Comments Nickz has made

Batteries are here!

"why haven't batteries progressed to the point of mass acceptance?"

Because...they have.  The Volt's battery is likely to cost about $4,000, which is more than cheap enough.

The Volt's battery will at least last 10 years/150K miles - actually, it's highly likely to last 20years/250K, just like the Prius appears to be on track to do.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

David, your electric car list needs updating

The list http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png is a little out of date.

The Zap X, for instance, isn't due out till 2010.

Phoenix says "Phoenix Motorcars' first electric vehicle program is scheduled to launch on Maui during the first quarter of 2009. " per http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/news-and-events/releases/ ...

The Miles Highway Speed Sedan is an electric car with room for four people. The range is 160 km and top speed is 128 km / h. The car will come on the market in 2010 and $ 40,000 costs. per http://www.energieportal.nl/Newsflash/Newsflash/Miles-Hig ... translated by Google.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

Hydrogen fueling is just like fusion

They'll both happen decades from now, much later than we need them.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

Wishful thinking, Joe.

The Illinois basin has 150B+ tons of coal.  It peaked due to it's sulfur content, not due to limited resources or rising mining costs.  IOW, it suffered peak demand, not peak supply.  

I see the same mistake repeatedly, and no one questions it.

It's wishful thinking to suggest that US coal will peak in time to meaningfully reduce coal consumption.  We're going to have to make a conscious decision to do so, not rely on geology to do it for us.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

Utility storage no, geography yes

The VRB costs don't matter that much - they're competing against free.  Plug-in/EV batteries are free to the utility.

I agree on transmission: geography matters.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

Don't forget about DSM, esp with plug-ins

Gar,

Short term intermittency is far better handled with Demand Side Management than with central storage, especially as the number of plug-ins and EV's grows.  DSM is almost free to utilities, have effectively instant response times, and has enormous capacity.

I'd also note that First Solar's panels cost $1.12/watt to make, and sell for about $2.50/W, and that in general PV prices are expected to fall by about 1/3 in 2009.

That doesn't really change your argument much: both wind and solar can be buffered by DSM, and the costs for wind and CSP should also fall.  Still, these are important details.

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

The problem we have technical solutions, but....

The technical solutions are straightforward and reasonably affordable: with about $2T in windfarms, and a quick conversion to plug-in light vehicles, we could eliminate most CO2 emissions (at least in the US).

But, as my tag line says, we face desperate resistance from the 20% of the workforce whose skills and careers will be made obsolete...

Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/

Even the CS Monitor doesn't say $10K

Here's what the article says: "the race isn't over making a Chevy Volt battery designed to run 40 miles on a single charge that could (emphasis added) cost as much as $10,000."

That doesn't suggest that the reporter has any firm source for this info.

Elsewhere, the article says: "Still others say that the cost of new battery power for PHEVs may drop faster and already be lower than what has been widely reported at perhaps $500 per kilowatt-hour or even less, says Suba Arunkumar, analyst for market researcher Frost & Sullivan.

"I do expect the price will come down to perhaps as low as $200 per kilowatt-hour when mass production begins in 2010 and 2011," she says."

Tesla's cost is $400/KWH - it's very likely that GM will pay $200-$300 in volume.
On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Don't rely on mass media speculation!

Gar,

Really, no one knows how much the batteries cost, including the CS Monitor.  The $10K figure is purely speculation.  

The batteries won't be produced in large volumes for several years.  They'll use less expensive materials than 1st Gen batteries; the larger format is much less expensive; and they'll have very, very large production volumes relative to most 1st-gen li-ion.

GM is pricing the Volt high purely to capture the early-adopter premium and the federal rebate - their official justification is that they're pricing in 100% replacement of the battery under warranty, which really isn't credible.  We can expect the Volt to cost less than $30K with large volume production.

Yes, they could be less conservative than their 50% depth of discharge, but there aren't any batteries on the market that are more durable as measured in charge cycles.  Tesla's batteries aren't expected to last more than 400 cycles, and the Volt will do 5-10x as many.

In theory, the Volt could have a smaller battery to more perfectly optimize costs, but then it wouldn't feel like a big step forward.  It wouldn't feel like a real EV, with generator backup - instead, it would feel like an incremental hybrid.  Both GM (for PR) and buyers want a large, step forward, I think.On Chevy Volt could cut costs by using batteries more efficiently and paying less for them posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

I'd like to see research on G2V/V2G.

I've seen discussion by Amory Lovins about this, but nothing quantitative.

It's very easy to analyze - no experts or peer-reviewed papers are needed.

