Comments bigTom has made

Efficiency programs for small businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  btw: I like greenmoms suggestion about truckstops. Assuming drivers would plugin, rather than run their engines all night this could be a cheap way to save diesel, and enhance health. On American Progress' 'Green Recovery' plan posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses

Lose the management, retain the technical and manu

  Lose the management, retain the technical and manufacturing capabilities. The rescue team needs to understand that the Kondratieff wave that is breaking on our heads is going to seriously change attitudes towards thrift. Even without peakoil considerations, the auto market will not recover to anything like past levels. Gone are the days of middle class families owning four or more fancy vehicles. Any restructuring needs to figure out what to do with the excess manufacturing -and engineering design capabilities. These need to be refocused towards things the nation actually needs, such as trains, electric grids, solar thermal plant design and construction etc. The country does have pressing needs for the millions of workers in this industry, it is just that we have to find the appropriate technologies for them to design and produce, and get to work.On Pearlstein: 'A Detroit bankruptcy beats a bailout' -- but what do you think? posted 1 year ago 29 Responses

you are overly optimistic about this.

  The only number I've seen that hints at energy conversion efficiency is something like 10%. Assuming the technology is reasonably cheap, that would be enough to capture some value from some waste heat streams, such as car exhausts. Also where fuel or wood is burned for low grade heating (space or water), it would be useful to interpose these babies betwen the high temperature combustion chamber, and the low temperature object being heated, to get some electricity out of them. But, I'm afraid TE is not going to be an energy silver bullet. At best another silver BB. Every BB we can get adds up, but no single one will make much of a difference.On The one clean-tech breakthrough that could lead to a core climate solution: Thermoelectricity posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Give the late life converts a break!

   Some people don't see the truth until later than we like. Why do we turn on them when they do? It only discourages others from making the same change. It is only by encouraging former enemies to see things our way that we can effect positive change.

   I'm with Dave about the money thing. At Picken's age, by the time any of his current projects could make him money, he will likely be gone. So I think his motivations are as stated: he sees serious problems for the future, and would like to do what he can to mitigate them.On Grist blogger goes in the tank for evil Texas oilman posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

He's reading the polls.

  When the public is in panic mode, is a bad time to be debating strategy. This sort of thinking is a major threat to environmentally responsible policy. But it will be very hard to avoid. Jim is responding to near term political pressures, not long term environmental threats. Given our current governing system, and a population that is easily (mis)led by appeals to emotion, I don't see how it could be otherwise.On Va. Senator doesn't get that the emissions are the crisis posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Beware of something thats exactly...

  Beware of anything that is exactly what you want it to be! EESTOR strikes me as a perfect example (hoping it's a counterexample). But in any case I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. Until I see that later, I will remain profoundly skeptical. OTOH, I will note that some of the investors don't seem to be the sort to  jump in without having done due diligence. So I think we will just have to wait and see.

   If they can deliver on anything approaching the claimed specs, and the price is reasonable, this would be a game-changer for a lot of things.... But I don't want to get my hopes up.On EEStor founder says things are on track for commercial production in 2009 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Don't expect reality to intrude into politics!

  This is an election, and unless there are obvious consequences to the electability of the candidate/party don't expect truth and realism to prevail. Unless of course the press is prepared to call BS, BS.  But how long has it been since we've had mainstream media that would do that?

   Obama's change (on drilling) is the right one. The mood of the country has changed, and being totally against the drilling could cause the wrong guys to win in November. The best thing about Clinton's presidency, was how he could preempt Republican issues. Nothing made them hate him more than to have an issue they were gonna use to destroy the Dems with taken away from them.

   The most important thing to control about any new drilling, is the expectation that it will allow business as usual to continue. That has been by more the most damaging part of the existence of a few off limits areas, their existence fuels the myth that we could drill our way out of our problems, if only we were allowed to walk over the dead bodies of the environmentalists. I want this myth to die!

  Secondarily, compromising on the issue, gives us the opportunity to control the regulation of the drilling. I guarantee an Obama administration would better control the drilling (and would demand a greater price for the leases), than a McCain one would.On McCain says he trusts Big Oil over energy and economic experts posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

don't expect much airplay.

  With somewhere near a quarter of the senate seats, the farm states have too much at stake (big profits for farmers, and agribusiness). This is a bipartisan problem, i.e. both parties have significant interests in maintaining high agricultural prices. So it is hard to see either side trying to use the issue as a political wedge.

