Comments jimbeyer has made

How bottom up would work....

It wouldn't be that hard.

All the utility needs to provide (for adopting customers) is a real-time price for the electricity, probably clipped to some high (but not astronomical) price for peak events.  (I've heard there are a few hours every year which are extremely expensive to provide.)

Your home would then have basically a smart controller which you have programmed for price breaks regarding some appliances/usages.  (Smart appliances that can act on their own in this regard will help too.)

In a practical sense, the lion's share of one's electric bill is probably consumed by your A/C, fridge, and hot water heater.  A smart fridge would know how long it can be turned off.  Ditto for the hot water heater.  But these are all consumer CHOICES.  An empty house could have it's A/C turned off.  A home with an elderly or infirmed person (who needs the A/C to live) can make the decision to pay for the power.

It's a tad more complicated, but much more fair.  it will also encourage optimized behavior which will lower overall energy use, saving everyone money.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

This post is mixed up in at least two ways....

First, a gas tax is not needed to address climate change.  A gas tax is needed to address PEAK OIL.  A gas tax would provide extra impetus to tell the consumer that OIL IS RUNNING OUT; NOMINAL PRICES ARE NOT STABLE.

Second, you say we need a new infrastructure, and all the ways that you can't get one, but no ways that you can.  If gas is more expensive, then alternative strategies (PHEVs, etc.) become more affordable in a relative sense.  That would seem to motivate new infrastructure as much as anything.

As to what to do with the revenue, I'm not sure.  Maybe use it to add to the SPR.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

To the tassle-loafered European....

I'm not pro or con union, or pro or con Universal health care.  I'm just saying these have consequences.

Unions are mainly a problem when the world changes, and management needs to renegotiate with the Union, who may NOT think the world is changing, but instead, thinks management is trying to screw them.  Incompetent management doesn't help in this area either, and together they can create a wonderful economic death spiral.

I'm not deriding Universal healthcare per se, but that is simply the consequence of not having it in the U.S.; higher labor costs.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Isn't it interesting....

how so many on the left (the Coasts, for example) extoll the virtues of Unions and workers' rights, but then go off an buy their BMWs and Mercedes anyway?

Detroit got a well-deserved black eye in the 70's when their quality sucked, but that's really not an issue at this point.  Their cars are good (at least with respect to quality) and in some cases, even better than imports.

GM finally addressed the cost issues with respect to worker benefits and health care that added more than $3500 per vehicle compared with Japanese cars.  Yes, the issue of universal health car IS relevant, as Germany and Japan de facto subsidize their cars to the tune of several thousands of dollars per vehicle.  Despite the problems with Big 3 management, you can't lay all of this at their feet.  Unfortunately, GM's plan won't take full effect until 2010, so they need a little more time for this to take effect.

With limited options, they took the route of building big cars (SUVs) that the consumers seemed to like, at least for awhile.  The oil spike killed them, so now they are back facing the issues that caused auto manufacturing to be problematic in the first place; health care and union extravagance (and corporate mismanagement).

You can argue that at least Detroit builds SOMETHING.  Compare this with the NY banks and brokerage houses, which produced nothing but a toxic waste of bizarre financial instruments, and then ceased in properly monitoring themselves as well.  If these folks (the true SOURCE of this huge mess) are worthy of hundreds of billions of handout dollars, I think a collateral victim like Detroit (which was already cleaning up its act months earlier) deserves a bit of a hand as well.

I'd opt for a straight loan, a la Chrysler in the 1980's.  They paid that back, with interest.  If I were the gov't, I'd point out this is the LAST time, as a good deal of this IS management problems.  But the reality is that this is a very low cost way to retain lots of middle-class jobs.

While we are at it, CAFE sucks.  It doesn't work.  Instead, we should impose a gasoline price FLOOR to allow automakers to build cars with reasonable mpg, without the consumers bailing on them when gas hits a temporary dip in price.  The automakers and reasonable industry experts have been calling for this for quite some time.  CAFE is a tax on consumer behavior that Washington decides to impose on the automakers, because they are too cowardly to tax gasoline.

And finally, all you tassle-loafered elitists on the East coast, and you self-absorbed California types: buy an American car once in a while.  I think you will find the carpet mats clean up quite well (just like your Beemer) when you drop your brie on it.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Slightly different take....

1. Build more nuclear power plants; let coal plant wither on the vine, so no capital losses.

2. Push for PHEVs, like Gore said.

3. Encourage smart grid development, but on the regional level.  We don't know enough about how this should work best (real-time pricing, peak pricing, etc.) so some regional experimentation is a good thing.

5. Encourage solar/wind only as PHEVs are developed.  I think the notion of sending renewable electricity thousands of miles across power lines is not cost-effective, no matter what Sci. American might think.  Oh yeah, encourage bio-methane from CAFOs, waste water treatment plants, and selected biomass.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Jon - thanks for clarifying....

I should have read the title more clearly.