Take 220M vehicles, with 25KWH effective capacity battery (3x that of the Volt), for a total of 5.5 Terawatt hours.  Charging them using 220 volt, 30 amp connections will take about 4 hours, but create peak demand of more than the grid's current capacity, so vehicle charging would be spread out over several days, giving lots of leeway for dynamic scheduling.  

If you want, say, 50% of KWH from wind then you need an average of 225 gigawatts from wind.  At 30% capacity factor, that's about 750GW of nameplate capacity.  An individual wind turbine can hit 100% of capacity, but a windfarm rarely goes above 85%, and a nationwide network would very rarely go above 50%, just based on the laws of large numbers (variance rises more slowly than the mean), and the fact that many windfarms would be negatively correlated to each other (one part of the country is windy, and another is calm).

That means peak wind generation might be 375GW.  Night time demand might be 200GW, so we need to soak up 175GW.  Our 5.5Twhr plug-in/EV fleet could draw that for 10 hours, using less than 1/3 of it's capacity.

Similar calculations apply for V2G.

Does that help?On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

Demand Management can solve intermittency.

There are many solutions to wind & solar intermittency, each of which is very expensive if taken to an extreme, including pumped storage, CAES, or a planet girdling HVDC system.  If you combine the best of each, you're likely to get a much lower cost system.

More importantly, Demand Side Management  is very, very cheap, and extremely effective.  It's overlooked because it's not "incented" by utility rate regulation.

220M plug-in's and EV's could provide all of the demand buffering that wind could every want.  Add V2G, which is a bit more expensive but very practical, and you get all of the capacity you need for handling system variance on an hourly or daily basis.

All you'd need is to retain large fossil fuel plants for the 5-10% of the time when wind was calm for a week or more.

The obstacles to a renewable grid aren't technical, they're social: up to 20% of the workforce would be made obsolete.  They have an enormous incentive to fight change.On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

Hirsch gets it wrong, twice

Hirsch claims that Peak Oil spells doom for the economy, and then claims that saying so is counter-productive.  In fact, it doesn't spell doom, and the more attention we pay to Peak Oil, the less painful it will be.

One comment quoted a magazine, which casually claims that the Energy Watch Group also predicts doom.  In fact, they don't.  Looking at the source http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Renewables.52+M5d637b1e38 ...
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2008 ...

we find that EWG says:

"the scenarios describe two possible developments among other possibilities, but they
represent realistic possibilities that give reason for optimism. The results of both scenarios show that - until 2030 - renewable capacities can be extended by a far greater amount and that it is much cheaper than most scientist and people actually think."On Robert Hirsch suggests 'keeping relatively quiet' in near-term about peak oil posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Corn-fed chicken & beef are really different!

Corn is very high in Omega-6 oil, and very low in Omega 3.  Pasture fed chicken & beef have close to a 1:1 ratio.

Both are Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs), but they affect the body very differently:  a diet skewed to Omega-6 promotes inflammation, heart disease and cancer.

That's why fish and flax seeds are good for you, and why a corn-dominated diet is bad.On Confirming Pollan, PNAS study shows that fast-food chains mainly peddle corn posted 1 year ago 12 Responses

telecommuting <i>is<i/> common

"telecommuting should be pretty common, but it's not"

Telecommuting is like wind-power: more and more feasible, smaller than the other choices, but growing quickly, and facing social and organizational hurdles.
On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

What about communications?

It seems to me that most of these districts (college campuses, the NYC financial district) developed during eras in which communications were much more primitive.  Wall Street trading developed face to face.  Teaching was too - it had to be.  OTOH, we're just getting to the point where a substantial amount of teaching and academic collaboration can be done online.

Perhaps more importantly, we're just now getting to the point where videoconferencing is sufficiently high-resolution that people really don't care whether they're in the same room, or continents apart.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

A few more thoughts...

Laurence,

"High rises are definitely not required to support transit."

That wasn't my argument: I said mid & high rise density appear to be needed to enable "car-free" living.  Why the distinction?  Because most of the costs of car-ownership are fixed, and not related to fuel.  You don't really save very much if you own a car and use it less, and to me the proof-of-effectiveness for walkability is the viability of living car-free.  I'm hopeful that car-sharing will shift this threshold, but it's pretty far from the critical mass needed.

"The cost of housing can be higher in the city, but when you add in the costs of transportation, the total cost of living in central areas can be cheaper than the suburban outskirts. "

I looked at the website, and I don't see what you're talking about.  All of the cities I reviewed (NYC, Chicago, LA, NO, Detroit) are portrayed as more affordable than their suburbs regardless of whether the costs of transportation are included or not.  That makes no sense to me.  Also, I see little difference in the overall patterns between the two alternatives (housing vs housing & transport).  Am I missing something?