   I had been fairly convinced, that the increasing world middle class, bad weather, and high fuel and fertilizer prices were each more important factors than biofuels. But I presume the bank has done their numbers correctly. Do you have a rough breakdown of how much food each factor has taken off the market?On World Bank finally releases 'secret' report on biofuels and the food crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 65 Responses

amazingdrx has it about right.

  The NG for vehicles proposal is quicker than waiting for plugins. Although I think Pickens was including it because the current attention is largely about oil. A single generation of NG vehicles doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. It roughly matches the time period during which our NG supply should hold up. It buys time for the plugins to make it into the market (probably 5-10 years before significant volumes are available). And compressed NG makes a lot more sense thermodynamically than the gas to liquid fuel boondoggles that are being proposed.

   Our problem is that peakoil is coming on pretty quick. The number of industry people predicting 2010 for the peak has been growing. Public panic over this could easily result in some very bad policies being rushed through. This plan might deflect some of that pressure.On His energy plan is half brilliant, half dumb posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Neo-Malthusian is a better desciptor.

  As the current commodities driven crisis is more the result of an increasingly large fraction of the population becoming able to compete for the same resources, than of the growth in the worlds absolute population. The "debunkment" of Malthus, was always that we could improve efficency faster than the population could increase. It is interesting that we are hitting the limits during a period of very fast technological advancement.On Revisiting Malthus posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

manhatten?

  I know that is a popular metaphor, and it roughly covers the scale of effort needed. But jromm has it right.
   I also disagree with 5. Somewhat relaxed drilling restrictions should be considered to be a smallish silver BB (enough silver BBs together can slay the vampire, but none alone will do the trick). Also we need to slay the myth that we could drill ourselves out of our problems. I know anyone who has used even half of their brain knows this already, but our politics is dominated by the low information voters who haven't. Besides with oil well in excess of $100/barrel (and probably in excess of $200 by the time any of this oil could be produced), anysort of decent royalty program could supply serious funding for
 the needed research (and deployment, of especially energy conservation measures).On What the next president should say posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

false proof will be easy to come by.

  Since the prices of all fossil fuels are going to go up dramtically anyway, the R's are guaranteed to have rapidly rising prices to point to. They will simply claim ALL the increase was due to cap&trade, and with the public being terribly innumerate (and pundits echoing the message) the false charge will stick.On The GOP disinformation machine settles on an angle posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

max horsepower.

  Unlike ICE engines, I don't think greater horsepower will have much impact on fuel economy. Clearly the engine, and electrical subsystems would be beefier, i.e. the cars weight would suffer a bit. But the main cost and challenge is affordable (in both cost weightand volume) energy storage. Provide enough battery capacity for even modest plugin range (say anything greater than 10miles), and battery power output is not a limiting factor.

   And, as was said above, occasionally peak acceleration can save your butt.

   I was so pissed when GMs chairman? (was it Lutz, or Wagoneer) foamed at the mouth about climate scientists being frauds, that I wouldn't buy the volt, even if it was technically much better than the competition.On Toyota and Honda could sure learn something from Chevy! posted 1 year, 5 months ago 12 Responses

No gouging.

  The gouging by rapacious oil companies stuff is pure populist poppycock. I cringe whenever the Democrats resort to this. The reality is simply that we have (and are) squandering a finite resource, and now we are being forced to pay scarcity pricing for something that is in fact scarce.   The blame really belongs on all the consumers who are using more than their fair share, but I can't imagine politicians will embrace this in the current environment.

   Consumption has to come down significantly. We can do this by price. We could also do it via rationing. We could also reduce demand by a gas tax and dividend scheme. But, I don't think our current political/cultural environment would permit these somewhat less damaging mechanisms.On Republicans exanding their drill base, at least to other Republicans posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

renewable capacity?

  Unless one states whether intermittent renewables (solar, wind) are nameplate capacity or average expected output, one could be comparing apples to oranges. You are looking at peak (nameplate) capacities in your writing here, perhaps IEA is referring to nameplate time capacity factor. That could account for a factor of perhaps three or four. Even so I think they are being remarkably pessimistic about renewables. But if oil became as cheap as they claim, it would be hard for renewables to become competitive. So it may boil down to their use of hopelessly optimistic assumptions concerning the future price of oil. They are supposed to revise their official supply forecasts this fall perhaps they were required to only use the publicly released version in preparing this report? The hints are that future supply projections will be seriously downgraded.On I've got the 450-ppm solution about right posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

seems politically risky to me.

