transporting warm air into the region."On City announces plan to develop next-generation electricity grid posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 27 Responses

This low information blurb...

Did it push something of value off the front page?On What I heard on the radio blew me away posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

The Google...

Christian Edstrom at the New York Time should learn how to use it.  

Notice that the first citation is from his own paper.  

Jun 22, 2008

"And as part of the huge bet it is placing on the future direction of the troubled American auto industry, Ford will realign factories to manufacture more fuel-efficient engines and produce six of its next European car models for the United States market."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/business/22ford.html?_r ...

------

October 3, 2008

"As gasoline prices hit record highs this summer, Ford unveiled an unprecedented plan to retool truck and SUV factories in North America to produce these fuel-efficient cars for the domestic market. Ford's new Fiesta, which just debuted to rave reviews in Europe, will lead the charge.

By this time next year, workers who are today building F-150s will be training to build this sporty subcompact."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/motoring/2008223484 ...On NYT: Temporarily relax regulations to allow Big Three's European models in the U.S. posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

Pangolin...

There seems to be at least two methods for "determining truth" operating at this point in time....

Some get their primary information from research outcomes.  

Others dismiss research outcomes and find "word of mouth" to be their trusted source.  Now I wish this weren't true, but that's just the way it is.

There are lots of people who trust testimonials (fools they might be)that are going to be more convinced by hearing from a gardener in their neighborhood.

I can see a biochar introduction program which sells "$1" packs in local nurseries, etc.On Biochar posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

asdf

Jon - Glad you get my point.  Different folks want different strokes and very few (if any) of us want the most efficient stroke.  The puzzle before us is to figure out how to please as many as possible while not wrecking the planet.

Actually, I wonder if your urban apartment life is all that more efficient/CO2 non-producing than is my life here on the mountain.

90% of my electricity comes from a couple racks of solar panels.  My heat comes 100% from firewood (storm-felled trees cut within 1/4th mile of the stove) and a goodly portion of my food comes from my garden and orchard.

----

Vakibs - the nuclear industry should be educated.  

They think it's more expensive to create new nuclear energy than to create new wind energy.

You might want to get in contact with them and set them straight....

----------

Pangolin - I think we're talking about three "areas" of storage.  

1. At generation site - makes sense when the transmission lines are inadequate to carry peak output to the places where it will be consumed.

2. In the local area - in your neighborhood, your small town, a few places around your city.  Think of them as electricity warehouses.  They can utilize the sort of less expensive real estate where warehouses tend to be placed.  They can be scaled to allow some technical staff and sophisticated equipment on site.

It's not very likely that we will store "days" of power to fuel, say Seattle, if the transmission line goes down.  That solution will come from a better designed "smart grid" that will be able to utilize more "routes".

3) In your closet.  This one I don't think likely on a grand scale.  Sure, your rechargeable flashlight batteries, your laptop battery, some stuff like that.  But not a bank of batteries that you could use to power your life for a few days when your neighborhood goes black.

Some people love this idea.  I don't think it makes financial sense and few people would want to be bothered unless there was a very large financial benefit (which I can't imagine). But I didn't think people would be stupid enough to vote for Reagan, so there you go....On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Jon - could do it that way...

I'm just not seeing any particular advantage to dispersing the storage.  

A local area warehouse means that the stuff gets stored in cheaper real estate, gets watched over by someone trained to do so (not the janitor), and  you centralize things like inverters, charges, monitoring equipment, etc. which creates an economic advantage.

---

The most efficient thing would be for all of us to live in dorms and 'hot bunk' - one bed for each three people, each getting an eight hour shift.  Good insulation and the body heat alone might be enough to heat the place.

Eat in a communal dining hall in several shifts.  That way we need only one bowl and one spoon for each eight people....

Thing is, most of us will want some life that is a bit less than the most efficient.  ;o)

Absolutely beautiful night tonight here on the mountain.  Moon is working its way to full.  If I stand in the right place and peer through an opening  in the trees I can see the lights of Ferndale far off in the distance.  Beautiful "Victorian" village of a few hundred people a mile or two in from the ocean.  I can see the lights of one closer house, about five miles away.

Can't hear a single human created sound except for our breathing....On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Vakibs - leaks...

"With a "manageable"  nuclear reactor, you never should have Uranium leakages. Period. We know very well how to contain radioactive material.