"When households can skip the expense of an extra car or two because they live in walkable and transit oriented neighborhoods, that savings can be considered extra income for lending purposes."

I agree that walkability and TOD should reduce costs, and this mortgage program is an excellent idea.  I'd like to see the same thing for energy-efficient homes.  It doesn't change my point, however: an increase in fuel costs isn't going to change the existing balance between city and suburbs much.  If someone is in the 'burbs now, they can cope with rising fuel costs much more easily and cost-effectively by buying a Prius (and eventually a PHEV) than by moving to the city.

Jon,

Peace is good!

"I'm not advocating that anyone be forced to do this!"

No, I didn't think so.  I just don't want anyone to think the world (or their corner of it, including those in the suburbs(!) or dependent on global trade) is coming to an end.

"this is all written in the spirit of brainstorming, throwing numbers around. "

Yes, I like to think that way too.  I suppose I just like to chase a discussion to a resolution...On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

We seem to be going in circles, now

"I didn't think it would be so cheap!"

It's not.  That didn't include the cost of the rail/mass transit, municipal infrastructure (schools, sewers, etc, etc, etc), and really, it would take $200/SF in any major city (unless you're going build a whole lot of Cabrini-Greene's, which the city just finished demolishing).  Think at least twice that.

I'm not an expert on housing, but it seems like there are a few flaws here: when you're finished building this gulag of Soviet era high-rises, who maintains them?  Or, if you actually build high-quality structures and succeed in crashing the market value of urban housing, who rescues the 50M home/condo owners who've just lost their equity, and are upside down on their mortgages?

"there's still plenty left over for all the windmills we want"

Sigh.  It would only take about $1.5B to completely eliminate coal generation, and replace it with wind.  Problem is, it would obsolesce very roughly $1.5B in coal investment.  That would be a much, much more worthwhile, effective investment than this residential Marshall plan, and yet we don't yet have the national will to make it happen.  YouI don't seem to have any intuition for the magnitude of the numbers you're talking about, and the kinds of tradeoffs you're suggesting.

"EV's//It's like cellulosic ethanol"

No, it's nothing like that.  Cellulosic ethanol is completely unproven, EV's are completely proven.  Have you read any of what I've written?  Have you really thought about it?  GM's EV-1 was completely feasible, for instance.  There were 10's of thousands of commercial EV's 100 years ago, before dirt cheap gasoline arrived, along with the ICE vehicles to use it.

Talk to me - tell me something new, that responds to what I've said, that suggests you're really thinking this through...On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

If you're curious what creative design can do,

just look at the Aptera, which would  eliminate about 98% of oil consumption:

"The Aptera Typ-1 will be the most efficient passenger vehicle in the world. The first production models are planned to be available in December 2008 with the production rate increasing throughout 2009. With a coefficient of drag literally one-third of a subcompact car and less than half the weight, the all-electric version will get up to 120 miles per charge, while the hybrid version, which will follow in about 12 months, will achieve close to 300 MPG. With these results, Aptera Motors aims to change the way the world thinks about personal transportation. Interest is already high as Aptera has received over 3,300 deposits from California-only buyers eager to be among the first to drive this new vehicle. With its commitment to efficiency and safety, Aptera Motors is positioned to be a leader in the new era of efficient vehicle design and production. California residents can reserve a vehicle now by placing a fully refundable $500 deposit at www.aptera.com."

Here's the article.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Let's be cost-effective!!

"if we had the wealth to build suburbia over the past 50 years, we should have the wealth to rebuild cities and towns over the next 20 or 30 years."

That leaves me..breathless.  agape, agog.  Jon, have you thought through how much this would cost?  What else we could do with that money? I calculated a cost of $240B for just 7M people.  Reduce it to $180B to reconcile it with your intuition on building costs (which I think is unrealistically low), and multiply it by 40 to account for the whole country, and you get $7.2T, and that doesn't include any infrastructure to accomodate all of this new housing.  Plus, it puts everyone in sterile mid and high-rises, not nice front-porch bungalows and townhouses.  And, you only deal with 50% of travel costs, based on a recent study which found that NYC used 50% as much energy as sprawling cities - you've only dealt with 50% of the problem!  It's killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

We can deal with energy costs with much, much more cheaply with PHEV/EV's and renewable power production.  Heck, with that kind of money we could completely eliminate FF's in electrical production & HVAC, and 90% of FF's in transportation.  If we can't muster the national will to do that, we certainly aren't going to remodel our urban forms.