   Us realists know that trucking, and airlines are goners, but the people in those industries are going to fight tooth and nails against that eventuality. I would expect they would see funding of alternatives as a direct threat to their business. I would expect intense lobbying, as well as campaigning against the champions of such a policy.On Swing states need green manufacturing posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Colin is right (unfortunately).

  The transition to hybrids, and then to plugin hybrids is going to be too little too late. We collectively have dilly dallied for too long (unless peak oil really is more than a decade ago, and the current crisis is just a passing blip). But any wedge we can get from partial electrification of transport will help mitigate a lot. And at this point, the public is not ready for lifestyle changing solutions. We have to lead them there a little bit at a time.On Buying a high-mileage car easier said than done posted 1 year, 5 months ago 20 Responses

Mini Cooper?

  The radio has been bombarding me with adverts for this former cult vehicle, as a good high milage affordable vehicle. IIRC they are claiming about $18K and 38mpg. I had my Prius serviced today, the bad news is the dealer is now only getting 6 Priuses per delivery cycle -they used to get 20 to 22. He thought Toyota was conspiring with the oil companies. I think they are straining the supply chain -and probably also responding to demand from locations that previously weren't interested in the Prius. In any case, it now looks like hybrids are in serious short supply.On Buying a high-mileage car easier said than done posted 1 year, 5 months ago 20 Responses

Bill H's was a good start.

  But maybe it is more productive to recognize/publicize the fact that any new generating capacity, whether it be nuclear, fossil-fuel, or renewables is going to be more expensive than the current rate base. So based upon economics alone, the best strategy is to reduce waste first. Amory is primarily about doing this. I've recently come to the conclusion that in the US the primary problem is that the vast bulk of the people >90% are simply clueless when it comes to energy usage. For them conservation means privation, because they have no clue of the huge amounts they are wasting. But their understanding of simple street physics/thermodynamics is so low, they haven't a clue how to proceed.  What percentage of drivers know that braking, is a waste of expensive kinetic energy? I'll wager that  it is under ten percent.

   So, we need some major public education,least the moans about increasing prices lead to wrong policies being demanded.On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

I think you are overestimating the impact.

  With the exception of air transport there is a lot of potential to reduce fuel consumption, mainly by slowing down. Drag, and hence fuel cost per mile tends to scale as velocity to the second power. Thus reducing speed to say .7 of the old speed saves half of the fuel. Airplanes cannot do this because they must obtain enough lift (which necessitates some drag to produce) to stay aloft. Also we are starting to see traction kites added to container ships. Ground and water transport, is thus amenable to considerable reduction in its energy intensity. I would expect the cost of such transport to increase at a lower rate than fuel prices.   But you are right that transport costs, and delays will be greater than had been assumed when many current business decisions were made. Globalization  will not be undone, although its rate of increase will be reduced (possibly to or below zero).

   By the way truck, planes, and ships do not use gasoline, but rather diesel fuel, and kerosene in the case of planes. These are distilled from the same oil that gasoline comes from, and the amounts of the different types are largely determined by the type of oil refined. Air travel will not go to zero, because kerosene would become cheap if there were no planes to consume it. That doesn't mean that the current airlines, and airplane manufacturers are viable in the high priced oil end game, they may will go bankrupt. But someone will buy up the assets cheap enough to make a go at using them in some reduced capacity. On Airlines, cargo ships increasingly desperate due to rising fuel costs posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

marketting as driver of demand.

   Auto marketing is probably the dominant employer of the main stream media in the Untied States. Instead of being proactive about the coming liquid fuels crisis, the American Automobile industry has promoting the cultural meme, that the consumer needs big overpowered vehicles in order to be considered fully human. The goal is always to sell those vehicles, and vehicle classes with the greatest profit margin. Rather than looking forward to what is needed for the long term viability of motor travel, and the American economy, the industry has continued to promote the types of products and lifestyles, which now that peak oil is hitting, are being seen to be so problematic for the country, and for the individual consumers. The industry should be looking ahead, ten twenty, even thirty years, and recognizing that a liquid fuels crisis would eventually come, start using it's advertising muscle to prepare the country for the coming changes. Instead they have focused on short term results, promoting what will help the next few quarters, at the expense of long term viability of the industry.

   This is really a structural problem, based upon the current system of executive incentives, which encourage a focus of short term profitability (i.e. being able to cash in stock options so that the executive need not care about long term viability). On It's shifting consumer demand that will drive increases in vehicle fuel efficiency posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Still waiting for batteries.