So if they are concentrating on electricity generation, they are ignoring transportation as well as residential heating and industrial heating (cement, blast furnaces, etc.)

My thinking is that on a marginal benefit basis, some of these other areas could reduce GHG at lower cost.  For example, insulating homes.  Or perhaps PHEVs (which would improve both GHG emissions as well as oil use/security).

Virtually no oil is used in electricity generation, so this whole plan would do nothing to address peak oil and oil security.

I don't think you can just pick a portion of our energy usage (electricity generation) and simply fix that.  It is too intertwined with the other sectors.

Again, this strikes me as been very naive.  Why don't they harvest the low hanging fruit first?  They seem to be more about making a statement than doing something that is practical and cost-effective.  Again, crazy.

Frankly, I feel kind of strange even giving this plan the time-of-day, but it has widespread publicity and even Al Gore signed on to it.  Very disappointing.  It's almost drifting to the realm of magical thinking....

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Why doesn't anyone say how ridiculous this is?

All from renewables in 10 years???

Let's do some rough figuring here....

America uses about 100 Quads of energy per year.
(1 Quad = 1 Quadrillion BTUs, or about 2.93x10^8 MegaWatt hours.)

Let's assume the existing nuclear power plants stay. They, along with the existing hydro, produce about 10 Quads, so that leaves 90.  Let's assume we have more than 20% improvement in efficiency overall, reducing the additional need to only 70.  70 Quads.

Or 2.05x10^10 MegaWatt hours.

Let's assume the a wind turbine is 20% utile, so a 5 Megawatt turbine would produce 1 Megawatt, or 8760 Megawatt hours per year.  So how many of these turbines would be needed?  Hmm, about 2.3 Million of them.  These would cost about $5 million each, so the total cost would be over $11 TRILLION dollars, spent in just 10 years.

This coarse analysis does not include the issues with producing just intermittent electricity and how that would integrate with out extant oil, gas and coal infrastructure.  Changing that over would cost trillions more.

This is a RIDICULOUS premise!  The emperor has no clothes!  Stop drinking the kool-aid and THINK for a change!

This is what happens with Hollywood people and liberal arts majors try to do engineering.....

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

This is a general problem with Cap and Trade...

...especially for CO2, as it is so ubiquitous, and tied with energy use, and the efficiency of energy use.

Any big corporation could get around the additionality requirement if they wanted to.

Heck, I will eat less and stop exercising.  So my CO2 output should drop. Pay up!

I would blame CCX as much as I would the characteristics of the system they are marketing.

You ask:  "How can you possibly develop a commodity that has financial value by selling a commodity that should have no financial value?"

You do this by having the gov't mandate a system that makes no practical sense!

You need to have a carbon tax, but that is politically unpopular to say.  So instead we go with Cap and Trade which will benefit no one except the likes of Mr. Sandor.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Feeling funny about CCS

Well, ignoring some of Graham's gentle snipes, I think I can agree that separating CCS from coal burning might be a good strategy, albeit not an immediately obvious one.  This would be pulling CO2 out of the ambient air, instead of capturing from a concentrated source.  A guy at Columbia, Klaus Lackner, has been looking into this.

Interesting points include:

1. Separates capture from a particular source, including coal.

2. Could be run with intermittent energy sources (wind,solar) instead of efficiency hit on more valid on-demand source such as coal.

3. Although concentrations are much lower, major energy costs/issues occur with restoring absorbent or moving, storing CO2.

4. Correctly separates the cost of CCS from energy production, as it probably should.  Costs of stand-alone CCS may even be lower due to use of intermittent energy sources.

5. Not all that expensive to collect CO2 from ambient air; surprisingly low, in fact. New absorbents would lower costs further.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

CCS

It would seem to me than CCS plant would get more expensive to run over time, as the deposition sites near the plant would get filled, and the CO2 would have to be shipped to progressively further distances.

I feel very funny about this technology.  Probably not logical.  Part of me thinks the whole thing is simply hopeless if U.S./Europe builds one CCS plant while China builds 5 regular ones.  How can we be serious about this technology without some international agreement in place?  And who verifies that no one cheats?  If China can cheat with their own dairy products, they can cheat about this.

This tempts me to want to simply take coal out of the equation.  Perhaps too simplistic....

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Don't forget oily Cassandra

Girl dances seductively while talking about Peak Oil

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Geothermal and Solar Thermal

David,

I think they are both great!

I think something like the Acadia system could do wonders for saving in NG and heating oil costs.  Geothermal for electricity generation is good too, when applicable.

I'm also very impressed with solar thermal, especially its storage component.  It has the potential of some great power production at reasonable costs.  Far more reasonable than PV is likely to be.

One might note, however, the amount of land area needed to produce 1500 Megawatts continuous with solar thermal.  Perhaps this is not a fair comparison in some ways, but it goes to show that despite their cost, nuclear power plants do provide a huge amount of power in a very small area; and in any part of the country, and at any time of year.  So these technologies might not be a drop-in replacement for coal in all that many situations.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Nuclear for displacing coal

The main advantage of what the French did was making so many plants all the same.  This lowered costs and improved safety.