"eventually, when oil becomes expensive, they will have to be,not hybrids, but all-electric."

Not really.  A PHEV-40 eliminates 80% of fuel consumption.  A PHEV-100 would eliminate 90%, which is all that's needed.  It would be far more cost-effective (vs a new urban form) to replace that last 10% with almost anything: ethanol, CTL with sequestration, hydrogen, liquid hydrocarbons synthesized from air & water (using renewable electricity)....anything.  Finally, it's about 99% certain that an EV with 300 mile range will be feasible and cost-effective in 40 years, when oil might really start to run out.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Air heat pumps are much easier to retrofit,

there's no digging necessary.On Shipments of geothermal heat pumps grew 33 percent in 2006 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Dense urban living is & will be more expensive

"But suburbia was supposed to be nicer, that's why people moved there. "

And it was supposed to be nicer, because in large part because land was cheaper - you get land of your own, which was unaffordable in the city.

" at a certain point it was quite the reverse(the 1970s in NYC, for instance)"

Could a family on a median income ever buy a quarter (or eighth, or 12th) acre of land in Manhattan in the 20th century?

"the price per square foot was/is cheaper in the 'burbs"

That's all I'm saying.  Land is cheaper, interior SF are cheaper, and overall living costs will continue to be lower in the suburbs, and higher fuel costs won't change that significantly.

"it's a question of getting enough housing stock into the city (with attendant stores, transit, etc) so that the price comes down."

That will only increase the price of land.  Urban food is more expensive, taxes are higher, and as far as I can tell, construction is more expensive.  How much would it cost to overbuild in the city to lower prices?  How high would the subsidies have to be?  How densely would you have to build high-rises?  In the chicago 5 county area there are 7M residents and probably 3M housing units. To move 1,000,000 households into the city might require 1,000,000 condo units.  At 1,200 SF and $200/SF that would cost $240B:   there's no way to justify this on energy grounds:  you could build wind to power PHEV/EV's for these households for only $3B!!

I like city living, and walkability - it's just not justified by energy/FF savings.

Bart,

"we still have... an existing stock of inefficient houses "

And yet, city housing isn't more energy efficient!

"an infrastructure (roads, pipes, cables) which is more expensive to build and maintain "

Do you have data for this?  Why are city taxes higher??

"The permanent problem of having to move people and supplies over long distances since employment and stores are elsewhere."

Yes, suburbs require more travel, but this is much, much cheaper to fix with PHEV?EV's than with new residential infrastructure.

"You are unusual in your quantitative approach to making a housing decision."

I'm just making it really clear - the difference in  housing prices is clear to anyone in the market for a house.  Have you talked to any realtors who deal with both city and suburban buyers?  They know: lots of people would live in the city if they could buy the same housing, for the same dollars.  Lots and lots.  Yes, there's demand for city living, but it's suppressed by the prices.

"The unconventional family members are not rich, but they found older housing in 2nd or 3rd tier cities "

Places which are less expensive, and not nearly dense enough to do without a car.

Laurence:

" one-third of the current U.S. market wants neighborhoods that are multiform, mixed use and walkable."

Yes, but what are they willing to pay for it??

My point is, dense urban living is more expensive, and fuel costs won't change that much.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Ships

"Ships carry fuel to power them much longer distances and times than cars"

Yes, but it's much easier for ships to carry large weights efficiently.

"lower power density of batteries vs. gasoline "

This is often exaggerated:  the lower efficiency of ICE's partially compensates for the lower density of batteries.

"Has anyone even theoretically outlined how a modern cargo ship could be powered by today's (not future) batteries?"

No, because bunker fuel was dirt cheap until very, very recently.  Wind, PV and batteries are all cost-effective in ships now - the only question is what % of fuel consumption they can replace before it's necessary to reduce operating range and speed in order to optimize costs.  OTOH, coal worked just fine - it just required more stops.

I'll try to work it up - it's not easy get all of the operating parameters for the analysis.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

More...

"The best evidence now available is from people in the field.  And the evidence of the market itself. "

We're agreed that exurbs are having a harder time.  The question is why?  I see no evidence that it's primarily fuel prices, and a lot of evidence for the causal link between distance from city-center, and low income (and marginal quality mortgages).

"As you said, they have not been able to compete in the past"

Not precisely: they were very competitive before cheap gasoline arrived, and now they're competitive again.

"Limited range"

Which is solved by Plugins.

"problems with the electrical supply"

No, that wasn't a problem with EV's.  Per the FHWA, 90% of vehicles have off-street parking, and parking garage and street electricity is done widely - take a look at engine pre-heaters in Canada and Minnesota.