  I have a year old Prius. So far the cost of any of these mods has been prohibitive, for all but those who want to early adopt at any cost. I hear there will be a plugin kit from A123 (lithium ion battery), that will enable an approx 14mile plug in range. But at $10,000, it will require roughly $10/gallon before it makes economic sense. That is the real reason that we are still waiting for plugins, and electric vehicles, the battery technology is just not yet there in an affordable yet long lasting package. As the cost of batteries declines, and gas goes up I expect plugins will start appearing. Expect early plugins to have very limited pure electric range, as expensive battery capacity will make longer range just too expensive.

  Incidentally, for those who have the current unmodified Prius. With a little care in your driving, you should be able to get 50-60mpg. The key is to use the electric mode to maintain speed, not for acceleration. The limited electric energy is very valuable in allowing you to maximize the time the gas motor is off. Also regenerative braking is not that efficient, so trying to minimize braking is nearly as important as it would be in a non hybrid vehicle. On Prius sales top one million posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

How much enhanced weathering?

  GRL Cowan, made the point I was thinking. CO2 is controlled naturally over longish time spans,
100,000 to millions of years via silicate weathering. A warmer world typically means greater weathering/erosion. The real question is can we artificially increase this process enough to make a real difference. To absorb billions of tons per year, we would need a few KM**3 of newly exposed silicates per year. This is of course is not environmentally benign. I haven't seen any studies on how much free air CO2 we can reasonably sequester by this method.On Thinking beyond technology to mitigate climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

David has it figured out.

  It would be too risky at this point in the election cycle to try to deflate myths now. It might be reasonable to offer people ways to use less gas, you just gotta be careful in how you package it. Demand destruction is the only way to get the price down. Given the robust demand from the developing world, even that is unlikely to do enough. But signals that we intend to party on regardless, such as the tax-holiday, simply send the oil markets the message that we will keep consuming as the price goes higher. Nothing like the subtlety of trying to convince the seller, that you don't want his goods anyway. But, thats way too subtle an argument for 10 second sound bite.On Senate Democrats unveil a new energy bill based on the same false premises posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

And we knew that then as well.

  But the human tendency to party on carried the day. It still seems to be a very tough political sell. It is hard to be optimistic about the outcome this time.On The longer we wait to move away from gasoline, the more high gas prices will hurt posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Headline writing is very deceptive.

  A good example is the recent Nature paper by Keenlyside etc all, who claim they can predict decadal scale anomalies due to ocean current stuff. In any case the prediction is of a cool anomaly for the next several years. They still predict warming over the next decade, i.e. the predicted anomaly doesn't even swamp even short term GW, but you'd never guess that if you only read the popular account headlines -or even the popular account articles. To what degree this is politically motivated distortion versus the desire for eye catching headlines, I don't know. There has been a serious degradation in the practice of choosing titles for popular accounts of technical summaries recently, it now seems to be the norm where I start into an abstract because of some intriguing claim, only to discover that the paper actually contains nothing that could support such a conclusion.On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 7 months ago 68 Responses

Unfortunately I have to agree.

  A pretty good example of current battery tech. I own a 2007 Prius, which I would love to be able to convert to a plugin, as I think that is the next step. A123 is coming out with a conversion kit to do just that, allow roughly a 14mile (5KWhr) charge. The price tag, $10K! At that price it would take roughly $8/gallon to even consider doing on economic grounds. The battery tech is now at the point where we can do it, but until it moves quite a long ways down the cost curve (or gas goes very much higher) it would be considered too costly by 99+% of the population.On Are low gas prices an inalienable right? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 34 Responses

Tis, Cheap Populism:

  At least for John McSame it makes sense, transfer money from the peoples infrastructure (highway trust fund) to major corporations. For HRC it is simple pandering for low information voters. She has now pushed me over the line where is she is nominated, I will vote for non-of-the-above.On A gas tax holiday would be cynical and indefensible posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

Efficienct is nice by politics dominates.

  If I could be assured that politics wouldn't get in the way, I'd chose efficiency. Since I think getting, and maintaining a political consensus is going to be hard, I would go for fairness.

   Sean, I would like to hear your thoughts on what would constitute a good policy for GHG investment. IMO, I would prefer tax and dividend, i.e. a carbon tax whose proceeds are distributed. This would provide a known future cost of carbon, which should aide investment. If tax & dividend is deemed politically risky, say because of the demonization of the word TAX, then cap and dividend comes in a poor second.On Trading efficiency for inevitability posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

Putting off the demise of fossil fuels.