The main disadvantage of nuclear is the centralized nature of the technology.  That can raise other concerns, and lead to problems (FirstEnergy).

It would be great to have wind or solar instead of nuclear, but there is no credible way this can be accomplished, not only at high cost, but at any cost.

In terms of tackling climate change, I find myself battling both sides, when in fact, the near-term technical answer is both reasonable and relatively affordable:  build nuclear power plants instead of coal-fired plants. Some Swedes figured out the future contributions of GHG emissions from oil and NG will be minor, because we are running out of oil and NG.  So climate change is really about not-burning-coal.  And the least disruptive way to not-burn-coal is to use nuclear power.

Moving coal about also uses up about half of our rail capacity, so less coal also means more rail (instead of trucks) for moving goods.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Is Joe preening for a cabinet post?

It's an OK plan, but 1 million PHEVs by 2015 is completely unrealistic.  Pushing them that hard might even slow the technology.  Plus, we need to have that much more electricity (and infrastructure) available to charge them.  How can we get all THAT built in 7 years?

Obama's hope for clean coal is also unrealistic and baldly political.  Clean coal isn't.  And never will be.  Yet power generation is a bigger source of CO2 emissions than oil use in passenger cars (which, for better or for worse, will probably take care of itself as oil is depleted.)

Obama also punts on nuclear power.  Nuclear power is the only viable strategy to date that can reduce our carbon emissions significantly.  The nuclear waste issue has not been solved, but is solvable.  At the very least, clean nuclear power is much more realizable than clean coal.

So, unfortunately, while this plan makes several great steps forward, it is bogged in the politics of democrats having to hate nuclear power.  Which apparently, is forcing them to LIKE coal.  Burning coal will destroy this planet faster than nuclear power ever will or ever could.

More honesty on Joe Romm's part would have been refreshing.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Pickens plan is mostly wrong

Only part I like is the part everyone else hates; using NG (or renewable methane) for powering vehicles.  Even PHEVs need some fuel of some sort.  But ditch the windmills (except maybe to charge PHEVs with their intermittent electricity) and build more nuclear power plants.

If we free up NG used in electricity production, then we'd have quite a bit for other uses, including vehicles.

Joe Romm is mis-guided (though technically correct) in simply stating NG use in vehicles is less efficient than using it in a combined-cycle plant.  Its value isn't in its efficiency, but its value as a storable (reasonably compact) fuel.

(Leave in a tiny gas tank so the vehicle can interface with the current infrastructure too.)

What is left out of the conversation is the ability to produce renewable methane from biomass; far more efficiently and easily than it is to produce ethanol.  This means all our cars could run from 100% renewable sources; electricity from wind and methane from biomass; and at prices that are affordable TODAY with CURRENT technology.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

This note probably won't win popularity contests

Two comments:

1.  The AMA has yet to endorse a vegetarian diet.  If you are a vegetarian, doctors will counsel you
on the best way to do this, but they don't advocate vegetarianism.  They think there can be health risks to it.

2.  One good thing that cows and ruminents do is break down cellulose.  We are idiots if we don't use
this attribute to our benefit.  All cattle and
livestock waste should be anaerobically digested
to obtain carbon-neutral biomethane as well as some
good fertilizer for next year's crops.  As the ethanol people know, it is difficult to break down cellulose for use as fuel.  On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

Re: Denier Guy buzz

Denier Guy:

You are the one with the buzz.

I was merely following Griffin's own logic based on what he stated, namely that he believed man-made warming of the planet was occurring.  If the planet is getting warmer, then some shift in climate, at least locally, would occur in some places. This has already been noticed with earlier last freeze dates in the spring, etc.

I was merely stating his own statements were not self-consistent, and was not adding any IPCC "spin".

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Michael Griffin's gaffe

I think I understand what he was trying to say, but he was still mis-guided and I think, wrong.

Addressing climate change with our existing infrastructure will be enormously expensive, so some thought about what exactly we should do about it is not necessarily a bad idea.  The immediate reaction to just stop what we are doing MAY not be the best course.

As a simple micro example, recall the reef building effort that was done in the 70's using old tires.  Scientists assured us that the tires would be a great foundation for reef development.  They were completely wrong.  Now we are pulling the tires out of the ocean....

So, I don't think it's wrong to think out the best strategy for such a huge effort.  Makes some sense to me.

But in the end, Michael Griffin was still wrong, even based on his own assumptions.  Even if we assume overall a warmer climate is "better" in some sense for humanity, it is still higher problematic because of the dramatic changes that would occur.  Shorelines would flood.  Biomes would shift.  Deserts would flourish and more will be created.  Hotter weather, apparently will lead to more extreme weather (more flooding and more droughts). None of this is really contradicted by Griffin's own beliefs.  But these changes would be very costly to humanity, far exceeding some fictional net gain of a warmer climate.