"the economics of suburban living will be changed."

Not much. Have you tried quantifying this??

"There is evidence that supplies could drop more quickly than assumed"

Yes, this is possible.  It's based on some shaky assumptions, like the idea that Saudi Arabia would allow net exports to go to zero by continued subsidy of domestic consumption, but it's possible.

"there are many uses of oil for which there is no substitute"

No, though I agree that there are a few that would be very inconvenient - principally long-distance air-travel.

"Lots of internal combustion engines which will need fuel."

In the medium term, though in a real emergency commuters could cut their oil consumption by 75% by the simple expedient of carpooling.  

"the final answer is - who knows?"

Yes, there are a lot of uncertainties, and risks - I strongly support aggressive measures to reduce our dependency on oil.  

I think what I said represents the likeliest course of events, however.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

oops

"This won't be easy or comfortable, but neither will be the end of civilization, or even the suburbs."  should be "This won't be easy or comfortable, but neither will it be the end of civilization, or even the suburbs."

also, to "It's a great way to live, but a very, very slow and expensive way to get rid of cars or save energy. "  let me add: "I strongly support expansion of rail, and alteration of the various subsidies (like "free"ways, and pollution/CO2 externalities) and regulations (like some zoning rules) that have distorted housing and transportation markets, but we shouldn't exaggerate the effects that will have".On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

There are much cheaper solutions than dense cities

Vakibs,

"how did creating walkable urban spaces become expensive ? "

First, it's not walkability I'm talking about, it's density, the kind of density that makes cars unnecessary.  Density is expensive: look at any dense area where cars aren't necessary: NY, Paris, Chicago central area, etc.  We can debate why this is, but it is the reality.

"Even if you electrify your cars, they still need energy and all forms of energy production have their problems. "

Yes, but the wind energy needed to power a PHEV/EV costs about $2,000 (12,000 miles per year at 5 miles per KWH = $2,400 KWH's, 2,400 KWH/8,760 hours per year = 270 watts, 270W/27% capacity factor  = 1KW of wind power - 1KW @$2/watt = $2,000).  Transmission and distribution might raise this to $3K.  That's infinitely cheaper than moving to dense urban housing with double the cost/square foot.

Jon,

"if the price of gasoline goes toward $10/gallon, then what? "

Then suburbanites buy PHEV/EV's.  If PHEV/EV production can't be ramped up for a few years, they carpool in the interim.  Not such a big deal.

Again, don't get me wrong: I like big cities, I live in them, I use rail to get to work, I love dense city living.  It's just that I pay a big premium to do it, and many people can't or are unwilling to do so, and Peak Oil isn't going to change that.  Look at the difference in housing costs between Gurnee and Evanston, and Evanston and the Loop/Lincoln Park - those cost differences are much, much greater than the cost of transportation ever will be.

Bart,

"Odd that Jim Kunstler is taking hits on this list. He has been right about the effect of gas prices on suburbia, and the common wisdom has been wrong. "

No, he hasn't.  We're seeing the effects of the housing bubble on exurbia, where the newest houses were built for the poorest people.  Despite a lot of speculation about fuel costs, there really isn't any evidence besides simple correlation that fuel prices are causing exurban housing problems.  The fact is, JK simply hates suburbia, and did so long before he latched onto energy problems.  He also is a died in the wool millenarian - litererally - he predicted that Y2K would be the inevitable end of civilization (he didn't say "might be without preparations and good programming", he said "inevitable").On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Walkability is good, but not because of energy

"I live in a town whose downtown was dying, and they managed to revive it, and now it's walkable. "

But how much residential living space was added to the downtown? Did the town try to move a significant % of it's residents to the downtown?

"I think we're going to have to eventually construct an intercity rail system like that of 1900"

That would be enormously expensive - that network went to a lot of very small towns, and was very, very extensive.  Much of it was for freight, especially agricultural, which could be moved at the time in no other way.  Short-haul PHEV trucks and passenger vehicles that fed long-haul rail would be much more cost-effective.  

"driving between cities will be too expensive"

Oil is priced out of most uses over about $70-100/barrel (IOW, substitutes like solar/wind are cheaper, either directly or via batteries - one can only hope bio-fuels don't get expanded dramatically (as they aren't essential), but they probably will, and they too will cap the market price of oil which probably won't include the cost of externalities like extinguishing half the biosphere...) so in the long term oil is not going to stay expensive (certainly not over $200/bbl).  Oil will have niche uses for long-distance air and small-vehicle travel, where it will still be cost-effective.