  This reminds me of cutting down the last old growth forest to preserve lumber mill jobs for a few months longer. Peal Oil, Peak Coal, Peak Gas will be upon us shortly, so we are arguing about taking the last tree to continue BAU just a bit longer.On The thing you really never hear posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Maybe not formal peak, but supply constrained

  We may not be at the original definition of peak oil, 50% of all recoverable oil gone, or possibly not even at the more recent definition, maximum production rate, but its looks like the future of fossil fuels is supply constrained. If we look around the world the past few months have seen power problems, often related to coal plants in South Africa, Pakistan, China, and much of SE Asia. It does look like at least for the better grades, that coal supply can't meet demand. Given the massive expansion of vehicle ownership in the developing world, which is likely to substantially accelerate with the  $2500 Tata Nano, even if oil production can be raised to say 95MBpd (we are currently at 87), the price is almost certainly going to be bid up even higher.

  I don't think the naysayers understand the fact that oil (and other resources) tend to be distributed in a manner such that the difficulty of extraction follows a log normal distribution. That means that the difficulty of extraction can vary by orders of magnitude from field to field. The easier deposits get developed first. With oil the problem is not that we've used up 50%, but rather that the easiest 40% was much much easier to extract than the rest. If the new stuff was only two or three times as tough as the easy stuff, technology could readily cope, but I think it is probably more like 50 times tougher. Given finite oil field development resources, especially of experienced personell, it may not be possible to maintain current production rates. Reserves may sound big on paper, but if we can't get at it quickly enough, scarcity pricing will prevail.On What is the impact of peak oil and peak coal? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

A bit pricey for most.

  At least if I take their specs at face value 900 lumens/13 watts is 70 lumens per watt, which does beat CFLs. Most LEDs are still not as efficient as CFLs, but this one could be an exception. But in any case, given the high price tag, unless your application has a very difficult to change bulb, it makes sense to wait for the next generation. I'm afraid those of us on limited budgets are better off to suffer through one more generation of CFLs, before switching.On Spendy mercury-free LED bulb supposedly lasts 50,000 hours posted 1 year, 7 months ago 9 Responses

Not an either or proposition.

  Current technology is not sufficiently advanced to solve the climate issue (350 or even 450ppm peak). At least it isn't if we consider the fact that we must politically sell the needed lifestyle/economic sacrifices to major populations who are in denial about either the existence -or severity of the problem. Current technology should be sufficient to begin reducing emissions.

   So we do need the significant advances, but barring cheap and scalable free air CO2 capture and storage, we can't afford to wait for them. So we have to commit to an aggressive emissions reduction program soon, even though it is clear that such a program with current technologies will not be up to the full solution. The near term emissions reductions buy time to develop the needed breakthroughs, and/or to create the political climate which would allow the needed sacrifices to be made.

   Regardless of whether the end solution is obtained primarily via sacrifices or breakthroughs the near term strategy can be the same: Begin short term emissions reductions, and aggressively pursue the hoped for breakthroughs.On Government-financed construction plus carbon pricing is the key posted 1 year, 7 months ago 23 Responses

Pretend the unaltered future is the policy.

 That is basically Bushes strategy, determine what will happen if he does nothing. Claim you are going to do something important. Propose that we/he take credit for the change that would have happened anyway.

    When pressure for actual action builds, rinse, and repeat.On NYT columnist gives president too much credit on climate, which ain't hard posted 1 year, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Income transfer won't fly.

  Given that our ruling party won't accept income transfers from wealthy to poor, this thing just won't fly. This would transfer money from those who use more than the average amount of carbon, to those who don't (typically poorer people).  Unless of course we can get people to vote based upon their own economic interest, not flag lapel pins!On Cap-and-dividend: YEAH! posted 1 year, 7 months ago 1 Response

Its already costing us.

   Markets work really fast these days. Since John Insane made this statementthe the oil market has concluded that the US is going to fight "demand destruction" tooth and nail. Oil has just hit $115. Do you think this is just a coincidence? Even if we never follow up on this pandering, real damage has already been inflicted.On McCain's gas tax holiday from reality posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Lack of understanding of basic economics.