I thought he'd been a pretty good NASA administrator, but he really shot himself in the foot (or the head) with this one.  An unforced fault....

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Obama has bad energy advisors

He has also jumped on the ethanol bandwagon, which will go nowhere.

Given that energy will be an important topic in 2008, his Republican and Democratic challengers will be able to tear him apart on this issue.  Get a clue, guy!

The safe strategy would be:

1. Encourage PHEVs
   
2. Encourage more Renewable Energy (RE) deployment (solar, wind)
   
3. Encourage PHEV grid connect to offset transient energy loads by RE.
   

I thought VC Billionaires are supposed to be smart

I don't know why someone hasn't slapped this guy and said "Dude, you are wasting a bunch of your (well, probably someone else's) money!"

Ethanol (cellulosic or otherwise) is the new fuel hoax to replace the finally discredited hydrogen economy.  Why?  OK, here are 4 good reasons:

1.  PHEVs (Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) will probably work, and when they do, they will need less fuel, so the fuel choice, ethanol or otherwise, will be much less important. (i.e., with a PHEV, you won't care that gasoline is $6.00 a gallon).

2.  With a given amount of biomass, one can obtain about twice the energy content of methane than one can of ethanol.  (This is what landfills do, and much less expensively to boot.)  One might comment that a gaseous fuel is less practical than liquid ethanol, but at less than half the cost, we endure a little impracticality.  More seriously, there isn't enough biomass around to waste half of the energy content making ethanol.

3.  Vinod has commented that Brazil has used ethanol to become independent of oil.  This is a totally impractical comparision.  Brazil has much more available land to devote to ethanol (probably not sustainably), a tropical climate (we have winters) and a much smaller fuel use per capita.  We can NEVER grow our way out of oil dependency the way Brazil has.

4.   The is no infrastructure in place to deliver E-85!  If you are thinking of our gas stations, think again.  The pump fittings need to be changed to accommodate high percentage ethanol fuels, plus, the vertically integrated oil companies aren't keen on selling anything that is not their product.

I thought VC Billionaires are supposed to be smart

I don't know why someone hasn't slapped this guy and said "Dude, you are wasting a bunch of your (well, probably someone else's) money!"

Ethanol (cellulosic or otherwise) is the new fuel hoax to replace the finally discredited hydrogen economy.  Why?  OK, here are 4 good reasons:

1.  PHEVs (Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) will probably work, and when they do, they will need less fuel, so the fuel choice, ethanol or otherwise, will be much less important. (i.e., with a PHEV, you won't care that gasoline is $6.00 a gallon).

2.  With a given amount of biomass, one can obtain about twice the energy content of methane than one can of ethanol.  (This is what landfills do, and much less expensively to boot.)  One might comment that a gaseous fuel is less practical than liquid ethanol, but at less than half the cost, we endure a little impracticality.  More seriously, there isn't enough biomass around to waste half of the energy content making ethanol.

3.  Vinod has commented that Brazil has used ethanol to become independent of oil.  This is a totally impractical comparision.  Brazil has much more available land to devote to ethanol (probably not sustainably), a tropical climate (we have winters) and a much smaller fuel use per capita.  We can NEVER grow our way out of oil dependency the way Brazil has.

4.   The is no infrastructure in place to deliver E-85!  If you are thinking of our gas stations, think again.  The pump fittings need to be changed to accommodate high percentage ethanol fuels, plus, the vertically integrated oil companies aren't keen on selling anything that is not their product.

need to account for PHEVs

Biofuels can't be expected to provide more than about 10% of our fuel needs, due to limitations of sustainable agriculture in this country.

That said, you didn't even mention the most efficiently produced biofuel: renewable methane.  With a given amount of biomass, one can produce about twice the fuel (from the standpoint of energy content) in the form of methane than one can in producing ethanol.  And the leftover byproduct is valuable fertilizer, as much of the nitrogen is retained in it.  This is compared with ethanol, every drop of which much be essentially boiled from water to purify it adequately for use.

PHEVs (pluggable hybrid electric vehicles) are needed to fill in the large the gap for our country to become independent of oil.  PHEVs make efficient use of electric energy to much of our transportation energy needs.  PHEVs, plus some biofuel, plus some synthesized fuel (solar/wind electric to hydrogen to methane) can take us to the 100% replacement that is desired and will eventually be required.On A Grist special series on biofuels posted 2 years, 12 months ago 28 Responses

need to account for PHEVs

Biofuels can't be expected to provide more than about 10% of our fuel needs, due to limitations of sustainable agriculture in this country.

That said, you didn't even mention the most efficiently produced biofuel: renewable methane.  With a given amount of biomass, one can produce about twice the fuel (from the standpoint of energy content) in the form of methane than one can in producing ethanol.  And the leftover byproduct is valuable fertilizer, as much of the nitrogen is retained in it.  This is compared with ethanol, every drop of which much be essentially boiled from water to purify it adequately for use.