I hate to say it, but it needs to be said: James Kunstler really is not a good source.  He's a good writer, but the section on renewables in "the long emergency" can only be described as creative fiction.  

"if you build enough housing in cities, the price moderates"

Yes, but in the long-run it's much, much more expensive than simply moving to PHEVs.

"using current technology, that would work if you "only" drive 40 miles or so a day"

That covers about 80% of all personal driving and commuting.  Double the batteries, at a cost of about $5,000 (what it will cost in 5 years), or add a plug at your workplace (for about $200), and you cover about 95% of commutes.  $5,000 is a lot cheaper than, say, $100,000 for more expensive housing, not to mention expanded rail.

Don't get me wrong:  I think rail and walkable housing are really good things (that's how I live), but I don't think you can cost-justify them on fuel costs.  Trying to do so will put them on an extremely weak foundation.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Research on plugins helps

"Which is why I hope plug-ins work"

You might want to haunt www.gm-volt.com , to get a feeling for plugins.  IIRC, the FAQ is pretty good.  The comments are extremely variable in quality.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Rail is good, but don't exaggerate!

Rail is great for commuting, and inter-city trips.  It's terrible for ad-hoc trips - timewasting and not even energy efficient.

Very high density, walkable living is very expensive: have you priced housing in any really dense city, like NY, Paris, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco?  As far as I can tell, the only affordable high-transit areas are those that used to be expensive, like parts of those cities, and New Orleans, which is really a non-replicatable fluke.

Walking and bicycling are very limited - bicycling especially is no good for people with disabilities, and is very unsafe almost everywhere - it requires a lot of planning to create exclusive corridors, etc to make safe.

No, we need a nice mix of electric rail and PHEV/EV personal vehicles.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

I think democracies should be less aggressive

"a good theory about why it should be true"

The straightforward theory, to me, is that citizens are more likely to restrain governments from arbitrary aggression - where both parties have such restraint, war is much less likely.  Where the US has been too aggressive, typically deception of the public has been necessary - Iraq is a prime example.  Sadly, 1954 Iran is a decent example of the US attacking a budding democracy, so clearly the theory isn't foolproof.

Wind is being used right now on ships - I'll find some examples.  PV and batteries aren't yet on a large scale, but the cost-curves of PV & batteries vs bunker fuel crossed only very recently (though convincingly), so that's not surprising.

I'm surprised your skeptical about plug-ins.  It's very clear that GM, for instance, is (literally) dead serious.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

This is unrealistic- water shipping is still cheap

All the NYT article shows is that water shipping has gotten a bit more expensive, which is likely to slow down globalization, and perhaps reverse it somewhat in narrow ways.

Water shipping is much cheaper than trucking, and it's even cheaper than rail, so it will continue to grow.

Further, innnovation is likely to bring the cost of water shipping back down: wind power can provide 10-30% of propulsion, PV is economical, heavy & cheap batteries can be carried economically on big ships, etc, etc.

I'm not even convinced that globalization is bad: global trade is a much better deterrent to war than evenly balanced economic power.  For instance, I can't imagine the US going to war with China or Japan (even aside from many other reasons, such as nuclear weapons) due to their close economic ties.On The beginnings of a continentalized global economy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 121 Responses

Parallelism? Are loan guarantees investments?

"nuclear's real competitors (micropower and efficiency)"

But do we really want to do only micropower and efficiency, in the face of a AGW emergency?

"the thing to look at is whether any plants have been financed by private capital"

Loan guarantees aren't investments.  If a private company puts up it's own money, and gets a guarantee, it's still putting up private money, it's just reducing it's risk.  It still is risking very real opportunity costs - god knows how long it would take to get reimbursed by guarantees, and they're not likely to pay interest.

Price-Anderson and guarantees are similar - they socialize most of the risk - but the investments are still private.

For example, if a home buyer gets an VA guaranteed loan, this is still a private buyer.On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

Isn't coal the swing fuel?

1) It seems to me that we'll have difficulty scaling up wind and solar to meet all of our energy needs in less than 30 years.

1.b) There are advantages and disadvantages for every power source, and intermittency is likely to cap wind as an optimal source of power at somewhere between 20 and 40% of KWH market share.

1.c) Solar is about 10 years behind wind in ramping up, and is starting from a relatively small base, such that it will be some years before it can start displacing coal.  Further, it has an optimal market share limit, like wind.

2. Hansen says we need to move faster than that, and I think most climatologists agree that would be desirable (even if they disagree on the urgency).

3.  US Natural gas production is stagnant, and there is a real risk that it will fall in the coming years (conventional is falling fast, and unconventional is straining to replace it, at high cost).

4. Electrical demand is likely to increase for PHEV/EV's, heat pumps, and other electrical replacements for fossil fuels.

5. Nuclear is low-CO2, on the rough order of wind and solar.

6. Every KWH not displaced by wind, solar, nuclear, and other low-CO2 sources is likely to come from coal.

7. There is some overlap between the resources needed for wind & solar vs nuclear, but some resources do not overlap (especially personnel), and we are likely to get more low-CO2 generation if we include nuclear in our array of sources.

8. Diversity of power sources is desirable.

9) We need every low-CO2 source we can get, and we should not discourage nuclear.

David, where would we disagree?On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

Dismantling our economy isn't the answer!

I'm struck by the relative cheapness of wind: we could replace all of our coal plants with the investment of 10% of our GDP for just one year!!

We could replace natural gas generation and power our entire light vehicle fleet the 2nd year, provide the generation to electrify all I/C and residential HVAC the 3rd, start synthesizing hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 for sequestration the 4th, and start giving away turbines to other countries on the 5th.

Obviously, this is oversimplified, and the timeline is greatly compressed, but it illustrates the size and cost of the problem.

If we decide that AGW really is an overriding priority, we don't have to dismantle our economy to stop emitting CO2, we just have to make a moderately serious effort.On The problems and principles of energy descent posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

David, you're basic assumptions are flawed.

"Oil is primarily a transportation fuel. Nuclear power, in contrast, is a source of electricity. Ergo, nuclear power will do absolutely nothing to "help the U.S. wean itself off foreign oil" (unless we miraculously electrify our entire transportation and freight system in the next 20 years). "

That wouldn't be miraculous, it would be fairly straightforward and cost-effective, at least to electrify something like 75%.  Marginal increases beyond that would, of course, be more expensive.  Hybrids are about 2.5% of new sales now, and doubling every 2 years.  The hybrid part of the market can morph into plugins quite easily, and this is probable.  This means that plugins could be more than 50% of new sales in 10 years.  Cars less than  6 years old account for 50% of vehicle miles travelled, so getting to something well above 50% of VMT in 20 years is quite doable.  Of course, getting to something like 80% would be very, very close behind.

"In fact, nothing could help the U.S. wean itself off "foreign" oil. Oil is a fungible commodity sold on a world market. We all buy from the same pool. There's no way to buy a barrel of oil that says "Made in the U.S.A." "

But who cares?  What we care about is our balance of trade, and if we reduce our oil consumption to equal our production our country will be immmeasurably better off.On Nukes don't replace oil posted 1 year, 10 months ago 39 Responses

Biod, the Volt is real!

Biodiversivist said:  "The Volt is no more of a reality than cellulosic ethanol. Nobody knows the cost or performance of either and neither may ever materialize as a commercially viable product. "

Not really.  The batteries are here (the cells are in very large scale commercial production, only the packaging is new), and all of the rest of the car is existing tech. Really, the Volt is very straightforward, and GM has staked it's reputation on it.  Even Chris Paine (director of Who Killed the EV) agrees that it's real.  It's cost isn't absolutely clear, but it's very likely to be the same cost (under $30K) as the average US light vehicle.

Cellulosic is an entirely different thing.  Evidence for it depends on proprietary, secret info, for which VK asks us to take his word for it - you shouldn't compare the two.On Hybrid emissions: Facts and numbers posted 1 year, 10 months ago 34 Responses

Electricity at night is greener AND also cheaper

The 2005 energy act requires that time of day pricing be available by now.  For instance, see www.thewattspot.com

Electricity from 1-5 am is about 2 cents per KWH.

Further, the 2 biggest problems wind has are night time troughs in consumption, and intermittency.  Charging mostly at night, and dynamically schedulable charging answers both of those, so EV's greatly encourage wind.On Hybrid emissions: Facts and numbers posted 1 year, 10 months ago 34 Responses

How are CAFE standards a failure??

How are CAFE standards a failure?  AFAIK, they're just too weak.  Sure, there's an SUV loophole, but that made sense when CAFE started, and SUV mileage is still higher than it would be without CAFE.  The SUV loophole would have been fixed if the whole thing hadn't gotten frozen.

The solution to a weak CAFE is a stronger CAFE.  

Sure, carbon taxes are better and more comprehensive, but we need both: consumers always underestimate operating costs, and fuel costs get lost in the mix. You have to both regulate efficiency AND provide market incentives.On He proposes a carbon tax, assuming it will fail posted 2 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses

Rising labor productivity won't solve pay problem

"The road to a higher wage economy is made byimproving machinery, not by cutting wages"

This is true.  I remember touring a Michigan transmission plant 30 years ago:  they routinely increased labor productivity by 6% per year, year in and year out.  That's the pathway to prosperity.

But...how can someone in Dearborn making $70 per hour compete with someone in China making $1?  Do we think think a Chinese manufacturer won't be able to buy the same machinery, and run it pretty much as efficiently?  Do we think that a Toyota plant in Tennessee can't do the same, and run 25% more cheaply when their labor costs 40% less??

The classical economist's answer to this is that exchange rates will change, and imports & exports will balance.  Comparative advantage will mean that somewhere we will produce something relatively more efficiently than elsewhere.  But, that doesn't apply to Tennesse vs Michigan, which use the same currency - surely in that case, Toyota will do to GM what Walmart did to Sears (displaced union labor with much cheaper non-union labor).

Plus...it's not happening: we have an enormous trade imbalance.  Are we exchanging t-bills for cars, and selling out our future??On Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

The Germans and Japanese pay their workers more??

the Germans and Japanese pay their workers more than our workers?  Really?  Are you sure? Does that include benefits, and adjust for hours, and currency differentials? Do you have a link, or source?  

I can begin to believe it for Germany, though their exports to the US aren't that large, and weighted toward luxury cars.  

Hard to believe for asian manufacturers.  Keep in mind that many asian branded cars are made in non-union, low-wage plants in the US south: kind've a Walmart approach.On Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

Detroit could use some help!

We shouldn't be so hard on Detroit - they've relied on trucks because they had to.

US assembly costs just can't compete with foreign semi-skilled labor.  There's just no way.  As long as Detroit could use it's structural cost advantage in trucks as a defense, it could survive.  Without it, it just can't.

Detroit knows it, though they won't admit it publicly.  That's why they haven't hedged their bets - it's because there's no way for them to do it, not without bankruptcy to shed pension obligations, or national health insurance to cover health costs (a burden no foreign manufacturer has, including Canada - that's why Toronto has a huge amount of US car assembly).  Finally, there's no way to shed employees fast enough without a fatal UAW strike, so they can't even hollow out US manufacturing.

Right now they're just holding out, shedding assets to generate cash flow and praying gas prices fall before they run out of cash and go into bankruptcy.

I'm actually impressed they've done so well so far - look how long ago TV manufacturing completely deserted the US. It makes me very sad, but I don't see a way out unless we do something to help them.

We'll kill Detroit if we don't recognize that an increased CAFE hits them disproportionately.  It's mighty cost-effective give them some countervailing benefit, and it's even fair, as Asian car manufacturer's have not had to pay for healthcare, their tax burden is lower due to the US military umbrella, and currency valuations have long been unfairly weighted against US manufacturers.

Pay for their healthcare, or give purchase tax credits, or give R&D money like the recent battery R&D proposal.

It's simple, if we're creative.On Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

Reversing Cause and Effect

"In effect, we became more dependent on coal and nuclear derived power as an indirect result of trying to get away from same!"

This appears backward.  We tried to diversify to gas, and supplies were inadequate, so we returned to coal & nuclear.  Would we have burned less coal if we hadn't tried to turn to gas?  Obviously not.  Instead, in the absence of gas plants we would have burned even more coal, and now we'd be at the limits of coal plant capacity, and frantically building more coal plants.On Parsing 15 years of electric data posted 2 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

How to get something passed!

John,  thank you for posting here.  Let me offer my support for what you're doing, and also my support for a little logrolling.

I think you have to be creative. For instance, the City of New York faced opposition from cabbies to expanding the number of medallions, something was desperately needed to provide adequate taxi service. The answer was to stop fighting the drivers and companies, and instead work with them. The City gave every medallion owner another medallion, which they could use, or sell. This expanded the taxi supply, while converting the existing drivers into enthusiastic participants.

Similarly, if you want to address NIMBYism, find a way to match local costs with local benefits.

If you want to get Detroit to support a higher CAFE, why not help them out? Detroit has a structural cost advantage in trucks, just as Asia/Europe have an advantage in smaller cars.  We'll kill Detroit if we don't recognize that an increased CAFE hits them disproportionately.  It's mighty cost-effective to give them some countervailing benefit, and it's even fair and economically rational, as Asian car manufacturer's have not had to pay for healthcare, their tax burden is lower due to the US military umbrella, and currency valuations have long been unfairly weighted against US manufacturers. Pay for their healthcare, or give purchase tax credits, or give R&D money like the recent battery R&D proposal.

It's simple, if we're creative.On More intransigence on climate change posted 2 years, 5 months ago 38 Responses