  Setting aside the issue of our badly crumbling infrastructure, it was less than a year ago that we were treated to the collapse of the I35 bridge, these sorts of proposals are VERY bad economics. Gas is expensive because oil is scarce. Subsidizing (or cutting a tax on) something which is scarce only masks the price signal the economy is trying to send. In our case, that signal is saying, find a way to use less gas -very much less gas. Obscuring the message only delays the adaptation. The only winners of such a holiday are those with oil to sell, the price will find a new equilibrium somewhere between the old price, and the naively expected notax price. Essentially the tax holiday subsidizes the oil exporters.

   But this is wayyyyy too complicated for a 30second sound bite that appeals to the emotions. And voters have the simple complaint "Im paying too much".On McCain reveals cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

an important subject.

  I would submit (and Hansen indeed mentioned some of the pressures on OPEC) that some of the pressure to overstate reserves is not due to the desire to foil the message of impending scarcity, but other market factors, such as allowed production quotas, and the effect of reserve estimates on the stock price.

   But the results are the same regardless of motivation. Most of the public, and indeed most policy makers are unaware of the severity of resource depletion we face. I think we are entering a crucial time period, where energy scarcity is going to start to bite hard. Angry people could respond by demanding that any possible FF source be used damn the consequences -or we could get down to the business of solving the problem via conservation and renewables. The next several years should be important for setting our future trajectory. On Fossil fuel moguls inflate reserve estimates to prevent efforts to move beyond their products posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Beware of renewable nameplate capacity.

  Too often I see nameplate capacity of intermittent renewables used in place of capacity time capacity factor*. For instance in your 14 wedges you state that the 20GW of current wind displaces 20GW of fossil fueled power. It doesn't if the capacity factor is 35% (generous by the way), then it only displaces on average .35*20GW = 7GW. Similar computations apply to solar as well.

    Not all wedges are likely to have the same width -but perhaps I missed the your definition of a wedge.

   Some political horse trading is required. Liberals must trade off some things they find distasteful such as some nuclear wedges, in order to get more renewable, sequestration and conservation wedges.

* Capcity factor is the fraction of the named output capacity a plant averages over a period of time. For example a wind turbine which runs a quarter of the time at full power and otherwise is off would have a capacity factor of only 25%.On Examining the IPCC's 'portfolio of technologies' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

technically youre correct.

  The operational difficulty is that you got to get millions (actually many tens of millions) to buy into the idea. We can make energy saving tech available, but ignorance, and stubbornness are likely to mean that penetration is low -look at CFL bulbs, the vast bulk of bulbs/households have not replaced them.    Its really really difficult to get masses of people to change. Particularly if it is in the interests of the powers that be to only sell them on the easy stuff.

   Not that you(we) shouldn't try. But past experience indicates it will be very difficult to make substantial progress.On Three non-tech essentials for combating climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

Not all bad news!

  Many of those who built corn to ethanol plants will lose their shirts. Isn't this a good thing?On Corn hits a new record -- $6 a bushel posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Stretching a minor truth.

 I did read the review of a scientific study about a year back which stated that moderate exposure (say 15minutes to natural sunlight) per day does have preventive effects. I found this to be eminently believable. It all tracks with some observations of low level ionizing radiation, small doses seem to be beneficial, but large does are (very) harmful. I do think that small doses of some types of toxins stimulate an immune (or other counter response), which actually makes them protective. That of course doesn't mean large doses are a good thing. I suspect indoor tanning saloons give much more than this minimal healthy dosage, their customers are looking for the well tanned look.  Of course GW does not follow such a curve, climate response to a forcing (anthropogenic or otherwise) is roughly linear, i.e. there is no threshold below which there is no or negative response.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 173 Responses

Perverse incentives.

  If I were planning to do something that would offset CO2 emissions, say change my farming practices, or cut my energy consumption, it becomes in my financial interest to NOT do so until bribed by an offset program. Also if I expect offsets to be offered in the future, it provides an incentive for me to put off my changes, so as to remain eligible to reap the expected benefits.On The deceptively simple concept at the heart of carbon markets posted 1 year, 8 months ago 22 Responses

Wrong folks to worry about.

  I do worry that demagoging by people like Hofmeister will leave some members of our society with the impression that their problems are caused by treehuggers, and not geology. But these are listeners of Rush, I doubt he has very many in the sorts of neighborhoods we are talking about here.On Mood in the hood posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Where do they $1/watt?

  Looking at their web site, all I see are a couple of incremental manufacturing improvements. That is not going to bring us to $1/watt. Either they have a really creak breakthrough that they are keeping secret, or the $1/watt figure is pure marketing hype.On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

Not reaching saturation.