If something is leaking, it means somebody is breaking the regulations. It is not a problem with technology."

Japan...

"A small amount of water used to cool radioactive spent fuel rods at a Japanese nuclear reactor leaked into the Sea of Japan as a result of a massive earthquake that struck the country yesterday, though officials of Tokyo Electric Power insisted it posed no danger."

Australia...

"Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). ... leaks that allow ordinary water to dilute molecularly altered heavy water around the reactor have not yet been fixed, despite being identified in 2006."

Slovenia...

"Slovenia began shutting down its only nuclear power plant in Krsko yesterday afternoon, after it detected a leak in the cooling system. Authorities said the leak did not pose any danger for people or the environment."

Leaks happen.  Engineers can design good stuff, but that does not mean that mistakes are not made.

Perhaps you're aware of the falling ceiling at the 'Big Dig'?

Nuclear power brings unique dangers to the table.  

We don't need it.  It's too expensive (based on nuclear industry numbers) and takes too long to build.

What you're leaving out of your cost statement is the price of financing.  Nuclear requires a lot of money up front and it's years and years before revenue begins to flow.  Interest has to be paid for all those years.

Here's a couple of good reads on cost.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/13/11021/6597

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Pangolin -

Few gardeners are going to go to that much trouble to turn charcoal into biochar.  I'd like to think that I might but I suspect I won't.

Perhaps what is needed is some company producing biochar and selling small packets to folks.  I'd pay a few bucks for enough to dope one of my beds.

(I wonder if the "fines" from a cooking charcoal company might not fit the bill.)

Lots of testimonials from gardeners might be a good way to boost this idea.  

--

X - Recognizing that there are potential downsides to an idea does not mean that one walks away from the idea.  It means that you engineer to avoid/minimize the problems.On Biochar posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

Scale...

If biochar is a reasonable way to capture and re-sequester carbon then we might have to move to industrial scale production to get our planet back into balance.  Time seems to be of the essence....

That said, it would be nice if we could evolve a model that paid small farmers in areas of marginal land to operate small scale biochar plants.  Something along the lines of putting one cooker in a village to be shared by people in the surrounding area.  Pay them for raw materials delivered and biochar plowed back into their soil.

Don't pay an unreasonable amount.  At some point it might be best if food crops from the reclaimed soil became more valuable than biochar.  Then move the cooker to a new area....On Biochar posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

Hehey...

I don't see any links to your 'stuff'.On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

CFL -> LED

That gets you about a 50% reduction in power draw.

Right now it would take me from 36 watts to 18 watts.  (We've got 2 CFLs on.)  18 watts for ~6 hours a day is about 1/10th of what my efficient refrigerator pulls per day.  Then there's the computer, satellite modem, water pump, radio, ....

Water heating and cooking require propane.

Like I said, things am more complex....On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Next, that old refer...

Start getting inefficient appliances out of houses.

We did this in California several years ago.  Money was made available for people to replace their old refer/water heater/air conditioner with a much more efficient model.

Doing so would give additional business to appliance manufacturers (largely in-country business) and retail stores.  

More tax money, less unemployment money, less electricity needed.

Use California's program as a starting point and we could have this one up and running before summer.On Green stimulus: Where can the money go, and how fast? posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

More FUD...

No one is talking about drilling to the Earth's core.  These are crust bores and the the crust is 5 to 25 miles thick.

We've got gold and diamond mines that go deeper than hot rock geothermal bores.  Keeping miners alive in those high heat conditions takes effort.

We've got oil wells that go significantly deeper than we need to go for heat.On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Smart Grid and batteries...

The Smart Grid isn't being "built out".  Models are being tested in Italy, Austin TX and Bolder CA.

Again, placing backup batteries in each building doesn't make sense to me.  

For each battery installation you have to have a site manager - someone who knows how to check them out to see if everything is OK from time to time at the very least.  And you are going to have an inverter for each site.  You are going to have to take the incoming AC, change it to DC to charge the batteries, return it to AC to feed the building.

Makes more sense to take some non-expensive building close to a big power line and rack up the batteries there.  That way one could afford some professional staff to keep things running efficiently.  Many towns would need only one "power warehouse" to serve the area.On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

FUD..

Shame on you.