PHEVs (pluggable hybrid electric vehicles) are needed to fill in the large the gap for our country to become independent of oil.  PHEVs make efficient use of electric energy to much of our transportation energy needs.  PHEVs, plus some biofuel, plus some synthesized fuel (solar/wind electric to hydrogen to methane) can take us to the 100% replacement that is desired and will eventually be required.On The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel in the U.S. posted 2 years, 12 months ago 28 Responses

Ethanol and biofuels

(This is taken from a comment I made on energypulse)

I think the clamor for biofuels is the second energy plague, following hydrogen. Hopefully there won't be anymore.

Niche markets and opportunities (and Willie Nelson) aside, it is hard to see a long term viable market for biofuels.

Biodiesel makes no sense at all. Far too little plant material is made up of the long-chain esters needed to produce it. It is great to make from some waste source that would otherwise be thrown away, but this can only contribute a very tiny proportion of the diesel we use today. Probably less than one percent.

Ethanol makes great sense as a fuel ADDITIVE to replace MTBE, but the economics are much less favorable as a significant fuel component itself.

Even if made from cellulose (like switchgrass) ethanol requires a more difficult production process and results in only about half the energy content of fuel product compared with using the same biomass to produce methane.

True, methane is harder to handle, but at half the price, it doesn't take many refuelings to pay for compressed tank storage.

On the other hand, if plug-ins can be made to work, the lower amount of fuel needed could justify a higher price for a liquid, synthesized fuel. But then ethanol would be competing against plain old gasoline.

Like hydrogen, experts (and investors) like to wrestle with the medium, while forgetting where the source might be. Biomass can only be expected to produce about 6-10 percent of our fuel needs in the U.S., so at best, it's only a partial solution. But even in this limited context, ethanol and biodiesel are bad choices.

Much better arguments can be made for methane or even methanol. I'm not a personal fan of methanol because it is bulky for a liquid fuel, not particularly clean to burn, and the deadly-poison-in-small-amounts thing going against it.

I'd really like to meet these investors. Maybe they would like some bridges to drive their ethanol-powered cars over.

(end quote)

Frankly, I'm concerned that people like Umbra (or Popular Mechanics, for that matter) are so at ease in passing forward bad information on energy.  You are really gatekeepers in all of this, and allowing bad ideas (like biodiesel) to pass through your blogs without comment and critique is essentially contributing to the confusion on this.  If you aren't able to examine energy issues critically, then find someone to help you.

Sincerely,

Jim Beyer
On Umbra on ethanol posted 3 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses

Natural Gas shortages -- bigger problem than oil

Much bigger.

Our demand is increasing, but we can't match it with supply.  Canada doesn't want to send us much more of theirs, so we will have to import more soon from outside of our continent.

But that's a problem too.  LNG import facilities are a classic NIMBY issue -- no one wants them in their port.

Fertilizer (ammonia) is no longer made in the U.S. due to the cost of natural gas.

The answer (for the time being) is that natural gas -fired electrical plants will close down, reducing their drag on demand.  They will be replaced with coal burning versions, so the GHG problem will suffer more.

Now if we processed biomass to produce methane, then we'd actually be feeding an existing market  experiencing shortages.  Imagine that!
 

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Less Energy, less consumption, less people

Well, I think I understand now where Fiver and Jeff H. are coming from:  Since we are using too much energy, we should cut our consumption, not build windmills.

Well, it might surprise you, but I agree with you.  We have too many people on the planet that are now chasing after too few resources.  I don't doubt that for one minute.

But what I don't understand is why is this project picked to voice this concern?  If it is built or not built, the onslaught of world population increase will still occur.  If it is built, then at least the people of Mass. see the implications of what energy use entails.  Maybe we should all have windmills in our backyards.  Jeff H's comment about pristine nature is confusing to me.  Aren't the fishing boats 'unnatural'?  Why no clamor about them (or the recreational yachts as well, for that matter), as they are cruising about the Cape even now?  I'm sorry, but your comments really don't make any sense to me.

Let's say we (the U.S.) cut our energy use to what? 10 percent of present?  OK, that means we'd use about  10 Quads of energy per year.  That's about 3 TRILLION Megawatt-hours. Now to be fair, that's not all electrical power, but even so, it's reasonable to assume one TRILLION Megawatt-hours would come from wind.  What does that mean?  Well, it means we'd be building wind turbines in the Cape area anyway.

Again, I don't understand why you choose this venue to air your quite valid grievances.  Maybe a better place would be the organized religions (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Mormon, etc.) all of whom, to a greater or lesser degree, encourage their followers to increase their numbers by breeding irresponsibly.  Isn't THAT the real issue you are concerned about?  On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

Fiver's comments

I think Fiver's comments are quite interesting, but perhaps not in the way she/he intended.

I'd like to applaud Fiver for noting that the Cape Wind project may be motivated for just this division creating reason.  That's quite possible.  Look how the gay-marriage debate played so well in directing the 2004 election.  Well, assuming that, there's a way forward:  build the damn windfarm!