  If in fact BS is a significant unmodeled driver, that would mean that the climate sensitivity to a perturbation of the radiative energy balance is a bit lower than currently assumed. It does not mean that the logarithmic dependency of the importance of CO2 is refuted, the direct effect of a given amount of CO2 on the thermal balance is well known. It is only how sensitive the climate is (degrees of heating per watt/meter**2) of additional heating that is difficult to determine. We have used a combination of data (paleoclimate studies, and recent response to things like Mt Pinatubo, and modeling) to pin down that sensitivity. A somewhat lower sensitivity would only somewhat lesson the need for emissions reductions.On New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change posted 1 year, 8 months ago 14 Responses

Lots of tech is foreign.

  If we were to get hung up on foreign/domestic then we might reject wind/solar because much of the technology comes from the EU -or is manufactured in China.  But of course St John is simply playing to homegrown xenophobia, which is a very strong political force. The reality is that high tech (which most new energy tech is), is a global business, high engineering and development costs are best amortized by developing for a worldwide market. I think a good case could be made that we should expand nuclear -by buying French reactors.On McCain's crooked talk on nuclear power posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

EU is becoming more picky.

  The EU is becoming pickier about the environmental consequences of biofuels. I have hope that they will set and enforce standards to prevent such abuses. Subsidizing biodiesel for export is just plain bizarre, as well as an expense the worlds largest debtor nation cannot afford. I do think there may be some potential for biodiesel, especially if it can be created from algae. Subsidies for food to fuel need to be phased out. But given the MSM that we have, I don't think it will come to the attention of the country until starving children start showing up on the nightly news.On To survive, producers wanly import feedstock and export fuel posted 1 year, 8 months ago 18 Responses

Energy/Environment is too far down the list

Energy/Environment is too far down the list in most Americans concerns to warrent a message. This does seem a bit odd as Richardson had the best platform on those very areas.On Richardson endorses Obama posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

But nukes and drilling would help.

  But only if more nukes were used to feed plugins. And relaxation of drilling restrictions, really only has two advantages, (1) as a revenue raising measure, and (2) in order to remove the distracting calls (to the low information voters) that the problem is the pinko environmentalists.On On oil and the dollar, Bush and McCain acknowledge their own cluelessness posted 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Responses

Electable == money

  Yes. And a large component of electable is special interest money and support. We have somehow mangled the first amendment into all the news that fit to purchase.On Hillary Clinton gives tepid response on question about mountaintop-removal mining posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

I have trouble believing

  I have trouble believing that a 2008 bill wouldn't include many more compromises than we would have to make in 2009. Unless those compromises can be renegotiated withinn a couple of years, going for an early bill might do more harm than good. I suspect this position would be considered to be the "conventional wisdom" within the movement. Can you make a persuasive case that this isn't the likely outcome?On The world is waiting for us to lead the way posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

EU threats to recalcitrant states!

  One day after posting that if we don't act responsibly, we risk being shunned by our foreign trading partners. Today a saw this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_re_eu/eu_summit ...
 "BRUSSELS - European Union leaders threatened the United States and China with trade sanctions Friday if the world's two biggest polluters don't commit to ambitious cuts in greenhouse gases by next year."

  Even business leaders who think climate change is a fraud, would I think be concerned about this.On Bush administration quietly acknowledges climate plan is doable posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

All oil will be consumed anyway.

  I'm of the opinion that electric (or PHEV) vehicles will increase -not decrease GHG. Why do I have this contartian view? I think essentially all of the worlds economically accessable oil will be pumped, and consumed, not matter what we do. Adding BEV, simply means that we increase the total number of vehicles -not reduce emissions. Emissions might be displaced, probably some oil consumption will be displaced from the developed world to the developing world. But total CO2 emissions from oil, are fixed by oil availability. And we have just increased electric demand.