"There are earthquake, water usage, and aquifer contamination objections to geothermal power production which might be overcome with more R&D and testing.  Rumors that the earth heat source cools after 10 to 20 years are out there too, necessitating a whole new location, that would be very expensive."

You've been in a discussion of these issues before and they have been explained to you.

Let's do it again...

Earthquake: a very minor issue.  One instance of minor quake activity when water was introduced into an active quake area.  If a few hundred gallons of water was enough to trigger some increase in activity then is was pretty much at the slip point anyway.  Solution: Don't install in active fault areas.

Remember, drilling geothermal wells is not very different from drilling petroleum wells.  Just somewhat larger diameter.

Water usage:  Closed loop.

Contamination:  You seem to be confusing geothermal wells with petroleum wells.  You have provided zero documentation showing that drilling a hole in the ground and pouring in some water releases harmful chemicals into the environment.  

Twenty year cool down:  Ten years seems to be a product of your imagination.  The twenty year life span of hot rock geothermal is calculated into the cost analysis. You get your 20 years at produce power at an affordable price.  Then you dig new holes and move your operation.

Probably cheaper for the second 20.  You can reuse a lot of the mechanical stuff and won't have to run power lines as far.

--

Batteries in every building.  It's just not a practical way to approach the problem.  (I've got batteries in my house.  I speak with some experience.)  Someone has to maintain those batteries.

Neighborhood storage makes some sense.  If/when we start getting degraded batteries pulled from PHEVs/BEVs then setting up local power storage facilities would make some sense in terms of cutting transmission costs.  Ship in the power during low-demand times and store for high demand hours.

--

The Big Grid.  We need it.  LA can do well with panels on roofs and solar thermal a bit inland.  But there will be days when there will be clouds.

When that happens there will be a need to bring hydro down from the Pacific Northwest, wind from the Texas Panhandle, wave from the Northwest Coast, ....

To keep from having to vastly overbuild production facilities in any one area we have to build the ability to share power over a wide area and a wide type of production.  We're probably going to need banks of natural gas turbines which can be spun up rapidly when/if the wind and sun both get lazy at the same time.   On We can haz everee-thing! posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

r-

Both snark and puns are degraded by the author labeling them when they are presented.On Test-tube flesh, coming soon to a hot dog near you posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 15 Responses

Homeless shelters...

We need some at the 'big box' level while we work our way through the Bush recession....On What should be done with the empty big box? posted 12 months ago 2 Responses

The fuel cell part...

Any sign of them become inexpensive enough to be practical?

Unless they become very affordable I'm not sure that I can see them penciling out vs. a small ICE in a PHEV.  We're not likely to see hydrogen become available as fuel.  Fuel cells are likely to run on the same fuel as we would use for the ICE.

--

Batteries that are degraded to the point where they impact driving range will have a significant second life for energy storage.  They're great for wind farms and utility companies to help them smooth out abrupt power shifts.

Given enough they could start helping shift off-peak power to when it's needed.  Good for the morning rush when the sun isn't ready for work. On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Gar - you're right about all that...

But I think you're thinking too logically.

We're talking about how best to solve our energy/climate change/economic problems.  Getting anything significant done most likely means getting millions and millions of people to go along with the plan.  Short of forcing them (which tends to be unpopular) we have to try to get people liking the idea of the change.

Now, lots of people might do quite well with a car, or second car, that can't readily be driven more than 50 miles from home, but in the back of their mind they're likely to be thinking...

"But suppose I want to take a trip to Disney World/visit Aunt Martha/ride off into the sunset - and I can't get there in this BEV?".

A limited range BEV with no promise of being able to fill up quickly is likely to be a tougher sell than one in which there's a charger every 100 miles or so on the road to ....

It's a place where we might spend a few million government dollars (about $125k per rapid charger IIRC - price might drop with volume) and lower people's resistance.

(Obviously I'm just speculating here.  This is the sort of thing that can be researched.  But I think it likely enough that one shouldn't offhand dismiss the possibility.  Remember, you and I may be very rational beings, but there are those other people....)On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

True...

It's a mistake that we seem to have made in several fields.

We've allowed corporations to become major funders of research, even at the university level.

In doing so we reorient our research toward quick return - exactly where corporate research should be directed.  

Corporations have the goal of making money.  We shouldn't expect them to fund things that serve "the greater good" if those projects don't bring timely returns to them.On Perennial rice on the rise? posted 12 months ago 6 Responses

Quick charging forklifts...

"Early electric vehicle charging technology was pioneered for the world's first modern EV production model, GM's discontinued EV1. That technology lives on today in the form of Aerovironment's PosiCharge system, which is used extensively in industrial forklifts."

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/11/aerovironment- ...

American Airlines installing their units - 2001.

http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/11/aerovironment- ...

---

Idiots who don't listen to warnings, and don't pull into a charging station when their batteries are low.

The insurance companies will deal with them.

Something like one free rescue per six months.  High co-pay/no coverage after that.

---

Rapid charge is going to be needed for long day trips.  Look for a few stations along the I5 route between SF and LA for starters.  And rapid charge might be needed for people who can't plug in at home or at work.  

Over time there should be more and more curbside charge points for slow charging, but early in the game we might need a few rapid charge points in cities, one in places smaller towns.

---

Curbside charge points.

This is one place where the smart grid can really make an impact.

Need to charge?  Hit a button on your cell phone/car dash and your GPS directs you to the closest available charge point and the point goes into "reserved" mode for then next x minutes.

Anyone parking in a charge space and not hooking up to the outlet in x minutes triggers a call to the tow truck.  They go away.

Plug in and the charge point reads your battery information and account number.  Your account gets automatically billed.  No need to swipe/enter pin number.

Parking overnight/long term?  Push a button on your cell phone/car dash and signal your willingness to "rent" your batteries to the utility company.  

If you normally drive ten miles a day then you have storage to rent.  That could be your default.

---

With a BEV that had a 100-150 mile range many of us could leave the ICE behind.  Especially if we had some sort of convenient way to extend our range for the occasional long trip.On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Recharge stations...

Not really hard to build out.

We already have them in many warehouses where they are used to recharge forklifts.

These would be basically 'unload from the truck, bolt down, hook up the feed, and start service' units.  

Fast food restaurants would be very glad to host them, I would imagine....

---

As for running out on the road - active GPS tracking, battery monitoring, station location waypoints.  The only reason to run out would be if you ignored the message to "take exit 107 and turn left under the highway to Arby's".  

And then ignored the message "Hey Dummy!  Do not fail to take exit 108 coming up on your right in one minute and then return to exit 107.  45 seconds, 30 seconds, ...".

If you did run out then AAA can bring you a limpet battery pack that will take you to the next station.  Just like they bring you gas when you dummy out.  

Or they can drag you on to the back of their rescue truck....On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Jon -

I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to be realistic about where the most rapid success can be made.

Rail takes a long time to build.  I doubt that we could build significant light rail in cities in the next ten years.  High speed rail in California  is projected for a 2035 completion.

In five years we could make a large dent in our petroleum consumption if we had affordable PHEVs.

We could make a major dent in ten.  We might have 50% of our cars using only 20% of the fuel of the other 50%.  And since newer cars are used for a higher percentage of driving overall fuel savings could be under 40%.

There's another seeming advantage to PHEVs.  At the moment we're building a lot of wind generation and will continue to do so as wind is the least expensive non-fossil fuel method to harvest energy.

We will build generation to provide for peak hour consumption.  That means that we will overbuild for nighttime demand.  And winds tend to blow stronger at night.  

Electric cars have the unique characteristic of running on stored energy.  We can charge them up at night when power is in low demand.  

Daytime trains are going to run on power generated during the day which means we have to create more sources to feed them.  (Or come up with some good, affordable storage systems.)On Public investment and regulation can be main means to green posted 12 months ago 43 Responses

Bio - thanks...

The area that I live in does not get dastardly cold.  (Nothing like Michigan where I lived for a few years.)

My refer spent two winters in an uninsulated, unheated room with no ill effects.  Off the grid people around here sometimes keep their refers on their porch or in a outside vented pantry in order to lower electrical pull.

Where I live (lots of woods, far from the grid) wood heat is cheap, electricity during the cloudy months is dear.  Dumping a little heat from the refer is nothing if it saves me generator time.

We cut, hauled, and stacked a half-cord of wood in a little over an hour this afternoon.  Used a couple cups of gas.  An hour of generator time uses about the same amount of gas.  On Small tank + on-demand posted 12 months ago 14 Responses