Building it indicates a strength of conviction and an understanding of sacrifice to achieve a larger end.  Not building it means that if someone screams loud enough, it will reach our PC hearts and halt us to inaction.

Fiver's other comments are basically defensive in nature and not logically based (though often heard).  It is true that any one project does not address our energy needs significantly.  But that attitude will keep us from ever getting started in the first place.  We have a HUGE problem!  

The point that one can conserve instead is also misplaced.  As mentioned above, the energy problem is a HUGE problem!  We can't afford either/ors.  We have to do both.

Fiver, I think you are wise to notice that perhaps a trap is set.  Now try to have the wisdom to deny them.  All of these projects will have some environmental downsides.  None of the ones I've read so far (RFK Jr. has to stoop defend fishermen instead of fish, fercrissakes...) are the least bit persuasive in any kind of objective sense.  Fiver, it's kind of crummy they targeted your area, but that's what happened.  But you still have the power to deny them a victory.On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

A Point to Make (more than just squawking)

I've been quite surprised over the last six months (personally) about how high a NIMBY factor there is for wind farms.  I went to a renewable energy conference and saw quite a bit of opposition to wind farms even among many of those attendees.

The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) problem IS a factor with wind energy.  Another thing I noticed is how some alternative energy folks are in a kind of denial about this.

I'm not sure what the deal is other than most people are selfish and feel that if such a site imposes on them it is not fair and thus they shouldn't have to  be compromised, even if it is for a larger good.

It is quite surprising and illuminating that RFK Jr. has come out in opposition to this project. (Please, let's not quibble about the merits; if monied folks are willing to fund it, it's probably worthwhile -- It's a big wind source near a large population center. QED.).  As a politically savvy Kennedy, he knows the political capital that he is burning up to hold this position.  So why is he doing it?  Because deep down, like all Kennedy's (or rather, like all politicians) they are first and foremost self-serving.  They really aren't interested in helping people, only in providing that illusion to further themselves.  Sure, if they actually can do some good, they will, but when push comes to shove their personal concerns come first.

Also, it doesn't further your point by just yelling that the opposition that they are stupid.  Rather, try to acknowledge their concerns.  One thing I think that many seem to forget is that the windfarms are probably not a forever thing, just something to last 50-100 years or so until something better comes along.  Then they can take them down and the view will be there for their children.  Plus (big plus!) there will also be a world for their children to be in.  On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

Please answer this.....

Why have the environmentalists zeroed in on Ford?

What's the deal?  Because, by a miniscule margin, they had a slightly smaller ave. MPG than GM?  And you ignore their efforts to produce a hybrid that a lot of Americans would actually buy anyway?  And they've gone to Congress saying we should have a gas tax if we want to reduce oil use?

So what is it?  Why Ford and not, for example, GM?  As you remember, even Ford find let there customers keep their electric Rangers.

(No, I'm not a Ford employee, and no auto company is really all that green.  But I just see a lot of displaced anger at Ford for some reason....)On Ford's green guru discusses cars, climate, and time-warp activism posted 4 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

This thought is worth pursuing

Some of the more strident environmentalists do seem to be about privation.  That's because internally, they really do believe alternative energy is too expensive.  (That and some kind of self-hating aspect because they are humans....)

Instead of speaking of privation, they should speak of fair pricing.  If oil is so cheap, then Exxon and BP should fund the war, not us.  Until they do that, they can take their arguments are "market pricing, etc." and shove it where the solar energy does not reach.

Renewable energy is by its very nature diffuse.  This means lots of collectors in lots of places, probably owned by the users themselves.  This means the real privation of the future may not be on the energy user, but the current energy companies.

(I'm not saying we don't need to curb our overall numbers (6 Billion is plenty) but strictly on the notion of replacing fossil fuels, there's probably enough alt. energy for the folks that are here now.)

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Bill is a good writer, but.....

Unfortunately, this piece shows off a bit of his Harvard-educated roots, namely, the intelligent, persuasive bitching about a situation, but not suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it.  

Why are there no suggestions?  Because that would involve thinking of something NEW.  And RISK.  Harvard people tend to be risk avoidant, which is a nice way of saying they tend to be cowardly.  It far safer to just comment with flowery prose on the status quo.  A new idea?  That's risky, because what if you are wrong?  Then you might not keep your position of authority that you have worked so hard to attain.

You see the same comments from people like Russell Long (Blue Water Network), also a Harvard grad, who seems to justify his existence by bitching about Ford Motor Company.  Geez, he didn't even pick the right domestic automaker. GM is a more obvious choice to me...

To a somewhat lesser extent you see it in Amory Lovins, also a Harvard grad.  He's a little different in that he does propose solutions (hydrogen fuel, build lighter cars using extremely expensive carbon fiber compounds) but the solutions are completely impractical.  

Inadvertently, his proseletizing of hydrogen have allowed oil and auto companies to grab and use that as a smoke screen.  I hope you can understand how harmful these people can be.  

Thanks a lot, boys.

Bill does his own disservice by stating:

"Not to mention the costs of converting our energy system to something less suicidal than fossil fuel, a task that becomes more expensive with every year that passes."

This implies that an alternative is more expensive than fossil fuels.  I don't think that's the case.  The primary problem at this point is not cost, but the inertia of the existing system.  That's a political challenge, not a technical one.  A political challenge not aided, by the way, with Bill stating that it is a technical challenge.

Who am I to say this?  Well, I'm one of those Harvard people too.  I even wrote an op-ed piece supportive of Bill back when he was editor for the Harvard Crimson.

Harvard is pretty good about extinguishing the monetary incentive in people, but often it is replaced with an incentive for ego aggrandizing.

I'm tempted to add some additional defensive crap  on my own behalf, but I will hold back. (One is never completely cured of it, after all....)

These problems are too big to solve if we are going to worry about MAKING MONEY or MAKING EGO on it.
On Hurricane Katrina brings a foretaste of environmental disasters to come posted 4 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

You can't build an energy system with seeds

(paraphrase from Marc Ross, professor emeritus from University of Michigan)

Biodiesel is a fuel that is made from the long-chain esters (fatty acids) from plants.  These are usually concentrated in a few parts of the plant such as seeds.

The problem is that only a very small part of the overall plant, just a few percent of its dry weight, is made up of these esters.  The rest is basically some kind of cellulose or starch.  So you'd be throwing away that part of the plant (or doing something less useful with it) rather than making fuel from it.

Their may be a niche for biodiesel, using by-products that we'd throw away anyway (like old vegetable oil) but it would never make sense to grow plants for this purpose -- it would be too expensive.

To make fuel from plants, one has to make use of cellulose, because that's the bulk mass of plant material.  This would include methanogensis (anaerobic digestion) to produce methane,  cellulosic fermentation (via artificially replicated enzymes) to produce ethanol, perhaps some kind of pyrolysis to produce methanol and possibly some other products.

Like everything else (and maybe more so) there is no free lunch when creating a fuel.  This is definitely the case with biodiesel.

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

I'm gonna sound like a crab here, but......

This whole article is kind of offensive to me.  It seems to just be a set of sophomoric puns about a problem that could very well wink out civilization as we know it.  More so even than, for example, the black plague.  Is this really a subject that's the best choice for witty banter?  Perhaps your next article could be about the practice of lynching in the Southern United States at the turn of the 20th century.  Lots of yuks there....

On an even sterner note, (if that's possible) the author shows of his lack of technical and scientific accumen to even discuss the subject at the level of parody.  I'm am not criticizing the author per se, but I think this is an indication of the level of understanding about this stuff held by our politicians, and how they just don't get it.

So reading this made me sad.  But maybe I'm just being a sour puss and didn't pick up on the subtle sarcasm or whatever.  It wouldn't be the first time. On Getting to the bottom of climate-change lingo posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Coal vs. Oil [Price]

(Yet) another issue with Coal vs. Oil is the price to the consumer.

If we assume the wholesale price of gasoline is about $1.50 or $2.00 per gallon (that's without tax) then you are paying about 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the energy it contains.  But it's worse than that, because you can only extract a small percentage of that energy via an engine of some sort.  If we assume (a bit optimistically) that we can get 30% efficiency (see previous posts) then we are paying about 15 to 20 cents per kw-hr for the energy that we can actually USE from the gasoline.

Compare this with coal, which is cheap enough to produce electrical power for about 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.  But, as mentioned earlier, coal is much dirtier than oil.  It produces much more carbon dioxide for the energy it produces.  But it's also much cheaper.

So we have a bit of a perversion here.  If one has a wind turbine, for example, do they send the electrical energy to the grid, saving CO2 emissions, but displacing a cheaper energy with a more expensive one (wind is about 10 cents per kwhr) ---  OR ----

do you charge up your plugin hybrid, and displace 20 cents worth of gasoline with 10 cents worth of wind energy?  [The battery costs raise the overall costs further than just the energy input, however.]

If we use renewable electric to try to displace coal, it's a complete money loser until some kind of carbon tax or penalty is in place.  If we use renewables to displace oil, the economics are better, but the emissions reduced are less.

What to do?

In my opinion, I think we should go with the money flow.  Displace oil FIRST, and over time, the added renewable energy input can make some inroads on coal.  But we have to build, build, build.  Starting yesterday, if possible.  The hidden costs of oil (fighting wars, getting into bed with sheiks, etc.) are probably high enough to offset the battery premium from hybrids.  So some kind of subsidy, if needed, would be supportable.

A plugin-hybrid that someone actually sold could help motivate that.

The alternative (displace coal first) is a tougher route because it needs to be subsidized.  Some of the power companies will do it on a very limited basis, but if enough wind turbines are built, they will start to scream.  Then you have to get the government in to provide the subsidy... yucko...

There are arguments to be made either way, but that's how I see it.

-Jim  

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

Clarification on costs (batteries)

When I said 1000 cycles, I meant that a battery (for that cost) can make 1000 charge-discharge cycles before it needs to be replaced.

If one is competing against an IC engine (such as a diesel or Atkinson cycle) that gets close to 30% efficiency, then we have about 10 kwhrs extracted from a gallon of gasoline.

To replace this with batteries:

Assuming:  $300/kwhr X 10 = $3000 (to store 10 kwhrs, or 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent)

Assuming: 1000 cycles, so $3000/1000 = $3.00 per cycle.  This is the amortized cost of the batteries to store the equivalent energy in gasoline.

The problem is that electricity stored in batteries can be used very efficiently, but it is very heavy, bulky, and expensive.

Gasoline, in constrast is very light and not at all bulky.  It is getting expensive, or its priceless, given that is a finite resource.

These two energy stores complementary benefits need to be made to work together somehow. Anyway, it's this balance that hybrid cars are trying to achieve.  If done just right, we could possibly have a car that accomplishes all the performance goals of a regular car (including price, in theory) while at the same time powered by renewable energy at a price comparable to gasoline or diesel.

[Renewable methane is a reasonable compromise to replace the fuel component of plugins.]

I don't want to come off as slanted against renewables.  I'm not. I own an Escape hybrid.   I'm working with calcars.org.  I think this stuff, with a bit more effort, could really work.

But I'm also very honest and self-critical about this technology.  There's no point in glossing over problems, because the REAL critics will tear them to shreds. It's better to iron out the problems that we know will arise when the technology is to compete in the market.

A big positive improvement for hybrids and plugin hybrids may be from ultracapacitors.  I won't get technical here, but they may play a valuable role in limiting the costs of batteries and improving overall performance in hybrids and plugin hybrids.

-Jim
 

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

The REAL Issue

I have reasonable faith in Daniel Yergen's appraisal of oil crises.  Oil gets expensive, the economy adapts, we move forward.  At least for this go around, there is probably enough more expensive oil that is a bit harder to access for the economy to adjust. (I don't mean to indicate these "adjustments" are benign.  The adjustment of the early 70's, for example, derailed the 3rd world development aspirations, from which it has never recovered.)

The real issue, however, for this go around is the (lower) relative cost premium for renewable energy.  Unlike the 70's where oil went from (?) $3 to $9, we have a serious challenge to oil from these other sources.  Throw the global warming threat and regional instability into the mix, and the argument can be quite persuasive, even to the right.

This would seem like a no-brainer; most everyone would seem to benefit from this change.  But renewable energy, by its very nature, is a diffuse, widespread resource.  There is no oil field or even oil region to control.  There isn't even a universal commodity to regulate or to tax.  Renewable energy is about the permanent loss of a major source of control of much of modern humanity.  That's the real issue.  And it's not just about big corporations, it's also about governments, probably even more so.

The so-called "Hydrogen Economy" is an attempt to try to structure renewable energy and remaining coal resources into a mechanism of control. (This is my best guess -- The oil companies are far too bright to not recognize the fundamental thermodynamic problems with hydrogen as a fuel.) But load-mouthed individuals (kudos to Joe Romm and others) have pointed out the problems with hydrogen and why it won't work. EVER.  The odd thing is how few organizations have publicly come out against hydrogen, despite its clear problems to anyone skilled in that field.  If the NAS would only publicly register "concerns".  The DOE is co-opted.  I can't think of any other explanation for their behavior.

The fact that they'd try to pawn hydrogen on us is a sign of some desperation.  It's a big lie that doesn't seem to be "taking". (Plugin hybrids, cellulosic ethanol, and renewable methane are much smaller lies -- some of them might work....)

If it was simply the switch from one energy source to another, there would be no such bizarre deception.  (I don't know what else to call major companies publicly proclaiming they deny the reality of basic college physics.) They would just go about the change, and move on. Like the replacement of CFCs used in refrigeration, for example.

But this is different, and they know it. This is about the loss of control. In a very fundamental sense. In a way that goes far beyond energy. They are striving to structure the changeover so that control can be maintained.  Control of energy for setting prices.  And collecting taxes. And they know if they do lose control, they will never get it back.

Who is the "They?"  Some big companies. Governments. Republicans. Democrats. Anyone with power.  Anyone and everyone with something to lose.

Am I wrong? Maybe. But then, explain the hydrogen hype. Explain the sudden "environmentalism" of those who don't want wind turbines erected. Explain the coal industry which trumpets "clean coal" with one breath and then downplays the effects of mercury emissions with the next. It's like we are living in some bizarre surrealist play.

They may win, but they are fighting against the laws of thermodynamics, so it's quite a challenge for them.  They are counting on us to be stupid. (It might work; 67 out of 100 Senators advocated  fuel cell powered automobiles to be deployed in the next 10 years... <sigh>)

One way or another, humanity is entering a new chapter.  Large, fundamental forces of control will most likely enter their death throes.  So, pull up a chair and enjoy the ride.  Change is afoot.  

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.