   Now this doesn't mean that PHEV/BEV's should not be pursued. Merely that that by itself this won't lesson GW. It will however reduce pressure for biofuels, unconventional oil, and coal to liquids. It will also buy time for the world to come up with low carbon energy -i.e. the world economy can remain healthier on decreasing oil supply longer.On Is CARB up to its old tricks? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

artificial fuels

  Jon, I was thinking more of this sort of thing:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307191300 ...
  than the biologically derived fuels. I've also heard proposals for using concentrated solar to dissassciate the feedstock to directly produce fuels from sunlight. If any of these approaches can be made practical, we can then have renewable fuels that are carbon neutral (carbon negative if combined with carcon capture and sequestration). I also expect that we will have oil availability -but in gradually declining volume for several decades. I'm more concerned about getting the transformation started for the next twentyfive years than with a sustainable endstate. I think we have such a strong disinformation industry (delay1000), and receptive subpopulation that we risk being marginalized if we push too hard. Once we get into the transition, and start getting some mature renewables, it will be a lot easier to obtain consensus on long term sustainable strategies. In the US overcoming the substantial anti-tree hugger demographics is going to be key. This won't be accomplished by frightening them with calls for short term reductions in consumption.On A post-petroleum American dream posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

we will have some portable fuels.

  While I don't question the desirability of cutting our transportaion/shipping needs, I don't see us not having some reasonable amount of portable hydrocarbon fuels available. Whether from some sort of biofuel, or created from sunlight water and CO2 it should be both feasable and environmentally sound to still have portable fuels for transport. Admittedly the volume of such fuel availability is likely to be a fraction of what is currently available (perhaps 10-20%), but used sparingly that is quite a bit of fuel. In this scenario small efficient plugin hybrids do have a long term future.On A post-petroleum American dream posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

Depneds on driver behavior.

  The real issue when dealing with any "instability" is not the cause of the initial perturbation, but rather the dynamics which cause a tiny perturbation to grow exponentially. In these sorts of traffic situations it is driver behavior, which looks insufficiently far ahead, and accelerates over enthusiastically. With such behavior these "shockwaves" [I hate that term density wave would be more appropriate] grow in amplitude. With a few drivers who are able to substantially anticipate the coming wave, and slow slightly before it reaches them, many of these waves can be damped out. Perhaps only a few percent of "good" drivers would be needed to reduce these phenomena.

   Another interesting thing I've noticed on my commute. These density waves have a propensity for getting stuck on certain parts of the roadway -usually a curve. Apparently the driver perception/behavior is sufficiently modified by these slight differences in perception, that certain places end up capturing the slowest part of the wave(s).On A fun traffic simulator and lessons learned posted 1 year, 8 months ago 1 Response

export coal in general is escalting in cost.

  This basically means that differential energy costs are going to be increasingly dominated by efficiency (of resource usage). For some things like natural gas for which transoceanic shipping is not practical I expect that production will quickly migrate to those places with large shutin supply. It makes sense that fertilizer, and petrochemical production moves to places like the middleeast which have substantial hydrocarbon resources. Aluminum production, which is very electricty intensive is moving the Iceland because of their large geothermal resource. In the US we were foolish to use up most of our hydrocarbons before their true value was known. The UK will soon realize that they developed the NorthSea too early, and pumped out the oil too fast. NorthSea production was well past peak before the present era of rising prices began.On Increased attractiveness of alternative energy is some consolation posted 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Responses

Well Ok, I see you point.

  Of course roofs in warm climates (where A/C dominates over heating) should be highly reflective. Thermal emissivity and shortwave (solar heat) are usually not very correlated. I( once had a stainless steel roof (in New Mexico), that was doubly bad for summer time, as not only would it absorb a considerable amount of solar radiation, but the infrared emissivity was also very low. Once I painted it white I had no more problems with overheating (at over 7000 feet one shouldn't need AC). I calculated that I got more cooling from the fact that white paint has much higher emissivity than metal, than I did from the increased reflectance.  About half of solar radiation is near infrared (1.8 to .8 microns) roughly. California mandated roofing tiles be reflective in the near infrared. That solves about half the problem while not challenging the taste for dark colored roofs. I thought I heard they were considering mandating white roofs in the future. That would probably half summertime peak loads if it were implemented.

  I believe the Chinese were experimenting with color changing paint, which would be dark during cold weather, but highly reflective during warm weather. I don't know how the experiment worked out.On Car plant cuts energy costs $627,000 with two-month payback -- with DOE help posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

It really is amazing.

  It really is amazing that many industrial processes have not been optimized. I would expect that a lot of them were optimized under the assumption of low (but non zero) energy costs, and would need to be rerun for modern (and expected) near future costs.

  I suspect that some of the biggest low hanging fruit is in the commercial retailing sector, where open refrigerated goods are so common, and where I would think the local managers are likely clueless about physics/thermodynamics.On Car plant cuts energy costs $627,000 with two-month payback -- with DOE help posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses